MovieChat Forums > Arrival (2016) Discussion > The more I think about it, the more Arri...

The more I think about it, the more Arrival falls apart (SPOILERS)

posted 8 years ago by rabbitmoon
26 replies | jump to latest

There are massive spoilers ahead, so please only read and discuss (which I would love) if you've seen the film.

Please, again, don't read this unless you've seen the film. You'll be cheating yourself out of a novel experience and that would be a bad thing.

Ok.

So, for those who have seen the film.

It suddenly occurred to me that the film cheats its audience.

The film shows us flash-backs (actually flash-forwards) BEFORE Louise begins to understand their language. It has to do this for its "twist" to work, so we go "ohhh I see, its the future!" But that "twist" hasn't come about through anything in the film - its come about purely from the film showing sequences out of place. It "tricked" us, basically.

Look at it this way, imagine that the film plays out linearly. So Louise goes into the orb, meets the aliens, starts to understand their language, and THEN we start to see flashes of her future, in the same way that she does. She's confused, we're confused - but by now, we'd know as much as she does - i.e. she hasn't had children yet, so we can figure out that they're flashes from the future.

If the film played out that way, it wouldn't be anywhere near as interesting. We'd think "oh, weird, she's seeing the future, how cruel and crippling that could be. Wait, what if she now does something different? What if she purposefully rejects Ian, to protect against the idea of her daughter getting cancer?" It all starts to fall apart.

But we don't get to explore those issues because the film doesn't really go there - it doesn't have the balls to really run with its idea. Why don't other people working on the language start to see the future? What if they did? How messy would that then become?

The scene with the Chinese president giving her his phone number was a ridiculous scene, when you think about it. It would have made far more sense if he had also figured out the language and could see into the future, but that would destroy the point of her having to call him. It was a deus ex machina if I ever saw one.

It all starts looking like a contrived M Night Shylaman film, like Signs.

But the film hides all that by trying to hoodwink us with the non-linear editing twist, which Saw 2 did ages ago.

IN A NUTSHELL - the film deceives us into believing that Louise starts the film having had a daughter die of cancer, so we look at her as a Sandra Bullock in Gravity kind of character. But Louise the character knows she hasn't had a child. So the film is purposefully deceiving us into believing something about a central character, which isn't actually true. This is cheating, and is only done to set up a hollow "twist" which doesn't actually serve the story (because beyond the twist, there isn't much of a story).

[–] FantasticFearOfMisterBobo 8 years ago

I thoroughly agree I was thinking about this earlier. The development we see does end in a clever and logical twist but after the reveal I realised I basically knew nothing about Louise beyond her profession. All we know is the future she just follows willingly. Combine that with the little we know of Ian and the general the film suddenly becomes very empty. The fact that 90% of the film is set in an isolated location also made it hard for me to connect to this world. I couldn't say if characters grew or evolved at all. I still liked the film enough but it's very flawed. Also I find it a bit hypocritical that Interstellar got criticised for its similar paradox ending whilst this gets a pass.

[–] rabbitmoon 8 years ago

You're literally the only person I've found who seems to even understand my point - fans seem hugely protective and obtuse in terms of wanting to even try. I did also enjoy the film, but once you remove the manipulated twist there realy isn't that strong a story left. I can't think of another film that relies so much on future events for the emotional thrust of its protagonist, as well as the ultimate goal of the main antagonists.

[–] FantasticFearOfMisterBobo 8 years ago

fans seem hugely protective and obtuse in terms of wanting to even try

I have also noticed this but I can understand it from they're point of view. For example i adored Interstellar and i found it hard for a while to accept criticism for that film's flaws. After a while it becomes easier to understand that whilst something works for you, it doesn't necessarily work for someone else. Funnily enough I saw your post as well on the Screen Unseen forum and a lot of people were defending Arrival quite extremely. Its just the world we live in. I am thankful for your insightful post though as it helped nail for me the fundamental flaw of this film. I might see it again now knowing the story and see if i can accept its flaws.

[–] Alondro 8 years ago

I have found that the 'fans' of this movie are thinking entirely with their emotions rather than via qualitative analytical measures.

And do we not know how misleading emotional attachments can be?

I, personally, didn't even find the short story all that compelling. The future-seeing language felt far too close to magic, and fell far short of science. Even science fiction does not usually demand we shed our suspension of disbelief this severely.

Why should a mere language be enough to penetrate space time and ignore the tenets of quantum mechanics?

The notion also ignores the idea that different people structure their thoughts differently. The author felt it was some astounding concept that this alien language causes one to know the ending of a sentence before it is written or read... but many of us can do that anyway. We come up with a thought in its entirety and it merely takes up additional time to write it to completion. And how often have you begun to read a sentence only to grasp the mindset of the writer and anticipate what will come next? How often can we do that with entire STORIES?

It's not really all that clever or plausible an idea outside of the realm of mysticism.

[–] rabbitmoon 8 years ago

Thank you. These are my thoughts too. The future visions of the book are frankly ridiculous, at best a very whimsical kind of twilight-zone fairy-tale. The idea doesn't even carry subtext or meaning to draw some kind of greater truth from - its simply a silly idea.

I made a longer post outlining the flaws of the film (of which there are many) here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2543164/board/nest/262911947

I also agree that fans of the film likely consist of the suggestible masses who Hollywood has learned to cater for and impress with emotive music and visuals. As long as a film has some slow motion shots of someone who dies walking through a meadow gently stroking some dandelions to violin music - its a surefire hit.

[–] Alondro 8 years ago

If they're going to do something dramatic to feels, have it be a magical unicorn using her love to power a mystical gem and blow up a demon! And tragically dying in a field of falling flower petals.

SO MANY FEELS!!

XD

[–] timthunnissen 8 years ago

Before i give my interpetation of the movie, i must apologize in advance for my bad grammar, english is not my main language ;)

I understand why you think the movie tricked you and has it's plotholes, but i disagree. Here's why: the whole movie you follow the main antagonist, Louise. The movie is set up from her perspective, her mindest en her experiences. For instance: The first time you actually see the space ship, is when she sees it. This way you experience the things happening at the same time Louise experiences them. So when you see her with a child it's true that it is a flash forward, but Louise doesn't understand that yet. SHE thinks it is a memory as well, because she did not jet have the full grasp of what her mind was capable of since she's learned the alien language. Because we see the movie from her perspective, we were let to believe that the scenes with her child are flashbacks, because SHE thinks they are as well. She thinks they are memories. But after she gets the full grasp of what was happening, whe get to understand and grasp that with her. So i don't think it's cheap trick. I think it's a brilliant way of story telling as you discover the truth and exeperience the things at the same time as the main antagonist does.

As for your complaint why other people don't see the future, i have this explanation. It isn't that louise learned the language. Well she partually did, but in the end she got her full mind capacity and understanding as a 'gift' from the aliens. Louise had the right mindset and understanding of other languages that she was sort of the 'chosen one' for this gift.
So why was she chosen? See, in the mind of the aliens, time is irrelevant. This means they can see endlessly into the future and see all branches and posibilities of what could happen. This is why they had forseen that Louise was one of the only people at that time, who could comprehend the meaning and weight of their language. So that's why they gave her the gift (i think this happened the moment when they touched hands) of fully understanding it, because they knew she could bear the responsibilities and make te right choices with it.

The rest op the people can't see the future yet because they didn't get this gift. More importantly, they don't have the unique mindset Louise has to comprehend and deal with the consequenses that come from learning this language. The consequence of knowing everything that is going to happen. That is a huge responsibility that we are not yet ready for in the evolutionairy state that we are in. But through Louise, the aliens set this next step of evolution in motion: Louise writes the book, and the world gets more conscious and aware of the posibilities this new language could bring. But that doesn't mean they can see the future immediatly like Louise can. That probably takes hundres and hundres of years of human evolution, so they can evantually comprehend and deal with this kind of power. Maybe there are few other people with the same understanding and mindest as louise, who got the same gift from the aliens, but probably only a few. They did mention that russian guy who got a breakthrough but he was shot. Maybe he got the same gift as louise did but didn't live to tell the tale.

In the end Louise was used as a medium for the next evolutionary step for mankind. The aliens needed the humans to take this step, because they forsaw that they needed their help 3000 years in the future. So they set this chain of events in motion so that in 3000 years humanity has reached the right point in the evoluationairy ladder where they are capable of giving the aliens the help they require.

[–] julietrecamier 8 years ago

Your last sentence makes your entire post.

[–] bikesloth 8 years ago

Well stated

[–] rabbitmoon 8 years ago

I understand the story (at least, the implied story). I still think it's lame to set the audience up for an unnecessary twist. If we had experienced the flashes at the same time that Louise does, and TRULY seen events through her eyes, as you wrongly state the film does, then we could empathise with her confusion more.

Instead, the film sets us up to believe something about her that isn't true. The opening scenes were VERY misdirecting, and completely unnecessary to show this way, except to later pull the rug out and go "haaaa, fooled you!" for the sake of a twist.

Fans will of course defend it by saying "oh, it's about interpretation, Villeneuve is playing with the language of cinema to reflect the language in the film! It's non linear like they are!" but that's a weak cop-out - the audience is still misdirected for the sake of a twist, at the sacrifice of genuinely empathising with the main character.

If we had seen the flashes of her daughter's death at the time that she does, it would show the film up for the flaws that it has. Which are:
- none of her emotional drama happens on screen or in the duration of the film, it occurs in the future.
- knowing what happens to her daughter, she that Ian leaves her and her eventually, she would clearly have choice to go with someone else, which raises the usual paradoxes and issues when films give someone knowledge of the futute.
- her relationship with Ian isn't developed in an emotionally honest and credible way in the film, it's more implied that she chooses him at the end because of the visions. Again, it's just implied and we're expected to buy into it.

Those are pretty big problems in terms of emotional story-telling, but the audience is too busy to notice because the contrived, manipulated "twist".

Also, it's lame that the film never even bothers to address the ultimate purpose of the ships, why they need man's help, what happens in 3000 years and what needs to happen until then. Would humans even last that long? I imagine Louise would go *beep* crazy insane with her "gift" before long, being that shes already having to experience a bereavement and rejection before they've happened.

Basically, if you remove the manipulated twist and see it purely through Louise's eyes, what is the film really about? Implied events that havent happened yet. The present time events really don't hold much story or punch at all. Also, the handling of the call to the Chinese president is still nonsensical, even in the nonlinear language of the film, as to why he would understand that he needs to give her his number. It's completely paradoxical and contrived.

[–] Miles-10 8 years ago

I am reminded of the double-episode pilot of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" in which the captain goes into a wormhole inhabited by beings who do not experience linear time, and they teach the captain a meaningful lesson. ("Why do you keep taking me back to a painful memory?" "But we aren't dwelling on that memory--you are.") That episode probably owes its spunk to "Solaris", but it seems to have done the job without tricking the audience into not realizing *when* the protagonist's experience comes from.

As to the premise that aliens from outer space might be expected to come to earth without knowing any earth languages, I believe that if we could monitor a planet before visiting it, we would study their culture and languages. We should assume that any sentient extraterrestrials would do the same, and that if they did not, they probably don't want to talk to us at all, just conquer and/or destroy us.

[–] Traveller411 8 years ago

No need to apologize for your grammar. Your post is the most straight forward description I have seen. Well done.

[–] Bruce7 8 years ago

I was interested until you wrote about the Hollywood mystery phenom, WITH(He double LL hockey sticks) keep giving him funding? 'Shy-ster-laman.' Horrible films.
"Signs" I can deal with, but that's all.
Hm, don't like the "deception" ploy.

Can you fly this plane?
Surely u cant be serious
I am serious,and dont call me Shirley

[–] thedesertfox 8 years ago

Thanks for the great description of why this movie does not deserve the accolades it is apparently going to get. Your response perfectly sums up my immediate reaction upon reading the synopsis.

None of it goes together. I don't know if it's the simplification of the American mind, but why do movies need to rely on twists so much? I suppose it is just part of what makes a brain feel entertained. In any case, the way people talk about this movie, it would be on an intellectual and philosophical level with 2001. And really, it looks like a one trick pony. A twist surrounded with arbitrary story which decides its going to sell itself as a fancy "sci fi" movie about the human race. And for whatever reason 95+% of people are willing to lap that up and not acknowledge on any level what it actually is.

And you are right: The fact that the entire movie the character is actually in a state of confusion regarding her "visions," while we are lead to believe they are "memories," is automatically off the bat poor, manipulative writing. And honestly contributes nothing to a real story line, statement, expression, or really anything.

[–] rabbitmoon 8 years ago

Thanks for your post, and great to see someone else who can actually think for themselves rather than swallow up a bunch of suggestible tripe under a veil of denial.

The whole thing of films needing twists I think is part of the evolution of big-budget cinema towards marketing and pleasing the masses. Its simply not enough to have a thoughtful, emotionally honest story about the human condition, and tell the story well. Most people just don't seem to be interested in looking inward or thinking (I think they're scared to) - they need sensation, shine, gloss, things that twinkle and look pretty.

So, among a whole slew of other things, twists and phoniness become "the norm". People can then go "OMG! So amazing!" and that initial buzz and novelty feeling translates into word-of-mouth and more box office. It doesn't matter if after a few weeks people start to realise that the film is a hollow, empty wreck of an idea.

But yes, it is a shame.

[–] palidan-79634 8 years ago

Here's the thing... you may not like what I'm about to say. It probably makes you (and others) feel superior to others when you stand out from the crowd. You explaining why the film is flawed, as a minority, makes it seem as if you see past the "deceptions" that the sheep fall for. You're so eager to point out how this is just another cog in the Hollywood machine, and how you don't fall for it.

Relax. At the end of the day, it's a film.

You feel cheated because of the film employing a twist. So in your posts, you focus on the twist, and how it was an attack on you as a viewer, a cheap thrill. And how the film, and other films, keep trying to use twists as the selling point of why it's great (i.e. M Night Shyamalan). But... did you ever stop to think that that's just your own reaction? You are the one saying the film is a hack for just relying on the twist. But who said the twist was all it was going for?

Yes, there was a twist. But the film's not touting the twist as anything more than one aspect of the film. Hopefully you've seen the director Denis' other works - you'd know that he's not into cheap thrills.

Your version of the story - telling it linearly and opening more thought and possibilities up - yes, that is one possible way of telling the story and it does sound interesting. But that's just one possibility. There are many ways to tell a story, and the director chose this way. Many people liked the film and were touched by it. I don't think the "twist" is what makes the film great. Again, it's just one small aspect. YOU'RE the one who is focusing on that and how you feel cheated by it, when I doubt most people would barely even react to it.

Get this straight though - there's nothing wrong with you disliking the film. It's great to have a variety of opinions. So don't take this post as some "you have to love it blah blah fanboy!". Nope, not at all. I love having differing opinions. But know that your opinion isn't always right - it might not be a reflection of the film, but just a reflection of you.

Take it from me - I enjoyed the film. I thought the visuals were stunning, the score was fantastic and memorable, the performances were great, and I was touched by the story it told. I don't think that the twist is why it was great. I just saw a story unfold before me, the way the director wanted it to, and it touched me. You say there was no change in the characters, but I'd disagree. In a sense, as Dr. Banks is able to see the future - the happy and sad moments of it - she chooses to accept it and (I don't remember the exact quote) love every moment of it. That's a pretty big decision for one to make.

For you, the film didn't touch you. It wasn't for you. That's okay. Nothing wrong with that. But just because something doesn't connect with you doesn't make it quantitatively flawed in terms of its filmmaking.

[–] rabbitmoon 8 years ago

On the contrary, thanks for the discussion.

I did enjoy the film, I really enjoyed watching it, and yes I'm a huge fan of Denis' work (ever since Incendies. Prisoners and Sicario were my favourite cinema experiences of the years they were released, although I would probably say that Enemy is my favourite film of his, as I'm sucker for anything relating to the subconscious. Vertigo is a favourite for similar reasons).

You're right - I'm that guy who feels a sense of wonder at a magic trick, then realises how the trick was done, then it all bursts and I feel kinda silly for having thought it was actually some kind of magic.

And thats the closest analogy I can find to Arrival - it feels like a magic trick, that falls apart once you unravel its misdirections and forced hands - there is nothing much left.

The only thing which is vaguely left, is your accurate summation of "Dr. Banks is able to see the future - the happy and sad moments of it - she chooses to accept it and love every moment of it. That's a pretty big decision for one to make."

In the book, its explained that knowing the future makes one feel compelled to act it out. Whether that reason, or the films lack of reason, it just doesn't stand up as a solid enough "point" for a feature film. Fine for a short story, or a 20 minute Twilight Zone episode perhaps. But for all the emotional tugging and engagement of a feature film, I personally don't think so.

Either she can change the future and therefore create a huge paradox, making her visions empty and pointless, or she's bound to the future, therefore being pre-determined and mechanical, which takes away her sense of volition and free-will. She becomes "a clockwork orange" essentially. Where are the "feels" in that? Really, its an unbelievably tragic, sad ending, that knows the future (think of Walken's curse in The Dead Zone for example). But the film dresses it up in high emotions with the violins, the romance etc. It all just feels "off", to me.

And that's not to even mention the twist, or the horrible bit of contrivance with calling the Chinese presidents cell phone. What did you think of that bit?

[–] palidan-79634 8 years ago

Perhaps it's because I have not read the book/story this was adapted off of. I went into this film with no knowledge of what it would be about or any expectations of where it'd go.

But yeah, as I said earlier, I think a reason the film works for me is that I don't think much of the twist. It's just one small part of it, but the rest of the film to me is brilliant. And I don't know, we see a lot in fiction people trying to change the future. This ultimatum of Dr. Banks knowing there is tragedy ahead but still holding on to the happy moments, that resonated with me (and most other people seemingly).

The calling the Chinese president scene was a bit... out of the ordinary for sure. I can see this scene being a hit-or-miss for people. I understand how it was out of left field, but it worked for me. It's definitely the biggest point in the film relying on suspension of disbelief as it's somewhat magical basically. But it wasn't anything that I don't think the film set up prior to this, so it didn't seem like deus ex machina to me.

My point being, often with films, they either work or they don't for a person individually. There are many "great" films that I dislike or have issues with where the majority of people don't. But it is what it is.

[–] Joe-yannuzzi 8 years ago

Once she re-wires her brain, she is able to experience time out of context, no longer chronologically bound. She is able to experience those memories because "future" her is able to jump back and forth - affecting her when we first see her in the movie. It's not misdirection in a cheating sense, it's just revealing the 4th act before you get to see the 2nd and 3rd.

[–] rabbitmoon 8 years ago

But its misdirecting to reveal the 4th act in a way that implies it comes before acts 1 and 2, until you reslise that it doesnt. Put it this way - theres no good reason why its done like that, rather than making it clear that the visions are future based (as the book does), unless trying to cheat a "twist" out of it.

[–] JameGumbisSilent 8 years ago

It's not misdirecting, it's adapted the short story which used the same plot device. I think you may be overthinking it. My understanding of the story is that by the end, we understand that she can now experience time in a circular instead of linear fashion, so she is remembering all events past, present, future- simultaneously. The story as presented to the audience (or reader of the story) is not happening in real time, it's already happened. Don't know if I'm explaining myself clearly, I saw this back in February and that's the impression I got after viewing and then reading the story the next day.

it rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again

[–] rabbitmoon 8 years ago

The short story didnt use the same plot device. Well it did, but it clearly presented future memories as future memories ("I remember when you will..."). The film presents them as memories of the past, until the twist where it reveals theyre actually the future. Put it this way - its not a twist in the book. The film clearly presents it as a twist. The twist isnt possible without misleading the audience.

Its just one of many flaws of the film though.

[–] JameGumbisSilent 8 years ago

So is The Sixth Sense misleading as well because we were led to believe he was real and found out he's a ghost at the end? Is it misleading for the filmmakers of every murder mystery ever made for not revealing the killer at the beginning, and instead lead the audience to think it's someone else?
Film is a linear medium - beginning, middle, end. She no longer experiences time in this fashion, which is eventually revealed to us as we realize all the events in the film are happening simultaneously in her view. It's a flaw in your logic, not the film. In my opinion.

it rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again

[–] rabbitmoon 8 years ago

Why make it a twist? The book didnt need the twist - so why does the film?

In any other film, a twist is shared by at least one character. So Sixth Sense becomes about that characters awareness, it becomes about self deception. In Arrival, ONLY the audience is under the impression that Louise has had bereavement by the time she first meets the aliens. No other character in the film is under that impression.

[–] JameGumbisSilent 8 years ago

In my opinion it's not a twist. It helps us (well me, I can't speak for others) understand her character and what has happened/is happening/will happen to her. It was a gradual dawning of what was happening, not a grand reveal making me question everything I've seen.

it rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]