The shimmer version of Natalie is as much Natalie as the original is.
There's a moment where Natalie is leaving the lighthouse and she looks back making eye contact with the shimmer Natalie. At this point the shimmer has also taken on her face.
There is an understanding in this moment. Natalie, existing as the shimmer alien, realizes what she is and decides to sacrifice herself to destroy the lighthouse. Essentially the shimmer is used against itself.
But if you recall, the "original" Natalie has been inside the shimmer for quite some time. By this time her DNA has been massively altered. So who is to say which is the original and which is the doppelganger, or if it even makes sense to ask - they are both mutated versions of the original person who no longer exists.
There's also nod to the heroes journey. The idea that the hero must incorporate the evil aspect of themselves to reach their potential (and realizing in the process that the dark parts of us are not necessarily "evil" after all).
Recall that she was not able to destroy the lighthouse all by herself. She must create a new being, but a being that is created from herself. This is represented by her blood, and also by the tunnel itself (a classic interpretation of tunnels is as representing the process of life & death).
At first the new being is seen as weird, unrecognizable, and otherworldly, but in the end she sees it as it truly is - as much her as she is. Thus, she sees her face reflected back. This is a common motif in the heroes journey (think Luke Skywalker seeing his face in Vader's mask).
The ending where their eyes flicker is disingenuous - tacked on as a "twist" to keep audiences guessing and leave open the option for a sequel. But similar to the spinning top at the end of inception it doesn't matter. The question of who is "real" and who is the "alien" is a red herring. The hero who completes his journey is never the same person as when he started.
While the above explains some of what is going on, in the end I am not sure one cohesive interpretation is possible. The movie itself even hints at this. [continued in next post]
reply
share
Sineso (4)
7 years ago
[continued] Throughout the story the characters keep asking what the shimmer wants. And what was the answer? The shimmer doesn't want anything. It just is.
When we ask questions about Annihilation we are making the same mistake as its characters.
What does it mean? What does it represent? On and on we could ask, but - like the shimmer - it will not fit that mold.
After riding a roller-coaster no one asks "what did the looping part of the ride mean?". The parts of a ride have no normative meaning. A ride's only purpose is to create an experience. Similarly, Annihilation's purpose is to create an experience: to thrill, to shock, to amaze.
Each of the women who entered the shimmers represents a folly of man. One of them uses intellect, another uses brute force, another relies on her community. Each of them fails in their own way. These tools don't work against the shimmer. It resists the ways of mankind. It just is.
edit: see my updated analysis, 7 years later (posted again on the same movie without at first realizing)...
https://moviechat.org/tt2798920/Annihilation/638debc902d5422c84abd23f/Did-anyone-actually-get-this-movie?reply=6726fa8629316d325cc16dd2
reply
share
movielover718 (293)
7 years ago
Thank u both for ur answers , perfect explanation , I guess just like in the movie we need to always know why and what , when not everything has a answer or has a purpose. It just ..is
reply
share
Rorikon (18361)
7 years ago
That's just too deep man but I like the explanation. In the end it's more of a parasite that takes on forms via DNA, adapts, and combines in an ever changing recreation of itself until it managed to mimic someone that wanted to destroy it all in some sacrificial way (though for some reason I wonder why it didn't take that from the Kane which more or less did the same thing). Strange how the Kane replacement just walked into view of the cam while the, ah, maybe when it recreated itself and started mimicking Lena it was still in its infant form and not fully self aware yet but when it was, it was already too late and burning so it maybe finished off the mission for her.
reply
share
MovieManCin2 (26342)
7 years ago
Wow!
Thanks for that excellent explanation, Sineso. I simply LOVED this film (9.8/10), and now I have a better understanding of it. It's a Sci-Fi Masterpiece, and I was left in a state of awe and wonder (shock almost) as the credits rolled.
😎
reply
share
ace2 (607)
2 months ago
Thank you for this. My issue was that from what we had seen of the alien, that grenade should not have had any appreciable impact on it - let alone caused its destruction. But the idea that it was now partially also Nathalie committing suicide would explain how it could allow itself to die.
From the video it seemed that the husband had achieved a cordial symbiotic relationship with the alien, their conversation didn't seem contentious at all. More like they had realized they were changing and started cooperating for the best outcome given the circumstances. This type of surrender made more sense to me and I think it would have been more impactful than the fight it had with Nathalie.
Finally, you give Hollywood too much credit. The flickering eyes was not inconsequential, that was most definitely sequel baiting. Who knows what was in their genes, their offspring could have constituted some sort of alien invasion from within.
reply
share