MovieChat Forums > Etherdave > Replies
Etherdave's Replies
It's a form of communication. Lacombe uses it in a last-ditch effort to personally communicate with an extraterrestrial. In the end , the alien simply repeats the gestures and imitates (horribly) Lacombe's hopeful smile. Was it communication? Maybe, sorta. You decide. Sorry.
We don't know the motivations of Spielberg's Visitors. They may be childlike, lacking an understanding of our silly, fragile little civilization; they may be benevolent, wishing only to awaken some of Earth's citizens as to the real nature of outer space; or they may be just curious (what is that row of funny, mail-box shaped things? Let's see how they stand up to a little stress test). We are to infer, from the 'return' of Flight 19 and the people aboard the SS Cotopaxi, that these people might otherwise have perished were they not plucked up by our friendly Paclid-esque aliens. We don't know. The screenplay just wasn't developed that far. This we do know. Sorry.
Extraterrestrial intelligence is invariably invoked to explain many unexplained or unexplainable occurrences, but in reality, it is the longest of long shots. The chances that aliens from other planets, or other stars, in the universe, co-exist with our own civilization are so low that they are almost immeasurable. It may be argued that a spacefaring civilization would have little interest in Earth, or as Carl Sagan suggested, that there is simply so much space between stars that, should two civilizations arise simultaneously in the universe, the chances they might actually meet before one disappears (civilizations come and go, you may have heard) is close to zero. Sagan's quote: 'There can be no 'Star Wars'.' This is not to say the chance is actually zero. But as our understanding of the universe slowly grows, the idea of a spacefaring, extraterrestrial race visiting the Earth, interacting with its citizens, and ultimately interceding in events here, may be easily dismissed. Sorry.
The dish is the roasted skin of the Peking Duck, which is usually served as an appetizer course when Peking Duck is served. The skin is typically arranged on a bed of fried chow mein noodles or rice crackers (you can see the dish in the beginning of the scene), along with thin wheat crepes (like Mu Shu Pork), sliced fresh spring onions, and hoisin sauce.
If there was a Vegan plant on Earth somewhere it's more likely it was the crazy preacher, since by his efforts Drumlin was thwarted and Arroway ended up making the journey. But Hadden's motivations were never really fleshed out, and we are left to conclude that he is either the altruist he presents himself as, or he is interested in the subsidiary benefits that Vegan transport technology might have to his empire.
The film uses the video purely for dramatic purposes, and to embolden the characters in the story that have reason to supress or nay-say the event. There would have been radio broadcasts many decades prior to 1936. Perhaps the interval of time between radio and TV was a 'tipping point' prompting the sending back of the message, along with the plans for the IPV.
The fact that he has less chest hair than his co-star is a bit disturbing, but I thought he did okay. Ask Pat Robertson or Billy Graham why they get to spend so much time in the White House; they're not government officials either. As for Mr. McConaughey's performance, I don't think he's taken this film off his resume. On the other hand, 'Sahara'? Hmmm....
Well there weren't many Stuckey's along the way and I didn't see her tuck into a roadside cantina for a brew or a shot of tequila. For what it's worth, she was probably fed a compact diet to reduce the mass in her colon, and probably made poopies before she left. I can go eighteen hours without having to piss and/or defecate, as long as I steer clear of the Beef Vindaloo or the Rosarita refries. So can a lot of people, I imagine. It's not too hard.
Nothing really to speculate. Arroway was simply returned to the same point, in both space AND time, where her journey began. Which is a good thing, really, since eighteen hours later Earth would be in a DIFFERENT spot than it was. By what agency she is returned, we are not sure. Perhaps there was a second wormhole (First rule of government spending, etc.). Perhaps from where she was returned there was resources for a much more efficient return trip, which would explain why it was so much shorter than the outbound one. The real only salient element here, is that this is science fiction. You can make up pretty much whatever you like.
Martin displays the angst of his dwindling species, the angst of a child afraid of being replaced by a 'perfect' android, and the neurotic confidence of a son who knows he's the only child his parents are ever going to have. He's their Golden Child, their Only Ever, and he may even understand that as a person he's a bit of a sh*t. Unfortunately that all makes him very much the product of his parents. David is who David is, because his 'parents' made him that way. The same is true for Martin.
How is physical appearance a problem here? How is a high brow and slick hair anachronistic? We don't know if Fred Astaire's appearance has become retro-fashionable again, just as we don't know if baldness is cured in the future, just like we don't know, in an increasingly robophobic society such as is presented here, that it is a good idea to make a male sex worker android too attractive compared to his human competitors? Sexy is as it always has been: a product of the times, and we just don't know enough about these times to judge accurately. What is definitely presented here is a confident, slick, self-promoting android who is perfectly (as he claims) and indefatiguably able to put his client's money where his mouth is. That really didn't come out right. Or maybe it did. I think you get the idea.
Aaand... guess what, kiddies? It's now the year 2022 and we can't get a rocket full of clothing dummies to our own moon, much less anybody else's.
His oily attempt at charm, after revealing his outright hatred towards Kaffee, is notable. He knows he made a critical mistake, and clumsily tries to cover it over.
Probably not, but I felt this incident reflected Kaffey's own attitude about himself; civilian lawyers often face bar discipline for legal misconduct, and Kaffey, at least at this point in time, still seems to view himself as a civilian lawyer in a military monkey-suit (much is made about his attire, especially those stupidly-transparent whites you can see your underwear through). I'm not sure he actually meant it, he simply responded reflexively to the situation. Whether or not he actually could get Galloway disbarred may be well beyond the scope of this drama.
United States Marines are trained to give their lives, if necessary, to protect their fellows. Whether it's risking court-martial by refusing a command, or transferring a man with a legitimate medical condition that puts him AND (by extension) his fellow Marines at risk, by accepting the consequences of being an incompetent diagnostician or XO, or jumping on a grenade, you protect your fellow Marine's life, because if you survive, one day he will do the same thing for you. Pvt. Santiago's death was caused by a CO, an XO, an MCO, a junior officer and two Privates, and once that happened, they all failed in their duty. Simple as that.
Demi Moore didn't ruin this movie. Her squeaky delivery and harping tone were perfect for a green, relatively talented litigant with excellent insight but poor execution. The sweeping orchestral flourish at the end, with the huge 'The End' title in Written-style script, ruined this movie. Rob Reiner took a tight, small, smartly-written courthouse stage drama about the differences between civilian and military culture in the United States, and tried to turn it into a big-screen epic about the military itself. Rob Reiner ruined this movie.
We may assume, in hindsight I suppose, that Kendrick is hostile because he KNOWS something went wrong, that somebody is going to have to pay for; it also represents a key flaw in Kendrick's character that he cannot hide his resentment of another branch's officers investigating his unit. The film is all about character flaws that potentially undermine the characters, that have led indirectly to Santiago's death, and directly lead to Jessup's and Kendrick's downfall; Kaffey's own character flaws, his fear of failure, the burden he carries of his father's memory, and his own refusal to fully commit to his cases, are overcome by his character, resulting in his success at revealing the truth behind the incident.
Do you mean Germans like Thomas Kretschmann (Remer), Christian Berkel (Mertz von Quirnheim), Matthias Freihof (Himmler), Valdemar Kobus (von Helldorff), Werner Daehn (von Freyend), Gerhard Haase-Hindenberg (Goering), Anton Algrang (Speer), Helmut Strauss (Freisler), and of course Philipp von Schulthess (von Tresckow's aide), who is the grandson of Claus von Stauffenberg? This was an international production and was reflected by an international cast, hence Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Bernard Hill, Terence Stamp, Tom Wilkinson, and Eddie Izzard (English), not to mention Carisa Van Houten and Halina Reijn (Dutch). The film was directed and co-produced by Bryan Singer (American), who wanted Cruise (also American, as well as a co-producer) in the picture and didn't want a docu-drama, but a wartime political thriller. Germany was originally very hesitant to provide resources for this film, as Cruise (who bears a strange resemblance to von Stauffenberg) is controversial due to his adherence to Scientology, which is banned as a cult in Germany. Eventually they did cooperate and allowed film production to proceed on location at Studio Babelsburg, Berlin's oldest surviving film studio. Originally off-limits to film producers, the Finance Ministry allowed use of the notorious Bendlerblock, where the executions actually took place.
American films tend to be in English, reflecting the mother tongue of the intended audience. This film started out in German and changed to English during Cruise's voice-over at the beginning of the film, a familiar-enough device that tells us all it's being translated for us, not necessarily for the benefit of the cast (most of whom speak or understand German) but for that of the audience. It may be displeasurable for some, but is it REALLY a major issue in this film?
The line may be unintentionally more controversial than Melville intended. Since the beginning of the story is being related by a narrator having already survived the ordeal of the Pequod, 'me alone having lived to tell thee', is his name actually Ishmael, or has he slyly concocted the moniker to evoke the biblical character (Biblical Ishmael was turned out into the desert, but by Providence saved from death by thirst... Melville's Ishmael is turned out into the sea, but by Providence saved from drowning)? If so, is there any more of this rather tall tale of the Big Fish That Got Away that is invented? Is the narrator a reliable narrator, or is he attempting to cover from some other, more disturbing catastrophe, such as a mutiny or a shipwreck? Is the narrator truly an 'Ishmael' or is he more of a 'Jonah' as described by Father Mapple in his sermon?
Bradbury's adaptation is splendid, but I didn't care for the bar scene; Stubbs seems too arrogant when he declares New Bedford to have exclusive rights to whaling: this was the assertion of the narrator in the novel, in praising the sailors of the American whaling fleet. The novel passes from New Bedford to Nantucket, which was the true epicenter of whaling in this region; were Ishmael accosted by a boisterous whaler to acknowledge New Bedford, he would certainly have to repeat the ordeal in Nantucket.