Movie reviews took a back seat while the election dominated the news over the past several weeks. This was the most divisive election in recent history, with three flawed candidates being nominated by the three major parties (yes, I consider the LP a major party at this point, even if the chance of winning is still slim-to-none) and no one truly satisfied by the outcome. The divisiveness only worsened after the surprising election of Donald Trump, with protests that quickly escalated into riots and derisive epithets of “Racist! Homophobe! Sexist!” fueling the pain. College students, many of them whimpering and wailing, were issued blankets, tissues and even puppies by administrators anxious to comfort their fears rather than teach them how to cope with disappointment or take appropriate action to change the future.
Sheesh.
As I prepared to write my first review in over a month, I wondered: which current film would provide the best opportunity to address these issues? Arrival seemed like a sure bet: in it, twelve alien space craft enter the earth’s atmosphere and hover above locations around the globe, virtually knocking at the door and asking to be let in. But what is their purpose? Do they come in peace, or as galactic imperialists? That’s the question asked in every alien-oriented movie, and it was the key issue that drove Trump’s rise to the presidency. Do we build a wall—a YUGE wall—to keep everyone out (at least until they have been thoroughly vetted), or do we open the doors and admit workers from Mexico, refugees from Syria, boat-people from southeast Asia, and anyone else who wants to come in? Most of us first want to know, “Why are they here?” Fittingly, that is the tag line of Arrival.
The opening moments of the film reinforced my intent to write a timely political review. People react to the arrival of the alien ships (I like that the writers chose the neutral term “arrival”rather than the usual “invasion”) with stunned silence and disbelief, followed by reported chaos, although we don’t actually see it. Newscasters report riots, looting, and school closings—reminding me of what was happening not far from my movie theater in New York City. Our main character even references Fox News Channel while trying to calm her hysterical mother, saying, “Why are you watching that channel? How many times have a told you not to listen to those idiots?” She also admits to strategic lying in order to get her way: “The story isn’t true, but it proves my point, “ she mutters slyly.
But, as so often happens when I come to a movie already thinking about how I’m going to write my review, I soon let go of my preconceived plan and let the actual film envelop me. The film is slow for the alien invasion genre, more Close Encounters of the Third Kind than Independence Day. Leaders in the twelve nations where the spacecraft are hovering do bring in their military, but they do so cautiously. They have learned to be wary of Greeks bearing gifts, but they won’t slam the gates or start shooting the arrows until they’ve see what’s inside this Trojan horse. What is the purpose of these uninvited arrivals?
Tension develops not so much from fear of attack, but from an agonizing slowness that affects our perception of time; unnatural gravity that affects our perception of nature; a 60-beat, pulsating percussion that affects our perception of these aliens; and discordant, dissonant music that simply grates on our nerves.
Louise Banks (Amy Adams), a highly respected linguist, and Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner), a first-rate mathematician, are called in to see if they can communicate with the beings. An academic argument ensues over which is the core of civilization, language or math, but the film does not ask us to endure a cutesy, hormone-driven competition between the two attractive academicians. This is serious business, and they are serious partners in their mission to discover why the aliens have come and whether their intent is peaceful.
Guided by thoughts of her daughter’s birth and childhood, Louise turns to such non-verbal communications as touch, eye contact, body language and facial expressions as she and Ian work out the “Heptoid” vocabulary. She points out the ambiguity inherent in words, and the consequent importance of understanding context in order to discover intent. “The Sanskrit word for war,” she offers as an example, “is desire for more cows.” Soldiers and bullets, she suggests, are a symptom of war, not the definition of it. I couldn’t help but think of the quote attributed to Frederic Bastiat: “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will!” And I again thought of our President-elect and his misguided determination to limit international trade.
For a film about language and communication, there is surprisingly little dialogue. Instead, the actors are asked to communicate their thoughts and emotions to the audience the way their characters are communicating with the aliens—through body language, movement, and facial expressions. Director Denis Villeneuve couldn’t have asked for a better actress for this task than the brilliantly talented Amy Adams. She approaches the aliens with the same wonder and engagement as she expresses in her interactions with the daughter of her thoughts. We know how she feels about language, and about these aliens, because we know what it’s like to interact with a baby or a child. Language becomes a tool and an emotion. Linguistics become exciting and engaging. And the denouement of the film is even more wondrous because of all this.
This is a film that surprises you with unexpected stillness, unexpected wonder, unexpected fulfillment. It asks us to embrace life, even when it includes inevitable trauma or sorrow. In the end, I discovered, it is the right film for right now. But not for the reasons I expected. Go see it before you hear any more about it.
Arrival, directed by Denis Villeneuve. 21 Laps Entertainment, FilmNation Entertainment, 2016, 115 minutes.
