Amicable and thought provoking yet ultimately negligible

Rating: 6/10 (30 March 2017)

Dennis Villeneuve's newest picture Arrival has been advertised and for the most part received by audiences as an original and thought provoking sci-fi akin to Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Interstellar, but I have to say after watching it I feel slightly underwhelmed by the work of a director who to date has never made a film short of brilliant.
Arrival begins with a dozen UFO's 'arriving' on Earth at various locations. Your typical science fiction tropes are all present, with a seemingly mundane day interrupted by potential chaos as Louise Banks (Amy Adams) a college professor in linguistics suddenly becomes a sought after commodity by US intelligence in order to decipher an alien language. Together with Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner), she eventually learns the alien language enabling her to perceive time in cyclical fashion due to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This of course is the first misinterpretation of scientific theory within the film, as the real theory: even being mentioned in the film as a debunked concept, is dependent upon an initial language perception, for example a natural speaking English person will not learn French and suddenly have a theoretical/ mental capacity on equal terms with a natural speaking national. The initial perception garnered by the first language absorbed generates an individual's perception. So it seems implausible that her perception of inter- dimensional time could be altered so drastically, if at all.
Which brings me to my second point, in that her new language is incomprehensible, and I don't mean in the general way that anything above the third dimension is incomprehensible, but in a way that is contradictory to theory cited within the story itself. Through learning the aliens written language, Louise is imbued with this new inter-dimensional vernacular enabling her to observe time from beginning to end instantly and freely as she congruently experiences her entire life at any given time as if she has done it before; because in effect, she has. The film shows and infers multiple instances with juxtaposing scenarios of happiness and sadness, with the prime example obviously being the birth and death of her daughter. This consequence of her power is portrayed in the film as a sort of Amor Fati (love of fate) or as Nietzsche conceptualised, an 'eternal recurrence' where one simply accepts their fate through contentment. But this theory is ultimately flawed within the context of this film and in turn with the structure of this films 'bootstrap paradox' narrative, instead choosing to portray Louise as a sort of Deus Ex Machina/ McGuffin who conveniently learns of things she has already done within cyclical time the very instant it becomes relevant to the linear dimension. There are multiple instances of the plot moving forward due to Louise's perception of the 'future'; for example, her phone call to General Shang was only able to occur because it had already occurred in the future, creating a causality loop where one action is dependent upon another in order to fulfil itself. Putting aside the fact that she seems unsure of herself at the time of the phone call, receiving her 'vision' of a conversation with the General in real-time suggests that her perception of time was still in fact linear, when if she was indeed able to perceive time in omnipotent fashion she would not have been so confused by any scenario having already experienced it retroactively. The mere presence of a causality loop denotes another scientific theory touched on in the film called Fermat's principle, where a ray of light will always transverse a distance that consumes the least amount of time irrespective of distance and refraction. The significance of this principle infers that in order for the light to take the least amount of time, it theoretically must 'know' how long each possible angle will take to transverse, in effect, knowing the future. This indicates that the path is set, and therefore predetermined. The consequences of this outcome with relation to Louise perceiving time in totality, essentially means that she has no free-will. If she has already experienced all of her time simultaneously, then she inevitably must fulfil what she has done in cyclical time in linear function as well. Therefore even if she does not occupy time in linear fashion, she still interacts within the third dimension linearly resulting in the fulfilment of the 'future' being enacted just as she had initially seen it.
Arrival does showcase great acting and traditional sci-fi elements throughout, but the overall rhetoric within the film, presaging an absolute need for open and honest communication across linguistic barriers is a nice sentiment, but ultimately negligible. The film finishes with a touching sequence of memories flooding through Louise's head of both past and future as she is presented with a cross roads; does she divert from this presented future and into the unknown? Or does she engage in a relationship with Ian Donnelly that will result in her future occurring the same way despite this realities afflictions, because it has moments of true beauty; is it no worth it? The trouble is she never had any choice to begin with as Villeneuve has compromised real scientific reasoning and logic in order to facilitate 'Hollywood' moments of tension and climax which contradict an abstraction of time that lends itself to omnipotence.
I enjoyed Arrival. It might not seem like it after reading this review, but it did have moments of excellence; and Dennis Villeneuve's style, although not quite as dark and gritty as in previous films the likes of Enemy or Prisoners, is still evident and as always striking. The main pitfalls of this film lie in its execution of narrative, which contradicts its implied meaning with its factual telling resulting in an ultimately frugal piece that although thought provoking, is just kind of a mess.