Disclaimer: The following paper includes spoilers, that can easily ruin the film is you haven’t seen it before.
The Power of Language and Communication in a Film
Arrival (2016) is a sci-fi drama film directed by Canadian filmmaker Denis Villeneuve. Villeneuve is one of the most influential directors of our times and I believe that the audience is still in the process of discovering the beauty and the ultimate mastery of his storytelling techniques with each and every film he releases. I specifically have chosen the film Arrival, since it is a perfect example of how film narrative should be constructed in relation to its themes and moods.
The film is based on the short story “Story of Your Life” by Ted Chiang. The opening scene starts with brief moments of life of the main character Dr Louise Banks portrait by brilliant actress Amy Adams. We see her giving birth, raising her child – Hannah, we see her relations with her daughter having its ups and downs during the coming-of-age period, and finally, we witness how her daughter dies of an unknown disease. Then we cut to the initial timeline of the story (Act 1), where Louise is working as a lecturer at a university, specialised in linguistics. Inciting Incident starts with the invasion of aliens who had sent their unidentified objects to Earth. Dr. Louise Banks together with Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) are sent to study the language aliens use to communicate with humans. Exposition instantly introduces the protagonist and her goal to study the language by also giving insight on her tragic past. Aliens or what humans call them in the film “heptapods” have their unique method of communication. They release an ink from their hands to form an image of a circular shape which appears to be the written form of the language they use. While studying the language, Banks starts to have flashbacks of the moments she had spent with her daughter. After having some kind of base for their language, Banks manages to decode a phrase aliens used which says “offer weapon”. Act 2 introduces the conflict that is between the protagonist and her goal. Various interpretations of the phrase “weapon” come upon by various leaders of the countries, saying that aliens want to wage war and it is direct threat to the security of the Earth. Whereas, Banks believes that the word “weapon” can have multiple interpretations such as “tool” or “means”. While the entire world prepares to bomb the heptapods’ craft, Banks and Donnelly try to enter the vessel and Banks manages to speak with one of the aliens. This moment becomes the turning point of the plot, since it is revealed that the language was the initial weapon. Act 3 immediately starts with the following plot-twist suggesting that aliens came to offer their language as a weapon, since they will need help from humanity after 3,000 year. Anyone who learns their language starts to experience time differently, meaning not in a linear form but in a circular form. The resolution of the story reveals that the flashbacks where actually memories from the future, and her daughter wasn’t even born yet. Throughout the whole process of learning aliens’ language, Banks was experiencing Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which suggests that the language can shape the fundamental brain cognition of the speaker. After successfully preventing the clash between aliens and humans, Donnelly expresses his love towards Banks and the audience understands that the father of the daughter is in fact Donnelly. On the other hand, Bank know about her daughter’s the tragic fate. Banks is placed under a worst dilemma and she needs to make a decision. The film ends with her asking a question to Donnelly “If you could see your whole life from start to finish, would you change things?”. The climatic scene reveals that Banks chooses to live her life the way see saw it already.
When it comes to define the genre of the film, we can apply several conventions of genre to the film. First and foremost, the involvement of aliens itself suggests the fact that Arrival is a science fiction film. According to the definitions suggested by Selbo, sci-fi films should demonstrate the imagination of the screenwriter in terms of creating a world where scientific ideas can be explored by using the most basic question “what if”. However, Arrival is not one of those ordinary blockbuster films that have a protagonist and villain, rather than, as Villeneuve mentioned during one of his interviews, the film is a “dirty” sci-fi movie, since the director deliberately made it to look a little bit boring on the scope of the genre specifics. Usually, sci-fi films are paired with action genres. The supplementary genre of the film is drama, as it explores the protagonist on more emotional level. The melancholy of Amy Adam’s character itself gives a unique sense to the genre, as the audience starts to priorities her feelings and the tension made between the characters more, rather than concentrating specially on the aspects of sci-fi. The opening scene itself suggests that the film is more about human connection and emotions, since it introduces the tragedy behind the character portrayed by Amy Adams. Last but not least, the film can also be analysed under the scope of mystery genre convention. As the protagonist needs to solve “puzzles” in order to understand the meaning of aliens’ language, why they came and what is the purpose of their coming, it creates a sense of mystery and anticipation for learning the truth behind their actions.
Arrival is a film about language and the perfection of the film lies in the way it tries to communicate with the audience by telling a story about language in a language of film. Denis Villeneuve manipulates the audience by creating a sense of a linear timeline of the movie. Two major themes discussed in the film are time and communication. Humans experience time in a linear form (our written language is also linear), hence the audience expects that the film is told in a similar fashion. However, aliens’ writings had a circular shape, which suggests that they see the past and future simultaneously. In terms of language of film, the technique used in the set-up is similar to Kuleshov Effect – a phenomenon when the audience derives meaning by having two sequential shots (Prince and Hensley, 1992). Director makes a creative decision to deceive the audience by creating a sense that the opening scene of the film is in fact from the past and not from the future. Which is why, when we see Amy Adam’s character giving a lecture in the set-up of Act 1, we instantly link it to the previous tragic scenes, when she loses her daughter. The viewer associates Banks’s disorientation with depression and her disinterest towards the daily routine is read as her being sad and lonely. Only in Act 3 it is revealed that the opening scene actually took place after the events of film, and while the viewer is left astonished, we realise that the set-up was actually a blank meaningless sequence of scenes that the audience attached meaning to.
The second major theme of the movie is communication. The phenomenon of communication is not only demonstrated through characters but through the only accessible way the film can communicate with the audience – through montage. In the film, Banks says that “You can understand communication but still end up single’. The film demonstrates the limits of communication that humans face based on their senses, culture and perception. While characters in the film fail to communicate with the unwritten laws of communication, director uses the montage as a way of communication with the viewer. What is even mind-blowing is the fact that during the first two acts of the film, audience has no clue that the written laws of montage are aimed to deceive the communication between the viewer and the film. Simply, montage is juxtaposing of scenes together to create a certain meaning. “Montage, that is, exemplifies the operation of the human mind; Eisenstein understands ‘montage form as the reconstruction of the thought process.’ He says that, ‘montage thinking is inseparable from the general content of thinking as a whole.’” (Carroll, 2003) I believe, that the viewer experiences the same failures of communication thought process through montage, while the protagonists experiences the same phenomenon through the failed communication between her past and future. Just like the life of Amy Adams’ character adopts a circular shape at some point of her life, the same way the montage of the film appears to be done in a circular form. In the climactic scene the viewer gets to know that future can influence the past and visa versa, meaning the end of the film can influence its beginning. This definitely speaks of Villeneuve’s genius.
The way Villeneuve manages to blend means of communication used in film with the perception of time is perfect. Films are, in fact, the only means of art that can capture time. Arrival is a perfect example of a movie where director demonstrates film theories through the most accessible way a film can communicate with the audience – montage. Even after watching the film several times, the viewer can find many easter eggs, since symbolism and hidden meanings are the whole essence of Denis Villeneuve’s mastering skills.
References
Prince, S., & Hensley, W. (1992). The Kuleshov Effect: Recreating the Classic Experiment. Cinema Journal, 31(2), 59-75. doi:10.2307/1225144
Carroll, N. (2003). Eisenstein’s Philosophy of Film. In Allen R. & Turvey M. (Eds.), Camera Obscura, Camera Lucida: Essays in Honor of Annette Michelson (pp. 127-146). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt46n2cn.11
![order now](https://nursinghomeworkhelps.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/order-now.jpg)