Movie: Contact

I remember being really excited in 1997 when Sagan's novel -- which was thought provoking and awe inspiring -- was made into a movie. In theatre however I felt extremely let down, as his entirely rational and scientific book had been given flashing lights, cheesy special effects and pseudo religious undertones. So I mostly stayed away from ever watching it again.

Last month it was on TV as I was flipping channels and I ended up watching most of it again, and came away with a higher opinion of it. So I bought a copy on Blu-Ray with my Christmas gift certificate.

On a big sound system and high-def screen it's pretty damned impressive for nearly 20 years ago. The acting, especially on Foster's part, is really good. And I found myself accepting the overarching message, that the universe, the real universe, is just as awe-inspiring and mind blowing as the religious myths man has created around it.

There's still too much ambiguity about religion. And they missed a golden opportunity at the end of the movie to have the "static" recorded by Ellie's head cam begin to reveal embedded information like the prime number bursts. And the assumption that life, never mind intelligent life, must be everywhere in the universe is nonsensical. But I really enjoyed the movie anyway, in my new more-forgiving old age.

I felt let down and with that movie formed an immobile and impenetrable distaste for Mathew McConaughey.   
I had no idea it was based on Sagan or I'd probably have just read the book.

SAI2 wrote:

The film asks us to consider how much evidence is really enough before we think we know something, and is it always required - which is in essence, what theists and atheists, always argue...

Shit, I'm sorry.  I accidentally edited your post instead of quoting from it.  Mia culpa.

Sagan's entire philosophy was encapsulated in his last book, "The Demon Haunted World." He explains how ambiguity and coincidence are misinterpreted as supernaturalism in those to whom ambiguity and coincidence are more uncomfortable than supernatural explanations. Sagan was not above marveling at the natural world, being in awe of the results of small changes over deep time as in the Grand Canyon or the pangolin. What he would not abide is the ascription of intention to this process.

Contact (the movie) did not hew to this philosophy, and I can only assume Ann Druyan besmirched her late husband's memory by allowing religious conservatives to rewrite parts of the script -- which went through many revisions after she and Carl wrote the first draft.

Quote :

Zemeckis stated that he intended the message of the film to be that science and religion can coexist rather than being opposing camps,[24] as shown by the coupling of scientist Arroway with the religious Joss, as well as his acceptance that the "journey" indeed took place. This, and scattered references throughout the film, posit that science and religion are not nominally incompatible: one interviewer, after asking Arroway whether the construction of the machine—despite not knowing what will happen when it is activated—is too dangerous, suggests that it is being built on the "faith" that the alien designers, as Arroway puts it, "know what they're doing."

I'm quite certain Carl would have been extremely uncomfortable with the final product, had he lived to see it.

I would argue that the film makes a mockery of scientific method, by equating one missing videotape with an entire irrational worldview, where demons haunt the world and control our lives invisibly.  That equivalence is never established.

Instead, Arroway's testimony in front of the Congressional panel forces her to admit that she, as a scientist, wouldn't believe herself either with the apparent lack of any corroborating evidence.  Plus the hugely "religious" nature of her experience.

However -- and it's a big however -- the code inside the prime numbers did yield plans to build The Machine, and The Machine did do something marvelous and unexpected.  Therefore it cannot be said that no evidence exists of the Vegans, nor of their scientific superiority (i.e. their "godlike' qualities). All that the panel can really question is Arroway's account of the beach with the backward waves. The proposition that Hadden staged the whole thing is ludicrous because the technology is new to mankind.

The plot does not establish a basis for science and religion to exist on equal footing, therefore, and the bigots (represented by Rob Lowe) who state "We don't even know if these aliens believe in God" are not vindicated in the end.

NoCo wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

The film asks us to consider how much evidence is really enough before we think we know something, and is it always required - which is in essence, what theists and atheists, always argue...

Shit, I'm sorry.  I accidentally edited your post instead of quoting from it.  Mia culpa.

You bastard. I can think of other posts far more deserving of being accidentally deleted. You shall be cuckolded.

(  )

I can't be trusted with power.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Sagan's entire philosophy was encapsulated in his last book, "The Demon Haunted World."  He explains how ambiguity and coincidence are misinterpreted as supernaturalism in those to whom ambiguity and coincidence are more uncomfortable than supernatural explanations.  Sagan was not above marveling at the natural world, being in awe of the results of small changes over deep time as in the Grand Canyon or the pangolin.  What he would not abide is the ascription of intention to this process.

Okay, sure... I agree. So where in the film does the ascription to intention occur?

NoCoPilot wrote:

Contact (the movie) did not hew to this philosophy, and I can only assume Ann Druyan besmirched her late husband's memory by allowing religious conservatives to rewrite parts of the script -- which went through many revisions after she and Carl wrote the first draft.

Where did you read that religious conservatives rewrote parts of the script?

NoCoPilot wrote:

Quote :

Zemeckis stated that he intended the message of the film to be that science and religion can coexist rather than being opposing camps,[24] as shown by the coupling of scientist Arroway with the religious Joss, as well as his acceptance that the "journey" indeed took place....<snip>

I'm quite certain Carl would have been extremely uncomfortable with the final product, had he lived to see it.

Perhaps that was Zemeckis's intention, but intention and final product are two separate things. Sometimes filmakers intend an audience to interpret their work in certain ways, yet the audience interprets it differently. I don't accept Zemeckis's claim based on what I saw - Arroway & Palmer do not and cannot overcome their differences. They may agree to disagree, but ultimately they both know how incompatible their world views are. Palmer makes a point that Arroway's inability to prove that she loved her father as a counterpoint to his faith and love in a divine father. That is in no way Zemeckis's or any scriptwriter's slam dunk which proves religion and science are compatible. I challenge anyone to find one example of a successful scene where religion and science are demonstrated to be compatible.

Zemeckis's 'Contact' is unintentionally beyond the grasp and futile intentions of even Zemeckis... in my view. Demonstrate one scene in the film where his philosophical intentions are successfully validated, and I will concede my position.

NoCoPilot wrote:

I would argue that the film makes a mockery of scientific method, by equating one missing videotape with an entire irrational worldview, where demons haunt the world and control our lives invisibly.  That equivalence is never established.

Please clarify and give an example. I'm really not sure what you are claiming here.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Instead, Arroway's testimony in front of the Congressional panel forces her to admit that she, as a scientist, wouldn't believe herself either with the apparent lack of any corroborating evidence.  Plus the hugely "religious" nature of her experience.

It wasn't interpreted that way by anyone except maybe Palmer. She was accused of wishful thinking and deluding herself or experiencing a hallucination, if I remember correctly.

NoCoPilot wrote:

However -- and it's a big however -- the code inside the prime numbers did yield plans to build The Machine, and The Machine did do something marvelous and unexpected.  Therefore it cannot be said that no evidence exists of the Vegans, nor of their scientific superiority (i.e. their "godlike' qualities). All that the panel can really question is Arroway's account of the beach with the backward waves.  The proposition that Hadden staged the whole thing is ludicrous because the technology is new to mankind.

I agree. You have demonstrated here that James Wood's accusation that Hadden concocted the whole thing is absurd. The plans and machine were beyond even Hadden himself. Presumably other scientists and engineers the world over would recognize the very alien high level of intelligence required to design such a machine.

NoCoPilot wrote:

The plot does not establish a basis for science and religion to exist on equal footing, therefore, and the bigots (represented by Rob Lowe) who state "We don't even know if these aliens believe in God" are not vindicated in the end.

I agree. I'm not sure what your point is.

SAI2 wrote:

Please clarify and give an example. I'm really not sure what you are claiming here.

In the movie, the whole plot is balanced to hinge on one key moment: when Arroway has to admit before Congress that she, as a scientist, would not believe her own testimony given the dearth of evidence.

This is intended, so far as I can tell, to "prove" that scientific endeavor is no more to be trusted than irrational faith, when evidence is lacking.  I find this outcome to be wholly at odds with Sagan's lifework, and the source novel in particular.

As I've pointed out, the whole alien technology angle is conveniently swept under the rug in the hearing.  That's why the movie's message is duplicitous.

SAI2 wrote:

NoCoPilot wrote:

Instead, Arroway's testimony in front of the Congressional panel forces her to admit that she, as a scientist, wouldn't believe herself either with the apparent lack of any corroborating evidence.  Plus the hugely "religious" nature of her experience.

It wasn't interpreted that way by anyone except maybe Palmer. She was accused of wishful thinking and deluding herself or experiencing a hallucination, if I remember correctly.

Essentially correct, James Woods accused her of making the whole thing up.  Again, 9/10s of the facts are conveniently ignored to make a point, a point the original author never voiced nor would have acceded to.  

Palmer Joss, by stopping her from being selected as the original Machine passenger, proves that "believing in God" is important (to him, to the plot, to the world) because 95% of the world believes while she does not.  There is no mention of the fact that 95% of the world is not PhDs, or 95% of the world is not scientists, or 95% of the world is not super-intelligent.  If they truly wanted a "representative example" of the race they would have selected a barkeep from Queens.  Nope, it was RELIGION that was made the plotpoint, religion that must be respected, religion that must be given equal weight with science when science comes up short on one tiny evidence-string. The whole fulcrum on which Zemeckis balanced his movie is that "science and religion can coexist rather than being opposing camps."

SAI2 wrote:

Okay, sure... I agree. So where in the film does the ascription to intention occur?

On the beach, when the alien in the body of her dad indicates that many civilizations have gone through what hers is going through, that they join an intergalactic League of Nations by learning to travel space (with the aid of wormholes), that this pathway is somehow predetermined and inevitable.

SAI2 wrote:

Where did you read that religious conservatives rewrote parts of the script?

Here.

Wikipedia wrote:

"The first script [for Contact] I saw was great until the last page and a half," Zemeckis recalled. "And then it had the sky open up and these angelic aliens putting on a light show and I said, 'That's just not going to work.'"

Although it must be said Steven Spielberg made a lot of money twenty years earlier substituting flashing lights for rational discussion, as had Kubrick ten years before that.  Movies made from an atheist POV scare the dickens out of studios.

I've been an admirer of Carl Sagan for many years (and not just because he proved that not all weed smokers are dummies). I think that his Cosmos series was the finest science-based program television has ever broadcast. I vaguely remember reading Contact and enjoying it (admittedly, nearly all of my memories are vague nowadays).

I thought the movie was a piece of crap. While the book did not seriously denigrate religion (as I would have preferred), the religiosity crammed into the movie's story line made it very lame and distasteful for me. But maybe that's just me.

No I don't think it's just you. The script was written by a committee for the express purpose of not offending the religios.

But maybe your memory wouldn't be crap if you laid off the cannabis.

_Howard wrote:

I think that his Cosmos series was the finest science-based program television has ever broadcast.

Do you remember James Burke's "Connections"?

Only after looking it up did I remember watching some of it. It did not make an impression on me.

It gets my vote over "Cosmos." Episodes are available on YouTube.

NoCoPilot wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

Please clarify and give an example. I'm really not sure what you are claiming here.

In the movie, the whole plot is balanced to hinge on one key moment: when Arroway has to admit before Congress that she, as a scientist, would not believe her own testimony given the dearth of evidence.

This is intended, so far as I can tell, to "prove" that scientific endeavor is no more to be trusted than irrational faith, when evidence is lacking.  I find this outcome to be wholly at odds with Sagan's lifework, and the source novel in particular.

But that is what certain people in Congress were trying to impress upon her and everyone watching her testimony (in the story). It was not necessarily what Zemickis was saying to us (the audience). Like I said, we the audience knows there is a dearth of evidence and Arroway is going to "appear" foolish trying to convince everyone of what she went through. But we (the audience) all find out that 18 hours of recorded noise was not revealed in Congress to anyone.

Why should Zemickis reveal that crucial piece of damning evidence in favour of Arroway's testimony if he wanted to impart Arroway's dilemma as equal to faith based believers?

No, Zemickis is not trying to say any such thing. She can't convince anyone her testimony is truthful because of a purposeful omission of evidence that would have supported her claims. So you suggestion that Zemickis's intent by putting Arroway on the hotseat and thus convincing us her position is as valid as irrational faith doesn't hold water. It holds water only for those interrogating her and those listening, because they aren't aware of the existence of the one crucial piece of evidence that would substantiate her claims irrefutably. And James Woods and the other lady were aware of this.

NoCoPilot wrote:

As I've pointed out, the whole alien technology angle is conveniently swept under the rug in the hearing.  That's why the movie's message is duplicitous.

No, once again you are equivocating and conflating the actions of the fictional people in the film with the director's intended message to his audience. Wood's character sweeps the alien tech angle under the rug in order to make mince meat of Arroway. Zemickis redeems her by revealing to us, the audience, what Wood's character was up to.

NoCoPilot wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

NoCoPilot wrote:

Instead, Arroway's testimony in front of the Congressional panel forces her to admit that she, as a scientist, wouldn't believe herself either with the apparent lack of any corroborating evidence.  Plus the hugely "religious" nature of her experience.

It wasn't interpreted that way by anyone except maybe Palmer. She was accused of wishful thinking and deluding herself or experiencing a hallucination, if I remember correctly.

Essentially correct, James Woods accused her of making the whole thing up.  Again, 9/10s of the facts are conveniently ignored to make a point, a point the original author never voiced nor would have acceded to.

Again, you make the mistake of conflating Wood's intentions and actions regarding Arroway, with Zemickis's intentions to us the audience.  

NoCoPilot wrote:

Palmer Joss, by stopping her from being selected as the original Machine passenger, proves that "believing in God" is important (to him, to the plot, to the world) because 95% of the world believes while she does not.  There is no mention of the fact that 95% of the world is not PhDs, or 95% of the world is not scientists, or 95% of the world is not super-intelligent.  If they truly wanted a "representative example" of the race they would have selected a barkeep from Queens.  Nope, it was RELIGION that was made the plotpoint, religion that must be respected, religion that must be given equal weight with science when science comes up short on one tiny evidence-string. The whole fulcrum on which Zemeckis balanced his movie is that "science and religion can coexist rather than being opposing camps."

Nonsense. Once again.... like the exmples I've pointed out above, you are telling us Zemickis is telling us his philosophy, yet you are using Palmer's stopping her being selected as if it was Zemickis trying to convince us of his philosophy. Palmer was a preacher and believer. He was an adviser to the panel who voted to have an appropriate representative from Earth... The panel of voters were predominately religiously faith-biased and believed a representative should believe in God. Then Skerrit's character Drumlin was voted in because he was willing to lie, or at least be coniving enough to tell the panel what they wanted to hear. That he believed in God. This was a cynical move, both on Drumlin's part, but also on the scriptwriter's part. If the objective for Zemickis was to show that Faithand science are both okay, why do so in such a underhanded way? Crumlin is then accidentally killed by a religious fanatic. That is supposed to reveal faith and science as both equal? Arroway eventually gets to be the representative anyway, regardless of the panel in Washington.

If Zemickis was really trying to show how faith and science can co-exist, choosing to have a faith-biased congressional panel vote a deceiving disingenuous "believer-science guy" to represent humanity, only to have an religious fundamentalist blow both him and himself and countless others to kingdom come... is a very weird and twisted, cynical way of showing it.

NoCoPilot wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

Okay, sure... I agree. So where in the film does the ascription to intention occur?

On the beach, when the alien in the body of her dad indicates that many civilizations have gone through what hers is going through, that they join an intergalactic League of Nations by learning to travel space (with the aid of wormholes), that this pathway is somehow predetermined and inevitable.

Nice try. The pre-determined aspect you mention from his dialogue, you are taking out of context. The alien/father was simply saying a superior old and extinct alien race was responsible for the wormhole highways that they inherited. He in no way suggests that this is always or was always inevitable. Your seem to purposely be misconstruing his message to Arroway.

NoCoPilot wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

Where did you read that religious conservatives rewrote parts of the script?

Here.

I read it. I couldn't find any mention of religious conservaties being responsible for any re-writes. I'm starting to think you are deliberately pulling my leg.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Wikipedia wrote:

"The first script [for Contact] I saw was great until the last page and a half," Zemeckis recalled. "And then it had the sky open up and these angelic aliens putting on a light show and I said, 'That's just not going to work.'"

You took this out of context. He was referring to a previous re-write he had been offered. He had been considered more than once for the project and rejected it the first time.[/quote]

You are correct in most points, including pulling your leg. On watching Contact again I found it much more ambiguous than I remembered. I was trying to describe my previous reaction to it, basically. I still feel that interpretation is in there -- Zemeckis hedged his bets by including all interpretations -- but you're right of course, science is the ultimate winner over faith in the movie for anybody who chooses to believe that interpretation.

SAI2 wrote:

NoCoPilot wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

Okay, sure... I agree. So where in the film does the ascription to intention occur?

On the beach, when the alien in the body of her dad indicates that many civilizations have gone through what hers is going through, that they join an intergalactic League of Nations by learning to travel space (with the aid of wormholes), that this pathway is somehow predetermined and inevitable.

Nice try. The pre-determined aspect you mention from his dialogue, you are taking out of context. The alien/father was simply saying a superior old and extinct alien race was responsible for the wormhole highways that they inherited. He in no way suggests that this is always or was always inevitable. Your seem to purposely be misconstruing his message to Arroway.

Okay, here's a better example I just thought of. Arroway's father tells her, then Joss tells her, and finally at the end of the film she tells her students: "If it's just us, that'd be a terrible waste of space, wouldn't it?"

This implies that space is here for a reason, and that reason is to be admired and occupied by intelligent life.

If that isn't "creation with a purpose" I don't know what is.

NoCoPilot wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

NoCoPilot wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

Okay, sure... I agree. So where in the film does the ascription to intention occur?

On the beach, when the alien in the body of her dad indicates that many civilizations have gone through what hers is going through, that they join an intergalactic

League of Nations by learning to travel space (with the aid of wormholes), that this pathway is somehow predetermined and inevitable.

Nice try. The pre-determined aspect you mention from his dialogue, you are taking out of context. The alien/father was simply saying a superior old and extinct alien race was responsible for the wormhole highways that they inherited. He in no way suggests that this is always or was always inevitable. Your seem to purposely be misconstruing his message to Arroway.

Okay, here's a better example I just thought of. Arroway's father tells her, then Joss tells her, and finally at the end of the film she tells her students: "If it's just us, that'd be a terrible waste of space, wouldn't it?"

This implies that space is here for a reason, and that reason is to be admired and occupied by intelligent life.

If that isn't "creation with a purpose" I don't know what is.

One can also take this as atheist tongue and cheek depnding on who says it and in what context. Arroway's father and Arroway say it this way: the idea being why would a creator create a universe so vast, so immense, SO HUGE... with billions and billions of stars... only to put us here on a teensy weensy granule in one corner of it? Waste of space = absurdity of the idea of a creator.

If Palmer or a religious character says it, then we could maybe infer what you are saying from it.

SAI2 wrote:

NoCoPilot wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

NoCoPilot wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

Okay, sure... I agree. So where in the film does the ascription to intention occur?

On the beach, when the alien in the body of her dad indicates that many civilizations have gone through what hers is going through, that they join an intergalactic League of Nations by learning to travel space (with the aid of wormholes), that this pathway is somehow predetermined and inevitable.

Nice try. The pre-determined aspect you mention from his dialogue, you are taking out of context. The alien/father was simply saying a superior old and extinct alien race was responsible for the wormhole highways that they inherited. He in no way suggests that this is always or was always inevitable. Your seem to purposely be misconstruing his message to Arroway.

Okay, here's a better example I just thought of.  Arroway's father tells her, then Joss tells her, and finally at the end of the film she tells her students: "If it's just us, that'd be a terrible waste of space, wouldn't it?"

This implies that space is here for a reason, and that reason is to be admired and occupied by intelligent life.

If that isn't "creation with a purpose" I don't know what is.

One can also take this as atheist tongue and cheek depnding on who says it and in what context. Arroway's father and Arroway say it this way: the idea being why would a creator create a universe so vast, so immense, SO HUGE... with billions and billions of stars... only to put us here on a teensy weensy granule in one corner of it? Waste of space = absurdity of the idea of a creator.

If Palmer or a religious character says it, then we could maybe infer what you are saying from it.

Now you're reaching.

I just re-watched "Contact," after my recent brush with "2001" brought it back into my consciousness.

I still agree with everything written six years ago. The movie's a travesty of science because it elevates religion to co-equal status, and I think Carl (who died during pre-production) would have been horrified. Dr. Arroway experiences a journey through the wormhole which she finds akin to a religious or transformational experience, and because she was the only one to experience it, this makes her experience on the same level as other peoples' religious experiences?

Balderdash.

For all the reasons mentioned.

However, I WILL concede, in my present more-tolerant worldview (what, you didn't notice?) that many scientific experiences are equally as remarkable, on their own merits, as religious experiences. The beauty of a snow-covered landscape, the marvel of a parasite-host relationship, the act of falling in love. If Sagan should be remembered for ANYTHING, it's his view that the world is as magical as any supernatural depiction, and a little awe and humility in the face of it is not out of place.

A lesson, by the way, that Stanley Kubrick seems to have missed entirely, which may indeed be why, as I speculated, Sagan felt compelled to rewrite the "2001" ending.