Topic: Contact (1997)

[lyonsden5]

We Have our 1st Movie. Per Touti's request I'm starting the discussion thread, even though I'm not ready to discuss   



The exciting adventure of the day we make contact with life beyond earth comes to the screen with a profound sense of wonder and a dazzling visual sweep that extends to the outer reaches of space and the imagination. Jodie Foster is astronomer Ellie Arroway, a woman of science. Matthew McConaughey is religious scholar Palmer Joss, a man of faith. They're opposite ends of a spectrum - and sudden players on the world stage as the countdown to humanity's greatest journey begins. Powerfully, thrillingly and emotionally, 'Contact' connects.

Directed by
Robert Zemeckis       
 
Writing Credits
Carl Sagan (novel)

Carl Sagan (story) and
Ann Druyan (story)

James V. Hart (screenplay) and
Michael Goldenberg (screenplay)



Gonna watch the movie before I make any comments. Should be ready to go tomorrow. Feel free to start without me.

[Lopek]

  Great choice of first movie people. Thanks Rick for pointing me in the right direction.

This was THE movie that made me buy my first DVD player back in the early days. I bought it on VHS ( ), watched it once and the next day went and bought a DVD drive for my computer and the DVD so I could enjoy the better quality and see the extras. It remains one of my favourite films, and is undoubtedly the most watched DVD in my collection.

There are so many things about the film that I love, I don't know where to start. Great performances by the 3 leads - Jodie Foster, Matthew McConaughey and Tom Skeritt, a fantastic score from Alan Silvestri, brilliant cinematography... the list goes on. I was hooked from that fantastic first scene pulling back to show the Earth, Galaxy etc. with the aging music and sound.... 

It is however, the central theme, the debate between science and religion that makes this such a fantastic film for me. It is a debate that I find fascinating - which I partake in regularly with friends and family - and I think Contact really deals with it in sensible and balanced way as whole - bearing in mind who our "hero" of the piece is.

I also think the DVD itself is great for it's time (I have the R2UK but believe the extras are pretty consistent everywhere). I am not really a commentary fan, but have watched Contact more than once with the commentaries as they are a fascinating listen. Elsewhere the documentary and production notes are interesting, though not as strong imo. I think it was a standout DVD for it's time - certainly the best in my collection until The Matrix came along.

[Touti]

The religious vs science debate does take most of the place in the movie but although it's an important issue it goes alongside two other ones which are no less important and complicated.  There is the public vs private struggle about funding the research and also the military or scientific control of the projects.

I find it actually quite interesting that in the end, the representative on the religion side seems to work hand in hand with the military which definitely has and agenda that does not correspond to religious values.

[SailorRipley]

I find it actually quite interesting that in the end, the representative on the religion side seems to work hand in hand with the military which definitely has and agenda that does not correspond to religious values.

I had completely forgotten about this, so true. Even though there are a lot of issues concerning religion and faith in the film, this little tidbit makes it worth of a second look. I don't think the movie intends to point the finger at religion, although it seems critical of politicized religion, something which, on a personal note, I'm against.

I was around 23 when this film came out, and I remember being extremely critical of religion at that time. Coming from a Jewish family, religion has always been, for me, something that it's *there* but not something that I necessarily agreed on. I was also somewhat dubious of faith, what is faith, how does it work, is it just a fantasy world created for adults or something that we must cherish in our human condition. Well, this film actually made me think about it in a large degree.

It's just a very simple exchange of words between the Jodie Foster & McConaughey characters, where she challenges him to prove the existence of God. He answers in a very simply fashion: "Did you love your father?". She answers yes. He challenges: "Prove it". Well that made me shut my mouth for quite a while. I think it says a lot about each of us, about what we perceive as the truth. I would dare to say that since that day, I learned to appreciate faith even more, and faith from every kind of religion, that is human and is simple. Politicized religion, on the hand, is far too complicated and usually carries a bigger agenda of its own.

[lyonsden5]

Fell asleep last night half way through  Will finish it today. 

[Kathy]

I haven’t seen this movie in many years. It is based on a novel by Carl Sagan who I have always adored (yes I did read the book first!). Sagan’s passion, knowledge, and enthusiasm about science and space were captivating.

On a personal level, my father did scientific research analyzing the material brought back to earth. I can still remember holding in my hands something that had come from so far away. I was  fascinated, still am.

When the movie first came out it was the adventure of space travel, wanting to see Carl Sagan’s book to life that led me to the theater. I did not comprehend at the time the subtle themes that are woven throughout the film – religion –politics – economics. Time lends itself to interesting changes in perception.

Thank you for the motivation to revisit Contact. 

[Touti]

I don't want to spoil anything for Rick so I'll wait until he's finished watching because commenting.

[Kathy]

When I read statements like the following I want to discuss them further. I understand that these topics are sensitive – but once the statement, question, or ideas are out there I want to know more. I posted a note regarding this in the suggestion box and would be interested in the thoughts of others.

Lopek:
…the debate between science and religion that makes this such a fantastic film for me. It is a debate that I find fascinating…


SailorRipley:
I don't think the movie intends to point the finger at religion, although it seems critical of politicized religion, something which, on a personal note, I’m against.

I think it says a lot about each of us, about what we perceive as the truth.


Touti:
The religious vs science debate…alongside two other ones which are no less important and complicated…the public vs private struggle about funding the research and also the military or scientific control of the projects.

[Najemikon]

I watched this again tonight, to catch up. I hadn't seen it in some time and had forgotten what a subtle, adult and beautiful film it can be.

I too have always found the arguments between religion and science fascinating and frustrating at the same time. Although it isn't addressed directly in the film, I also felt themes resonate that I have felt for some time: the arrogance of mankind.

When Ellie lets the world in on her discovery, several factions try to claim it and control it. Through fear, maybe, but that's what I see in mankind all the time. As a race, we simply don't have the ability to study something and accept it for what it is. The state of the environment is testament to that and these current notions of "paying back" our carbon footprints. It's all just another control method, as if we have the keys to nature. If we all just took a step back and slowed down, things would start making sense again.

I found it interesting that the two main characters were sort of two sides of the same coin. Palmer Joss has faith in God fully, but has excused himself from the more restrictive elements of religion (and I believe that is the difference between faith and religion); Ellie is a committed scientist, yet doesn't go so far as to try and decide exactly what the message will result in (her purpose is built on a personal quest?). They both fear without preconception what she might discover and in that moment, are equal. Their arguments don't matter, because they both accept the limitations and possibilities of their viewpoints, unlike their peers. Towards the end, they have both reached a new understanding (Palmer: "I believe her"), while those around them can't see "small steps".

From an early age, I was disappointed by how religion was presented to me. That I should believe in the existence of God without proof seemed absurd. Much of the Bible seemed, and still does seem, contrived. It's said the Bible contains all the answers, but all the answers seem to be "because I said so, so there". I know I'm being flippant, but I'll come to why.

I was also disappointed by science. How can you explain away the inherent beauty in the world in such cold terms? Neither side seems willing to give or take, so I suppose I sit right on the fence called agnostic! Therefore this film seems very personal to me. And the fact it's a film, means I'm not the only one. It's like millions of us are really in on the joke, while the media, governments and corporations still continue to exploit the more extreme ideas.

I first watched the film when the DVD was released. Since then, I lost my Dad to cancer. His death was sudden and cruel, and three years later still haunts me. If I were to ask a vicar why my Dad's life was cut short, he would likely tell me something similar to what Ellie heard. That doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

So obviously, the film held a deeper meaning for me this time around. Especially her losing her dad, although she is able to reason it quite quickly. In the face of ambiguous religion and God's great plan, she wishes they'd kept the medicine closer to hand! Even so, I see even more of myself in Ellie this time. She's taking those small steps, hoping to understand, not influence, what goes on around her.

I suppose I can sum up my outlook like, "I don't know what's going to happen or why, but I want to be there when it does!" I feel the film has that same viewpoint.

EDIT: Sorry I rambled on. I'd forgotten about certain elements in the film, and underestimated it. It got me thinking way past my bedtime again!

[SailorRipley]

You did not ramble at all! Thank you for you comments, Jon, deeply felt and honest.

I find a lot of truth in your comment regarding how as a race we don't have the ability to accept things for what they are. It all must be in the damn interpretation, right down to the countless interpretations of why we are here, the theological or scientific interpretations of millions. Or maybe each one of those count.

The Ellie character is fully fleshed in that regard, of course she seeks 'the truth', but in her own personal, inner feelings. Much like Sagan was, Ellie is a deeply committed scientist but also a very human being, her research is firmly footed on emotion, not coldness, religion consideration nor war mongering. It's not, I think, for science's sake, but for her own, personal view of the truth.

Facts are usually open for interpretation, that is, I believe, the way it should be. After all, each of us have different kind of insights into different matters, be science, religion, faith. Our problem could be the groups that try harder each time to fight for what they believe is right, and their interpretation of the truth. This is where scientists and theologists clash, time after time. And the concept of course expands itself into a larger degree, religion vs. religion, theory against theory. All because no one wants to drop the ball and accept that there are hundreds of beliefs, each with their own fact. Fact for the religious, a mythical fact. Fact for the science, a logical fact. But facts nonetheless or so we believe.

Our hero scientist in the film is unable, unwilling to give in to global facts, it's a personal journey. "What do you see, Ellie?", they ask when she goes on the first trip. She fails to give in a concrete description of what she is witnessing. "Poetry", she says. "You should have brought a poet". I think this little moment is one of the most revealing, deep statements of the film. Who can say what a fact is? The logical, cold minded? The mythical, faith-based? Or the emotional, the awe-inspiring thing that makes humans be humans?

All are allowed, but it is the one, personal feel of each of us, that will make for our own truth. And each will be different, probably. "The universe is a pretty big place". I'll drink to that.

[Touti]

This movie can be discussed on so many different levels that I don't know where to start and how to properly write this.  I wish I had Sailorripley's talent for writing.

It's interesting that the movie actually discusses faith, not religion.  Religions are nothing but organized groups trying to tell people what they should believe in and setting rules for them to live buy.  The level of "fanatism" in it is the delimiter between a religion and a sect.  Faith can survive without religion but the opposite is not necessarily true.  To me it is important that the movie concentrates on Faith and ignores religions because that completely changes the dynamic around the selection comittee.  You have to select an individual who is going to represent humanity, you want someone who believes in God because 95% of the population does.........but which God ?

Do you send a Catholic, a Lutherian, Muslim, Buddhist ?  Wouldn't it make more sense to send a scientist, someone who doesn't believe in any God, doesn't adhere to any religion but can objectively explain what they are ?  The movie is a bit flawed in that regards because things would not happen the way they're shown.  A selection comittee, formed of representaties from many countries would not pick someone who "believes in God", each member would want someone who believes in the same God as his people because for them there is only one God and he's the one that should be represented.

Faith vs Science.  Is that the real issue or isn't the issue Religion vs Science.  This is not about the science that tries to find a cure for cancer or aids, the science that doubled life expectancy within 200 years or the science that discovers new planets and understands more about the universe every day.  The debate in this movie is the one that's been going on since Darwin wrote the theory of evolution.  Did God create the Universe and all life in it or is it a natural phenomenon.  This is religious issue because it is religions who have these books telling us that god created the earth and all life in it.   One can believe in a superior being and also believe in natural evolution, faith and science are not incompatible, religion and science are.  I could go on like that for a long time but I'll wait and see where the discussion heads.

[Najemikon]

At this point I think it is worth mentioning a story a friend told me years ago. He and his family are Hindu and if you know anything about their religion, you'll know it's incredibly strict, but also, to us at least, very strange!

For instance, when they get married, invitations are sent out from the grooms great-grandparents. Fair enough, but they died in India decades ago! After the ceremony, the bride is not allowed to have contact with her parents for a week. There's also something about watching a pan of milk boil over. Why? I don't know! Finally, their God is actually alive, living in a temple in India. Where, despite his status as a deity, he is being investigated as a paedophile. 

Despite all these quirks, I find them to be more open than Christian's I've talked to. In fact we were talking one day about all these unusual customs and how an underlying flaw of religion is the fact that no matter how hard you believe, your neighbour is just as reliant on an altogether different custom.

He told me, that you should think of all the worlds religions and faiths as a single glass bottle that was broken. Each culture came along and chose a piece of the broken bottle and applied their own meanings and customs. Some pieces are bigger than others, some so tiny they are almost insignificant. But they all belong to that same original bottle. Many religions have forgotten this and think that their piece is whole thing.

I can't remember if he claimed this as his own, or if it is taught as part of Hinduism. Whichever, it doesn't matter. It's always made sense to me somehow.

[lyonsden5]

njoyed reading all of the comments so far. Some interesting points. 

I'm going to start by saying I am NOT a Jodie Foster fan. There is something about her the I just don't like. Could be the voice. After watching this movie.... my feelings about her haven't changed

The presentation itself was great. I had never watched it on DVD. Good picture. Great sound. The surround mix was pretty good. Not exactly reference material but enough effects to make it a good experience.

The casting was good. While "I" don't like Jodie Foster I know there are many who do. I would have enjoyed it more if the roles were reversed and Mathew McConaughey was the scientist. I did have some problems with the character of Ellie (JF). She was way too emotional and flew off the handle too fast. There is no way anyone who spent their life sitting with a set of headphones on listening.... clicking to the next band.....listening......click.....listen.....click....(you get the idea) day after day, year after year would be that short fused. I understand (or at least hope) it was supposed to show the character's passion, but to me it came off as an inconsistency.

Tom Skerritt played the corporate guy who needs the spotlight great. He never changed his attitude toward JF. He never acknowledged she was right and he was wrong about her obsessive pursuit.

The story itself was better than I remembered, but I have to get some work done. I'll post more about it later today but here are my initial thoughts.

Enjoyed the science vs. faith aspect.

Always amazed at the vastness of the universe and the endless possibilities of what could be out there.

Talk more later.

[Najemikon]

You don't like Jodie? 

Your comments about her character highlights a very interesting point though. Rather than flawed, I see the contrast as logical; her emotional state, the way she treats Parker and needing help to get a dress, all demonstrate that she is uncomfortable with people and fragile. She is only at peace when she is listening to static. Only passionate when talking about her job. Think of the scene where John Hurt relates all the information about her. Not only does she panic slightly, but he pauses the film on her face. Perhaps demonstrating his complete control of her. She has to continue the conversation with a huge image of herself in the background, which I think would be unsettling for anyone, but especially her.

I've seen it before in films, but can't think of examples! Characters who work with animals are sometimes shown as aggressive toward people, and relaxed with bunnies. 

It makes sense for Ellie. She's grown up alone, losing her father and never knowing her mother. She'll have felt like an outcast all her life. Sub-conciously, is this why she is obsessed with finding life on other planets, because she is unable to form relationships on this one?

And this is why it had to be a woman. When Ellie sleeps with Parker, but then doesn't call him back, it demonstrates her detachment from reality. If Parker were the scientist, the audience would consider him a bastard for treating her like that.

[Touti]

Ellie is a person who needs to prove something and who seeks recognition.  She not only wants to be recognized, she also wants to get there on her own and her attitude toward Hadden is probably due the the fact that she needs him but doesn't want to.  She's been fighting all her life to prove something and being helped by someone else makes it less of a success for her.