WATCH NOW
I, and the Science Gone Wordy blogger, have returned with another addition to our post series. This time I am returning to the genre that started it all – sci-fi. We aim to set our vision on the one person who made the word ‘Cosmos’ part of American English in the 80s. To quote Wikipedia, he was a novelist and also was “American astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist, author, science popularizer, and science communicator in astronomy and natural sciences.” His name was Carl Sagan.
His PBS miniseries made him famous, and not his wildly popular science book. In fact, Cosmos: A Personal Voyage was the program that transformed another cardinal number into the pop culture catchphrase “billions and billions” of the time. His sci-fi book, Contact, which is about the contact between humans and aliens, became a national bestseller in 1985.
As always, my colleague will analyze the novel which was later enacted as a movie after twelve years, which I will critique. You will find Rachel’s book review here:
A quick summary of the movie: Dr. Eleanor Arroway is perfectly suited for a role in which she will thrive. “Ellie”, a radio astronomer, has been interested in life that exists on the most distant planets for as long as she can remember. For someone like her who has always been inclined towards such things, she is a passionate, but rather frustrated advocate for science and the wisdom which such explorations need. So, when a remote radio transmission is sent to Earth from the region surrounding the Vega star, Ellie and her loyal comrades have no trouble separating the signal from the noise and the stupidity of the skepticism. However, buried within the broadcast is a coded message; an invitation, of sorts. An extraordinary one, that requires, for lack of a better term, a leap of faith to accept.
“I know you must find the situation harsh. That may qualify as an understatement. However, what you do not know is I do understand. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a place where the bottom line was everything was fair? Where your idealism shown during the hearing was not used as a means to gain advantage? But sadly, we do not live there.”
Ever since its 1997 release, I have watched Robert Zemeckis ‘s Contact no less than half a dozen times. Every subsequent viewing reveals something new. What was uncovered this time, you ask? It was the understatement of the Space Shuttle that was in orbit on the first interception of the Vega signal. It was Endeavour. Which, like always, cruised our city streets last year enroute towards its home. It’s all in keeping with the film that continues to fascinate me.
I’ll admit I have been too harsh in critiquing Robert Zemeckis’s works since the Y2K rollover. Admittedly, bilateral criticism stems from excessive reliance on computer animation. Where did his questionable creative choices come from? Was it the overly ambitious experiments in animation blending him from the 21st-century cinema? He made me think I was watching some zombie manifestation way before every other filmmaker did something similar. I know I am being harsh on the man. Criminy, we can all agree there’s no such thing as having too much Tom Hanks in a single movie.
After watching his more recent films, all I can think about is how refreshing 1997’s Contact was, and it is something some of us do. What I think is possible, Zemeckis’s latter stuff pales. What did Zemeckis do after this movie? What Lies Beneath in 2000. Case closed.
robert-zemeckisCarl Sagan’s first fictional novel is one of those rare films adaptations that actually translated well onto cinema. Sagan, as always, decided to mix everything with so much reality and extremely engrossing concept of how real first ever contact with aliens would truly take place which is undeniably interesting. To a sufficient extent, I think, he had made his best guess a wonderful spell for both science aficionados and normal folks, which I did right before this latest revisit. Zemeckis and crew may have done it one better by distilling the book’s essence down into two and a half hour movie experience.
Without a doubt, this film is no lack of adventure. Is it worth one’s time? Sagan’s idea suggests so, but I say it is situational. The movie provided a surprisingly fair argument between religion and science, faith and reason. Writers James V. Hart and Michael Goldenberg did a tremendously good job with the adaptation. Yes, the movie does use special effects (Zemeckis’ intro for the film surely a worthy effort), but, in some cases, they fully achieve their purpose. These effects have less to do with looking fantastic (I have been influenced by Irish crime novels, I believe) and more on aiding in storytelling.
Reflecting upon the book and the movie, it is easy to note the major differences, omissions and alterations that were made in this particular adaptation. It isn’t surprising, but I was more impressed by the director’s and writers’ approach with the source material this time around. Certainly, when it set out the political landscape of the time, it sought to condense the narrative into a Bill Clinton frame. This framed the tale in a manner that almost ‘locked’ the film into a point in time that back then could have been considered detrimental as soon as the year 2000 Presidential Election loomed.
Well, I would say that was a good thing. Hindsight, go figure. Yes, I will be talking in terms of mixed tone and language throughout this review. So? Just another captivating component. The tale’s screenplay also advanced the notion of Occam’s Razor in the narrative as a means of rationally slashing not only Ellie’s counterpart (and love interest) but also the protagonist herself by the same reasoning in the course of her journey. Besides, any aficionado of Pirates of the Caribbean would surely grasp the principle, the ‘razor’ which is employed to slash the irrelevant was in any way (this includes paraphrasing)
These remarks aside, the film, just like the novel, provided astounding zeal to the science showcased to support its speculative fiction. The film surely tried to remain as rooted in the dashed hopes of reality as the novel did — Arecibo Observatory, Puerto Rico and New Mexico’s Very Large Array in Socorro for tried to make the best out of it. But especially so when it came to the actions of the characters, good and bad. And with a cast as richly endowed as this — Matthew McConaughey, James Woods, Tom Skerritt, William Fichtner, John Hurt, Angela Bassett and David Morse. Why would it not be so?
Contact, of course, lives or dies with its star Jodie Foster for the film viewer.
If you don’t think she is a passionate and brilliant scientist, then no one watching will believe it, whether they are from Earth or beyond. I think she was able to manage it, but the comparisons with her iconic character from eight years prior, Silence of the Lambs, did appear a bit over the top in this particular production. No doubt, an element film directors ‘modified’ from that of the source material.
Let’s go ahead and check them out, shall we? She was raised by a widowed father who unfortunately passed away far too soon. [check] She is quite young, stunningly beautiful, extremely intelligent and competes against male counterparts in a relatively uninviting industry. [double-check] Assisted through the hurdles with genius level interludes with his rebel benefactor. No, not Hannibal, S.R. Hadden. A John Hurt munching on scenery as good, if not better, than Anthony Hopkins as Lecter. It seems pretty clear, doesn’t it?
Things only got better. Give her the Jame Gumb to get past, and were set alongside William Fichtner’s portrayal of her calm and collected confidant Ardelia Mapp. Starting with Tom Skerritt’s take on the envious and prickly (or should we just say prick?) David Drumlin, why don’t we have James Woods’ scheming Michael Kitz join this version as Paul Krendler’s nemesis? With the addition of Paul Krendler, we’ve almost got the other half of the puzzle set. Finally, have William Fichtner pose as her steady confidant Ardelia Mapp – believe me, it works here and you could easily map this all out so anyone mistakenly calling our heroine Clarice wouldn’t raise an eyebrow.
I feel like that harshness is creeping back again. That should not be the case as I have a particular affection towards the creative Zemeckis intervention in the Sagan tale. On his side Dell’s big daddy Palmer Joss played in more spectacularly then it is described on Carl’s page, even if it was in condensed form. His Early work, for example, is one of the best works of Matthew McConaughey as a Thorn Brand where he played Ellie’s charismatic romantic context is Religion vs Science better. As a whole the film remains an engaging enterprise care of the craft employed by a director (on a roll before the wheels came off) and a great cast that delivered on an unexpected tale, even all these years later.
I guess that in itself has merit considering that science fiction fans would say that Contact was the least typical for that genre. That is certainly for the best. The quality movie fans have come to expect from Hollywood of late is certainly not within ear shot of anyone’s ‘thinking’ meter, especially for teenage boys. No wonder Sagan chose to lift the caliber of the story by telling it from the perspective of a smart women protagonist.
No villainous extraterrestrials (who often behave like human beings) seeking to conquer would be in need of any land or resources. No bold Earthlings with ray guns, implanting chest-bursting embryos, chiseling absurd computer viruses to upload into an alien mothership (yes, I’m looking at you Independence Day) are required either. This film seemed more concerned with providing a heart and soul for the purpose of discovery than for anything else. More a character study of those on the receiving end of a star radio transmission, editing hope versus fear.
To watch more movies like visit Contact (1997) 123movies.
