Skip to main content

In all our searching, the only thing we’ve found that makes the emptiness bearable is each other.

Contact
(1997)

(SPOILERS) Robert Zemeckis’ life-affirming, spiritually agnostic cousin to Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar, Contact even shares Matthew McConaughey, whose career disappeared into a wormhole and, rather than 18 hours, arrived reinvigorated 17 years later. This is Zemeckis’ attempt at big, weighty science fiction, tackling serious themes in an adult manner, and it half works. Like Interstellar, his adaptation of Carl Sagan’s 1985 novel (originally devised as a screenplay) ultimately pulls its punches, dodging anything truly powerful, inspirational or insightful in favour of a non-committal, humanist shrug.


Interstellar found McConaughey bouncing around down the back of his daughter’s bookcase, a message from beyond reduced to the wholesome patness of familial connectivity. Contact does exactly the same thing with its grand finale, as Jodie Foster’s Dr Ellie Arroway is flung far across the universe to a psychedelic beach where she chinwags with aliens (or does she?) in the form of her much-missed father.


And what profound nuggets do these “aliens” hasten to impart? Bugger any: “In all our searching, the only thing we’ve found that makes the emptiness bearable is each other”. Which is very convenient and reassuring for science, that there’s nothing remotely threatening to established doctrine out there. Sagan was agnostic about such things, which is fine for a theoretician, but for a writer of science fiction it reduces to a simple paucity of imagination.


Kubrick went for show don’t tell in 2001: A Space Odyssey, leaving it to the viewer to reach their own conclusions regarding obelisks and apes, Star Children and trippy light shows. Light shows Zemeckis homages with Ellie’s less spaced-out trip. Far more effective on a purely visual level is the opening pull back, once we reach beyond the Remembrance of the Daleks-like sound bites and into the silent vastness of space (what a thing to be accused of imitating: Sylvester McCoy era Doctor Who). Of course, then we emerge from the eye of Ellie as a child (Jena Malone, now a star in her own right). 


This cycle of completion sums the film up, pretty much. You need watch no further. It’s a visual homily. We are within, we are without. Needless to say, there are less treacly ways of presenting such concepts (particularly with Alan Silvestri’s overtly sentimental score having a strong say in the matter). What we get is reductive, small, cosy, digestible. Not in the least bit challenging.


Palmer Joss: I’m not against technology, only the men who deify it at the expense of truth.

Of which, McC’s Palmer Joss, love interest and spiritual enquirer, pops up every half hour or so to lay out fairly rudimentary philosophical arguments that end up belying Contact’s conceit of being truly intelligent fare (he needs Occam’s Razor explained to him!) He’s too good to be true, and never really settles in as either a believable character or even just as a foil for Ellie. And McC, as fine as he and his wig are, hasn’t yet really grown into himself at this point. He’s still in the throes of that first blush of fame, a period that saw a run of major directors not-really making the most of him; here he’s a jock playing a smart guy. As a result, the discursion on the consequences of extra-terrestrial contact is more keenly played out elsewhere.


Ellie: I think it’s great that you listen. Most people don’t do that anymore.

When a priest offers young Ellie meaningless aphorisms regarding her father being in a better place now, she responds with materialist logic (“If his medicine had been downstairs, he wouldn’t have died”); that’s also the level the movie as a whole is working at, too designed to present polar arguments but with precious little nuance. Most of the dialogue is purloined from obvious student debating team subjects, such as life being out there (“If there wasn’t, it would be an awful lot of space”) and the relationship between spirit and material progress (“Is the world fundamentally a better place because of science and technology?”)


Ellie: Because I can’t. I had an experience.

Alien-father David Morse essentially takes the position of the religious leader, converting Ellie to the cause; like a zealot he imparts knowledge that just is (the first step method of contact is “the way its been done for billions of years”) and she is left espousing to a committee of inquiry her unprovable faith that something happened.


Zemeckis crudely fashions this such that Ellie, the scientist, may as well be testifying to belief in God or the state of being Born Again. She’s a true believer, relaying inclusive emotive doctrine for all regarding “how rare and precious we all are”, that there is something out there greater than ourselves, none of us is alone and how, like a fundamentalist door stepper “I wish I could share that”. I don’t doubt it was seen as a clever reversal by the makers, but it’s a little too elementally insincere, like everything here. By laying out it’s subject matter on the surface this way, Contact becomes inelegant, despite the veneer of classiness and diligence Zemeckis brings to the production. As Kitz quips, “That’s very neat, doctor. You have no proof because they didn’t want you to have any”. It’s the closest the picture gets to a meta-statement of the makers’ intent. It means that, for all its clinging tightly to an emotional core, Contact is actually quite offhand and remote.


Ellie: Mathematics is the only true, universal language, senator.

That’s not to denigrate what Contact gets right. James Woods’ senator Kitz is immediately at loggerheads over Ellie announcing the contact to the world as it “may constitute a breach of national security”. Rob Lowe’s conservative Christian is most concerned that “We don’t even know if they believe in God”, and the exploration of the effect on accepted values – even disregarding the spiritual-cosmic as the picture ultimately does – incorporates worthwhile scrutiny of rigid belief systems and how they would surely be rocked by such developments, both in the material and religious communities.


The crowds camped out at the dishes are accompanied by a very post-Forrest Gump Zemeckis medley of such thematically selected tunes as Purple People Eater and Spirit in the Sky, and include whackos with amusing banners (“Hitler lives on Vega”) but the sequence also gives us our first taste of Jake Busey’s religious nutter. Nominally, he’s a villain, but his desire to remain in a state of ignorant bliss (we have to have this spelled out, of course; “What if they simply revealed that He never existed in the first place?”) proves to be Ellie’s salvation, so really he’s a good guy, taking down Tom Skerritt’s outrageously career-advancing Drumlin (who snatches the credit, and trip to see the aliens, from Ellie’s grasp having initially nixed her funding).


It isn’t only the religious who have a bone to pick; making the machine becomes “The most expensive human project in the whole of history” (that’s why secret space programmes require black budgets!) We witness the vested and not-so-vested interests on all sides, and the screenplay from James V Hart and Michael Goldenberg is diligent in addressing the hows and whyfores whereby such an event wouldn’t necessarily be all rainbows and roses.


Director: Ellie, the IPV dropped straight through the machine. You didn’t go anywhere.

As a piece of filmmaking too, glacially paced but incrementally engrossing, Zemeckis’ film is hard to beat. From the terrific harmonic sound effects down, albeit perhaps a little to reminiscent of the probe in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, the picture manages to communicate the sense of a world pregnant with discovery, the idea of something vast and impressive and palpable knocking at the door.


Many of the twists and turns are supremely satisfying. The swastika pull back into a transmission of Hitler at the 1936 Berlin Olympics is a chilling and striking one, amusingly put in context by Kitz when he suggests that, rather than “Hello, we heard you”, it means “Sieg Heil, You’re our kind of people”. The 3D communication of the capsule design is a cute reveal too, as is the post-journey deconstruction of what Ellie actually experienced (2001 after the acid burns out), including a public dressing down to conceal that the authorities knew full well the veracity of her evidence (the 18 hours of static video footage, although Zemeckis, hedging his bets, and so firming up the film’s cosy introspection, said the intent was leave doubt as to whether the aliens were real). And the visuals are stunning, from Ellie in the foreground of a satellite array to the CGI-assisted star trekking to the too-late rush to the bathroom cabinet.


Palmer Joss: Would you consider yourself a spiritual person?

Foster’s first film in three years, her “High Priestess of the Desert” is very much in the line of Clarice Starling, a character uncomfortable in her own skin, permanent caught in a state of earnest sincerity. Ellie’s not really all that interesting, though; the daddy issues thing as a spur to discovery is unpersuasive, and one is left comparing the “Why?” of Ellie with the intuitive Roy Neary; consequently, she comes up short. Ellie wants answers, but Close Encounters of the Third Kind is content to leave us on an instinctive yen and the tantalising prospect of unknowable post-credits discoveries, illustrative that, even compared to Spielberg rather than Kubrick, Contact lacks magic.


John Hurt shows up as the Hannibal Lecter figure, a British supporting player offering words of encouragement from his own private cell at crucial junctures. Tom Skerritt is great as the charming but ruthless curse on her career. It’s William Fichtner who who gives the standout turn, though, as Ellie’s blind SETI scientist pal, even if the role isn’t really all that.


By far the weakest element of the picture, and the most awkward and aggravating supporting performance, is then-President Bill Clinton, with Zemeckis indulging Gump-esque tinkering to overlay the impeachable one’s commentary on events into the narrative. It’s one-part liberal fantasy of a benevolent leader (yeah, right), one part being in thrall to technology. Together, it’s plain annoying, indulgent and ill-fitting.


Hart and Goldenberg have experienced mixed success in the screenplay department, the latter contributing to the 2003 Peter Pan and one of four unable to salvage The Green Lantern. Hart, who also petered Pan in the dreadful Hook, has maintained a vaguely philosophical theme to much of his work (Well, perhaps not Sahara), including Epic and the terrific The Last Mimzy. He’s currently collaborating with David Wilcock, thrashing out a screenplay for a movie set to explore our transition to the next density of existence by way of blowing the lid off the damn mysterious secret space programme.


Which sounds interesting, but these things have a tendency to become stranded in development hell. It would at least be a polar opposite approach to Contact, in which Drumlin maintains there will never be contact in her lifetime, or at best there are only noble gases out there, and Ellie’s experience boils down to a confirmed “maybe”. Now we’ll find there’s a monumental cover up, one not even most of NASA knows about, that there are aliens on the moon, in the Earth, and that Nazis had spaceships and bases on Mars. All they need is Doc Savage as their main character to foster a global box office monster.


Although, a few elements in Contact might be seen as precursors to such a project, including covert space programmes (the second building of an ICP), early rumblings about the radar array (some dark military purpose, the locals think), the dovetailing of a swastika with space (the Nazis got there first!) and the idea of master builders (“We didn’t build it. We don’t know who did” alien Dad tells Ellie of the wormhole/transport, which is a cop-out if ever there was one).


Contact essentially occupies the same alien contact territory as any number of afterlife/near death experience movies in contemplating what happens next (including What Dreams May Com, the year after Contact), only able to commit as far as the author is willing to take their imagination or philosophical leanings. It ends up feeling very safe, despite the vast expense and trappings of limitless exploration. The result is too self-consciously scientific, while simultaneously mawkish, pseudo-philosophical and indulgently verbose. But, it is also sporadically dazzling, and it does a fair job of making science nerds heroes (well the main one, the support aren’t all that).


Contact followed Zemeckis’ Oscar glory with Forrest Gump, and its easy to now see a dividing line in his career, where he went from engaged and alert to rather staid and predictable. Nothing since, not his bids for further awards recognition (Castaway) and certainly not his motion capture detour, have been on a par with his ‘80s zenith. Contact had been a long time in the making; it was at various points a go with Roland Joffe and George Miller (who was fired). It cost a lot ($90m) and made less than double that worldwide, so it certainly wasn’t a success to write home about for Warner Bros. There’s a much to be said for those desirous of making serious sci-fi, but Contact and Interstellar both exhibit the tendency to get cold feet, to retreat into the soothing zone of emotional massaging rather than facing down the infinite abyss of the ideas themselves.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

I think World War II was my favourite war.

Small Soldiers (1998)
An off-peak Joe Dante movie is still one chock-a-block full of satirical nuggets and comic inspiration, far beyond the facility of most filmmakers. Small Soldiers finds him back after a six-year big screen absence, taking delirious swipes at the veneration of the military, war movies, the toy industry, conglomerates and privatised defence forces. Dante’s take is so gleefully skewed, he even has big business win! The only problem with the picture (aside from an indistinct lead, surprising from a director with a strong track record for casting juveniles) is that this is all very familiar.

Dante acknowledged Small Soldiers was basically a riff on Gremlins, and it is. Something innocuous and playful turns mad, bad and dangerous. On one level it has something in common with Gremlins 2: The New Batch, in that the asides carry the picture. But Gremlins 2 was all about the asides, happy to wander off in any direction that suited it oblivious to whether the audience was on …

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…