Skip to main content

I didn't kill her. I just relocated her.

The Discovery
(2017)

(SPOILERS) The Discovery assembles not wholly dissimilar science-goes-metaphysical themes and ideas to Douglas Trumbull's ill-fated 1983 Brainstorm, revolving around research into consciousness and the revelation of its continuance after death. Perhaps the biggest discovery, though, is that it’s directed and co-written by the spawn of Malcom McDowell and Mary Steenburgen (the latter cameos) – Charlie McDowell – of hitherto negligible credits but now wading into deep philosophical waters and even, with collaborator Justin Lader, offering a twist of sorts.


As with Brainstorm, a noteworthy aspect of the movie – possibly more so than the relatively modest fact of its existence – is that it has been identified by Aug Tellez, the incredibly expansive and erudite but at times borderline impenetrable cloned insider from the projects (secret, rather than housing) as an example of "soft disclosure". Although, if we’re to believe collective voices in the conspirasphere, pretty much every science fiction (or fantasy genre) creative endeavour ever is an example of soft-or-otherwise disclosure, pretty much every creative endeavour is compromised by the Elite, and nothing really flows forth untrammelled from the minds of just really good filmmakers or writers (since this extends to the authorial texts upon which movies are frequently based)); thus, to really buy into this idea, one must surely assume Archonic influences at work on the baseline of the creative mind itself, which would presumably mean they often remained blissfully – or unblissfully in Philp K Dick’s case – unaware of their being led down a particular path (in Tellez' account, this has been happening since the end of WWII, but by virtue of cloning technology – "everyone you see on TV is a cloned individual" – although, given the tinkering with time he identifies as part and parcel of this reality, perhaps that's not the half of it; albeit, I'm unclear to what extent this is envisaged as altering the collective perception of the past and what extent it is actually doing it. One might debate whether it makes any difference anyway, if this is all a simulation). 


Tellez' main bag is boogling your brainbox with abstruse concepts relating to the manipulation of time and space and the nature of what isn’t reality, but he has also held forth on various mainstream works, doing their bit to lay this out for the layman, from the aforementioned Brainstorm to a range of alt-reality texts (Dark CityThe Matrix) and the reptilian/Archon masters predator-fest that is Jupiter Ascending (lest you think he thinks aliens are behind everything, he doesn’t, which naturally disappoints a fair few on the conspiracy end of the spectrum). Since the minority of these are actually really great movies, one has to speculate, if all this is intent, that the Elite/Archons want them to be failures on purpose, encouraging slow percolation into the general consciousness via the label of cult fare (the motivation being variously acceptance or baiting self-fulfilling prophecies). The Discovery would certainly fit that bill, inconspicuous but for the presence of Robert Redford (hardly a marquee name anymore at eighty anyway) and tucked away in a crate adrift on the boundless sea of Netflix titles.


There's nothing actually very remarkable about The Discovery's content. Its central conceit is tenuous enough that it resists being an instant draw – the idea that, should "scientific proof" of the afterlife be forthcoming, suicides would become an epidemic as disenchanted types offed themselves on the basis there was something affirmatively – if nebulously –  next. Except, those people would presumably need to be largely pre-existing agnostics or atheists, as such a response would surely be a no-no for most religiously (or even just spiritually) minded types. 


Notably, the picture, taking place in very much a restricted, closeted environment, suggesting little appetite for considering this wider context, and the conversations on the themes of life, death and meaning aren’t really all that incisive or profound ("Do animals have an afterlife? And what happens to a child?"); it’s a movie, like most Hollywood movies, where the more profound themes revolve around personalised, subjective values of life and loss rather than identifying with the broader, universal constants (so dad Redford, son Jason Segel and grieving mom Rooney Mara all motivated by grief or remorse, just because it’s an easier shorthand than making them unfettered but remote boffins are seekers). 


Tellez' YouTube discursions are often so densely packed and digressive, they can be bewildering; one has to sacrifice oneself to the general flow rather than get caught up in the minutiae or distracted by his linguistic idiosyncrasies. His take is that The Discovery offers an insight into the secret projects' knowledge of immortality, going on to offer such nuggets as how "the first society was TEMPORALLY-QUANTUM STABILIZED[his emphasis]. If a person died, they’d pop back in the next day!" Deciphering thiswell, I’m not sure who or how was doing the stabilising, but he’s referring to "an instant continuation of life", presumably with no loss of awareness or knowledge, no "reincarnation trap" of the wiping of memory. The Elite – those he lists as controlling the underground bases –  however, can get around this wipe with their technological knowhow, something one might suggest is a source of a variant of soft disclosure in Altered Carbon (you can’t just watch SF to watch SF anymore; it’s all of it a detailing of nefarious intent or practice).


Aug then gets more complicated – as is his wont – with the "second death which is the general collapse of the multi-dimensional system that is separated by quantum or temporal boundaries" (answers on a postcard, but relating to the slavery of the spirit/soul) and multiple universes/timelines being monitored. 


The interesting part of Tellez' postulation isn't so much his assertion that the headgear in the movie – not so far from Brainstorm's in function – is real, but his reading of the picture's conclusion – Redford ponders, based on video feedback of the momentarily or otherwise deceased's experiences "I always said the afterlife is a different plane of existence. But, what if the afterlife is a different plane of this existence?" – is "realising you are already there". Which I may be misinterpreting, but in a picture that’s at pains not to mention reincarnation, is surely alluding to exactly that. Albeit, in the context of the movie, it’s captured as an alternate plane of wish fulfilment comprising one’s atonement for a greatest regret (almost a Lost resort of the most meaningful thing in their lives bringing them back together in a church). Which comes across as somewhat whiffy and very pat, not really very far from your average Bruce Joel Rubin fare (so comparisons to Brainstorm are even more apposite). But in terms of an allusion to actual life, this current one is an afterlife or a rebirth, in Tellez' terms, although if that’s so, he doesn’t get into discussing the in-between state.

 

In strictly plot terms, rather than trying to extract some actual meaning from McDowell's extemporising, Segel's death trip offers an interestingly nightmarish – in the never-ending, unyielding sense – experience, whereby he’s assigned, or assigns himself in a Sisyphean sense, to continually attempting to right a perceived wrong on his part ("How long have I been stuck in this loop?") until he attains release. In this regard, it reminded me slightly of a less visceral, more literal Triangle, although it becomes rather less certain of its rules and conditions when Segel "solves" saving Rooney and is told "Now you’ll go someplace else" (remember, there’s no reincarnation in this take on existence, so once released from a saviour complex, there's only – his own created avatar of a perfect partner? – a, what, self-gratifying personalised "heaven"to progress to?")


The Discovery offers sporadically engaging material in the preceding passages, from Redford's cult, established in an old manor – a staple – with a series of inessential, arbitrary rules designed to enable members’ feelings of self-worth – surely a nod to Scientologywhich makes you wonder, if Tom Cruise is a clone, does that do wonders for clearing his engrams? – to Jesse Plemons acing it as usual as Segel's stoner younger sibling, to Redford well cast playing off his natural personability to reveal a steelier, unyielding, underlying determination. Mara's very much the unobtainable object of desire, and the connection between her and Segel never really finds a strong footing, more because of the tentative writing than the performances. Riley Keough makes a particular impression as the punished cultist who reacts very badly to being ejected from the community. 


The movie's a mixed bag, but it achieves an eerie potency with the first reveal of footage a slab of meat from the morgue, hooked up to the machine, has elicited, and a degree of intrigue as Segel and Mara work out what the material actually depicts (not a memory, but rather an altered version of the life just lived). There's also a certain coherent banality to the consideration that what's in store next isn't all that – "running around, making the same mistakes over and over, and I don't know why we think it'll be any different somewhere else" – if it ends up back here again. Leading to the all-important caveat, "unless we learn what we’re supposed to while we’re here". No, you wouldn't accuse The Discovery of being profound, but at least it isn't a dumb movie; it's trying for something, the performances are all strong, and it's probably a stoner's – or a vaper's – delight. 


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.