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

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

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.

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979) Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.