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

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

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…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …