Alex Garland's "Annihilation"

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/feb/22/annihilation-review-natalie-portman-thriller-leaves-a-haunting-impression

Quote :

While the film’s narrative thrust is unwavering, it’s still depressingly easy to see why Paramount would worry for its box office chances. Annihilation, while reminiscent of other sci-fi and horror films, remains an unusual proposition for a studio. It’s scary at times but then also contemplative and opaque and the intriguing ending will prove divisive. Garland spoke of his disappointment that most international audiences (bar those in China) won’t get to see the film at the cinema, and given the ambitious scope, one can understand such frustration. But Annihilation is more than mere visuals and it will shock, fascinate and haunt audiences, whatever screen it’s watched on.

This paragraph is depressing but not at all surprising, considering the state of the movie industry, as well as the disappointing performance of "Blade Runner 2049" at the box office.
The industry obviously deems even semi-intelligent sci-fi too risky for anything other than the TV medium or perhaps the occasional Netflix big money splash.

Given that the Warnerstein Brothers lost their shirts on BR2049, I don't think they can be criticised for refusing to throw good money after bad. Audiences look to thine selves…

Looking forward to this Netflix release, though. Whether novels, scripts or direction, Garland always says something worth listening to. Agreeing with it is another matter, but that wasn't a problem until the Twatter age.

I thought "Ex Machina" was interesting but a bit overrated. It's not that the ideas espoused in it weren't original, which isn't a huge problem, but I had the feeling that he did not remain consistent to his own concept due to some of the choices made in the third act. But his directorial style had enough flair to make me curious about this film, even without the critical love it appears to be garnering.

Salomé wrote:

he did not remain consistent to his own concept due to some of the choices made in the third act.

Which choices? I recall an interesting interview where Garland suggested he found it impossible to make a film such as Ex Machina without adding to the problem he was trying to address.



Anyway, interesting take on the boxoffice fate of Annihilation on Indiewire. Apparently it's all your fault, Oppers ...

http://www.indiewire.com/2018/02/annihilation-netflix-paramount-deal-streaming-1201932550/

Okay, here is my attempt at explaining what I mean.

The movie itself is about a lot of things, but primarily about the projecting of personal desires onto others. The tragedy of the Caleb character is that he fails to realize the reality of Ava's existence, even after Nathan spells it out to him. She is a rat trapped in a maze with one way out, which is to somehow seduce Caleb into helping her. The problems I have with what happens at the end, after she has successfully freed herself, is that Garland then has her acting like a human being and not a machine. The furtive last glance she gives to the trapped Caleb before departing is something a human woman would do. To a machine, Caleb would be a thing that has served its purpose but now no longer holds any true interest to her. That glance is actually a moment in which the screenwriter himself is projecting onto his creation. Thus why her behavior is no longer consistent with what came before, specifically in terms of Nathan's explanation of what her nature is and what the ultimate goal of his sick little experiment was.

Interesting thought, but isn't the whole point of AI the capacity to learn? And, accepting that, wouldn't personal development be inevitable? Ava's programming is merely her starting point.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Interesting thought, but isn't the whole point of AI the capacity to learn? And, accepting that, wouldn't personal development be inevitable? Ava's programming is merely her starting point.

I think that is a matter of interpretation. My interpretation of the story is that both Nathan and Caleb made assumptions about Ava that were ultimately fatal to them.
For Caleb, this was the fact that he perceived her as a person, not a machine going through her programming. For Nathan this was the fact that he underestimated the degree to which his own creation could be a threat to him if it followed through its programming to its logical end-point.

Annihilation arrives on Netflix on 12 March.

I see it has dropped on Netflix Belgium.
I will try to watch it later this week.

Salomé wrote:

I see it has dropped on Netflix Belgium.
I will try to watch it later this week.

I'm seeing it tomorrow night with my father, an SF fiend. Let's compare notes.

Well. What a strange and demanding film. It's definitely worth seeing, but I can see why Paramount wanted rid of it. Somehow, Annihilation manages to be both highly derivative and original.

Stalker and Solaris are the most obvious filmic influences, with a few of our illogical Chernobyl and genetics fears thrown in as well. I don't want to spoil this for anyone who may watch it so I'll just say it's about five women who enter a forbidden zone where cells divide and mutate at a massively accelerated rate. Across species...

This is a rare case of a film that gets better as it goes along and really demands to be seen on a giant screen not the 28" 4K display I watched it on. Brandon, you have the privilege of being able to see it at the cinema in the States so I urge you do so whilst you still can. Sabs, I'd really like to know what you made of this.

Me? I need to think about it for a while then see it again in more sympathetic surroundings.

I might check it out tonight. Certainly will try to see it this week, if not tonight.

Couple of interesting reviews, though best not read until after Annihilation has been seen.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/alex-garlands-latest-chilling-vision-human-consciousness-threat/

https://www.hindustantimes.com/movie-reviews/annihilation-review-natalie-portman-s-new-film-is-the-most-visionary-cinematic-experience-of-the-year-so-far/story-YXH6aypxVRDbSc9v2E1DYN.html

Erica Ambler wrote:

Well. What a strange and demanding film. It's definitely worth seeing, but I can see why Paramount wanted rid of it. Somehow, Annihilation manages to be both highly derivative and original.

Stalker and Solaris are the most obvious filmic influences, with a few of our illogical Chernobyl and genetics fears thrown in as well. I don't want to spoil this for anyone who may watch it so I'll just say it's about five women who enter a forbidden zone where cells divide and mutate at a massively accelerated rate. Across species...

This is a rare case of a film that gets better as it goes along and really demands to be seen on a giant screen not the 28" 4K display I watched it on. Brandon, you have the privilege of being able to see it at the cinema in the States so I urge you do so whilst you still can. Sabs, I'd really like to know what you made of this.

Me? I need to think about it for a while then see it again in more sympathetic surroundings.

I would add something like "Wages of Fear" to your influences. And strangely, "The Blair Witch Project" to a limited extent.

It's certainly an interesting film. But I had the opposite reaction to you in terms of Paramount's decision. I had expected the film itself to be a lot more challenging.
But I honestly thought Garland was possibly holding the audience's hand a bit too much in the first hour. It only truly gets weird in the final fifteen minutes.

It's a movie about depression and suicide to a certain extent. Or self-destruction, as Ventress calls it. Which sort of informs the nature of the climax.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Brandon, you have the privilege of being able to see it at the cinema in the States so I urge you do so whilst you still can.

I would echo this sentiment. Anyone who has the opportunity to see this on a big screen should definitely go.

Salomé wrote:

I would add something like "Wages of Fear" to your influences. And strangely, "The Blair Witch Project" to a limited extent.

Also 2001 and The Thing.

Salomé wrote:

It only truly gets weird in the final fifteen minutes.

It's the opposite of most films - the third act is more interesting than what went before.

Not sure if Annihilation is a good film let alone a great one, but I remember it. These days that’s almost a recommendation.

So in terms of the Shimmer and how it relates to all of the individual women's reason for entering it, they all end up getting a twisted version of their desires and/or trauma.

Spoiler:

Salomé wrote:

So in terms of the Shimmer and how it relates to all of the individual women's reason for entering it, they all end up getting a twisted version of their desires and/or trauma.

Well spotted. That passed me by entirely.

Is the Portman character changed as well? That ambigious last shot of her face and eyes.

Definitely need to see it again sometime.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

So in terms of the Shimmer and how it relates to all of the individual women's reason for entering it, they all end up getting a twisted version of their desires and/or trauma.

Well spotted. That passed me by entirely.

Is the Portman character changed as well? That ambigious last shot of her face and eyes.

Definitely need to see it again sometime.

I think there are two obvious possible explanations of that last shot:

Spoiler:

Hmmm, neither of those explanations was obvious to me. My take was:

Spoiler:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Hmmm, neither of those explanations was obvious to me. My take was:

Spoiler:

I think my issue with that interpretation is:

Spoiler:

Though you might be right and the screenwriter might have dismissed my questions entirely.

Salomé wrote:

I think my issue with that interpretation is:

Spoiler:

Though you might be right and the screenwriter might have dismissed my questions entirely.

The requirements of drama and logic conflict. Hence the endless arguments about Skyfall's plot.