Movie of the Month - Annihilation (June 2018)

Tools    





“Sugar is the most important thing in my life…”
Thanks a lot guys! Look forward to checking this out tonight.



Great podcast guys. I appreciate you went in-depth about meanings of the shimmer and the ending. I loved "Annihilation" exactly because there was no definitive label to explain the shimmer and be done with it. Some stuff you dug up was awesome!



“Sugar is the most important thing in my life…”
Shoutout to bringing up the house! That really didn't work with the other stuff they established (and the sand trees...). In the BTS it was explained that it was the unhappy homelife and the "boar" was Kane. It wasn't hunting either, it was in pain and the lashing out/ attacks were from sadness. ???

I'm just trying to figure out an overall meaning of this movie. You guys brought a lot of insight from the book in, but I don't know where that lies with trying to figure out the movie. Based on the movie alone, I see two major things. Cancer and transformation.
I get the cancer angle and how it grows unchecked (the Shimmer)and transforms what it comes in contact with. I can get that.

The human transformations don't feel like they were playing on the same field. It seemed to be a magnification of the true self, but I'm lost on why Lena survived.

If this movie is just suppose to be ambiguous, I think it could have been done better. If this movie is suppose to mean something that I don't understand, I'm fine with that.

The only way this makes sense to me is if it is all a dream.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
Good podcast. Thanks for putting in the time. Can you say who was who? Two voices sounded remote and similar as a result so wasn't sure what user name to associate to each.

I guess I need to rent this movie again. I'm still very disappointed in it, but I need to look again to confirm my memories. I'm off next week so I should have time to follow through this time. For example, the conversation of Lena's character at the end being ambiguous as to which version she was brought up a few thoughts for me. I agree with call-in voice #1 that the movie ruled that she was the original version, as the copy was burned. Along with it, all of the shimmer was burned as well. Btw, how did Kane's copy not also burn? I mean based on the only provided evidence within the movie, he too should have be set afire, no? I suppose you could argue that he was no longer inside of the shimmer, but there was not enough evidence provided to even loosely support that effect when so much more evidence suggested that he should have been consumed. Anyway, the thought that came up for me was that I enjoy ambiguity; however, I do not think the ambiguity that we are left with was intentional. At least not to the level that existed. I think there were too many internal rules left out (perhaps intentionally, to leave question and wonder), but for the rules that were allowed the movie just did not follow them equally throughout. Kane not burning for example. Or Lena surviving by clearly destroying her clone, yet showing she has been altered to some degree in the final scene when previous we were shown that everything affected within (at least within) the shimmer was destroyed. OK, so even if I can accept that Kane was outside of the shimmer and safe from its destruction, whatever was affecting Lena was still very much inside. Granted, we don't know what happens to her during the blackout, but that is just sloppy to me considering how intelligent this movie tries to present itself as.

Now, back to the conversation. I enjoyed some of the comments that were projecting meaning or intent or references to other movie and literary sources. I think art can be provocative, challenging, and embracing of other works of art to carry forward some idea even if just an allusion. In fact, I believe good art must do that (personal opinion). There is a somewhat fine line here though where the artist intentionally places such nods and exercises expertise and self-awareness enough to transcend that "nod" to having purpose beyond a nod that then carries forward and becomes something more than an abridged reference note and simply adding something "mysterious" without any true meaning or reference. Because the latter only works from the viewer's perspective given whatever history, knowledge, and personal contexts that individual brings with him or her to the viewing. Yes, it is deep that the view can cite a novel line of text that some obscure scene reminds him or her of. But was that the intention of the writer or director? Or was that simply the effort of the viewer projecting their own considerations? That is outright laziness on the part of the creator, IMO, to leave such projections up to the view. Please do not get me wrong here. I DO believe that leaving things up to the view to ponder is WONDERFUL! I just do not think, given how so much of this movie to me was uneven and consistently inconsistent, that it deserves credit for doing so on purpose. That work was all on the viewer.

Should Dark Tower take credit for reminding me of Something Wicked This Way Comes when I saw the old amusement park elements? Should all of the fear and excitement that the older movie gave me as a child raise the level of quality for the Dark Tower just because that was my unique and pretty random association to an inconsequential scene? Seems silly to me.

To simplify this whole thing, let me offer this: when I looked at my dog (RIP, Dootle-bug!) and she tilted her head at me, I immediately fell in love and wondered if she was trying to communicate with me. I wondered if she was showing affection or what questions she might be formulating to ask if we shared a language. I projected so much of my own insight and awareness onto her that I began to see my personality reflected back through her. In reality, she was most likely thinking, "Hungry. Cat poop in dirt stuff. Yum." The dog was not enlightened. I just figured she was because I gave her so much unearned credit.


---

Addition:
I am frustrated because as I read and listen to comments I feel that all of the praise this movie gets appears to mostly be from individuals projecting their own thoughts onto it. My take on that is that the movie was void of anything meaningful in and of itself. What ideas were presented were only presented and I feel the movie in its release state was at best a second draft. The wonder that so many seem to be praising this movie appear to be personal projections. Again, I can stare into a deep, dark hole, and ponder the infinite mysteries of the universe. Regardless of what I'm thinking as a result of seeing the hole, it's still just a gaping, empty hole that deserves NO credit for what I put into it.

*cries*
__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear



Can you say who was who? Two voices sounded remote and similar as a result so wasn't sure what user name to associate to each.
First/clearest voice is mine. Second voice is Brendan/bluedeed. I think slappy's first comments are a few minutes in.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
The good news for me, I guess, is that once all of this is over I will have a pretty decent scathing review to mark ...at some point.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
First/clearest voice is mine. Second voice is Brendan/bluedeed. I think slappy's first comments are a few minutes in.


Ah ok thanks! I had the other two reversed.



Addition:
I am frustrated because as I read and listen to comments I feel that all of the praise this movie gets appears to mostly be from individuals projecting their own thoughts onto it.
This is kind of a running gag on the podcast, yeah: is the movie we're talking about good, or are we just good at coming up with stuff to talk about? At this point I think we've all concluded that even a moderately interesting film creates lots of opportunities for analysis, and that we could probably riff on anything (cough).

I'd say Annihilation is particularly conducive to discussion because it deals in some really broad themes. But it's totally reasonable to make that distinction between a good movie, and a movie that's good as a jumping off point for a larger discussion.



Ah ok thanks! I had the other two reversed.
Yeah, no worries.

Since I edit these things, the best shorthand I have is naturally speaking style: if Brendan's thinking about what to say, he pauses, and if Slappy's thinking about what to say, he repeats the previous word or phrase.

And I don't think about what I'm saying at all.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
This is kind of a running gag on the podcast, yeah: is the movie we're talking about good, or are we just good at coming up with stuff to talk about? At this point I think we've all concluded that even a moderately interesting film creates lots of opportunities for analysis, and that we could probably riff on anything (cough).

I'd say Annihilation is particularly conducive to discussion because it deals in some really broad themes. But it's totally reasonable to make that distinction between a good movie, and a movie that's good as a jumping off point for a larger discussion.

Yeah. I think I'm past the point of objectivity, unfortunately. Good that this movie has created such discussion. I just wish I could believe that was by design!

Thanks for the link too, btw. I'll listen to it this evening.



Yeah. I think I'm past the point of objectivity, unfortunately. Good that this movie has created such discussion. I just wish I could believe that was by design!
Yeah, I totally get this. I said something similar about Kubrick's films in our Eyes Wide Shut podcast. I think if you're a good filmmaker and you deal in broad themes, you're gonna create a ton of opportunities for projection. Universal themes are universal for a reason. It's hard to say how much a filmmaker deserves credit for this, since it's not always explicitly intentional, but the best probably have a good sense of what kind of things are more likely to create those emergent, unintended connections.



A system of cells interlinked
Starting the podcast now...will chime in after I finish!
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



To answer some of ynwtf's questions:
It is definitely unclear why specifically phosphorous burns the shimmer (and not any fire). One thing that does seem clearly intended by the film is that the copy had to be the one that initially caught fire (meaning, the wall behind Kane when he used the grenade didn't catch fire and burn the shimmer down, the shimmer had to be 'taught' how to burn down. If you make the most-stretchiest stretch you could, you can say it relays to the theme of self-destruction; Lena taught her clone how to *literally* self-destruct, and that clone not only spread fire, but the concept of flammability (and that spread as a 'mutation' along with the fire). Again, that's a hazy connection.



I interpreted Kopy-Kane as not burning because he's outside the shimmer, but specifically I recalled the oil spill metaphor. If a field of oil catches fire, if somehow a bird covered in oil got away from the main pool of oil, it wouldn't catch fire.


As far as projection goes, I think you're right, but I also don't think that's a necessarily bad thing. A lot of my favorite films contain a lot of projection, just like how a lot of my favorite conversations with people are ones where either they or I operate as a screen for their projections to take place. And I think that takes skill. Which, this film fumbles sometimes.


Basically, to take your example of Dark Tower...yes! I do think it deserves a little credit! If a movie is able to act as a screen for people to project/recall unique and random pieces of their life and relive and/or reflect on them in a meaningful/positive way, then that's a good film! If that film's enjoyment hinges on those associations, then that film is likely to be divisive, unless those associations are more or less universal.


The film-maker may not 'deserve' credit for bringing out those associations if they are so random, but like it or not, those associations improve the viewing of the film. The baker of the madeleine may not deserve credit when Proust had a strong involuntary memory of his childhood, but Proust would probably call that madeleine one of the best he ever had.


To be clear, I think Annihilation is just solid, not amazing. But I'll mainly defend the work along the lines of intent and effort, though I won't necessarily defend how successful it is. I think it had things that completely failed to connect with me, and I liked it less for it.


if Slappy's thinking about what to say, he repeats the previous word or phrase.
True, bad habit I picked up from my family that talks over each other given the slightest window. If you want to keep the floor you have to keep saying SOMETHING or else you've lost it.



A system of cells interlinked
Listened to the podcast and then flew off to lunch to think about it for a bit.

Some good points were brought up. Interesting thought about the echos. As I listened, I was reminded of a paper MoFo WinterTriangles once sent me, called Plato and the Simulacrum. It's a pretty difficult text, but it dealt with some ideas about how originals are affected when they are copied, and both are affected by the existence of the other. I'd recommend it, but damned if I couldn't understand more than 40% of the thing.

I was thinking of picking up the book, but after hearing that Chris has bailed after two of the three books, I may take a pass.



True, bad habit I picked up from my family that talks over each other given the slightest window. If you want to keep the floor you have to keep saying SOMETHING or else you've lost it.
My family does the exact same thing, interestingly enough.

I'm a lot closer to you than Brendan in this regard, anyway, I've just had to listen to myself recorded so many times over the years that I've been forced to make a little headway into it. When I was really little I'd just fill time with gibberish inbetween the few words I actually knew, like "gabba blobba bla apple juice gabba tubba."



I was thinking of picking up the book, but after hearing that Chris has bailed after two of the three books, I may take a pass.
It might be more for you than me. I bailed because I sensed (correctly, as it turned out) that I wasn't going to get the kinds of answers I was hoping for. But I know you dig on open-endedness and ambiguity a lot more than I do. So, I don't have a recommendation either way, except to say that what I know about you leads me to believe you might like it more than I did.

They're also pretty modest in length, if that makes a difference.



A system of cells interlinked
It might be more for you than me. I bailed because I sensed (correctly, as it turned out) that I wasn't going to get the kinds of answers I was hoping for. But I know you dig on open-endedness and ambiguity a lot more than I do. So, I don't have a recommendation either way, except to say that what I know about you leads me to believe you might like it more than I did.

They're also pretty modest in length, if that makes a difference.
I gobble up books at a pretty decent rate, so I will add them to the queue!



Hellloooo Cindy - Scary Movie (2000)
Good comments by ynwtf and others. If I interpreted that all correctly ynwtf I’d tend to agree. Now what I said before - good podcast, interesting and informative although my appreciation for the movie itself hasn’t grown. As ynwtf said or I believe he said, a lot of the discussion was focused on the book(s) again this was interesting and informative but the movie itself hasn’t grown from the discussion imo.

Interesting comments from yoda re the main character and perhaps she is on the autism spectrum in the book. Maybe they should have run with that. But in the movie she could be personable, seemed adequate socially just was cold and detached. I said it in a previous post but I found her and really all the character unlikeable. I’m more than fine with unlikeable characters but they should be interesting. These were not. Maybe it would have added a layer of interest if she was different in that way.

Someone, maybe yoda mentioned the swamp. In my opinion they had an opportunity to create a area in the film teeming with life and danger - given they were going for this horror theme. The swamp was devoid of life save for the cgi crocodile which was an odd tenseless encounter.

More on the horror type scenes in reference to the visuals. We got a very bright colour palette with splashes of darkly twisted mutations such as the skull growths. It was odd and jarring for me. Beautiful and bright but not effectively haunting then suddenly a grotesque bone fragment growth. Credit though I found the flower people interesting.

In terms of the bear - one of only four creatures we see when this are meant to be growing and splitting apparently. It was just fkn weird lol, compared with the doe that copied itself almost perfectly - I hadn’t noticed one was brighter than the other as pointed out.

In terms of who she was, whether she was a clone. I never really thought so. I appreciate she was telling the story and could manipulate it but as others have said and as yoda said, it’s her. Why would she destroy her own shimmer and not suffer the burning fate of the shimmer herself. Why not just let it keep growing as apparently there was no way to stop it or was there some type of insidious plan which wasn’t clear.

Basically what I’m left with regarding this movie is - a strange and jarring world which failed to scare me. Strange logic regarding the mutations and duplicates. Such plain and unlikeable characters.

Again the podcast was great to listen to but mainly with reference or just plain help
From the book as the movie itself felt all over the shop.

I’ve gone from thinking it was at best average. Now I’m just a hater. 2/5 or less for me.



Good movie, needs a rewatch though for me, tempted to get myself a 4k copy,a quiet room and go full volume on the Dolby Atmos soundtrack second time around. I'll reserve my opinions until then.