Annihilation (2018) -- Natalie Portman, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Oscar Isaac, Tessa Thompson, dir. Alex Garland, based on Jeff VanderMeer's book

The politics for all the reasons Neanderthal and Tracer Hand mentioned are....explicit. The Texas-California alliance is the odd one, but we've seen any number of convenient political alliances in the last century. When the film does go into equivalences is showing the barbarism of the WF soldiers (is Plemons and his unit one of them? I couldn't tell. I may have missed it). Maybe the anti-faux-Trump forces realized they needed to get as dirty as he did?

I thought that pulp book line was going to be about this book my mom's old boss co-wrote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Texas-Israeli_War:_1999

When the film does go into equivalences is showing the barbarism of the WF soldiers (is Plemons and his unit one of them? I couldn't tell. I may have missed it).

no, I think they were simply a militia, who may or may not have supported the President, but were absolutely happy to use the resultant chaos to further their own awful goals.

I thought one of the most interesting scenes was the one with the house and the invisible sniper, and the guys they encountered hunkered down. it's completely unclear, and maybe irrelevant, who is who. When asked what's going on, the answer was "that guy is shooting at us. we are shooting at him".

Ah, makes sense.

Yeah, that sniper shot (blurring him was a shrewd touch) creeped me out.

I thought for a moment that the shot of the white woman, Latin American man, and Hong Kong reporter in front of Plemons' militia was on-the-nose, but the NPR affiliate reporters I know are a diverse lot.

Stephen McKinley was best in show as he almost always is.

xposts yeah the movie couldn’t really make it clearer that that line of interrogation is not what it’s about

Stephen McKinley is getting a lot of work these days!

I thought that pulp book line was going to be about this book my mom's old boss co-wrote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Texas-Israeli_War:_1999

So, I watched this thing at my local AMC theater today at 2:35 in one of the smaller screening rooms: 50 seats at most. I'd say it was half-full. It impressed me -- I can count on five people at most on a Monday afternoon.

Not Waldrop, Saunders - he gave me a copy when I was 11 or 12 but I don't remember anything about it aside from the title (and later wondering if the guys from Lift to Experience read it). I think he and Waldrop ended up not on good terms over the years.

Quite fun to see nick offerman getting clipped

This movie was extremely intense in the watching, and a day or two later, but I’ve thought about it zero times since. It doesn’t have a conventional structure where the protagonist learns a lesson about themselves or whatever - it’s kind of a shaggy dog story, video-gamey - get from A to B. Or in a lot of ways like a turn-based role-playing game. These different obstacles and enemies, a band of travelers with different skills, various signs of impending dread. I think it is really valuable as a way of confronting war and how fucking horrible it is, and as an intense experience, but beyond that there’s not much to chew on tbh

That's what I went in expecting of this, since 28 Days Later is the only other Garland film I've seen and it gave me exactly that experience: intense and riveting in the moment, but I can barely remember a thing about it.

It also felt credible that war photographers, especially Stewart's character, would be less into taking sides or even figuring out factions, rather than capturing raw footage and letting other reporters sort it out.

As a big fan of Jon Lee Anderson's reportage (in recent years from the Central African Republic, Haiti, and elsewhere), setting a film through this POV especially drew me in.

This movie was extremely intense in the watching, and a day or two later, but I’ve thought about it zero times since. It doesn’t have a conventional structure where the protagonist learns a lesson about themselves or whatever - it’s kind of a shaggy dog story, video-gamey - get from A to B. Or in a lot of ways like a turn-based role-playing game. These different obstacles and enemies, a band of travelers with different skills, various signs of impending dread. I think it is really valuable as a way of confronting war and how fucking horrible it is, and as an intense experience, but beyond that there’s not much to chew on tbh

― Humanitarian Pause (Tracer Hand), Sunday, April 28, 2024 12:21 PM (ten hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

idk I think there's a lot there about how exposure to extreme violence quickly warps people's moral & ethical compasses ... its a movie about what its like to become inured to casual violence in a war zone, placed in a Familiar Western Context that forces the western subject to not distance themselves from it as something happening "over there"...It does a good job splitting the difference between the last decade of backsliding towards fascism that makes it feel both totally feasible, and showing something that is w/in recent history totally alien, something ppl envision happening 'way over there'... but the way that ppl are profoundly affected by exposure to extreme violence feels like its underlying theme to me...the way the idea of positioning oneself at some ethical remove seems insane and impossible once the safety nets have been removed from social society.... really smart movie imo

the other thing that's kept me engaged with it is the number of people i see w very stupid opinions about it. some of the most incredibly stupid takes a movie has inspired in years

Great post

showing something that is w/in recent history totally alien, something ppl envision happening 'way over there'

"It doesn’t have a conventional structure where the protagonist learns a lesson about themselves or whatever"

i cannot rly believe ppl still hold up this kind of screenwriter 101 template as something to be considered at all tbh

great revive

Saw this a couple of nights ago. I agree with most of the positive criticism, especially it being deliberately politically vague (though the subtext is clear) so, as Tracer says, you don't get too comfortable. I thought having the journalists as protagonists was very interesting, viewing the action that extra step removed somehow, paradoxically, made it seem more real - I guess because as a civilian it's easier to place yourself in their shoes than it would be if the main characters were combatants; and also being unarmed civilians they are much more vulnerable and it makes the danger much more apparent.

I think, though, the movie undercuts itself somewhat. It wants to show the horrors of war, and the danger and the moral complexity of war reporting. But it also wants to show how exciting it is, and the last section is basically a thrill ride where it's totally clear who we are rooting for.

What do we think about Jessie? It seems to me that from the very start to the very end she is, without exception, a dipshit and a shithead.

I thought she was just a kid

kids can be (or not be) dipshits and shitheads too.

That's true! Though I thought most of her dipshit/shitheadness was directly related to her youth (she's meant to be like 18 or something right? That's the impression I got). Didn't think she was any less or more of a shithead than her two companions. She just had inexperience tacked onto it

22 or 23 they said in the film. I agree she seemed younger but the actress is 25 or 6 and all young people seem like fresh faced babes in arms to me. She showed a complete inability to learn from experience and a complete recklessness and willingness to put herself *and others* in mortal danger.

It was also clear that Lee was motivated by a desire to bring the truth to light, Jessie was an adrenaline junkie (like Joel, to be fair) motivated by a desire to get good looking pictures.

Seemed to me like she was pretty adrenaline averse for all but the car chase + last scene! That was her development. Can't deal with any of the pressure/reality of what she's getting herself into, to then going overboard on the other side and putting everyone in danger because of it. She was a kid who had ideas of war, but had yet to actually meet it in the flesh. A foil to the worn and weary Joel + Lee.

Like yeah, total idiot, but I do think most of her idiocy can be reduced to youthful naivete and inexperience which is an inescapable period of life. She just decided to bring her youthful naivete and inexperience to literal war. But you can blame a drunk and horny Joel for that. I blame him as much as her

it's clear that Joel, Tony and Bohai are dipshits and shitheads too. And that those are not all that they are.

yeah i get all that. but her complete failure to learn from experience - and what she does after lee's death - indicate to me that she ain't going to change.

I can't believe no one has commented on how hot Wagner Moura is in this thing

i saw him described as a cut-price (or second-rate or whatever) pedro pascal on a twitter comment about this movie and i had to put the phone down and take a walk

"Wagner Moura" is such a quintessentially Brazilian name.

i had to put the phone down and take a walk

Words to live by

I did for a moment think it was Pedro Pascal in the same that in 2002 it took a couple seconds studying Michael Pitt to realize he wasn't Leo DiCaprio, like, at all.

Thread has officially annihilated Annihilation!

deems i mentioned that structure not as something to emulate! just that it’s rare to see a movie these days that doesn’t in some way try for it. it is “effective” in that it’s a shortcut for activating a sense that something has happened, that we have witnessed a change occur

think we've had enough talk for a dedicated thread - CIVIL WAR (movie) - 2024, Alex Garland

I think, though, the movie undercuts itself somewhat. It wants to show the horrors of war, and the danger and the moral complexity of war reporting. But it also wants to show how exciting it is, and the last section is basically a thrill ride where it's totally clear who we are rooting for.

What do we think about Jessie? It seems to me that from the very start to the very end she is, without exception, a dipshit and a shithead.

― ledge, Monday, 29 April 2024 08:00 (fourteen hours ago) link

I don’t think this undercuts it — this is honest — again it’s a movie about the effects of extreme violence & how people become inured to it … this also includes a fascination with it

This thread has made me want to reread the trilogy.

Has anyone read any of VanderMeer's other work? I read Borne and Dead Astronauts and found them fascinating.

think, though, the movie undercuts itself somewhat. It wants to show the horrors of war, and the danger and the moral complexity of war reporting. But it also wants to show how exciting it is, a

I don't think it consciously shows how exciting it is. It's the nature of war films: to show the horror is to show its erotic qualities.

I agree she seemed younger but the actress is 25 or 6

― ledge

to 4

I don't think it consciously shows how exciting it is. It's the nature of war films: to show the horror is to show its erotic qualities.

― the talented mr pimply (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

jeez, idk, i was just thinking about all those old "men's adventure" magazines with nazis branding swastikas on naked young women and how completely and totally _anti-erotic_ they are

that's not to say that war films aren't erotic, it's just that it seems to be a distinctly male-gendered form of eroticism

for instance, wil hulsey's classic man's life cover "weasels ripped my flesh" is _very_ homoerotic imo

https://live.staticflickr.com/8730/16767482981_ef2a46e881_b.jpg

CAN WOMEN JUSTIFY THEIR NEED FOR EXTRAMARITAL RELATIONSHIPS?

Find out inside!

that's not to say that war films aren't erotic, it's just that it seems to be a distinctly male-gendered form of eroticism

of course

of course

― the talented mr pimply (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

not that a lot of us lesbians (myself included) aren't in our own way _quite_ fond of smart military women. war films just tend not to present women in the same way that they present men.

I don’t see mention of it yet - and I didn’t read the books - but I thought the movie had some very strong Buddhism influence and message going on?

Annihilation itself was the - badly translated - term for Nirvana in the Victorian era.

I don’t think the movie is just going from point A to B, I think it’s about impermanence, self-discovery and enlightenment. There’s this alien force that is blending everything known in the universe together and it’s either terrifying or comforting depending on your state of mind. It’s been years since I last saw it but iirc there’s the woman who accepts it and immediatly turns into a flower statue, the video of Portman’s husband sitting in a meditative state blasted by light. Then she goes on to fight her ego.

Idk I might need to rewatch it, but I remember the Buddhist overtones were very on the nose.

Oh gosh we're conflating two different films now. Who knows where this could go... to its own thread perhaps?

Oh we have one. Okay sorry

Lol I was thinking about the similarities though.. band of intrepid good guys entering a zone of danger where nothing makes sense

Welp sorry carry on lol