Saw "Annihilation" - my thoughts *SPOLIERS*

[_Xenophon]

Before I go any further here I should point out that I will be discussing things that happened in the movie, I'll try to not fully call out many of the major twists but be warned that if you haven't seen it yet, this probably isn't for you. Frankly I'm a touch fried on the media cycle, particularly surrounding all the Parkland stuff, so the my wife and I disconnected from the internet and struck out Sunday for dinner and a movie. As Annihilation was a bit of a strange one, I figured I would offer my thoughts about the experience:

As a preface, note that I have never read the book series and have but a cursory knowledge of them so I came into this film with a pretty clean slate from an expectations perspective. I'll also say that I have some general bias towards the director, Alex Garland, if for nothing other than his work on Ex Machina. For me he is a novelist turned director that is exceptionally good at advancing a story without forcing too much, a rarity for a lot of fantasy/sci-fi directors.

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie (as did my wife), I thought the visuals were stunning, the audio was incredibly immersive and powerful (a big reason to see this in the theater vs at home), and the acting/casting was on point. Annihilation did something that few movies do for me, I felt incredibly small and insignificant, the scale of it all was impressive. There was the real sense of being completely overwhelmed that I think was captured and conveyed really well.

There is something immensely captivating about the destruction that we witness. In going back to look up the books after I had seen the film, I read this line from Jeff VanderMeer's novel:

When you see beauty in desolation it changes something inside you

Annihilation spends the length of the film showing this idea to you, constantly and in a multitude of ways. It explores our own self-destruction, both as individuals and as a people, in a way that is both disturbing and empathetic.

There were a few parts that didn't do to well for me (in case you thought I only saw good). I thought the time loss part right after they entered the Shimmer felt a bit out of place. Maybe it was supposed to be some kind of play to disorient the viewer or prepare them for the idea that not all was as it seemed, but it fell flat with me. I also thought there was at least a few times when characters' motivations were unclear. Perhaps that can be chalked up to the changes that the Shimmer inflicts on people, but I didn't read that in the initial watching, it is reconciling after the fact.


Biggest spoiler below (highlight to see):
What 100% sold me on the movie though was the scene towards the end that features Portman in a mirror like dance with her faceless self. Watching Portman stuck in lock step with her double, trapped in a round that inevitably turns violent was an amazing summarization of the film without a single word said. If there are any other modern dance followers, the scene was actually choreographed by Bobbi Jene Smith and I doubt that there is anyone better to capture the rawness and violence that was shared while still being beautiful.


ETA: I know it is early days still but if anyone else has seen the film I'd be very interested in your thoughts.

[Guest]

Some additional thoughts that have come to me as the day has gone on. I'll try again to hide any big spoilers, unless you consider casting decisions too big a reveal you should be fine with next paragraph.

The nearly entirely female cast is actually really important. Apart from the kind of feminist success story ("girl power" memes aside), in my opinion it allowed Garland to write away from the stereotypical macho-man troupe that we see in a lot of these kinds of sci-fi adventures. The characters are allowed to be steeled to the task at hand, determined, but also have highly relatable emotions of fear and despair for their situations. I thought particularly that Sheppard (Tuva Novotny) was amazingly cast. Novotny radiates a sort of motherly kindness while still giving us peeks at a deep pain and darkness. One complaint my wife had was that her role wasn't a touch bigger. I wonder if perhaps that would have ruined it though, a smaller part allowed for a more concentrated energy from her.

Further Spoilers, focused on the ending to follow (highlight to reveal):
I really appreciated how open the ending is especially since Garland has said that he has no aspirations for a sequel. I actually enjoy the idea that how we perceive an ending can be heavily influenced by who we are. Controversy is fun when it flows naturally instead of forced. To highlight the differences in how the end played out I will give you my theory vs my wife:

• Xenophon- I thought the narrative device of the interview was unreliable for absolute truth. What would stop the copy of Lena from just explaining the showdown between her and real Lena differently than how it happened? Is it not possible that it was the copy that left the Shimmer? She experienced none of the adverse medical effects because the origin point was already destroyed (which was used to explain copy-Kane's recovery)
• DW- She suggested that it was the "OG" Lena that made it out, albeit changed. There were elements to her of a rebuilt relationship, one where neither party comes out the other side the same.

Regardless of how you viewed Lena's survival there will obviously be some changes. There are some nice Adam/Eve elements to think about as they are both ultimately a different species of sorts. Whether the origin/change of the planet was supposed to be malicious or just a natural occurrence is open to interpretation as well and I enjoyed our back and forth for the evening where we sorted through all that.

[_Doctor Scratch]

**Extremely Spoiler-y Commentary Follows. Read at your own risk.**

Hi, Xenophon.

I saw the film last night and enjoyed it. I've also seen Garland's Ex Machina, which I think is a better film overall, and I've also read all three of the books in the Southern Reach trilogy--Annihilation, Authority, and Acceptance. As is so often the case, I think the book is better than the movie, and in fact I think that the trilogy as a whole is a tour de force--both of literary technique and of science fiction.

I definitely agree with you that the visuals and production design, camera work, etc., are excellent in the film, and Garland adds a lot of memorable flourishes that aren't in the books--notably that climactic scene, where Lena confronts her "double." The deer with flowering antlers, the giant crocodile, the odd tree people, and the glass-shard trees are all notably absent from the books. Those are all Garland's personal touches, and I thought they were great.

That said, the movie obviously cannot capture the first-person perspective of the novel, which is written as the diary, in essence, of "the biologist" (I don't know that she's given a name in that first book, or any of the books, for that matter). The book does a far better job of conveying the disorientation of the characters (in the movie, they only briefly mention that time has escaped them, as they are climbing out from their tents and counting up their rations) and the sheer strangeness of "Area X" ("the Shimmer" is something that's only in the movie--no one calls it that in the books). Early in the novel, the characters descend into some kind of pit or cave (though the narrator calls it a "tower," and insists that she can't help but think of it as a tower--only this is a "tower" that descends down underground), and this is the source of some of the eeriest scenes. This is *sort of* replicated at the conclusion of the film, but the differences are significant. What the book succeeds in doing is that it shows you the difficulty in trying to understand what's happening. The human characters are burdened by their notions of time; by the fact that they are confronting entirely new and different biologies; by attachments of the heart; by their conflicting goals and biases; by human foibles like bureaucracy; by failing technology, and so on. One of the interesting touches in the books is that you slowly come to realize that the Southern Reach (which is the name of the secret government agency that's tasked with researching "the Shimmer"/Area X) has sent well over a dozen expeditions into the area, and has been covering it all up. The moment when Lena / the narrator fully realizes this is one of the more poignant moments in the trilogy.

I'll add that the idea of the "doubling," which functions more or less as the climactic moment in the film, doesn't turn up until the later books--it's not present in the first novel at all.

In any case, it was a solid, enjoyable film, IMVHO. Perhaps even more intriguing was the fact that the movie was bought out by Netflix. Does that mean that Paramount sold off the rights to the sequels, too? If so, I'm interested to see what'll happen--whether Garland will stay on, whether they'll turn the remaining storylines into an episodic show, or what.

I would definitely recommend that you check out the books, Xenophone.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Thanks for the reviews, gentlemen. I just placed an order for the first book, which I never would've done had you not offered up your opinions on the movie.

- Doc

[_Xenophon]

Will do on the books, Doctor Scratch. I will admit that I was pretty intrigued after watching the film. Your response seems to be pretty standard for anyone that has read the series, impossible to not be disappointed. I'm pleased that one of the book readers did enjoy it though. I think it is fair to say that this was more a screenplay adapted from the book, not really a movie of the book. In some ways I'm quite glad I'm approaching it in the order that I am, I think I'm going to find more enjoyment out of it this way.

You will find no disagreement that Ex Machina is a better film but I'm just generally very pleased with Garland's approach to suspenseful sci-fi and expect we will see more from him. I hadn't heard that Netflix bought the series, that should make for an interesting turn. I'm not really sure that anything else needs to be added to the story though, the movie felt very complete to me. I think the movie itself could have been done as an Black Mirror-esque mini-series but I don't think that would have improved it at all. Netflix can be a mixed bag for me, as some of their work seems excellently produced and others feel very "made for TV" quality. I suppose we will just have to see where it lands.

Edited for late night mobile posting typos.

[_DoubtingThomas]

It was a good movie

[_DoubtingThomas]

but was that thing an alien? or some religious thing?

[_grindael]

Riveting movie, the acting was superb. I loved seeing Jennifer Jason Leigh in that role. Portman was stellar, as usual. It was a great adaptation, and didn't suffer from trying to explain too much. One was left to draw ones own conclusions about the mysterious shimmer. The ending was a little cliché, in my opinion, but all in all a very entertaining two hours.

[_MsJack]

I knew absolutely nothing about the film going into it, only that it was "sci-fi horror." I had no idea what it was about or that it starred five women. in my opinion, that made it better.

Did anyone else think this was supposed to be an homage to the much-maligned all-female Ghostbusters?

[_Xenophon]

I knew absolutely nothing about the film going into it, only that it was "sci-fi horror." I had no idea what it was about or that it starred five women. in my opinion, that made it better.

Did anyone else think this was supposed to be an homage to the much-maligned all-female Ghostbusters?

I honestly didn't catch that shot till you shared it here Ms. Jack but I definitely think you may be on to something.