Contact Review
by Paul John Barnette Jr (pbarnett AT mounet DOT com)July 14th, 1997
Contact (1997)
Viewed Friday, July 11 1997
I have been reading the postings on the new film Contact in this newsgroup over the past few days. They sparked my curiosity to such an extent that I decided to see the film. When I heard some comparing Contact with 2001: A Space Odyssey I knew that I would without a doubt be in the theater on opening night. I've just returned home after seeing it and decided to sit down at my computer and give my own thoughts on the subject.
One thing that surprised me was the audience's reaction to Contact. For the entire two and one half hours it was so quiet that you could almost hear a pin drop. I had not witnessed such a reaction in a packed house since I saw Oliver Stone's JFK in a theater a few years ago. Regardless of what the rest of the audience thought of the film after it was over, I know for a fact that it held their undivided attention for its entire running time, which is no small accomplishment in this day and age.
My personal reaction to the film is very positive overall. It is not the science fiction masterpiece that 2001 is (then again, what is?), but it is an intelligent hardcore science fiction film. In this post-Star Wars age of fantasy science fiction, it is very refreshing to see a well made hard science fiction film. I would place Contact on the same level as the original Planet of the Apes or perhaps The Andromeda Strain for example. None of these films are cinematic masterpieces, but they are all significant films in the genre of hard science fiction, and this is how I feel Contact will ultimately be viewed when all is said and done. For those who need a rating scale, I give it a seven out of a possible ten.
One of the criticisms I read before seeing the film was that many characters in the movie were one dimensional cardboard cutouts, pure types rather than actual people. This is indeed true. I do not wish to argue the aesthetic worth of such characterizations, but I do believe that they are in the story to make certain points. Points I believe that Carl Sagan was trying to get across in his original novel. The actor Tom Skerritt plays the role of David Drumlin, the head of the National Science Foundation. He is Jodie Foster's chief scientific nemesis. He cuts Foster's government funding, forcing her character to turn to private business to continue her research, but when the signal does arrive from space, he jumps into the public spotlight to take all of the glory. This character illustrates the sad fact that many scientists are backstabbing egotistical assholes. Just as any human institution, the scientific community can be just as petty and power hungry as any other group. As a professional scientist myself I can attest to the reality of Skerritt's character , as I am sure Sagan could have as well. James Woods's character, Michael Kitz, plays the same type of role in the form of a National Security advisor. Woods's character illustrates the negative aspects of world governments, just as Skerritt's character illustrates the negative aspects of the scientific community.
Jodie Foster herself does a good job in her role as Eleanor Arroway. She doesn't give a great performance, but it's not a bad performance either. It's pretty much typical Jodie Foster. I can definitely see why she was attracted to the role. Her character is the heart of the film and is in nearly every single scene. Her character is also a strong willed and determined woman, which seems to be Ms Foster's particular cup of tea judging from her roles of late. Matthew McConaughey, however, does not come off nearly as well. He plays Foster's love interest Palmer Joss, and this character also turns into a nationally known new age religious leader in the course of the film. I do not think that Mr McConaughery ever really got a hold of his character because I never believed his performance for a second. McConaughery is an attractive rising male star, and that is probably the chief reason he got the role. This is the one typical Hollywood mistake in a film that is otherwise devoid of such errors and clichés.
Far and away my favorite character in the film is S.R. Hadden, played by John Hurt. I have been a fan of Hurt ever since he burst upon the scene playing Caligula in PBS's version of I Claudius back in the 1970's, and it has been awhile since I've seen him used as effectively as he is in this film. Hadden is an extremely wealthy international businessman, a former engineer who is now the head of a world wide telecommunication corporation. He is a rich eccentric who brings to mind images of Howard Hughes and (should I dare say) Charles Foster Kane. He is introduced in the film in a very ominous manner, and one is led to believe that he is another villain on the same order of Skerritt's and Woods's characters, but in the end he turns out to be sort of a Daddy Warbucks to Jodie Foster's Annie. It is Hadden who continues to fund Foster's research after government funding is pulled, and he is also responsible for Foster's character being the one chosen to be the first person to make contact with another intelligent life form. Hurt plays his character to the hilt and steals every scene he is in. I only wish there had been more of them.
The climax of the film, where Jodie Foster's character actually travels "to the infinite and beyond" is, as would naturally be expected, very reminiscent of the ending to 2001. Not to give too much away, both films have basically the same idea. If one were to have contact with a superior intelligence, that intelligence will try to communicate to us in a manner it hopes we will understand. Contact takes the same tact as 2001 in this regard, but the chief difference here is that Contact's vision of first contact is much more literal than Stanley's vision was, which is one of the main reasons why 2001 is a masterpiece and Contact is merely a good science fiction film.
I find it very refreshing to see a summer Hollywood film that does not insult the intelligence of its audience. Instead of explosions, car chases and mind numbing soundtracks here is a film that focuses on human interaction and demands as much from the audience as it gives. Unfortunately this will also be its undoing. Too many of today's film goers expect sensation over substance and are usually extremely upset when asked to think while seeing a movie. Word of mouth will probably kill Contact's ticket sales as the summer weeks progress. A film that quotes Ockham's razor twice is just asking for poor box office. This is a real shame because Contact does have a very important message that it is trying to say.
What exactly is Contact's message? On a superficial level the film does deal with the religion versus science debate, but to me the meaning of the film lies much deeper. Ultimately I believe that the true message of Contact is a pessimistic one. Two scenes resonate in my mind after seeing the film. The first shows Foster returning to her radio tracking station in New Mexico after the word has got out that a signal has been received. She drives through miles of tourists, crackpots and thrill seekers who have arrived at the station as thought it were a shrine, just like we have seen in Roswell New Mexico over that past few weeks. The other scene occurs near the end of the film. Foster's character is leaving Congress and she sees hundreds of "fans" on the capital lawn. Along the steps on either side of her path to the car are people in wheel chairs lined up to touch her in the hopes of being miraculously healed. Since her return from her trip to the stars a cult has begun to grow around her possible powers. These two scenes, along with the negative way in which politics and the politics of science are portrayed, suggest that mankind is not really mature enough as yet to enter the intergalactic Parthenon. With all our pettiness, fears, and superstitions mankind is still not quite ready to make contact.
Paul John Barnette Jr.
********************************************************* The Western Canon Mailing List
[email protected]
The Western Canon WWW Site
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6681/index.html
*********************************************************
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
