h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I saw Contact twice and mostly enjoyed it - especially seeing a smart woman being smart, which is a rare treat. I had a problem with the Japanese launcher being 'secretly hidden', which struck me as ludicrous given the amount of attention that this project was given.....and the end, where all the children are still visiting the Very Large Array, as though the authorities are still using it when they've just tested this marvellous new technology....what gives there?

In a film review I expect to see commentary on the way the film is made, not just giving away something of the story. True, Contact is one of the smarter sf films to come out in years. What about Zemeckis' direction? The acting? Cinematography? How the military/political structure reacts with fear while the scientific community react with fascination and excitement?

I'll stop now or I'll be ranting.

Fruitbat

That's a great idea Eric

The beauty of the Guide is that we can approach an entry from several directions. An added bonus is that we can add to entries at a later date if another Researcher feels that they have more information on the topic. For example, you can post your added material to a conversation under this entry and then bring it to the the attention of Jimi X who does updates - he's a very busy man indeed...

Cheers for now.

Ashley

'Japanese launcher being 'secretly hidden', which struck me as ludicrous given the amount of attention that this project was given..'

How about: The project's sponsor was incredibly rich, and could pay to keep the other project secret? This would include everything from diverting aricraft, possibly with a vigilant small fleet of fighter aircraft and radar, as well as control of any satellite imaging. Furthermore, the world's attention was focussed almost exclusively on the machine that was destroyed, and people commonly do not notice what they do not expect to see, anyway.

I know this was not explicated in the film, but it is not that much of a stretch. How many people know about HAARP, for example, which is right out there in the open, and has been for years?

'as though the authorities are still using it when they've just tested this marvellous new technology'

What new technology? At the conclusion of the film, the authorities, publically at least, maintain the new technology did not work. Or even if it did, it did so in a manner unacceptable to the prevailing scientific 'dogma'

Admittedly, the film had flaws, but the message that just because something cannot be empirically proven does not mean it does not exist is clearly and beautifully demonstrated.

Well, the 18 hour thing was proof. But it´s true that is what came across. That is one thing I find wrong with Sagan. He seemed a bit wishy-washy about religion, not wanting to step on anybody´s toes.

18 hours of static was proof of something, and would doubtless inspire further investigation -- clandestine research, naturally

I think the movie's treatment of orthodox, rabid, fundamentalist type religion was very clear -- the chap who blew up the first device

The movie had a very spiritual message, and it is easy to confuse spirituality with religion

Both Science and Religion share the same flaw of dogmatism, and I think Sagan points this out very well.

Anyway, if you go about stepping on people's toes, it takes too much attention away from their heads

I´ve read some lectures he´s done about religion. And he just seemed too afraid to speak his mind.

Science aknowledges it has limitations, religion doesn´t. And science tries to avoid dogmatism, religion embraces it.

I never had the pleasure of attending or reading any of Sagan's lectures, so I can't argue there.

I agree with what you say about the diverse ways in which science and institutionalized religion treat dogmatism: Science is, after all, based on the principle of constantly testing hypotheses; whereas organised religion is based on the more or less blind acceptance of the 'revealed word of God'

However, the story in question is, I feel, dealing with human fallibility and weakness on the one hand and the quest for truth and meaning on the other

I prefer to see the movie as an attempt to point out that basically, at the core, the motives of science and spirituality,(not religion), are not so different in terms of what they are seeking.

I don't know why Sagan was, as you believe, so timid in his approach to religion, and would ask you to examine what he says in his lectures with perhaps a view to what he meant when he spoke of religion -- was he actually speaking of organized religion?

From what I have read of the man, I suspect he had a profound respect for religious feeling, as an inducement to scientific research, but I would be surprised if he had much tolerance for any form of belief or dogmatism, religious or scientific

I think Sagan was more interested in fostering inquiry, knowledge, understanding and concord, rather than launching into attacks on organized religion -- which is, after all, an easy target

But this may be a bit off topic, and as a member of the FFFF http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A254314, I would be first to agree with you about the foolishness and evil of organized religion, anyway

'"Japanese launcher being 'secretly hidden', which struck me as ludicrous given the amount of attention
that this project was given..'

How about: The project's sponsor was incredibly rich, and could pay to keep the other project secret?"'

That's a fair stab at an explanation for something that went unexplained, but I still don't buy it in a world where the Internet is clearly being used and international news gets around faster by email than any professional reporter could run it through the Manufacturing-Consent-hopper. This is a parallel sitation to the American space programme: twenty years ago, several countries had remote sites for launching spacecraft (although theirs didn't hold a candle to the Florida/Houston facilities) in northern South America and the middle of Europe.

Okay, enough squabbling about what the story included: what about the artistic/technical merits of the film? Since it came out about four years ago, I cannot remember who shot it, wrote the screenplay nor designed the film....although a dim memory is suggesting that Jodie Foster produced it through her company, Egg Pictures.
In a way, this is one of those pictures whose style is reminiscent of David Lean's work: there is a huge canvas onto which a personal story is being told. The film managed to convey some rational scientific ideas in a fairly intelligent manner (a rarity) while maintaining an emotional core. That's laudable when the assumption (in the funding offices) is that the majority of audiences are terrified of thinking too much and getting lay-people excited about science (and/or technology) is a lost cause.
Hats off to the decision to shoot anamorphically; I only wish they'd used 70 mm instead.
Does the film work as a story? I think so, although I'm not sure what Ellie's character-arc was - maybe going from struggling scientist to proven explorer?

(Aside, which is liable to stir up plenty of contentious comments: I think now that the underlying message of the film is that science is no more a panacea for explaining our place in the universe than is religion. Science uses our rational minds as a tool to reconcile available evidence with a speculation.....and sometimes finds that the evidence requires a new theory to explain it. Religion says 'when you believe this you will understand what's what'.
I'm not sure where I was going with this, and now I've run out of time. )

Fruitbat

Well, the whole point of Ellie was that she had an experience similar to the one Joss Palmer describer earlier. Something that had a profound effect on her, and made her feel humanity was not alone and didn't need to be afraid. But unable to actually prove it to others.

...but she was believed. Even though there was no "public" proof, there were people who had faith in her, and who chose to believe her. She reinforced their own faith, and that was "proof" enough for them.

Which again mirrors a religious experience. People who have relevations don't need proof to get followers, if the revelation fits with what those people wanted to hear.