Poll

Louise Banks (Amy Adams) in Arrival:

had no choice.
9 (69.2%)
is a selfish shit.
4 (30.8%)

Total Members Voted: 13

Author Topic: Arrival  (Read 20938 times)

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Arrival
« Reply #60 on: December 04, 2016, 07:27:07 PM »
Which brings us to the idea brought up on The Next Picture Show that this might be an argument for a pro-life stance. I think that's a little too easy of an interpretation, in part because the film does seem to place the choice in Adams' hands and her situation is, as I pointed out before, very different from most other people's. But the reading isn't that far off, and I'm interested in seeing what you all have to say about it.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: Arrival
« Reply #61 on: December 04, 2016, 07:30:11 PM »
Does the film ever even bring up the option of abortion? I can't remember.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Arrival
« Reply #62 on: December 04, 2016, 07:31:26 PM »
No, but you could see her saying no to his proposition as an abortion of sorts, if she had said it.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Arrival
« Reply #63 on: December 04, 2016, 07:39:06 PM »
I mean, depending on one's view of when life begins, what is the difference in this circumstance between abortion and just avoiding having sex at the time she knows she would conceive of this child. Either way she is making a choice to prevent a life from being, for at least a plausible reason.

If we are going to take on the abortion analogy, and we consider her selfish for having the child who she know will suffer, is it similarly selfish to not get an abortion if you have limited means and thus the child will be born to material suffering? Is it selfish to have a child you know will have physical or mental defects that will make its life harder? We almost never phrase having a child as selfish, and society is vastly more likely to consider having an abortion as selfish. It is interesting that in this case the former does get some play.

Of course, my previously stated maximum morality fits in with my general comfort with euthanasia vis a vis abortion (which I am politically supportive of but personally conflicted about).

saltine

  • Administrator
  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 9800
Re: Arrival
« Reply #64 on: December 04, 2016, 07:45:31 PM »
It never been having a child v not having her.  It's that Louise knew how she would die, with suffering and pain. 

The film is possibly pro-life but I didn't think of that until I heard it voiced on NPS.  I thought that discussion was satisfying until they pulled that out at the end and didn't discuss it further.
Texan Down Under

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 19044
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: Arrival
« Reply #65 on: December 04, 2016, 08:37:41 PM »
I don't know that every life is worth living.  But Louise's daughter's life seems worth living.  Except for it's shortness and the very end (we don't know how long the suffering endured), her daughter seemed to have a happy, productive life.  Let's say her suffering lasted a year, but it wouldn't be continuous suffering throughout all that time.  Isn't (say) 13 years of a good, happy life worth one year of medium to deep suffering? 

I think to say that Louise, who could see the whole life, allowed her daughter to have those 13 years isn't really an act of selfishness.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

saltine

  • Administrator
  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 9800
Re: Arrival
« Reply #66 on: December 04, 2016, 09:13:35 PM »
We know the daughter had chemo.  That's suffering.
Texan Down Under

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 19044
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: Arrival
« Reply #67 on: December 04, 2016, 09:25:08 PM »
And why did she have chemo?  If L already knew that she was going to die, why bother with chemo?  That's the decision I would question, that might have been strictly selfish.

Chemo isn't always suffering.  I have a friend who goes through regular chemo treatments and she labels it as "uncomfortable, but endurable."  She lives a very active, happy life.  Of course, I've met others who suffered through chemo.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11205
Re: Arrival
« Reply #68 on: December 04, 2016, 10:09:08 PM »
I suggest that she (Louise) experiences time all at once, instead of in the usual linear fashion.
I then submit that her daughter, for her, was already alive in her experiences, so how could she deny her a chance to exist.

The idea of choosing her future is rather vague and never quite established.

But at any rate, I still believe that all lives are worth exploring and her daughter was no exception.
You don't deny someone a chance to exist just because they might suffer and die young.
Hey, nice marmot!

saltine

  • Administrator
  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 9800
Re: Arrival
« Reply #69 on: December 04, 2016, 10:34:30 PM »
You don't deny someone a chance to exist just because they might will suffer and die young.
Texan Down Under