[DarkeningHumour]

RE open ending: The problem with that is that Zemeckis destroys any possibility of an open interpretation with the 18 hour footage titbit.

The problem with Contact is that the conversations Foster and McConaughey have about faith and science are incredibly childish. They're the thoughs that 12-year olds would have about those issues, and it makes them (particularly her) seem much dumber than the film wants us to think they are.

This. Not the father part, but this.

[Junior]

No, that's what makes it open. That's the only thing that works for her story, right? But it could also be some kind of glitch, or built into the system somehow. That's what opens the door for ambiguity, or else she'd just be delusional.

[DarkeningHumour]

You're grasping at straws with that glitch theory. Without the video we would have her experience without physical evidence. We could debate whether it truly happened or not. We could deem her delusional but would not have to. It would open our reading of her and of the movie. The video definitely kills that.

[Junior]

Everything except the video and her testimonial points towards nothing happening. The video could be something or nothing, and her testimonial could be a hallucination. This isn't straws, it's the empirical point of view. Based on what they've seen, most of the characters think nothing has happened. We're biased because of our experience watching her, but they don't know that and that's why the conversation can keep happening.

[DarkeningHumour]

There is a difference though, between what is reasonable to believe from their perspective and ours. That a movie character should logically not believe in her account is not incidental on our own cognition because we are allowed a higher level of awareness. Empirically we dispose of different data than them.

[Junior]

Oh yeah, I'd say we're probably above 75% supposed to be on board with her version of the story, but if she can't tell that story and be believed, what are we supposed to make of that? I think that's where the conversation happens, and we see it begin in the film. What if she's right, but she can't prove it? Isn't she asking people to take it on faith, a thing she was vehemntly against earlier in the film. I think that's also why some of that earlier stuff, especially between her and the McCon is so obvious that she can have the character arc from firm believer in science only to a more complicated position involving faith. That's cool, to me.

[DarkeningHumour]

That's what I got from her character arc and I hated it. Getting a scientist to start believing in things without evidence is not something that should be celebrated.

[Teproc]

she can have the character arc from firm believer in science only to a more complicated position involving faith.

This is my whole problem with the film: science is not contradictory with faith. Not in any way whatsoever. It's a false dichotomy, and the whole film is based on that, including the final bit where the film is basically saying "Ah-ha ! The shoe is on the other foot now, because she is asking others to believe ! Where's your science now, lady ?" and... that infuriates me. Not because I disagree with the core idea, but just... yeah, science doesn't explain everything. Literally no scientist that has ever existed believes that science explains everything, so the whole conflict the film is based on is false. It's a Jodie Foster-shaped straw-man.

[DarkeningHumour]

If I am going to have my straw-men take shape, I can think of worse forms than Jodie Foster...

I am not sure what you mean when you say science cannot explain everything.

[Teproc]

If I am going to have my straw-men take shape, I can think of worse forms than Jodie Foster...

I am not sure what you mean when you say science cannot explain everything.

Well, any explanation of where the universe comes from runs into the wall of "yeah but what was there before ?"... and more crucially, science can't answer "Why ?", it only answers "How ?".