Jackie (2016)

Natalie Portman is just divine. I'm glad she made this triumphant return to serious films. Jackie Kennedy created this fairy tale of Camelot quite brilliantly ex post facto. I actually didn't know how the Camelot analogy came about, but now I do and it's a fascinating study of a grieving woman with a legacy to think about. And Portman plays the part as regal as we imagine Camelot, helped immensely by the gorgeous, glamorous costumes of the 60s. She speaks just like Jackie Kennedy. It's in fact so spot on with the cadence and rise and fall of her voice that it's kind of annoying.  Her regular speech was very breathy like a whisper. Portman is poised and always in control, even when in a vulnerable grieving state. She strictly instructs the journalist on what he is to publish. There is a great philosophical/theological scene with a priest in which we see Jackie in a different position. It is perhaps the only moment she is not in the power position. She listens to him, and genuinely takes what he has to say with authority.

The breathy voice along with the beautiful score by Mica Levi is haunting. It's the perfect word to describe the tone of the movie. The cello is a pretty haunting instrument and the dissonance, from the very first notes at the beginning of the film, give it a creepy vibe. The fantastic use of the Camelot soundtrack contributes to the eerie aura surrounding the Kennedy legacy. The camera is often uncomfortably close to the face. Grief up close is discomfiting. We literally get an intimate look at her.

The story centers around the week following JFK's assassination. There are several flashbacks weaved seamlessly into the plot. It shouldn't work, but this disconnected storytelling does work. The interview with the journalist is used as a vehicle for the flashbacks. There is a very authentic look to the White House Tour and some of the other seemingly archival footage. It is a story that makes you think about legacy. What is legacy? How is it formed? How is it manipulated? And what did JFK do? Our remembrance of JFK is very much colored by the aftermath of his assassination. Thanks, Jackie.

Manchester by the Sea (2016)

By no means is it a fun film. No, it's about as depressing as it gets-. I really appreciated the storytelling. Kenneth Lonergan's script is well developed, unfolding in stages, weaving in flashbacks seamlessly, slowly revealing how our characters became the characters they are. It is an emotional story made more so by full fledged characters. Casey Affleck plays the troubled brother of the deceased. He is very good, dealing with grief in his own way. His expression does not change when he is first informed of his brother's death. Grief is a process, and we watch him go through various stages. Lucas Hedges, too, is excellent. His is another approach to grief. He provides some comic relief to the audience. What is perhaps so impressive about the characters are how real them seem. That's why it's so powerful.

Fences (2016)

I've never seen the play, but this is supposedly verbatim from August Wilson's words. This is the first film adaptation of any work of Wilson's. He is an American treasure, and Denzel Washington does an honorable job doing him justice. You don't mess with something that ain't broke. Denzel is an actor's director. He lets the stars (most of all himself) shine. Most of the cast is straight from the 2010 Broadway production, for which Denzel and Viola Davis both won Tonys. The whole cast is excellent. They've gotten some flack for basically just putting on the play in front of a camera. But I don't have a problem with that. Plays tend to have deeper scripts. And they retain all the elements of this essential portrait of American life. 

My Oscars Predictions 2017

ABC finally got Jimmy Kimmel to host the Oscars. Being abroad this year, I don't know if I'll be able to watch the Oscars. I've missed all the other award shows this year. But that being said, I really ought to be able to find it. As global events in 2017, awards shows should be streamable live. If you have exclusive broadcasting rights then it is irresponsible and downright annoying to not give me live access from Italy.

This last week, I've been hurrying to watch the rest of the major nominees. And I finished just in time, seeing all the nominees from the top six categories. Almost all the screenwriting nominees too, save for 20th Century Women. We've gone to the Cineteca di Bologna every week this month. They show films in the original language there instead of dubbing them like they do everywhere else in Italy. It's worth the 30 minute trek across the city, plus it only costs 4.50 for students. This week I saw Fences, and it was my 1000th film logged on Letterboxd. It's a big milestone film for me.

Having gone to Cannes this year, I saw a lot of movies, a lot of very high quality movies and foreign movies. As a result, some of my top 10 is nowhere to be found at the Oscars, like Clash, The Handmaiden and After the Storm. With a record-tying 14 nominations, La La Land is the front-runner by far, and with very good reason. For anyone counting, I'm predicting 10 wins for La La Land, that's losses for Ryan Gosling, costume, Audition and Original Screenplay. The record is 11 for Titanic, Ben-Hur and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. But perhaps 10 is appropriate, because that's how many West Side Story got (one of my other favorites).

Best Picture (in likelihood of winning):
1. La La Land
2. Hidden Figures
3. Moonlight
4. Hacksaw Ridge
5. Manchester by the Sea
6. Arrival
7. Lion
8. Hell or High Water
9. Fences

Best Picture (personal ranking):
1. La La Land
2. Arrival
3. Moonlight
4. Hell or High Water
5. Fences
6. Lion
7. Manchester by the Sea
8. Hidden Figures
9. Hacksaw Ridge

Best Director:
Will Win/Should Win: Damien Chazelle (La La Land)
Second Choice: Barry Jenkins (Moonlight)
The wunderkind will become the youngest ever winner of the Best Director Oscar at just 32. Jenkins was arguably more emotionally invested in his personal story, so I feel bad that he isn't going to win this one. Denis Villeneuve will one day get his, but this is not his year.

Best Actress:
Will Win: Emma Stone (La La Land)
Should Win: Natalie Portman (Jackie)
Natalie Portman is just divine, but Emma Stone's character is every member of the acting branch. And don't get me started on Elle. Sure, Isabelle Huppert has never been nominated for an Oscar, but Elle was just offensive on so many levels, surely liberal Hollywood felt the same way?

Best Actor:
Will Win/Should Win: Denzel Washington (Fences)
Second Choice: Casey Affleck (Manchester by the Sea)
This is probably the closest acting race. Affleck was the favorite for a long time, especially before the sexual harassment allegations (years old allegations sunk Nate Parker's chances and I suspect it will pull down Affleck too), but Denzel is the master and has already won a Tony for this role. Some have criticized him for being too theatrical, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

Best Supporting Actress:
Will Win/Should Win: Viola Davis (Fences)
Second Choice: Naomie Harris (Moonlight)
Though it's arguably a co-leading role, Davis already has a Tony for this role and will finally have her Oscar after Meryl stole her Oscar for the Help.

Best Supporting Actor:
Will Win/Should Win: Mahershala Ali (Moonlight)
Second Choice: Jeff Bridges (Hell or High Water)
He may only be in a third of the film, but his performance is very affecting.

Adapted Screenplay:
Will Win: Moonlight
Should Win: Arrival
This will be the consolation award for Barry Jenkins.

Original Screenplay:
Will Win: Manchester by the Sea
Should Win: Hell or High Water
This is tough one. My gut says go with the La La Land bandwagon, but I think voters will choose to honor Manchester by the Sea here, a consolation prize for Kenneth Lonergan. Chazelle will have his chance to go up on stage for Direction. The Lobster fell apart in the second half. And I haven't seen 20th Century Women yet.

Cinematography:
Will Win: La La Land
Should Win: Silence
La La Land is just so beautifully shot that it can't lose. But I think Silence should win; it's not easy to make torture look so good.

Costume Design:
Will Win: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
I haven't seen all the films in this category, but I'm picking the legendary Colleen Atwood.

Film Editing:
Will Win/Should Win: La La Land

Makeup and Hairstyling:
Will Win: A Man Called Ove
I didn't see A Man Called Ove, but I think it must take something really special for a foreign film to get nominated in a below-the-line category. The first Star Trek movie actually won this award, if anyone remembers.

Production Design:
Will Win/Should Win: La La Land
Because did you see the Griffith Observatory and the party and Los Angeles? I haven't seen Passengers yet.

Best Score:
Will Win/Should Win: La La Land
This is probably the surest award of the night cause it's a musical. I haven't heard Passengers, but all the rest of the nominees are all beautiful in their own way.

Best Song:
Will Win/Should Win: City of Stars (La La Land)
I really want to see Lin Manuel Miranda win an EGOT for his song from Moana, and maybe he will if La La Land splits the vote, but I suspect he'll have more chances in the future. This is La La Land's show.

Sound Editing:
Will Win: La La Land
This is typically the loud blow-em-up category, good for Hacksaw Ridge, but I think voters will just vote La La Land down the line. I haven't seen Deepwater Horizon.

Sound Mixing:
Will Win: La La Land
I haven't seen all the nominees, but I think the musical will win the sound mixing award.

Visual Effects:
Will Win: The Jungle Book
Should Win: Kubo and the Two Strings
Yes, literally the whole Jungle Book is visual effects and it looks so darn real. But it's very rare an animation is nominated for visual effects and they do some pretty amazing things too.

Animated Feature:
Will Win: Zootopia
Should Win: Kubo and the Two Strings
I didn't see Moana yet, but it has been an excellent year for animation, especially in a year when the Pixar heir isn't nominated, nor Your Name (directed by the supposed new Miyazaki). I loved My Life as a Courgette, but Kubo and the Two Strings was amazing. Zootopia was great too, but more typical.

Documentary Feature:
Will Win: 13th
I've only seen 13th. I know the front runner is the towering epic OJ, but how many people actually sat through the whole thing? I think a lot of people won't vote for it because it's TV disguised as a movie. Plus, they snubbed Ava Duvernay for Selma a few years back.

Foreign Language Film:
Will Win: The Salesman (Iran)
Should Win: Toni Erdmann (Germany)
I haven't seen all of the films in this category. But Toni Erdmann was actually the funniest movie I've ever seen. In a normal presidency it would win, but Asghar Faradhi boycotting the Oscars is a better story. I think there will be a whole lot of protest votes for him in liberal Hollywood. Moreover, South Korea didn't submit The Handmaiden, Japan didn't submit After the Storm, and Egypt's The Clash wasn't nominated, some of the best movies of the year.

Best Animated Short:
Will Win: Borrowed Time
I only saw Borrowed Time and Piper and both were great.

Best Documentary Short:
Will Win: Watani My Homeland
Should Win: Extremis
Watani is the only one I didn't see. But I've heard some very good things about it. Plus Syria is in the news nonstop. Extremis was the best one I saw. It was really powerful. Joe's Violin was powerful too, and I usually wouldn't bet against the Holocaust movie, but it was a little rougher around the edges. I fell asleep watching The White Helmets, sorry. And 4.1 Miles could've come straight from a 60 Minutes profile.

Best Live Action Short:
Will Win: La Femme et la TGV
Haven't seen any of them so your guess is as good as mine.

Results: I scored a dismal 14/24. It was almost unthinkable that La La Land would lose the top prize but Moonlight was at least a worthy winner (though the whole envelope mishap really undermined the surprising nature of the win). I kind of saw it coming when La La Land lost both sound categories and then the film editing category too. That was a bad omen. I thought Jimmy Kimmel did very well as host. Some were predicting that Barry Jenkins would win director and La La Land would win Best Picture, but few were predicting a split the other way. Side note, I think John Legend is fine but he John Legend-ified the two songs from La La Land, and I did not like his rendition. His style is distinctive and it didn't work for these songs. And on another note, shame works. How do you get Hollywood to vote for people of color? Shame them and don't stop. There is work still to be done.

Evita (UK Touring Production) (2017)

I didn't love Evita. I saw it at the Edinburgh Playhouse on a weekend trip. We happened to pass by and saw it was the last night of Evita. It was great for 20 pounds, but the theater wasn't full for a reason. Mostly because the music isn't that recognizable or good, other than Don't Cry For Me Argentina. But also, the story is kind of boring and the story isn't very clear in Act I. Act II plays out more traditionally, but Act I was a little all over the place. It portrays Eva Peron in a rather negative light, which I didn't know about the show. I don't quite understand the symbolism of Che, the narrator. Apparently, he's not Che Guevara, but the name and mannerism is not a coincidence.

The actress that played Evita was actually pretty good. And the set was well done, including the iconic balcony. In this production, it is in three parts, and it moves, being repurposed in different scenes. My biggest problem with this production was that the sound was way too loud. I couldn't actually understand what they were saying because the speakers were overpowering. 

Hidden Figures (2016)

Hidden Figures is an excellent, straightforward crowd pleaser. It highlights three African American women at West Area Computers division at NASA who faced challenges at every turn. It is an important story for our generation, hopefully inspiring girls and African Americans and other POCs to enter STEM fields. The story draws attention to the fact that minorities need to be so much more brilliant to achieve the same level as less brilliant white men.  Octavia Spencer's character has the foresight to see that her division is about to become obsolete and being so self-reliant, she teaches herself Fortran. Not only that, she teaches her co-workers Fortran to keep them relevant and indispensable. They need to be that much better to keep their jobs. Also, I think it's hilarious that computer was a human job. From the perspective of 2017, it's funny to think about doing all that math by hand. It sounds like a nightmare.

I thought Pharrell and Hans Zimmer's music was very fitting for the era. The acting is all phenomenal.  Octavia Spencer is the Oscar-nominee, but i think Taraji P. Henson steals the show in her pivotal outburst. And Janelle Monae has had some amazing year.                                            

The Taste of Betel Nut (Bing lang xue) (2017)

This Chinese film seems kind of student-like at times. By that I mean that it doesn't really have a sense of what it wants to be. There are some beautiful shots, but the style varies. Further, there is a compelling love triangle that is not properly resolved. The movie's resolution actually comes from an outside force, a side-plot that was rather insignificant in the grand scheme of the plot. I think that outside obstruction was an unnecessary diversion from the central plot, which is consequently left open. I'm not sure how to interpret the ending.

There is very little dialogue in the movie. The main protagonists live happily together. Nothing needs to be said. It is with the introduction of a third character, a disruptor in paradise, do we add dialogue. Funnily enough, their voices don't sound like they look. At times the movie seems a little cheesy, in a supremely Chinese way. I think Korean and Japanese films have found their way into the Western mainstream, but Chinese movies retain very Chinese elements that I think Western audiences don't appreciate. For example, the different styles of music from the cheesy loud pop to the deep heavy piano sound very Chinese. It's not a bad thing, but I think it is very distinctive.

We get a look at life in Hainan, allegedly the Hawaii of China. It is really pretty. It is a provincial side of China I do not often see. They oddly speak a combination of Mandarin and Cantonese. They have their own customs and dress. 

Have a Nice Day (Hao ji le) (2017)

This animated, dark Chinese comedy is very strange. First, it is in a uniquely low-tech 2D animation style. The shots are almost stills. There is very little movement within shots. That is to say though it is in animation style, they are not very animated. I suppose that's just what movies are, still pictures put one after another. But they don't depict movement. It sits on the one still shot and the talking goes in the background. Now maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time discerning emotion in Chinese. It all seemed rather monotone to me, especially without being able to see real people or movement.

That's not where the strangeness ends. There are some strong communist undertones in the movie. And yet, they're comedic, very knowing. There is a totally out of place music video full of karaoke images of triumphant workers singing about going Shangri-La. It is supremely bizarre. The movie is quite self-aware in its un-seriousness. We hear a clip of Donald Trump on the radio. They talk about Brexit, and The Godfather. They never let us forget that though it may look animated, this takes place in our world. No matter how ridiculous the things we see on screen. 

Logan (2017)

We lucked out at Berlinale, catching the premiere of Logan. Gianna waited in the standby line and with a little bit of luck, got us 3 tickets to the 10pm screening. We thought the cast was the 7 o'clock, but they were at our screening. We saw Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart and the rest of the cast and crew. I actually sat 8 rows behind them in the orchestra. It was very cool.

But now the movie...this is the final film in the Wolverine trilogy, and allegedly Hugh Jackman's swan song in the iconic role, after almost two decades. The ageless Wolverine has aged. The immortal Wolverine is...mortal?  Yes, he's still the same hot tempered, badmouthed bad ass. But after 8 films, Jackman has matured his character. In a series largely about evolution, the character of Wolverine has evolved emotionally. What really sets this film apart from the previous X-Men movies is that it's a film, in the words of Hugh Jackman post-credits from the stage (that's why it's premiering at Berlin). It stands on its own. If you know nothing about X-Men, you can still appreciate this film for what it is.  It is a character driven movie that doesn't rely on the super-ness of the characters. It's not a superhero movie. It doesn't rely on the fight scenes, though they are plentiful (perhaps too gritty and plentiful)--it certainly earns its R rating in terms of blood). The movie has an R-level tone of seriousness.

What I like most about X-Men is the political overtones. This film doesn't really use it. And I am ok with that. This film is something different. It plays out like a Western, driving across the Great Plains. It scoffs at the comic book origins of Wolverine, and paves its own way. It will be a landmark in the Marvel canon, hopefully having changed the superhero genre for good because I, for one, have gotten tired of the Avengers.

Moonlight (2016)

It's difficult to put into words what exactly is so incredible about Moonlight. To just say it's timely and important is to totally miss the point. It is a very rewarding albeit challenging experience. The movie is so powerful and personal and yet simultaneously restrained. In movies about a rough childhood, you expect screaming matches at every turn, but it's not that kind of movie. Barry Jenkins has so much control over the pacing of the story that these three small snapshots of Chiron's life become an epic tale of life. An epic that is not extraordinary, but rather authentic and raw. It is so powerful because it is realistic. Mahershala Ali shows us the drug dealer character, but he overcomes the stereotype by being vulnerable. He takes us past the tough guy persona and puts a human dimension to his character. Even if you have not lived Chiron's life, you are made to understand it and contemplate identity and intersectionality in a way that most people never do. The audience is given a lot of time to think and simmer. The moments of silence are plentiful. Tense and deliberate, they are the things that don't need to be said out loud that we simply read through context that are really heart wrenching. It is something that I think surely gets lost in the Italian subtitles, that were woefully inadequate. They did not catch the subtlety of the language, nor the slang nor cadence. I could imagine the hack job they did dubbing the film.

The three actors that play Chiron and the three actors that play Kevin are all excellent. The progression of their characters is impactful. Kevin is played with such charm. And Chiron, again, is just so restrained. Mahershala Ali and Naomie Harris are Oscar nominated, deservedly so. I think it's also worth pointing out Janelle Monae, who has had an excellent year out of her element, or rather in her new element. In addition to singing and performing, she is now a bona fide actress.

The camerawork is beautiful. The first thing I noticed was the strong depth of field. In the very first scene, the characters look almost hyper real standing against the blurry background. And the camera revolves around them in a single take. The scene in the ocean, accompanied by the intensely searing violin, is striking. The camera dips in and out of the water as the waves lap over it. It is a visceral experience. The music throughout the film is really well chosen.  I don't know what it was but the instrumentation in all of the songs chosen fit each scene perfectly.

La La Land (2016)

La La Land is exactly the masterpiece I hoped it would be. I have been waiting to see this film ever since they announced casting of Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling for a jazz musical (two things I love) directed by Damien Chazelle, hot off of Whiplash. He is perhaps our finest young director today. It did not disappoint; it was so beautiful. How do you know you're watching something special? I literally had goosebumps, and there were moments in the film that just brushed over me. It's when you can physically feel the euphoria take your breath away. Only film and classical music do that to me.

Let's start with the plot. It's simple but it's classic a la Golden Age Hollywood. I have to admit, their first encounter in the restaurant tricked me. It was the seen that we're fooled into thinking we knew already from the trailer, but it's not that scene. At first you're taken aback, but then you understand that their courtship is a little more complex than that. Amidst the dream-like sequences, the plot and dialogue is actually extremely realistic. The dialogue is perfectly natural. The movie is so emotionally affecting because it is so well written.

This is a contemporary musical nostalgic for a time gone by. That theme is played out through Seb's infatuation with traditional jazz. It makes a plethora of references to the classic musicals of yore, but it looks forward. It includes the requisite pas de deux, and the big numbers, and the recurring musical themes. It moves towards a wistful ending, not necessarily the happy one you expect from old Hollywood (the ending actually sort of coincidentally reminded me of Once). This movie has depth the way song-and-dance used to be able to get away without.

Chazelle's love letter to Hollywood is necessarily a love-letter to movies (the tone is reminiscent of Cinema Paradiso). You know I love movies about movies. But it's more than that. Because Los Angeles is a unique city. He captures the spirit of a town full of dreamers. Briefly about the ending--I think it's perfect. It reminds us that the essence of the film is not simply their love for each other, but for their high hopes and dreams. The film, after all, is named for the city that will make or break you.

This review is going to get a lot longer than I intended but I'm going to keep going cause there's a lot of ground to cover.

The look: the colors are perhaps a little too obvious. And by that I mean, they pop so much that we're not used to such bold un-patterned primary color coordination. But I think that adds to the dreaminess of the film. The ten-minute balletic epilogue is just stunning. The cinematography is just stunning. Los Angeles has never looked so good. La La Land is not the first film to do the long takes, but it does it very impressively. Someone in the Crowd requires some fancy camera navigation and a well-placed mirror. The opening sequence was all filmed in one shot. I think we've entered a period (maybe starting a few years ago with Gravity) in which the expectation is for contemporary films to go big and do the long single takes. It is becoming normal. But that is not to underscore the massive achievement of getting it all at once perfectly.

Jazz: The soundtrack is phenomenal. I've been playing it on repeat nonstop. Also, looking at the lyrics more closely, they're appropriately fitting. Justin Hurwitz has two Oscars coming his way, for sure. I think jazz is very fitting for Los Angeles. LA is not a jazz town, but the music really captures that trying spirit. Everyone is a constant struggle to make it and what is jazz if not about improvising your own path. As Sebastian points out, it is conflict and compromise.

Acting: I saw Emma Stone in Cabaret on Broadway and she was great. She's not the best singer and neither is Ryan Gosling. But if they could sing, then they wouldn't be struggling artists. The whole point is that they are talented in their own right, but that's not always enough in LA. The parts don't call for excellent singers. They were correctly cast. The leading lady and man are our new Hollywood couple. They've acted together before and I imagine they will continue. They have the look. I love the scene when they're singing City of Stars together. Whereas some scenes look like the actors are singing to a track, this one is unequivocally live. You hear and see it in the imperfect tone and the quavers in their voices. It is vulnerable and human. And it pulls us down from dream world (or la la land). Ryan Gosling plays piano very convincingly. Even if he can only play those couple of pieces, that is pretty impressive. Emma Stone carries the film though. We may focus more on Sebastian's story line, but Emma Stone gives her character dimension and emotion more interesting than Gosling's. I do think John Legend was a weird choice; he's a little too smooth for jazz. I kept thinking Jamie Foxx would've been great.

So if you couldn't tell, I loved everything about this movie. To people that say they liked it but didn't love it, just look and hear and moreover feel how beautiful this movie is. Don't confuse it for a shallow musical. It is more complex than it may let on. 

Arrival (2016)

I have been wanting to see Arrival, but I actually didn't intend on seeing it tonight. I went to see La La Land at Cinema Lumiere, where they show films in their original language. And it turns out the Italians don't want to watch La La Land in Italian either, so the screening sold out and I went to see Arrival instead. I was really bummed out because I've been looking forward to La La Land but I was really impressed by Arrival. My mind is totally blown and now I can't sleep thinking about how much I loved this movie. There is a Christopher Nolan-esque twist that I did not see coming, and I think the twist was better executed than Interstellar's, for example.

This is not an average science fiction film. Science fiction often falls victim to a strong start but a weak finish. They usually have trouble tying the loose ends. Arrival faces no such problem. The film comes full circle thematically, narratively, musically (great use of Max Richter) and visually. All my questions were answered. In such a movie with such complex themes, that is a real accomplishment. It requires a lot of thinking. In fact, I think it was dumbed down from the brilliant and creative short story (which gets more into the nitty gritty of the linguistics and science) written by Ted Chiang "Story of Your Life." Arrival is a much worse title if you ask me. Chiang's original title conveys meaning and depth while Arrival sounds like your typical sci-fi fare, which is severely underselling the movie. But Denis Villeneuve thought his movie was so far removed from the original story that the original title wasn't appropriate anymore. I disagree.

Villeneuve's style is evident. He proves himself to be one of the most talented young filmmakers today, following Prisoners and Sicario. This film uses a similarly dull smoky color palate, save for the orange hazmat suits which pop on the screen. He has such restraint, letting the film move at a slow pace, allowing for the viewer to really take it all in and process the complex plot. It is never showy. He brings depth and emotion to the sci-fi genre. When most would brings guns to the alien show, he brings brains and restraint. Amy Adams is fantastic. Her first encounter with the aliens requires the most acting from her, showing fear and apprehension. But as she becomes more comfortable, that apprehension subsides to just fear. But it is never a loud fear, rather restrained subdued fear.

The movie also very astutely predicted our own world's media demise. Living in a world of fake news and alternative facts, we see all too well the consequences of sensationalist media. In the film, the military men watch too much sensationalist TV news and listen to radical radio hosts the way we do in real life. And our own stupidity is a danger to our society.

Then really quickly, the sound and production work is really well done. I always like to see different conceptions of aliens and the designers created unique aliens, scripted language, spoken language, and alien sounds. The thinking work was done by Ted Chiang, but it was made visible by the production design.