The Sheila Variations

Contact.

Yup!!

Great movie, apparently the book is even better.

But the movie has Jodie Foster.

I'm sorry, let me say that again, for emphasis.

The movie has Jodie Foster.

Ok, there.

I thought it was one of the best SF films of the decade.

I just got into a debate with one of my "Industry" friends about Contact. The snob didn't like it. I of course did.

I LOVED that movie. I loved every, single bit of it. I think it's Foster's best work and I think the film is an extraordinary science vs. belief flick.

Brilliant.

Alex - I totally agree with you. I just love Jodie Foster's work in this movie.

But everybody is great.

The plot, the issues, the way it unfolds ... I can't even count how many times I have seen it.

It's one of those movies that doesn't get enough appreciation. It's one of those that I get something different from just about every time I see it, too.

It's also one of those that if I run across it on TV, I'll stop and watch, even though I've got it on DVD, and I've seen it several times.

Just a little actor-ish observation:

During the hearing at the end, when Jodie does that amazing monologue ... well, first, it never fails to get me ... but here's what I see that she is actually DOING:

Notice that not one tear falls. Her eyes fill up with tears ... but not one spills over. She is full of emotion and yet she - as an actress - I believe she somehow knows that to weep openly would take away from the moment. That takes unbelievable control. To get yourself so worked up that all you want to do is weep - and then NOT WEEP. I am telling you - 9 our of 10 actors think that tears on the face is good acting. You see it all the time. Someone showing off their tear-falling ability ... at the expense of the moment.

It's one of the truest things about acting:

If you, the actor, cry ... the audience will not.

If you, the actor, feel like crying but struggle to control the emotion ... the audience will cry.

It's about the catharsis. It's not about the actor having a catharsis, it's about the audience having one.

Jodie Foster, I believe, knows that. Her acting during that monologue is the best work she has ever done.

Anyone who's been a Jodie Foster fan, even since the "Taxi Driver" and "Little Girl Who Lived Down the Lane" days, even through the Disney and kid stuff like "Freaky Friday", "Candleshoe" and "Bugsy Malone", etc, could tell what a phenomenal actress and presence she was, and was going to be in the future.

She's almost too good. Sometimes she outshines the material - I think that kind of happened in "Sommersby" and "Maverick" and other films like that.

I regret she hasn't really done more films than she actually has, but the kind of roles she plays just don't come along that often - Ellie in Contact, Clarice in "Lambs", even "Nell", and hopefully her new airplane movie - all unique characters, requiring a unique actress.

My hope is someday she'll be recognized as one of the best American actresses ever, up there with Streep, etc.

Barry - I, personally, disagree. She's not always my favorite. I loved the stuff she did as a child. She was precocious, intelligent in her choices, and unselfconscious.

But as an adult I think she can be a bit mannered and self-conscious for my taste. There are times when she seems very actor-y - she makes moments complex that should be simple - she gets this very "busy" look in her eyes ... she's always trying to SHOW us the moment, as opposed to being IN the moment.

In Contact, she kept it really simple. I think it's her best work.

There is a major science flaw at the end that the plot hinges on. This flaw mostly ruined the film for me. I won't tell you what it is.

Oh please tell me what it is!

I had a bit of an issue with the fact that the scientists wouldn't immediately have noticed that her tape recording device had 18 hours on it. Or 18 minutes - or whatever it was. It seems like that would have been noticeable and notable right off the bat.

To me that's always been a quality, because so many actors these days....let me see how to put it. When they're not delivering a line of dialogue, or they focus of the scene is not on them, or even if they are speaking but it's just "small talk", whatever, they seem to slip off into their own world. Basically, they lose character in some ways. It's subtle, but I can pick it up on occasion. With Foster, I never feel she lets up who she's portraying, since in real life we can never "break character" of who we are. She just seems to always been intensely focused on who he character is, and where she is, and what's going on inside her head even when not speaking. I just find that fascinating to watch, and really respect it.

Doesn't the scientific flaw have to do with how she breathes? Or something like that?

You mean - how she breathes when she's on the beach in outer space?

I'm very curious as to what the flaw is.

I guess, Barry, the very quality that you describe in Jodie Foster - that intense focus and concentration on who the character is - is exactly what makes her seem, at times, actor-ish. Because we in real life are not "intensely focused and concentrated on our character" - We aren't walking around, ordering coffee, having conversations, aware of "This is my character that I am portraying. This is how I walk, how I order coffee." we just ARE. We aren't constantly trying to SHOW people who we are - we just are.

In Contact I truly believed she was that girl. There are only a couple of moments where she seemed like the actress making a point. It's so not a vain performance - like: no makeup, hair in ponytail - that I want to hug her. Ellie seems very real to me. Very good stuff. In Taxi Driver, fuggedaboutit - she just WAS that girl.

Barry -

Here's an example of the kind of moment I mean. It's one of the only moments when I don't like her in Contact.

She's at the telescope in South America wherever it is. It's her first night of work. She thinks she hears something over the static. This is when she meets the blind guy who becomes her friend. It turns out the static was a pulsar - already catalogued years before.

Next shot: she is back in her little cabin, staring at her star map. We see her hand put a tack on that star. The camera goes over to her face.

In that moment: she takes off her glasses, and says, "One down ..." her eyes look over the rest of the map, with a little grin on her face. She mutters, "Only 5 billion to go." (or whatever the number).

Now - it's a cheesy line. And it's done in closeup. Which is even more cheesy. Neither of those things are her fault. She is FORCED into a cheesy moment there. But did Zemeckis make her take the glasses off in that moment? It's a highly phony moment. And the way she says it ... it's artificial, she's "having a moment as an actress" - as opposed to really being Ellie Arroway, looking at her star map.

She over-does it sometimes. She over-complicates moments that should be simple.

Like I said - I think Contact is pretty much free of all of that - but that one moment always stands out for me as Jodie Foster having a cheesy acting moment, as opposed to being a character living her life.

That is one of my favorite movie lines of all time.

The first time I saw that movie was when my parents and I were having dinner at a friend's house. It was right when it had come out on video and we all watched it afterwards. In the scene were Ellie's father died, my dad reached over and patted me on the shoulder, since he thought it might be a hard thing for me to watch, seeing a little girl lose a parent so young. It was just a small, simple gesture of loving support, but I never forgot it and always remember that whenever I watch this movie.

And I love the way they had "For Carl" written at the end.

emily - ohhhh. That moment with your dad!! I love that.

I liked the movie, but there was one thing that bugged the heck out of me.

Towards the end, Matthew McConoughy tells Jodie Foster that he basically sabotaged her chances of going on the first mission because he didn't want her to leave, and she's all lovey-dovey with him... I would think the more likely reaction would be for her to stab his lying eyes out with whatever sharp object was handy. It just struck me as a horrifically selfish, egotistical, sexist thing to do.

Jodie Foster was great, though. I think Bill Simmons once compiled a list of the worst casting of actors to play PhDs (Denise Richards!). Jodie Foster is the exact opposite of that.

I also want to give props to Tom Skeritt's character. He was just slimey enough to be disliked, but competent enough to still be respected as a legit scientist.

Scott - I never read the book. I can't imagine Sagan made the same mistake in the novel; I assumed it was to simplify things for the movie. Simple to the point of wrong, though.

It is a quite wonderful movie.. although I was not anywhere near as convinced by Matthew McConaughey's acting as I was by Jodie Foster's.

As for The Flaw.. the interesting point, to me, was that it undermined the conclusion reached by Jodie Foster's character.. that sometimes belief is required.. that is.. there was proof.

Which could provide a reasoning for the flawed science behind that proof.. heh.

If one of you science geeks doesn't tell me what the mistake was in, like, 5 seconds ... you will all be banned from my site forevermore.

No, not really. But come on. Knock it off with the coyness, and tell the un-scientific geek right here what the issue was.

Does it have to do with the 18 minutes?

George - that bothered me, too. Also because - he basically lied to her directly following. She was accusing him of sabotage, and he got all uppity Christian man and said, "Do you honestly believe that I, in all good conscience, could send someone up there who believes the rest of us were suffering from mass delusion?" You know, he made it all religious.

Then later - when he shows up in Japan just before she takes off - he admits it was that he didn't want to lose her.

Well, thanks for nothing, jagoff.

Considering Jodie as a great actress- have you seen A Very Long Engagement? Very good movie, and she speaks entirely in French. I got it because I love Audrie Tautou and didn't even know that she was in it. Another fine performance.

Sorry, Sheila.. wasn't trying to be coy. and hopefully I'm not banned... I thought it had been mentioned already.

The flaw is that the camera had recorded 18 hours, of static, as I remember, but that those observing watched Jodie Foster's character all the way through the drop and saw no interruption.

Usually [*ahem*] any speed of light travel, for example, would have the opposite effect - slowing time for the traveller in relation to the time elapsed on Earth during the journey.

And, as you said, Earth-bound scientists in the movie would have wanted to look at that.

I just couldn't really enjoy it that much, having read the book first. Interestingly, DH and I watched "Contact" again just the other day. We have quite a few boring issues with it, too.

Would any of you guys consider stopping by my blog and adding to our list of what I am calling "Movies To Which Rapt Attention Must Be Paid, Because Things May Not Be As They Seem"? We want to go beyond "The Sixth Sense", obviously. I'll be adding a few classics later tonight, since we first concentrated on more modern films.

But please, please, I would be SO grateful for any of your thoughts, because the movie discussions here are better than anywhere I've seen!

I put a 'guess the quote' in one of my posts two months ago, and nobody even tried. I was so sad. It was "Chicken-fry me a steak. And put some meat in it this time!" ;-)

Anyway, you can go to the main site and scroll down a bit, or the direct link for the movie discussion is:
http://ninjapoodles.blogspot.com/2005/09/film-festival-1-thinkers.html

Thanks to anyone who "plays". We'd hate to be missing a gem that we haven't seen, and this is our favorite kind of movie.