Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › A movie Chomsky would enjoy
- This topic has 9 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 9 months ago by TSRF.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 19, 2017 at 12:02 pm #65411waterfieldParticipant
“Arrival”. A linguistics expert is recruited to attempt to communicate with aliens. While I’m always wary of movies about aliens this was one heck of a movie. Highly recommend it -especially if one is interested in the mathematics behind language. I think Chomsky would be highly interested in the film.
February 19, 2017 at 12:27 pm #65416nittany ramModeratorI saw it and really enjoyed it too. Apparently, linguists love it…
Link: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/index.php?s=arrival
However, here’s a review from a physicist that didn’t care for it…
Beware…there be spoilers here…
Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2017/02/15/film-review-arrival-2016/
February 19, 2017 at 12:31 pm #65417znModerator“Arrival”. A linguistics expert is recruited to attempt to communicate with aliens. While I’m always wary of movies about aliens this was one heck of a movie. Highly recommend it -especially if one is interested in the mathematics behind language. I think Chomsky would be highly interested in the film.
Thanks for posting that, it’s interesting. However, it does lead me to think about something–which is that, arguably, the kind of linguistic theory in the film is the exact opposite of what Chomsky does. It’s true there’s a lot of linguistics in the movie, and they manage to make it cinematic. Still, you just got me to thinking about the difference between what Chomsky does and what some other language theorists do.
The film is a radicalization of what in linguistics is known as the Whorf hypothesis, which holds that culturally derived language conventions shape how people view reality. In the film, then, because the visitors cognitively live in open-ended time lines and can be in the future as much as the present, their language reflects this. Therefore, when the earth linguist learns their language, her actual reality alters and she too is capable of being in the future and present at the same time.
Chomskian linguistics is the opposite in many respects. Chomsky argues that not just the capacity to learn a language but the deep structures of grammatical form and syntax are innate—we are literally born with them built in already, just as we are born able (usually) to coordinate hand/eye function and understand the basic physics of space and movement. We have an innate linguistic capacity. It’s hard-wired into us. So the core rules of language and grammar are genetically determined. The difference between a noun and a verb, for example, is derived from a genetically pre-coded “rule” built right into a human brain.
The Whorf theory makes language primarily cultural. We internalize it and its logic as we learn it. Chomsky makes primary linguistic capacity entirely hard-wired psychological, not cultural.
February 19, 2017 at 12:46 pm #65419nittany ramModeratorThe Whorf theory makes language primarily cultural. We internalize it and its logic as we learn it. Chomsky makes primary linguistic capacity entirely hard-wired psychological, not cultural.
That’s interesting. Coming from a place of almost zero knowledge of linguisitics I would say that Chomsky’s hypothesis makes more sense to me.
From things I’ve read I think the human brain is hard-wired for language. Culture plays a role too – but more along the lines of what language and how a language is spoken. The ‘why’ is because it’s an innate, biological part of us. I mean, we have other physical adaptations for language – especially pertaining to the position and shape of our hyoid bone and larynx, etc…it only makes sense that the brain could be adapted for speech as well…
February 19, 2017 at 4:31 pm #65427waterfieldParticipantWell-I still think Chomsky would be highly interested in the film -if he hasn’t already seen it. Which was my only point re him.
It was hard for me to understand the non linear thinking and the ability to see the future until the math behind the circles shed light on it. Personally, I thought the acquisition of the ability to conceptualize the future by the earthly linguist was more a gift to her from the aliens due to the crisis in the alien’s future.
All in all I thought it was a great movie-the kind that creates conversations -like this-afterwards.
February 19, 2017 at 6:55 pm #65428PA RamParticipantI hate to be the one to throw a wet blanket on this linguist’s party but I have to tell you–I hated the film.
I didn’t even finish the film. Later I went back and looked up the “twist” as it were–which I’d gone far enough to see anyway. It was perhaps one of the dullest films I’ve ever seen. It was certainly the most boring alien film I’ve ever seen.
I get it–this wasn’t “Independence Day” and aliens were only a small part of the bigger picture.
Still–it was dull.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
February 19, 2017 at 7:00 pm #65429PA RamParticipantOne other thought on the Academy Awards this year.
I have zero interest in the nominated films. I believe that the only one I saw was “Hell or High Water” and that was…eh. Okay. Not great.
Oh…and “Arrival” and I already said what I think about that snoozefest.
I can’t remember a year recently where there was just no interest for me at all. I’m actually more interested in the tribute to the dead actors than the films being honored.
For the record…my two favorite films last year:
“The Nice Guys” and “The Jungle Book”.
I hope this year is better.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
February 19, 2017 at 7:23 pm #65430ZooeyModeratorSaw La La Land with my wife last night. I liked it. I don’t think it’s a film I would want to see win Best Picture, but I thought it was very good (in spite of a largely mediocre performance by Ryan Gosling who seems pleasant enough, and certainly better than Adequate, but not, you know, ever remarkable).
I liked the film for its harmonious blend of theatre and film. I think that often films try to be “theatrical,” you know, when they are trying to film a story that was on stage originally (not that this was on stage first, but it clearly drew from theatre). But this one seemed like it used theatre elements when they best suited the story, and film elements when they best suited the story. I thought it was done well. The lighting, in particular, seemed to be under a uniquely talented hand. A lot of the lighting and costuming seemed to be more “theatre” than film, and even some of the sets seemed like stage pieces. But the many long, dizzying crane shots seemed to maximize the ability of film to provide multiple perspectives.
The story itself walked right to the edge of cliche a couple of times, but pulled back in the nick of time, I thought. And I like how the story resolved. It didn’t go for the typical, sappy, happy ending, or the “real world” bummer ending, nor even the “what the hell…I have to choose my own ending” ending, but kind of split the difference in a way. I liked it.
And the balance between acting and music was better than usual. One of my main gripes about musical theatre is that there is just isn’t enough character development, or actual acting. They don’t go more than a couple of pages without bursting into song, and it steals from the story, imo, and dissolves into spectacle. This film seemed to get the balance right (for the genre). I particularly liked the scene where Sebastian and Mia argue over dinner about their futures when Sebastian’s career is taking off while Mia is stuck as a barista. I liked the acting in that scene a lot (even Gosling), and liked that their rift was due to well-established character objectives that tore them apart in spite of their love for one another. That moment seemed driven out of character rather than plot device.
Anyway. I don’t even know how many nominations it got, or for what, but I heard it was well-liked, and as it’s the only movie I’ve seen this year (date night with the wife last night), that’s all I got.
February 19, 2017 at 8:06 pm #65431ZooeyModeratorI don’t think Chomsky would like La La Land, though.
February 19, 2017 at 9:15 pm #65435TSRFParticipantThere’s where you’re wrong. It’s well known that Chomsky has a weakness for show tunes.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.