Hi, I'm Michael. This is Lessons from the Screenplay. Pure, thoughtful science fiction is never
just about aliens, or other worlds, or exciting visions of the future. At it's core, hard sci-fi is about humanity. Our hopes and fears, principles and behaviors. The short story by Ted Chiang, "Story of Your
Life," is a great example of exactly this kind of science fiction. But in order to bring its essence into the
cinematic realm, screenwriter Eric Heisserer had to make several
changes to the original story. And even then, director Denis Villeneuve and
editor Joe Walker had to further tweak the narrative to bring it to life. So today I want to look at the changes made
during the adaptation of the short story. To examine how experimentation in the editing process inspired some creative ways to solve common problems. And see how a story about characters trying
to understand an alien species was designed to let us further understand
ourselves. Let's take a look at Arrival. "Story of Your Life" by Ted Chiang was published
in November of 1998. It's a moving mixture of discussions about
science and determinism, and the love and loss of a child. But there were three key elements that needed
to be altered for the story to work as a screenplay. The first I want to talk about is perspective. The short story is narrated by Louise on the
night her child is conceived. She alternates between memories of her past
with the aliens, and memories of her future with her daughter. In order to create a more conventional arc
for the protagonist, screenwriter Eric Heisserer decided to reframe
the story. Rather than being told by a Louise who can
already look forward and backwards at her life, Arrival follows Louise as she discovers the
gift of the alien language. Instead of having the flashforwards be a constant
throughout the story, they are introduced at the beginning and then
sprinkled throughout the rest of the film as Louise learns more of the alien language. Doing this brings the audience further into
Louise's perspective. When she begins seeing flashes of her and
her daughter, we perceive them as memories just as she does. And it is not until she learns that these
are visions of the future that we understand this as well. Choosing this perspective for the film ensures
a steady flow of reveals for both Louise and the audience. The second alteration made to the short story has to do with conflict and tension. In the short story, the aliens never actually
land on earth. Instead they send down one hundred and twelve
"looking glasses," which "acted as two-way communication devices,
presumably with the ships in orbit." This would not make for very compelling scenes. As Eric Heisserer said... "I can't have them spend a year in a room
skyping with some aliens--this is not a film!" "And the first major change that I pitched
to him and that we brought to it was: they show up at our door." I'd like to take a moment to give a shout-out
to "The Q&A With Jeff Goldsmith." It's a fantastic podcast where he interviews
screenwriters, and this audio is from one of his interviews. The link is in the description below, you
should definitely check it out. Anyway, changing the short story so that the
aliens actually come down to the planet, and the characters can interact with them
face-to-face, had a huge impact on the inherent tension
of the story. Suddenly there is an immediate threat. "Why are they here?" "Are they dangerous?" Despite the interactions with the aliens ultimately
being safe, their mere presence motivates most of the conflict in the film. There is public hysteria. A few soldiers to attempt to destroy the ship... [explosion] And world leaders treat the arrival as an
act of aggression. Having the aliens land on earth created the
tension and conflict necessary to sustain a feature film. The last alteration I want to discuss involves
the manner in which Hannah, Louise's daughter, dies. In the short story, Hannah dies at the age
of twenty-five in a rock climbing accident. But in the screenplay Hannah dies from an
incurable disease, and at a much younger age, during her adolescence. So why make these changes? The first reason has to do with film being
a visual medium. "Part of it was we needed to make sure the
child didn't get old enough..." "...that we'd have to age up the actress playing
Louise." "Because that gave away everything." If it was obvious from the beginning that
the flashbacks were actually flashforwards, there would be no reveal at the end of the
film. The second reason has to do with making sure
the protagonist's choices matter. In the short story, Louise's character arc
is to realize that the universe is deterministic and she must learn to embrace the inevitable. "And I was a bit rebellious about that." "I'm like, 'Ted, I don't like that.'" "And I said, 'I think it's more profound for
me if she has a choice, if she has free will..." "...and can change her future..." "...and yet she chooses to have Hannah." Louise has to be able to change the future
in order for her to choose to have Hannah. And for this choice to have meaning, Hannah can't die from something preventable,
like a rock climbing accident, because Louise would just stop her from rock
climbing. So by changing the story so that Hannah dies
from a disease, Louise's character is able choose the love
of her child, knowing full-well the loss that will come as a result of it. All of these alterations made during the adaptation
process highlight the importance of screenwriting basics. Being engaged in the protagonist's journey
of discovery. The need for immediate conflict and tension. And emotional impact through choice. But in the case of Arrival, the writing process
didn't stop with the screenplay. There are many key differences between the
script and the final film. As Eric Heisserer says, "You know, the third
version of a movie is always found in editing." The editing process for Arrival lasted for
six months, and reading the screenplay, it's obvious that
many scenes are missing, or were condensed, or were tweaked to create the final film. For example, halfway through the film there
is a three minute montage that is strictly focused on telling the audience
information about the aliens. "Here are some of the many things we don't
know about heptapods." In the screenplay, however, all this information
is spread out across several scenes and various story threads. There's a scene in which they learn how the
heptapods think and write. This scene was removed from the film, and the information added as voice over in the montage. IAN: "Their written language has no forward
or backward direction." "Linguists call this nonlinear orthography." In the script, Louise uses an analogy to explain
this to Colonel Weber, but in the film this becomes another voice over line. IAN: "Imagine you wanted to write a sentence
with two hands starting from either side." "You would have to know each word you wanted
to use..." "...as well as how much space they would occupy." And a scene was removed where Ian draws a
picture of the aliens and names them. Again this dialogue was transferred to the
montage narration. IAN: "Greek." "Hepta, 'Seven.'" "Pod, 'Foot.'" "Seven feet." "Heptapod." This shows that sometimes it's better to get
all the exposition out at once if it's otherwise holding back your story. Another example of creative editing falls
into the category of a happy accident. In the screenplay, there is a story thread
that involves Colonel Weber worrying about Louise's mental state. It gets to the point where he temporarily
takes her off of the project, and assigns Ian to take over. This sequence was removed from the final film,
again for pacing reasons, but as the editor explains... "We took it out, and then we realized there's
an essential piece of information in there.." "...concerning the Sapir-Warf theory." This is the theory which posits that learning
a different language re-wires how your brain thinks, which is critical information for understanding
what is happening to Louise. So rather than remove this scene, they started experimenting with ways of aggressively trimming it, and in doing so stumbled onto an interesting
jump cut. "We just bashed together some sections of
it." "And, for example, the first cut was from
Ian to Ian, a really ugly jump cut." "Something so overtly wrong—his head is
down, his head is up and he's talking." "And then suddenly, that gives us an idea
that we could tell the scene a different way." They altered the scene to be about the psychological
toll the job is having on Louise by turning it into a dream. The lines involving her being taken off the
project were removed and a new ending was created with a surprising reveal. "I'm curious." "Are you dreaming in their language?" Rather than her response being directed to
Colonel Weber... LOUISE: "I mean, I've had a few dreams, but
I don't..." ...they used visual effects to replace him
with a heptapod. "I don't think that makes me unfit to do this
job." I think this shows the importance of experimentation. Of not being afraid to shuffle your scenes
around just to see what ideas come from the quote-unquote
"wrong" way to do something. All in all, a lot of the script for Arrival
was cut, altered, or re-arranged to create the final film. And this was done to keep the focus on Louise
and her character's journey. This is important, because it's largely through
her and her struggles that the film explores what it means to be human. One of the things that I love about science
fiction—when it's done well —is that it's an introspective genre. As Ted Chiang, writer of the short story says... Ted: "To me, science fiction—it's not about
special effects..." "...or giant battles between the forces of good and evil." "Science fiction is about using speculative
scenarios as a lens to examine the human condition." So how does Arrival accomplish this? How does it become a lens through which to
examine the human condition? One way is through the design of its scenario. The very premise of the film involves scientists
studying why an alien species is the way it is. And by asking the question, "how and why do
heptapods think non-linearly?"... ...the film is implicitly asking, "how and
why do humans think linearly?" By having the heptapod written language be semasiographic... IAN: "It conveys meaning. It doesn't represent sound." ...it begs the question, "how come our written language
does represent sound?" When we study an other in an open, objective
way, we're simultaneously studying ourselves. Arrival also examines humanity through the
motivations of the protagonist and antagonists. Louise's expertise in linguistics has taught her the importance of patience, trust, and communication. And every choice she makes is in pursuit of
these values. But every conflict she encounters is a manifestation
of impatience... "Trying to learn how to speak and read..." "That's gotta take longer." ...or fear... "Look at these people!" "Most of them don't even have guns." ...or silence. "Put us on radio silence." "Do it." "We received a message from the heptapods--" "Dammit!" "We need to be talking to each other." "You want to talk to them, find out what this
means." And the justifications made by the antagonists
are all referenceing human behavior. HALPERN: "We have to consider the idea our
'visitors' are prodding us to fight among ourselves.." "...until only one faction prevails." "There's no evidence of that." "Sure there is." "Just grab a history book." They're afraid of the aliens because they
know what humanity is capable of. The heptapods make no acts of aggression whatsoever. All the conflict comes from us. Examining how Arrival was adapted from book-to-screen
reveals a lot about the medium of film. It exposes the the elements of storytelling
we expect when we sit down to watch a movie. And it demonstrates how a story that on the
surface is about trying to communicate with an alien species can actually be about how we communicate with
each other. As shown by humanity's various reactions to
their arrival. Hey guys! Michael here, hope you enjoyed the video. I know a lot of you have been asking for Arrival, and it was one of my favorite films of last year, so I was more than happy to do this one. This video has been brought to you by Squarespace. Now, I've been using Squarespace to manage
the Lessons from the Screenplay website for several months now...and I really like it. I used to dread updating the website, so I
just kind of wouldn't do it. But with Squarespace it's just simple and
straightforward and I don't have to worry about any of the annoying things that I used
to. So I created a new blog post that is an answer
to a frequently asked question I get, which is "what equipment and what software
do you use to make your videos?" So, head over the website, check that out. And if you find yourself thinking, "hey, I would like a professional-looking, hassle-free website!" then you should get Squarespace. And you should do so by going to squarespace.com/LFTS, to get ten percent off your first purchase. Thank you to Squarespace for supporting this
channel. Please subscribe if you want more lessons
from the screenplay. Thank you to my patrons, without whom this
channel would not be possible. And thank you for watching.
Always love to see new videos from LFTS pop up on my feed.
I thought one of the main ideas was that Louise wasn't struggling with the question of choice. How could she have memories of something she chose not to do? Changing her daughters death from a climbing accident to a terminal illness doesnt necessarily seem to impart the ability to choose. If it was still a climbing accident, and she "chose" to save her, then she wouldnt have any memories of her daughters demise in the first place. I dont see how the screenwriter thought that this imparts some sort of choice of free will to Louise. She had memories of raising her daughter, and dealing with her death, because she always will be making, will have made, and will make that decision to have her daughter and deal with her death. I was under the impression that their intention was to show Louise struggling with the concept of Amor Fati. The idea of being able to embrace and even celebrate ones life even if you know every moment, every moment from ugliness to beauty. If you had to live your life over and over, for eternity, how would you feel? Nietzsche wasnt the first to come up with this thought experiment, but he has some great quotes on the subject.
Where the screenwriter thought that giving Louise a "choice" made it more profound, I feel like he missed the point. It seems to go against everything the story builds up to. To me, it is more profound that she becomes a being that embraces her fate, she has moments of joy with her daughter despite knowing the extreme sorrow to follow. The gift that the aliens gave to Louise, to humanity, with their language wasnt just the non linear perception of time, but the elevated conception of embracing your life even if the outcome is not always great, to really appreciate life for all its beauty and ugliness. Nietzsche didnt literally believe in an eternal return, but I think he meant it as a profound tool to deal with the difficulties of life. From one moment to the next when faced with a difficult decision, just think to yourself, "Is this the life I would want to live again and again?" If not, examine why.
One of my favorite subscriptions. He's amazing!
This is so incredibly well made and in-depth. I love these videos so much and encourage everyone to support his patreon!
:(
Although there is talk about the changes that go from the book to movie, I think the foundation of sci-fi was far more interesting. Never came to my head how important the people aspect was, rather than how fancy the technology is.
Even the explainer gets me misty eyed. Damn fine catharsis.
My favorite Youtube Channel I discovered last year doing a video on my favorite movie from last year. A good day it shall be.
Wow I didn't know so much was changed from the original, I'm so glad they went with the choice they gave Louise. Loved that film.