Because Alpha doesn't know what a shark is and Beta doesn't speak English, so what panicked them? I know there's a bit where they say Alpha is teaching Beta his language but he can't have taught her a word he didn't know, so what panicked them? And in any case the reaction is instantaneous with no time for translation, so what panicked them? This is a great film and I'm not having a go at it, I just want to know what panicked them.
share[deleted]
Year-and-a-day since you posted this question! But I see you're still active on IMDb... So... Just in case you still care...
Your question is answered, first, by recalling that the Alpha-Beta dynamic was very much reciprocal. Beta was reconnecting Alpha to his "inner dolphin," just as much as Alpha was teaching her a language of man.
Then there's Jake's speech to the women's club, in the opening scene, which was pure exposition. We are told of the many wonders that account for an essentially paranormal -- if not mystical -- set of qualities inherent to dolphins. (One of which is that dolphin skin is apparently the equivalent of a high-tech radar/sonar system.)
So, for the "there's-a-shark-in-the-tank" scene, we are meant to accept that something hard-wired into their dolphin DNA has either: (a) allowed Alpha to become fluent in his native dolphin tongue or (b) he and Beta now communicate with each other via an intrinsic, primordial telepathy.
Qvid novi? Vidistine nuper imagines moventes bonas?
I do still care, although I was only going to wait one more day before abandoning hope of getting an answer. The explanation certainly makes sense. Thank you very much eStreetBeat.
shareI think the answer is that it is impossible. I saw the film a couple nights ago on cable (TCM, I think...and since it's been on TV recently, watch for an increase in posts about this film). Like you, I scratched my head over this when it happened in the story. There is no plausible explanation in my opinion, and the filmmakers were counting on viewers willingess to suspend their disbelief.
On a more general note, the ending is quite emotional, especially for animal lovers. And I think there is a good movie in this concept, but Mike Nichols and Buck Henry didn't deliver. The first 1/2 of the picture is strong, but the assasination conspiracy story seems forced and rushed. The dolphin/man relationship story is dynamic, and I believe that with more care that a "thriller" plotline could be added to the story, but this film didn't work.
Normally, I HATE remakes and sequels, but this might be one of those rare times when a film remake of the novel could be a good idea. It's certainly a unique story, and that in and of itself makes it a winner in these retread times.
I second that, victor. Hopefully, in my reply, the intent behind phrases like "we are meant to accept" made that clear. And, certainly, I wouldn't have used words like "paranormal" and "mystical," if the suspension of disbelief wasn't key to that scene, as well as a few others, in this film.
But you make a good point; especially if the OP was asking for a real-life answer, rather than -- as I had assumed -- asking what the film maker was trying to convey.
Qvid novi? Vidistine nuper imagines moventes bonas?
I third that. I was grateful for your explanation and happy for something that made some sort of sense within the framework of the film. I hope I haven't come across as some new age believer in psychic dolphins.
shareNot at all, chief. In fact, I assumed that was where you were coming from because I do it all the time! You see a movie that's solid overall, but there's a scene that could skew your final judgment unless you can get at the filmmakers' intent. Certainly doesn't need to be plausible in real life. It just has to (as you say) work within the framework of the film.
Reminded of that great classic JAWS. We now know that much of the shark's behavior in the film was contrary to what any real shark would ever do. And we know that much of the exposition from the Dreyfus character was misguided and based upon the flawed data available at the time. Thanks to big advances in marine science, we've debunked nearly every assumption made about shark behavior in that film. And God knows that, since JAWS came out, we've all seen enough "Shark Weeks," on Discovery, to realize how unbelievably corny that mechanical shark looks!
But does any of this make JAWS any less awesome as a movie? Not to me. Because, again, all the science needs to be is good enough to work within the framework of the film. Which frees us to sit back, relax, and let Spielberg's storytelling wizardry take us away.
Qvid novi? Vidistine nuper imagines moventes bonas?
Interesting discussion of the film's strength and weaknesses. I agree with most of the early comments that the first half of this film is exquisitely beautiful, but it just fall apart at the end when it becomes a thriller -- or at least tries to. Really: Stealing a dolphin to kill the president? I guess they needed some dramatic movement for the story, and maybe the film took shortcuts that made more sense in the novel. And yes, "Jaws" looks pretty bogus now, but it had all the other elements of a good thriller so I could overlook the hazy science.
The first half of this film is extremely well photographed and enlightening -- assuming it would still pass the test with marine biologists. I've never seen such fascinating footage of dolphins interacting with humans (not that I've sought it out). Makes me want to take one of these beautiful creatures home, if only I had a bigger bathtub.
Rather than a remake, though, I wonder: Where are all the great environmental films of this supposedly green era? Is "Avatar" the extent of it? There are documentaries like "The Cove" and "Food, Inc.," but why are environmental issues not explored more in feature films? It's probably not as sexy as whatever superhero sequel is topping the box office this weekend, but it's much more important.
I thought the assassination storyline worked okay. It certainly wasn't as compelling as the first half of the film, but I think it carries an important message; that man really isn't capable of having a harmonious relationship with nature because he will inevitably find a way to corrupt it (usually by trying to turn it into a weapon). The military have employed dolphins in real life and it's a natural extension of the film's premise that someone would attempt to use highly-trained ones for such a purpose. From the rhapsodic opening monologue (and the scene where George C. Scott says that he should have tried to be more like them), it is obvious that the film is in awe of dolphins, and I think that it is lamenting the weaknesses of human behaviour and our inability to be like Alpha and Beta - just "instinct and energy".
share[deleted]
As the faux-dolphin up front of the "Alpha tank" was mauled by a shark, I believe that dolphins for thousands of years or much more as in humans today and before (more) have been born afraid of lions, tigers, rain, thunder etc.
There was much talk around Alpha about sharks and maybe directly to him. He got the signal from Beta...."panic" and simply understood. Dolphin speak. Makes some sense to me.
[deleted]