While watching it, I also thought it was a little messed up to have the child even though she knew the eventual outcome. When the movie ended, I thought she did it because—even with the eventual loss—the love and experience of what life there would be, would still be worth it. So while sad, it made sense.
The next morning, however, I had an entirely different take on it. It's not sad at all in the context of the movie, but it is (or could be) to the viewer.
At the start of the movie, she mentions not believing in beginnings and endings any more. The loss of her child, and loss in general, is based on time going forward, and the loss having happened in the past. That's where (I assume) we all live. Loss is sad because it's something that can no longer be experienced.
But once her perception of time altered, the loss wouldn't be a "loss" as we'd perceive it, because her past wouldn't necessarily be something that couldn't be experienced again, and her future wouldn't necessarily be something that had yet to be experienced. Once she was fully aware of this, it would free her of hesitation to do something simply because it would come to an "end" (e.g. having her child). Her perception was now circular, had no beginning and no end as we see it, and any part of that circle could be chosen to experience—with as much importance—over any other part. Just like the alien way of communicating.
So when I watched it, yes, it seemed sad to me, because that's the perception of time that I currently live in.
I'm not sure if that makes sense, or is actually what the movie is going for. It's simply what I popped into my head on a drive to work.
reply
share