MovieChat Forums > Annihilation (2018) Discussion > Alex Garland is a great choice but...

Alex Garland is a great choice but...

posted 8 years ago by asfound
12 replies | jump to latest

Although there were some great eerie moments in Ex Machina I think it needs to be a little more avant-garde, something like Under the Skin for example but also with moments of internal creepiness and paranoia like the Babadook.

At the same time, I think there should be a build up of dread akin to other great sci-fi horrors like Alien and Event Horizon.

Very much looking forward to this. Only negative thing so far would be the casting of Natalie Portman (although I guess there are worse choices). But judging by Garland's form on his other sci-fis and horror films, this should be good as long as the studio lets him retain what made the book great.

[–] highway_robbery 8 years ago

Only negative thing so far would be the casting of Natalie Portman

Slightly off topic, but I wondered what Ex Machina would've been like if Natalie Portman had played Ava rather than Alicia Vikander... for no reasons other than the physical likeness between the two actresses, and because Ava had a girlish vulnerability similar to a lot of Portman's roles.

*I don't know the source material for Annihilation at all so have no idea how suited she is to the role!

[–] AllGot 8 years ago

I think Ex Machina was a bit overrated but Garland did an amazing job in it. If he sticks to the book's story and make bold choices in his adaptation, I'm sure the result will be very good. I like the cast, can't wait for it!

[–] PrivateBozz 8 years ago

Yes, it needs to be surreal but in a 'under the radar' sort of way, so you feel that there's something strange without being able to put your finger on it. A quiet disturbing sensation that sneaks its way inside of your head (at least that's what the book did with me, I feel like it changed something inside me, and I don't think for the better, haha). Ex Machina shows that Alex Garland can do unrushed creepiness, so I'm happy he's the one directing Annihilation, although I'm sure the intensity of the book won't be surpassed by the movie.

I agree about Natalie Portman. I like her usually, but the biologist is tough and completely shut off, Natalie Portman has way too much emotion and vulnerability in her features, no matter how good she can act. Imo it's just a bad choice for visualizing the character.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If I upset you, don't stress
Never forget, that God isn't finished with me yet

[–] asfound 8 years ago

Agreed. Something else I was considering is the special effects regarding the visual elements - *possible spoilers* -

Although I think this will be more of an issue with the later insallments i.e. the tunnel across the border/visions, some of the things, such as the crawler, are supposed to be so bizarre and other-worldly that they are pretty much inconceivable/unperceivable by the human mind.

The CGI/special effects will have to be pretty amazing to represent things like that, but as I said, Alex Garland has good form with this (at least more subtly) in Ex Machina. And a lot of the first book is a more subtley creepy i.e. the boar/dolphin eye.

[–] PrivateBozz 8 years ago

Although I think this will be more of an issue with the later insallments i.e. the tunnel across the border/visions, some of the things, such as the crawler, are supposed to be so bizarre and other-worldly that they are pretty much inconceivable/unperceivable by the human mind.

Absolutely! Reading it I couldn't really picture or grasp it, it's obviously too bizarre to be described with words, and so any design of the crawler should avoid to give the viewer an defined shape of the creature or an explanation what exactly he's seeing. I hope they don't design some alien like thing but leave most of it to the imagination.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If I upset you, don't stress
Never forget, that God isn't finished with me yet

[–] theireneh 8 years ago

I completely agree! I think Alex Garland will do a great job, I love his previous work. I hope he won't rely heavily on cgi. I have no idea how you'd go about showing the crawler in a understated yet mind-blowing way though...

[–] solidturtle 8 years ago

I'm reading the third book now and it makes me think that the crawler is a bit more... corporeal, than people seem to be giving it credit for.

[–] theireneh 8 years ago

Interesting! This makes me want to read the final book asap. I found the second one a bit weak compared to the amazing first installment.

[–] solidturtle 8 years ago

I personally enjoyed the second book a lot. I think it helps to keep in mind Vandermeers novel, City of Saints and Madmen, which is a collection of short stories that come together to give you a fuller picture of a fantasy city. I think the Southern Reach trilogy is the same, except instead of short stories it's novels, and instead of a city it's Area X. The first novel is an expedition inside, the second is a view from outside, and the third tends to be a mixture of the two, although learning more towards the style of the first. They're not exactly consistent but it's purposeful, they're meant to be viewed as a larger whole, but it's far too easy to read the first and think you'll just get a straightforward continuation of that.

[–] solidturtle 8 years ago

I don't think it will be that avant-garde or that it needs to be. A lot of what makes the book a bit more "avant-garde" is the prose that can't exactly be translated directly to a screen. When you condense all that, I think what you end up with a surprisingly brisk movie. The events in Area X are pretty consistently paced, the book is only 160 pages. It's the flashbacks that are the slower parts.

That said, I really hope they devote a good amount of time to them. To break things up and expand on the character, I think they're important.

Avant-garde feels pretty unspecific in this context too. You're essentially saying you want the movie to feel like a more "artful" horror film, but I disagree. Just because something appears more avant-garde, doesn't mean it's actually a better piece of art.

Agreed about Natalie Portman though. I like her, but the biologist is revealed in the second book (although it's hinted at in the first) to be rather tall and strong, neither are qualities I associate with Natalie Portman >_> I would rather see someone like Gwendoline Christie.

[–] asfound 8 years ago

Avant-garde as opposed to a straight sci-fi exploration film. The prose isn't what I found avant-garde, but the way traditional tropes are inverted in a way that is quite disorientating.

In my opinion, it needs to be "artful", as you put it, because if not a) it would be a waste of the novel b) how else are you supposed to depict scenes from the book, which are almost beyond comprehension? How else are you supposed to depict the sense of what the characters are going through?

Unless what, you envision this more like Stargate or Star Trek?

[–] solidturtle 8 years ago

I guess what's happening here is you're making distinctions I don't believe in. The idea that there's an 'artful' way to handle something and then what I imagine you perceive to be the more corny 'Star Trek" kind of way. (For the record, I don't even believe the word 'art' has any sort of positive connotation to it. Art is merely a thing that be both good OR bad. I don't believe directing something "artfully" makes it better art than something done in a more standard way.)

I also don't believe either approach needs to be distinct, and that they can easily overlap. Annihilation plays out like a very straightforward horror story, that stuff is easy to film. The more abstract moments can then be relayed through editing techniques. Overlapping footage, filters, unique camera angles and perspectives, there are a lot of ways to portray things on screen that are meant to be hard to comprehend. Filmmakers have been been making abstract and experimental films since the medium was invented, and mainstream filmmakers have borrowed those same techniques, especially when it comes to horror films like this one. (Speaking of that, I find the Star Trek comparison kind of off. People are obsessed with viewing this series as sci-fi when it's clearly a horror/sci-fi hybrid, with a STRONG emphasis on the cosmic horror. I think people wanting a sci-fi experience will be disappointed by the film, just like they were with the book's sequels.)

And if you want to talk about them "wasting" the novel, Garland has already confirmed some unfortunate creative choices. My enthusiasm for this film has waned the more I read about it. It's going to be a loose adaptation.