I am definitely a lot higher than you are on the film. I loved the poetic nature, although I do agree that it is uneven (and I probably would locate that within the same split dynamics you mention).
One thought to throw in. I wonder if you are playing the “disclosure” too literally within the narrative of the film? Personally I don’t think Spielberg was aiming for realism on that front, but symbolism. Using the media the way he does is both contrasting the different cultural contexts inherent in the larger conversation, and jt is actually commenting on the very thing i hear you calling out. Thats the tension. It’s played as a unifying event in a world where we know that would never happen. Which is part of the discussion it wants to have
I could see that _possibly_ being the case, but I just didn’t see enough built into the film to make that a strong discussion point. And I also don’t know how he would have expected it to be taken as anything but literal with the film coming out in the cultural moment it is. I just don’t think the movie was smart enough to pull that level of discussion off (which fits with Koepp’s general MO as a script writer).
Mr. Collier and the prior commentators all miss the mark! Spielberg's Disclosure Day is a marvelous movie depicting a fascinating chase [in the manner of Hitchcock's North by Northwest ... AND NOT AT ALL LIKE All the President's Men (?)] which begins shortly after the opening scenes and never lets up through to the end. The acting of the entire cast is superlative, particularly Emily Blunt, who really shines here!
The one glaring criticism I note -- which reduces my rating from a 10 to a 9 -- lies with the whistleblower's motivation for Disclosure. It's not enough for Messrs. Spielberg & Koepp for his motivation to be merely the public's right to know the truth about the alien presence on our planet. No, they have to add in Wardex's torture of captive aliens as this whistleblower's justification for Disclosure! This is a terrible error on their part. First, government and military torture of captive aliens is completely unproven -- the factual basis for this plot point is wanting. And second, it's wholly unnecessary !!! The whistleblower's motivation to reveal a long-held secret truth about the alien presence is justification enough! The filmmakers don't need to resort to such an extreme position to justify his actions ... !
Nah, he’s more of a Mussorgsky filtered through Phillip Glass and shattered by someone like Edgard Varèse. Watching him play with his toys and creating stories is rather mind expanding.
Come to think of it, that torture bit was completely unnecessary. It felt like a homage to those "alien interview/autopsy" films that were all the rage in the 1990s but it just fell flat.
Our current UFO Disclosure is a three-ring circus. Whistleblowers claim that we recovered nonhuman pilots and technology. Powerless government appointees research blurry UAP videos and stories. Clickbait websites like aliens.gov and failed psychic predictions generate ridicule.
To be honest, I am concerned about the integrity of the situation, not the integrity of the participants. I watched the rise and fall of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (1966-68) and the termination of USAF Project Bluebook (1969). I hope for the best and prepare for the worst. And... I believe in FATE.
I was disappointed in the film. I agree you on your points and with a lot of the reviewers that SS's approach was outdated and “if it was done 20 years ago, it would have been a big film.” In the back of my mind I had a feeling that the movie actually had a different title, but because of all hype around the possibility of disclosure, SS took advantage of all the free publicity. There just no "WOW!" factor anywhere in the narrative. On a more positive note: Happy Kenneth Arnold Day everybody! 79 years ago, June 24, 1947, a huge rabbit hole opened up for us to play in. CHEERS!
I think if ‘experiencers’ were involved in the making of the movie it would have been a different movie altogether. Not only are ‘experiencers’ (bunny ears deliberate) only a small percentage genuine (maybe) the rest are deluded in various ways or lying for attention, please don’t get angry real ‘experiencers’ if you are even that. I would hate that ‘others’ reveal themselves and all the slobs who invented everything said ‘Told you so’ to make it seem like they were right all along.
Experiencers are experiencing something but possibly nothing exotic or outward. I have had a classic experience myself but I doubt it was outside of myself in any meaningful term. Maybe it was. I’d like to think so and thinking that is exactly the problem. How dare anyone doubt me?! I doubt myself so yes, please doubt me.
So if they were involved it would have been more dark, horrific, scary and not very cinematic or car-chasey. More insular and unnerving. Look at Strieber’s Communion. Forget the lack of budget in that one but showing more about the internal conflict and impact on lifestyle.
But Spbg missed a trick. Many tricks. And it turned out to be just a movie. But hey, isn’t that what he does? Entertainment-meister. Not a documentary maker. Don’t get upset people. Maybe he wasn’t supposed to be talking about YOUR experience. Just cherry picking a thing he’d read about and thought it would be cool to do a movie about it.
The last thing we want is for ‘experiencers’ to be permanently upset at their treatment by everyone. Get over it. You had a weird and other-worldly experience (as I did) that was more powerful than any other experience (as mine was) but that doesn’t mean you have to gripe and whinge if other people who seem to prefer football over Substack don’t ’get it’. They never will, how could they, they aren’t your brain. They don’t whinge if you don’t understand the appeal of Love Island.
I am definitely a lot higher than you are on the film. I loved the poetic nature, although I do agree that it is uneven (and I probably would locate that within the same split dynamics you mention).
One thought to throw in. I wonder if you are playing the “disclosure” too literally within the narrative of the film? Personally I don’t think Spielberg was aiming for realism on that front, but symbolism. Using the media the way he does is both contrasting the different cultural contexts inherent in the larger conversation, and jt is actually commenting on the very thing i hear you calling out. Thats the tension. It’s played as a unifying event in a world where we know that would never happen. Which is part of the discussion it wants to have
I could see that _possibly_ being the case, but I just didn’t see enough built into the film to make that a strong discussion point. And I also don’t know how he would have expected it to be taken as anything but literal with the film coming out in the cultural moment it is. I just don’t think the movie was smart enough to pull that level of discussion off (which fits with Koepp’s general MO as a script writer).
Mr. Collier and the prior commentators all miss the mark! Spielberg's Disclosure Day is a marvelous movie depicting a fascinating chase [in the manner of Hitchcock's North by Northwest ... AND NOT AT ALL LIKE All the President's Men (?)] which begins shortly after the opening scenes and never lets up through to the end. The acting of the entire cast is superlative, particularly Emily Blunt, who really shines here!
The one glaring criticism I note -- which reduces my rating from a 10 to a 9 -- lies with the whistleblower's motivation for Disclosure. It's not enough for Messrs. Spielberg & Koepp for his motivation to be merely the public's right to know the truth about the alien presence on our planet. No, they have to add in Wardex's torture of captive aliens as this whistleblower's justification for Disclosure! This is a terrible error on their part. First, government and military torture of captive aliens is completely unproven -- the factual basis for this plot point is wanting. And second, it's wholly unnecessary !!! The whistleblower's motivation to reveal a long-held secret truth about the alien presence is justification enough! The filmmakers don't need to resort to such an extreme position to justify his actions ... !
I agree with the second paragraph, but I am pretty sure my 5 ½ year old could have put together a more exciting chase film.
Unless your 5+ year old is a genius on the level of Chopin, I completely disagree.
Nah, he’s more of a Mussorgsky filtered through Phillip Glass and shattered by someone like Edgard Varèse. Watching him play with his toys and creating stories is rather mind expanding.
Methinks you're going a bit off-world here ...
…I mean, that’s kind of why we’re both here, right?
Come to think of it, that torture bit was completely unnecessary. It felt like a homage to those "alien interview/autopsy" films that were all the rage in the 1990s but it just fell flat.
What’s the particular cultural value of a well-done chase scene that deserves celebration and accolades?
The cultural value of entertainment ... you need more?
Our current UFO Disclosure is a three-ring circus. Whistleblowers claim that we recovered nonhuman pilots and technology. Powerless government appointees research blurry UAP videos and stories. Clickbait websites like aliens.gov and failed psychic predictions generate ridicule.
To be honest, I am concerned about the integrity of the situation, not the integrity of the participants. I watched the rise and fall of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (1966-68) and the termination of USAF Project Bluebook (1969). I hope for the best and prepare for the worst. And... I believe in FATE.
I was disappointed in the film. I agree you on your points and with a lot of the reviewers that SS's approach was outdated and “if it was done 20 years ago, it would have been a big film.” In the back of my mind I had a feeling that the movie actually had a different title, but because of all hype around the possibility of disclosure, SS took advantage of all the free publicity. There just no "WOW!" factor anywhere in the narrative. On a more positive note: Happy Kenneth Arnold Day everybody! 79 years ago, June 24, 1947, a huge rabbit hole opened up for us to play in. CHEERS!
Couldn’t agree more!
Huzzah!
I think if ‘experiencers’ were involved in the making of the movie it would have been a different movie altogether. Not only are ‘experiencers’ (bunny ears deliberate) only a small percentage genuine (maybe) the rest are deluded in various ways or lying for attention, please don’t get angry real ‘experiencers’ if you are even that. I would hate that ‘others’ reveal themselves and all the slobs who invented everything said ‘Told you so’ to make it seem like they were right all along.
Experiencers are experiencing something but possibly nothing exotic or outward. I have had a classic experience myself but I doubt it was outside of myself in any meaningful term. Maybe it was. I’d like to think so and thinking that is exactly the problem. How dare anyone doubt me?! I doubt myself so yes, please doubt me.
So if they were involved it would have been more dark, horrific, scary and not very cinematic or car-chasey. More insular and unnerving. Look at Strieber’s Communion. Forget the lack of budget in that one but showing more about the internal conflict and impact on lifestyle.
But Spbg missed a trick. Many tricks. And it turned out to be just a movie. But hey, isn’t that what he does? Entertainment-meister. Not a documentary maker. Don’t get upset people. Maybe he wasn’t supposed to be talking about YOUR experience. Just cherry picking a thing he’d read about and thought it would be cool to do a movie about it.
The last thing we want is for ‘experiencers’ to be permanently upset at their treatment by everyone. Get over it. You had a weird and other-worldly experience (as I did) that was more powerful than any other experience (as mine was) but that doesn’t mean you have to gripe and whinge if other people who seem to prefer football over Substack don’t ’get it’. They never will, how could they, they aren’t your brain. They don’t whinge if you don’t understand the appeal of Love Island.
Love, Nick