Cristopher Castillo

Chenglin Lee

Writing 39B

1 November 2021

Free Will and Fate

    The future can be a frightening concept because, in essence, it is the culmination of every choice we have made in our lives. But, what if there really is no choice to be made? In the movie Arrival, the effective use of nonlinear storytelling and visual cinematography succeeds in conveying its idea on the reality of free will better than “The Story of Your Life” does. Both the film and the short story argue that there is little to no free will in one’s life, instead fate takes the reins and creates a path for one to follow. Despite the similar ideas, the movie is better able to portray this message and properly utilize science fiction conventions, making the movie an overall more noteworthy piece of work. 

    First of all, time is a crucial element to the science fiction genre that both the short story and film are able to incorporate well into the plot. According to Natasha Sydor in her article “Time’s Role in Science Fiction,” without time “the science fictional universe would cease to exist” (Sydor). That is to say that time is a needed and necessary concept to use in a science fiction work. And both “The Story of Your Life” and Arrival utilize the concept of time with their nonlinear storytelling. Instead of the regular linear plotline, In both pieces there are jumps throughout time that help move the story along. However, it is the movie that successfully uses it better as a science fiction convention and to eventually communicate its ideas on free will and fate. To begin, the short story creates its nonlinear storytelling by utilizing space breaks to differentiate between present day and the future. Despite the reader not knowing at first that the breaks are describing the future, it can easily be deciphered because of author Ted Chiang’s use of future tense. To illustrate, Dr. Louise Banks, the story’s main character, narrates these sections: “I remember a conversation we’ll have when you’re in your junior year of high school. It’ll be a Sunday morning…” (Chiang 110). The consistent use of future tense in these sections gives the reader the idea that Louise is not really remembering her past and is instead seeing her future. This critical information takes away from one of the most important aspects of the plot. On the contrary, the movie takes the unknowing audience through time with its use of cryptic ‘flashbacks.’ It leads the audience to believe that everything they see has happened in the past until the movie decides to reveal the reality behind what is being shown: that the ‘flashbacks’ are actually flash-forwards in Louise’s life. The twist forces the audience to rethink everything they have just watched and to see the movie in a new perspective. The fact that the story reveals this aspect fairly early on makes the film’s own nonlinear storytelling superior. 

    But, the storytelling does not work alone to achieve this feat as it receives aid from the film’s visual aspect. The short story relies solely on human imagination in order to convey its ideas to its readers, with the movie utilizing its visual cinematography to show the audience the story, rather than tell them. For instance, Chiang describes the heptapods as “a barrel suspended at the intersection of seven limbs,” adding that the creatures were “radially symmetric, and any of [their] limbs could serve as an arm or a leg” (Chiang 100). The human mind can only do so much to conjure up an image of aliens with the descriptions provided. Plus, the short story’s descriptions of the appearance of the world of “The Story of Your Life” lack what the movie is able to provide. The visuals of Arrival give the audience a much better idea of what the world of the story is actually like. Also, the ability to see Louise and Ian interact and communicate with the heptapods is not only much more impactful than the short story’s telling, but it is also much more entertaining. Many would agree that showing, not telling, is the best way to communicate a message to someone.  For example, in his opinion piece for The Harvard Crimson, author Jacob R. Drucker writes that “Movies are more tangible, visible, and compact than comparable written works…” which can explain society’s “tendency to prefer and learn better from films than from books” (Drucker). Drucker’s explanation perfectly explains why the movie is more impactful than its written counterpart: it condenses Chiang’s 17500 word story into a 2 hour enjoyable watching experience. In addition to the film’s overall more pleasurable experience, the visuals of Arrival better encapsulate the science fiction genre than the story can. The dark filters applied to the movie give it a certain grittiness and eerie feeling to it that the science fiction genre often requires, while the story’s diction is unable to achieve a similar effect. To be specific, when Louise first sees the looking glass in the story it is described as “a life-size diorama of a semicircular room. [It] contained a few large objects that might have been furniture, but no aliens. There was a door in the curved rear wall” (Chiang 100). This serious and almost monotone way of writing takes away from a moment that should be both creepy and exciting at the same time, as the reader awaits the first appearance of the aliens. The movie’s counterpart of this scene is vastly different; it follows Louise’s gaze as she first sets sight on the almost white glass. The illumination of this glass contrasts with the setting of the dark room and creates a sense of fear in the audience when it begins to dim to signify the aliens’ appearance. Plus, most of the scene has no dialogue. With only the ominous music and Louise’s labored breathing to accompany it, the scene becomes even more suspenseful and creepy, adding on to the already eerie feeling the audience is experiencing. Once again the story’s own tone and mood cannot compare to the cinematic experience the movie provides to its viewers. The lighting of the film as well as the visual shots really help to elevate the storytelling and move the story along. 

    Finally, in both the movie and the short story, free will is essentially presented as an illusion of choice. There are no real choices to make because, in fact, it is fate that plays a role in everyone's lives. In his article “Free Will vs. Fate,” author Cruz Castillo explains that fate is when “decisions are inevitable” and one’s current path is “a product of each and every inevitable event up to this point” (Castillo). On the opposite side, Castillo writes that free will is when “every decision is vital” and that everyone determines their “own course in life” (Castillo). Free will and fate are on two opposite ends of the spectrum with only one thing separating them: is there a choice? It is clear in both mediums that Louise never really has a decision of her own. Her path is set from the very beginning: the short story has her future already written down and the movie visually shows the audience what is to come. Therefore, one can conclude that Chiang believed that fate is the only factor affecting our lives. But, it is the movie that is able to better convey this idea to its audience than the short story. To be specific, in “The Story of Your Life,” Louise explains “From the beginning I knew my destination, and I chose my route accordingly” (Chiang 148). Chiang’s diction in this line creates the notion that Louise had some ability to choose her own path to her destination and that she has some sort of free will. Even though Louise “knew [her] destination,” implying that fate plays a part in this, the word “chose” changes that implication. However, in the movie Arrival, Louise states “Despite knowing the journey and where it leads, I embrace it and I welcome every moment of it.” Although the two lines are very similar, the portrayal in the movie perpetrates a different idea than the short story does. By utilizing the word “embrace,” the movie constructs the idea that Louise has little to no free will in her life, instead choosing to accept her path and her future with no resistance. The movie is better at showing the absence of free will and it also poses a question: do we as human beings really have a choice in our own lives? 

    In conclusion, the film Arrival succeeds in using its nonlinear storytelling and visual cinematography to construct its argument on free will vs fate and relay that argument to its audience: that there is no such thing as free will in our lives. Although the source material, “The Story of Your Life,” also has its own strengths, the film is able to surpass it and triumph where the short story falls short. In the end Arrival creates an internal conflict in its viewers, one that leaves them wondering about life in the real world, something that only a great science fiction piece has the ability to do.