There are many great, mind-bending science fiction films that, for whatever reason, are worth watching over and over, if only to suss out what actually happened. Coherence, the most ironically titled movie to come along in a while, is not one of them.
Fans of science fiction, and science fiction films especially, could probably name dozens. The first that come to my mind are Memento and, more recently, Looper. Primer, which tells the story of smart but basically average guys who mistakenly invent a time machine, is arguably the Citizen Kane of mind-benders. It makes Back to the Future look like an episode of “Golden Girls.” I’ve seen Primer three times and studied timelines and explanations of the film, but I still don’t really get it.
These kinds of movies are of special interest to philosophically inclined geeks because they are not just fun in the way any action or sci-fi film might be fun. (Primer, famously, was shot on a shoestring with no special effects and no settings more interesting than a storage locker.) They also attempt to deal, in as rigorous a fashion as possible, with the vast metaphysical implications and problems that arise in a world where time travel and parallel worlds are possible. They are difficult because the topic itself is difficult.
And yet, you watch them a few times and you begin to sense that they are in fact logically coherent, and even seem plausible in some sense. They work hard to establish and reveal the laws of their alternative world, and then they stick to them.
But not Coherence. Coherence is mostly incoherent, not just in the sense that it is hard to understand. It is also hard to understand because its parts do not cohere, making the film difficult for the wrong reasons.
Any serious consideration of parallel worlds is bound to perplex—try wrapping your head around modal realism or the general-audience books by theoretical physicists Brian Greene and Michio Kaku and you’ll see what I mean. And yet, one can forgive a filmmaker for seeing it as a fertile subject, and not just because of its formal or narrative possibilities: Greene and Kaku, et al., represent a community of physicists who admit that it’s only the math—not empirical observation—that points toward the reality of eleven dimensions and an ensemble of universes, but stress that statements such as “only the math” could lead to underestimations of literally cosmic proportions.
So the idea is out there, as it has been for a while, which I suppose comforted this film’s creators enough to spend only about the time it takes to watch the movie on working out all its details. The worst thing about Coherence, however, is that, though some of the ideas are undoubtably compelling, it is not rewatchable at all. Not in the slightest. The characters are two-dimensional, even by the relatively low standards of a science fiction film, and the dialogue is lazy and grating.
Assuming you’ve seen it or have no interest in seeing it, I should offer a quick refresher/summary: A group of loathsome quasi-yuppies gather for a dinner party on a night when a comet happens to be passing through the night sky. It turns out that all the worst pre-modern superstitions about comets are true, because comets really can cause all kinds of strange and terrible things to happen. In this case, it rains down a kind of poetic justice tailor-made for an increasingly narcissistic age: The single timeline, where there is exactly one of everything, bursts open to create a possibly infinite number of similar but somehow different things. They find themselves trapped in a world where there are countless identical houses with identical dinner guests. For them, the world really is all about them. From the outset it is established that this moment, the appearance of the comet, is the exact moment when one reality became many, which is important to remember, as we will see. (I am willing to give Coherence one benefit of a single doubt: This type of alternate-world scenario—though it is the least interesting from a cinematic point of view—could be seen as partly satirical since it is the most mundane. I’d like to think that if there were an alternate version of me out there in the multiverse, he is not exactly the same guy, sitting at a computer writing a movie review; if not a Nobel Prize laureate perhaps a writer with better hair or fewer Star Wars figures.)
My first real pang of regret upon seeing this movie came about a quarter of the way through, just as they are realizing how deep the shit they are in really is. Someone mentions Schrödinger’s Cat. I’m not sure why, except that it too is soooo weird. He gives a stripped down, though not inaccurate retelling of the thought experiment, and then another character gives us the moral: “We can be both dead and alive at the same time!” See? Just like the cat. Except this is not quite the point of the Gedankenexperiment, at least not as I’ve come to understand it. It’s not just that a thing can be two completely different things at the same time. This would be difficult enough to justify. Rather, Schrödinger designed the hypothetical scenario to show that it is the act of observation itself that produces the results. This idea is, when you think about it, far more profound because of its implications for experience, even if cats and people don’t generally behave like subatomic particles.
I don’t mean to say that a sci-fi movie should be held to the same standards as philosophers and scientists. However, this missing-of-the-point reflects the central flaw of the movie: It’s a very lazy take on a topic stuffed with narrative possibilities. To wit: It is revealed that one of the dinner guests has probably slept with the wife of one of the other dinner guests. (Before the night of the dinner.) The cuckold confronts the cuckolder, willing to give him a chance to explain himself because, not only are they best buds and he just doesn’t want to believe it, but because all of existence has gone haywire and no one knows what is real and what isn’t anymore. Then, all of a sudden, the cuckolder reveals his understanding of basic metaphysics: He had sex with the wife before the Event, which means, as he puts it, he didn’t just sleep with her in one of the possible worlds but in every possible world, since all possible worlds are derived from the one they are currently in. Then he gets punched in the face.
This single interaction reveals how the issues of free will and causality (issues that are very relevant to practical areas of philosophy such as ethics and epistemology) are related to the topic of parallel worlds, which, as far as we know, is more of a philosophical playground that allows us to explore how topics like ethics and epistemology ought to work. I enjoyed how the characters immediately begin to employ simple, everyday objects such as glow sticks, photographs and Sharpies to try and keep track of who is who: The first thing the comet did was fry everyone’s cell phones, which I suppose would be a likely result of one reality shattering into a possibly infinite number of realities.
The real problem with Coherence, however, is this: The dinner guests assume that their alternate selves are somehow very different from their “actual” selves. But why? If they know the exact moment when the single timeline branched off into many, wouldn’t that be the moment when new decisions and thus new outcomes and new selves would be produced? This is never seriously addressed. Instead, everyone assumes that their alternate selves are somehow better or worse versions of their “actual” selves. They do this despite the fact that they have interacted with some of their alternate selves, who are similar in every way, with the same clothes and the same photographs. Sure, they can’t be absolutely certain that their other selves are really the same, but we have to assume that, since Mike really did sleep with Beth before the Event, most of the causal chain that led them to this night is the same. Same causal chains, same people (I would argue).
The movie ends with Emily, who is a pretty blonde and therefore the closest the film comes to having a central protagonist, leaving the house, walking down the street and peering in through the windows of the other houses on the block. She finds every house to be the same, with every house populated by the same group of people, i.e., her and her friends. In some realities they are screaming at each other, while in others they are lazing on the couch sipping cabernet and chatting about—who knows, whatever it is white people chat about when they sit on couches and drink cabernet. In other words, as I said, the other realities aren’t too different from the original one. It’s possibly the most boring and uninspired way to depict alternate realities—but in some sick, unintentionally satirical way, the most realistic one. Emily, being a barely developed character in a barely developed film, cares about one thing only: Her boyfriend, Kevin, who is kind of a jerk. We know this because he kissed Laurie, an ex-girlfriend who now dates one of the other guys at the party and who must also be kind of a jerk because he invited her, knowing Kevin would be there. Also, Kevin’s memory of a day with Emily at the fair doesn’t seem to mean quite as much to him as it does to her. So she finds another house/reality, one where Emily-two is snuggling with Kevin-two, deduces from this that Kevin-two is somehow not a jerk, kills Emily-two and takes her place.
Thus, one of my theses about parallel realities is proven: Just as there might be a parallel world with unicorns or where I go to the gym more but there could not be a parallel world where 1 plus 1 equals 4, there could never be a parallel world where there are movies in which pretty white women care about anything except having great boyfriends.
But the real question is this: If it has been established that there was a single timeline that branched into many and we know when that happened, why is Emily assuming that the Kevin-two she finds is any less of a jerk than Kevin-one? Because he likes PDA and has a higher opinion of fairs? Are we really to believe that something happened since the Event to change his mind about Emily?
The best one could say in the movie’s defense is that people are people and they believe what they want to believe, even when really weird things happen. I can accept that. But I also find that kind of takeaway, in a science-fiction film, to be trivial, as well as insipid when the stakes are no greater than those of a second-rate reality show.
Whether the film is truly incoherent or the characters are just completely forgettable might, in the end, be up to the viewer. I can forgive either one of those missteps. Not both. If Coherence were philosophically challenging and rigorous but kind of boring (like Primer) or fun but not especially profound (like Looper) I’m sure I’d have something very different to say about it. But it is neither, which makes it terrible in every possible world.
I had very similar feelings about this one. For me, it went over the line almost immediately into so-bad-it’s-good territory. Two moments that were particularly rich:
The immediate reaction to their initial understanding that they have doppelgangers out there having duplicate dinner parties is the Highlander solution. Let’s go kill ourselves. Problem solved.
But my favorite moment occurred early on, and was a clear signal that we’d be permanently departing from the realm of hard sci-fi. To ever so slightly paraphrase, just as they first realized something odd was happening, one character asks, “Does anyone have any books on quantum physics?”
Naturally, someone happens to have one in his car, so they opt for a quick brush up in hopes of answering the problem of their exploding cell phones. Of course, realizing that their doppelgangers also have a book in their car, and not yet realizing that these are infinte, they decide to steal it before the others can also quickly learn quantum physics, which, as we know, inspires murder.
Lol believe it or not, drunk people (especially ones who believe in Woo) frequently come to conclusions that some crazy cosmic / quantum thing is HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.
Yup. Except, to paraphrase a line from Ghost World, it’s so bad it’s good and back to bad again.
Hello, David:
I’m happy to have read this review, and actually it inspired me to check it out.
I actually enjoyed the film but I thought about the film loss in terms of the quantum physics conceit and more in terms of what it seemed liked that whole pop quantum physics conceit was pushing toward: becoming your best self–or failing to be your best self. I didn’t think it was so much a question that they weren’t the other people in the other houses so much as that those other people represented better or worse versions of themselves.
Also, I thought the gal who played the main character was stunning and a very talented actress. I was amazed with the whole cast, really, and surprised I had never seen any of them before.
“Schrödinger designed the hypothetical scenario to show that it is the act of observation itself that produces the results…”
Not quite.
Schrödinger devised his thought experiment, not to prove that observation determines quantum outcome, but rather the absurdity of that very sentiment within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Some of his contemporaries (Bhor and Walter White er, I mean Heisenberg) argued that an unobserved quantum system would remain in a literal superposition of more than one state until physical observation befell the superstate, which thus forces a single outcome. Schrödinger thought this was ridiculous and devised the cat experiement as a means to highlight the absurdity, stating something along the lines of “you are an idiot if you believe a cat can be both dead and alive simultaneously.”
Actually, I don’t think that reality split when the comet started passing overhead. I think reality was always split, and the comet brought them into contact with other universes that already exist.
I agree and disagree with this review (not trying to be clever here!)
I agree with it in that, well, I agree with just about everything.
– but –
If you look at it from the view of who these people are – people that have seen too much crap on the internet and now, think they understand the complexity of Maths and Physics..
Many of us know people like this (the woman with the herbal mix that contained ketamine…KETAMINE?!?!?) whose understanding of the sciences is modeled after shows like “Ancient Aliens” and pamphlets that they got at the local health food store.
— now imagine those people in real life, of course they would try to read a book on quantum physics in a time of crisis. “It’s just like college, cram with Cliffs Notes for the final…right?”
The choppy filming and dialogue adds to the mindset they would be in.
However, this film could have been done, and would have been better (in my opinion) at 30 minutes.
Zzzzzz What a boring and snobbish review. It’s a really good film. You’re just thinking about it too much. Might as well critique the science behind superman or back to the future. Just enjoy the film.
Jon, I don’t know whether you’re a regular visitor to this site or listen to the podcasts, but this is a philosophy website. The point of the review, as with everything we publish, is to discuss the philosophical implications of the film. If it didn’t, we wouldn’t have published it.
David, I think you may have missed some key elements of this film which are fairly apparent if you have an eye for attention. I also think it helps to understand of the physics behind it so you have a basis for the rules of the film. You don’t need it, but it’s helpful for understanding the film from the first viewing.
Essentially, all of the realities are different and have always been different, they’re parallel universes that have existed prior to the event, they don’t necessarily start existing at the event. Imagine a bunch of strings: similar universes are strings that are close together. The very different universes are spaced much farther apart. The comet makes all of the closer together strings contact each other..
I think the Schrodinger’s cat thing is a bit of a red herring but it scares Mike and is a driving force of stupid actions. It’s really what they talk about right after that you should focus on.
It’s also important to note that the ‘event’ happens not just when the comet passes, but when Emily arrives at the house and her cell reception goes out and her phone breaks. I’m not clear if she passed through a barrier or if that’s when the event strictly began, but after this point the people you meet at the dinner party appear to be from separate realities. Laurie doesn’t recognize an actor from a show she loves, Mike doesn’t know Laurie, yoga, etc.
If you’re going to criticize the film on the basis of it’s philosophy and representation of physics, it would help if you approached the critique from a place of understanding of the plot.
Say what you want about the dialogue and acting, but there are more layers of depth to this film than you seem to suggest there are.
I would agree with everything you said in this post IF the movie’s plot actually worked the way you seem to have understood it to work.
But that’s not the case, as Jim mentioned before me.
I’m not trying to shame you or anything, but if you have time, try googling about the movie and take a look at some theories people came up with. Many people have different interpretations about it, but Jim’s interpretation of parallel universes already existing but coming together through unusual event is the most plausible explanation. But there are many more factors at play you seem to have gotten completely wrong (I’m not even talking philosophically but talking about the movie’s plot)
BTW personally Primer is the worst movie about parallel universe or time travel (and I can confidently say at this point in my life I’ve watched pretty much all existing movies about this theme), I’m not sure if you’re joking when you compare Primer to citizen kane. Primer had a great premise, but the director is not competent enough to pull off the concept, which is why the movie is so needlessly confusing. Once you actually understand the plotline, you realize the confusion was NOT because you were dumb but because the director was terrible at storytelling. You can see this play out in his other movie “Upstream Color”, which was also another movie with a super interesting premise but totally alienates the audience by going all avant garde when there was no need for this try-hard behavior because the topic itself was interesting.
Anyway, Coherence is not the most straight-forward film out there, but it’s definitely well written in my opinion, way above Primer’s level. If I had to pick the best movie about alternative universe and the worst, Coherence has a good chance of making #1 best, and Primer would definitely be the #1 worst.