In 1950, physicist Enrico Fermi considered the possibility of extraterrestrial life—or rather, human encounters with it—based on a paradox. Were there real conditions or scenarios for such an event? The response made it clear that this was unlikely. The difference between the hypothetical alien technology and that found on Earth, among other things, suggested that we may never know with certainty whether we are alone in the Universe. Despite this, the announcement comes at a time when sightings of UFO-related events have begun to become widespread.
Documentary series Meetings from Netflixproduced Amblin, explores the details of several of the most famous cases of this phenomenon. All in the light of the scientific method. This means from direct witness interviews, site analysis, and even scientific theories based on testimony. The premise also promises from the beginning to provide at least one answer that confirms or denies the veracity of some events. In particular, those that have public ill-wishers or, in the worst case, have been refused through official channels.
But this argument achieves almost none of its aims. Despite the detailed reconstruction of events through careful staging, Meetings He doesn’t understand what he’s saying. Instead, each of the four chapters limits itself to repeating already known information, adding detailed testimony from its own witnesses. However, this does not go beyond the human drama of experiencing an inexplicable situation or what such an event meant to observers. More interested in piqued the curiosity of potential believers, the series doesn’t attempt to provide data, but rather makes it clear that there are real-life versions of baffling events. But is this enough?
Tedious investigation
Each episode is an hour long and focuses on eyewitnesses who are followed and asked questions in a cool manner. From a wave of sightings in Texas to a meeting that included a significant portion of the school’s students in Zimbabwe.. The miniseries takes time to listen to each version, compare their differences, and even point out divergent voices. But the production lacks the inventiveness to make this amount of information amount to nothing more than a collection of interviews. Most of them are with regular close-ups and natural lighting to enhance the drama..
But despite the almost cinematic visuals, there is nothing to add to the already known data about various events. This makes extensive on-camera conversations commonplace data available in books, reports and even on the Internet. The miniseries lacks the originality to make its take on the topic anything more than a sober presentation of a series of conjectures about obscure circumstances. Again and again, blurry images of lights in the sky or silhouettes of unexplained objects distorted by distance are cited as evidence..
But the plot is so clunky that the numerous interviews and points of view lead nowhere. Much less, to a clear conclusion. At best, it accidentally calls into question the sanity of those surveyed. This seems to inadvertently refer to the inescapable fact that all witnesses are regarded as sooner or later becomes unstable or suffers from mental problems.
Questions and answers without a goal
The production, which has no clear purpose, is interested in stories but does not question them. With only a couple of dissenting voices, including a direct witness who admits to inventing the experience, the docuseries doesn’t bring anything new to the table. Until then, she cannot find a point of scientific neutrality. So he’s more interested in being a kind of judgment-free script, in which various interviewees can express their thoughts on a given issue.
Instead, it only opens the door to discussion of UFO-related events. The question is whether it is necessary to re-examine the known stories, converted into references, in order to arrive at a conclusion identical to the one already existing. Meetings It does not go beyond the surface when examining its central phenomenon.
It doesn’t try or have any interest in being anything more than the nth version of a way to show a popular mystery that has persisted for decades. But while there is debate about the physical reality of the evidence, Such a retreat into a philosophical view of the subject does not contribute much.. Your real problem.
Source: Hiper Textual
