As I was saying last time I didn't get to watch "Ad Astra" in the weekend, but I did get, or better said I decided to get to see it on Monday. And I prefer to also not postpone anymore neither the blog entry because I already started forgetting some fresh impressions it left with. Which might make the following very subjective, but I guess it would be hard not to be anyway, so...
I heard before watching the movie that it's slow & boring. Debatable = I won't lie, for the first half I checked my watch a couple times... I also heard either that it gets close to "Gravity", either that it gets close to "Interstellar". I'd say it's more SciFi than the first, but a bit less SciFi than the second. In any case it has definitely much more substance than "Gravity" (to which I'll stick to the opinion of not being more than a simple recipe of a disaster movie set in space + extra VFX bling-bling), which, adding the slow development it has, would make it indeed more close to "Interstellar". But let's leave out the comparisons and move into the subject.
In the future the humanity established colonies on the Moon, on Mars and managed to send an expedition on Neptun's orbit. The space ship is led by Dr. H. Clifford McBride, having the mission to try a contact with other intelligent species. Only that the status of the expedition seems to have reached a sort of "lost in space" = nobody knows anything about them for as long as almost 30 years. Meanwhile, Dr. McBride was labeled as a space here that took the Earth civilization where no man has gone before. We just end up one day with some periodical surges coming from outer space strong enough to endanger the life in the Solar system. The department of space defense (or something like that) suspects that the cause of origin lies on the lost ship, or more precisely with its captain who is suspected to still be alive. As solution it's decided that Roy McBride, the son, also an astronaut, to be sent to the farthest still functional outpost - on Mars, with the purpose of dispatching a peace message. Only that, predictable enough, the final destination will be a bit more far than that...
That was the story, now the philosophy :) Warning: this is not an action movie - go see Alien for that ;) There's lots of philosophy in the movie, and sometimes it seems it tries to be even more than it is. At least that's the feeling it left me with by its half-time. After that it starts making more sense. Roy McBride is a lonely guy, divorced in order to remove the stress from his family on him getting also lost in space one day (at least that's what he says), very pragmatic and cool enough in panic situations, subjecting to rules and to the orders he gets, the perfect candidate for a critical mission. There are plenty of fine-grained aspects throughout the entire slow development in the first part, which have as purpose exactly the build-up of such a very complex character. Who, in brief, can be labeled as a smarter than average guy, but who knows his place or better said knows not to leave that place. In a total contradiction of character, McBride the father, another smarter than average guy, but for whom moving forward in the goal to find another civilization, or generalizing to surpass the achievements of a normal life, is important enough to sacrifice everything in a normal life: family, coming home, the life of his crew. There's some point towards the end where the movie seems very biased in the comparison of the two: the positive character and the negative character, in the sense of better stay put, be fine with all it's asked, take care of the ones near you, and do your job than dreaming on achieving something that's not there, and step on corpses for that goal. But it's too black and white...
Fortunately, the entire movie is spread with McBride junior monologues, which bring some grey into the picture, even though not very obvious. I don't remember the lines exactly but at some moment we have one saying something like only in the end "I'll find happyness in my loneliness/solitude" + some other, more precise this time (thanks to Google): "I see myself on the outside, smile, present a side. It’s a performance, with my eye on the exit. Always on the exit.", which speculating a bit would say that also the son knows that he could achieve more but it's an accepted choice to not pass some limits, limits that will go away, mentally at least when the life will end. Speculation that's strengthen by the ending monologue (again thanks to Google) delivered as part of a psychological evaluation when finally returning to Earth: "I am focused on the essentials, to the exclusion of all else. I’m unsure of the future, but I’m not concerned. I will rely on those closest to me, and I will share their burdens, as they share mine. I will live and I will love. Submit.". Let's say I completely agree with all this "conclusion" that's delivered in a pretty optimistic note as a happy-end. After all this should count first for a human being. What irritated me, however, is the positive light subliminally put on all this acceptation of conformism for the good of everybody, and the negative light thrown on trying to force a bit your daily life to reach the stars - or to quote also some other source “Non est ad astra mollis e terris via" - "There is no easy way from the earth to the stars” (Seneca). What's even more behind than this subliminal, as I said above it softens this, but that's pure speculation - something like after all you know you won't be happy with your decisions. But even with this hidden meaning, the big part of the grey between the black and white is missing in this movie... Maybe there's a middle way to share their burdens and also get concerned of the future, i.e., to try to reach the stars. Why exclude that completely? At least let the hope live! :) I told that I'm subjective ;) No more. Too much philosophy.
Rating: 4 out of 5
Posts
