Welcome to Stuart Fernie’s Blog
Penny Forum
Reflections on a variety of films and topics - Seven Samurai, It's a Wonderful Life, Don Quixote, We're no angels, War for the planet of the apes, Dunkirk, The African Queen, Babette's Feast, Dances with Wolves, The Prisoner (1967), Inherit the wind, humour in drama, nature of regret, the influence of multimedia, memoirs of a teacher of French.
Tuesday, 7 January 2025
Introduction
Reflections on the nature of conflict in the Jason Bourne films
Reflections
on the nature of conflict in the Jason Bourne films
Directed
by Doug Liman and Paul Greengrass
Principal
screenwriter Tony Gilroy
from
books by Robert Ludlum
Starring Matt Damon, Franka Potente, Julia Stiles, Brian Cox, Joan Allen,
David Strathairn,
Albert Finney et al
The Jason Bourne films
(and here I am referring to the original trilogy of films) were a series of
high-octane spy thrillers renowned for their style, intensity and engaging
characters which exercised a huge influence on other action/adventure films
produced in the same time period.
Filming techniques and
the accompanying music serve to heighten sensory and emotional response but
everything is underpinned by and rooted in a battle between amorality and
purity of heart, tinged with a sense of guilt and an occasional desire for
redemption.
Jason Bourne is trained
to be an unquestioning and highly effective tool in the service of his C.I.A.
masters. He put his faith in the authorities and fulfilled dubious missions
under their instruction without challenge or hesitation until, while on a
mission to assassinate a target, his underlying humanity caused him to hesitate
and as a result he was badly wounded and left with amnesia.
As he struggles to
uncover and pursue clues to his identity and the life he has chosen for
himself, he discovers he has a wealth of combat and judgment skills that enable
him to avoid or elude a variety of dangerous situations while we, the audience,
discover his masters do not necessarily possess the integrity we and Jason might
expect of them.
The storyline cleverly
avoids tarring the entire C.I.A. with the same brush and implies that a number
of senior figures are perhaps tainted by disillusion, ambition or cynicism and
are willing to pursue their own ends without accountability, using Jason to
help them achieve their aims. Of course, Pamela Landy remains a beacon of hope
and integrity, though even she is sidetracked by disinformation and
bureaucratic red tape.
However, the stroke of
genius in terms of emotional engagement and hope for principle, integrity and
morality is that through his amnesia Jason has rediscovered purity of heart and
independence of mind and spirit.
This is a fascinating
turn of events which appears to imply the innate goodness of man who is
influenced and perhaps corrupted by his response to experience, encounters,
events and emotion. Although he is fortunate enough to have retained the skills
he accumulated during his training, Jason’s slate is effectively wiped clean and
this allows him to view situations and circumstances with objectivity and
reason.
Although he can recall
only fragments of his past, he follows enough clues and builds enough of a
picture of his life to find it questionable. As he recalls these fragments, he
judges his actions in his former life and questions his motivations. His
perceptions and judgments are now unaffected by previous thoughts, experiences
and outlooks which may have been blurred, manipulated or falsified. The
fundamental faith he had in his handlers is lost through objective analysis of
evidence, experience and consequences. The only person of standing in the
C.I.A. community who proves herself worthy of his trust is Pamela Landy, and
this trust is gained by way of reason and action.
I think this fundamental
juxtaposition of amoral and Machiavellian methods to pursue one’s own ends, and
the professed pure-hearted desire to lead a simple, peaceful and independent
life is the reason for the Bourne films’ success. Jason is the little man being
pressured and manipulated by forces well beyond his ken but because he is now
free of imposed societal respect and fear, and because he has the means and
indignant determination to right newly-perceived wrongs, he is well placed to defend
himself as it becomes necessary.
It boils down to the
age-old conflict between good and bad, or at least the idealistic and honest
versus the conniving and opportunistic, though in this case the protagonist is
able to use the antagonists’ own methods against them and that adds a sweet
sense of retribution.
While Jason’s success in
bringing down his opponents is satisfying, his true victory is in the fact he
is left to lead his life on his own existential terms, something to which many
of us aspire. Having gained a different perspective, he sought independence and
peace but he was willing and able to defend himself using whatever level of
force his opponents were prepared to use against him, but without initiating
the aggression.
This may not be the first
time a government agent rises above the moral level of his or her creators and
uses his or her skills against them (I’m thinking of television’s “Callan” and
Luc Besson’s “Nikita”), but I think Jason Bourne is the most successful in
terms of entertainment and emotional engagement.
I have to say the use of
amnesia to liberate and exercise man’s innate goodness and allow an objective
review of one’s own life is a masterstroke and, although a vaguely similar
device was used in “Unknown” and “Sleeping Dogs”, once again it is used to
greatest effect here.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
Tuesday, 26 November 2024
Advocating arts and humanities
Advocating
arts and humanities
Some fifteen years after
gaining our degrees (and some thirty years ago), my wife and I decided to
attend a sort of “reunion” organised by the university in a town local to us,
to which graduates were invited in order to meet, socialise and receive updates
and news from our alma mater. We had hoped to catch up with some familiar faces
but in fact we were surrounded by a sea of unfamiliar and older faces, mostly
from scientific, medical or legal backgrounds. Slightly disappointed, we
nonetheless chatted and dined with these people with whom we shared an educational
bond, though our background was in the arts (languages, philosophy and
archaeology).
After our meal, a senior
academic figure from the administration of the university, whom we failed to
recognise as he was from the faculty of science, stood to address us. We were
keen to hear how the faculty and departments we attended had fared since our
departure, and to hear familiar names, both staff and students, who had perhaps
risen in the teaching ranks or to prominence in other fields in the intervening
period. The speaker went through a lengthy list of faculties and departments,
rather dryly and in a matter-of-fact manner providing details of successes,
achievements and other news-worthy items. He focused on the various science,
medical and legal departments, talking with great pride and admiration, but
leaving us to wonder when or even if he was going to refer to our “home”
departments…
Eventually, just as we
began to think he was going to forget or omit our faculty, he made mention of
“arts” and our ears pricked up. However, having vaguely introduced the topic
and regained our waning interest, he said pointedly “Frankly, it’s like monkeys
on typewriters to me…” before very briefly and somewhat glibly informing us of
the continued existence of our faculty, much to the amusement of our fellow
former students. He may have provided relevant information on developments but
my ears were ringing with his dismissive words and condescending tone and I
failed to take on board any information he may have intimated. I was shocked at
the disrespect shown by this officer of the university toward students and
staff alike, but also toward a great field of endeavour, study, learning and
achievement. My greatest regret concerning that evening is that we did not rise
from our seats and leave in protest. The thought crossed my mind at the time
and I intended calling out “We’re a couple of the monkeys” as we left, but of
course I did not have the courage or the confidence to carry it out.
At our graduation, the
retiring head of the French department, which I attended, delivered an
inspiring speech tinged with elements of frustration and perhaps even some indignation,
in which he stated quite unequivocally that the arts give purpose to all other
educational pursuits and ventures, perhaps suggesting he had met, in academic
circles, the attitude and mentality my wife and I came across at our reunion.
It seems to me that it is
somewhat short-sighted and narrow-minded to dismiss the arts and humanities so
thoughtlessly and easily. Science and fact are clearly essential to our
perceptions and the development of knowledge, but they are not sufficient in
themselves and they feed into a larger scheme of things – an understanding of
ourselves and our world. I submit that the general purpose of the arts is to
advance our knowledge of society, human nature and our place in the universe by
providing an overview of our actions, motivations and objectives and as such
they provide purpose and order for the rest of our educational activities which
feed our desire to understand the workings of the world around us.
If an acceptable
definition of art is “an attempt to convey concepts, ideas and emotions,
typically through words, images or sound, in a concise and engaging manner”,
then I consider art an essential contributor and tool in the dissemination of
our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and our environment.
In the years since my
graduation, as a teacher, YouTuber and Podcaster, I have tried to transmit not
just language skills and information, but a regard and appreciation for the
arts in terms of literature, cinema and theatre. We grow or develop as we
encounter situations, gain experience and face feelings, and we can learn to
navigate these more easily by studying and learning from the experience and
reflections of others through images, literature, song, cinema and theatre.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
Sunday, 13 October 2024
Characters and themes, and strengths and weaknesses in "Heaven's Gate"
Reflections
on “Heaven’s Gate”
Written
and directed by Michael Cimino
Starring
Kris Kristofferson, Christopher Walken, John Hurt et al.
The
following article is based on a viewing of the 2012 216-minute Blu-Ray version
of the film.
The 19th
century is renowned for its gradual move toward social understanding,
compassion and accountability among those in authority. In contrast, “Heaven’s
Gate” demonstrates the consequences if authorities (right up to government
level) are willing to put the narrow and ruthless interests of the influential
wealthy, here in the form of stock and landowners, above principle, law, order
and the aspiration to justice, all at the expense of humanity.
At its heart, “Heaven’s Gate” explores a most worthy main theme or cause as it presents the story of the persecution and assassination of a large number of immigrants in the Wyoming of the 1870s by an association of wealthy stock owners who, tired of seeing some of their stock stolen and killed to feed starving immigrant families, hire some fifty men to kill those on a 125-strong death list in the hope of discouraging further theft. It is suggested that this course of action gained approval in the upper echelons of government as these businessmen are legally entitled to protect their property and there is no consideration of the situation or rights of poor citizens who set out to build homes for themselves while contributing to the development of their adopted country.
Plenty of scope, then, for the defence of humanity, principle and justice, and the engagement of emotion and intellect on the part of the audience, if only through the incitement of indignation and outrage. However, this opportunity is largely squandered through issues of pace, purpose, clarity and self-indulgence.
There are many positives.
The sheer scale is quite breathtaking in terms of the natural vistas and the
numerous crowd scenes. Atmosphere and tension are established. The conflict is
at times quite visceral. There are divisive characters and the appealing
premise of a threat to justice. There are sympathetic immigrant characters who
display admirable qualities and intriguing if questionable main characters. The
central theme of power and wealth versus principle and humanity is highly
attractive, and the performances are by and large perfectly acceptable, even
good. Sadly, however, writer and director Michael Cimino appears to have
written a script and produced a film that he wanted to see and understood, but
he failed to respect the needs and understanding of his audience.
In later versions of the
film, numerous lengthy scenes were cut altogether but I would suggest nearly
every scene is needlessly and indulgently long, thus losing engagement and patience
on the part of his audience.
The script needed to be
reviewed and edited before shooting began. There are regular issues of clarity
in terms of character identification and background, as well as pace and
purpose. Attention is drawn to certain reactions or events and this is not
followed through. We may reach the end of a scene and not really understand its
import or why a character responded or didn’t respond in a certain way.
Conclusions may be reached that are not well supported by previous dialogue.
There are inconsistencies in character development or changes and attitudes
that beg questions which remain unanswered. The tone is almost universally
downbeat, even gloomy, apart from one relatively upbeat and comic sequence – Mr
Cimino might have raised the spirit of the piece and the audience if he had
incorporated some comic relief at various points in the film rather than
restrict it to one anachronistic sequence.
Of course, these issues may
have come about as the result of losing two full hours of material from the
original five-and-a-half-hour version.
Another element that
contributed to the downbeat tone and lack of engagement is the lack of
hero-figures. Jim Averill is the obvious candidate but his conduct falls far
short of hero status and I’ll return to him shortly.
The only other character
I think we’re supposed to view as vaguely heroic in terms of development and
evolution is, surprisingly, Nate Champion. Presented as a cold-blooded killer,
we are supposed to gain sympathy and perhaps some respect for him when he
spares a young cattle-thief and then displays apparently genuine feelings for
Ella, the local brothel keeper and occasional prostitute, even asking her to
marry him. It seems to me that we are eventually to believe he has had a change
of attitude and mind when he turns on one of his employers as a result of Ella’s
rape, but this is a personal reaction and not because he has developed any
understanding of or compassion for his victims. We do not feel any particular
sympathy or sense of injustice when he is pursued by his former employers. He
remains the same ambiguously conflicted but fundamentally heartless man who now
exercises his capacity to kill coldly as a result of following his feelings
rather than orders. He has not had a change of heart, expresses no regret and
displays no heroic qualities as such.
Another recurring
character originally presented as potentially influential and even, perhaps,
heroic, is Billy Irvine, first seen with Jim Averill at a Harvard graduation ceremony
in 1870.
I would suggest that this
whole lengthy Harvard section is largely unnecessary except to imply that Jim
and Billy come from wealthy backgrounds and to draw attention to the idea of
mixing the cultivated with the uncultivated in the hope of raising standards, a
premise proposed by the reverend doctor which is rapidly and quite eloquently
dismissed by Billy Irvine in his address to those gathered for the graduation. Twenty
years later, we learn Billy has joined the stock owners’ association and offers
only meagre and ineffectual opposition to their plans to kill a large number of
immigrants before conceding and accepting them. In the end, the audience may
even be forgiven for wondering what useful role Billy plays in the proceedings
except, perhaps, to boost Jim Averill’s standing by comparison.
In 1890 it appears that
Jim is a respected marshal. However, he does little to merit this position or
the audience’s respect, at least initially. When entering a store in Casper, he
does nothing to help an immigrant who is being badly beaten, though he stops
the beating as he leaves the store, telling the man’s aggressor he has won and
advising the immigrant’s wife and family to move on. Shortly afterward, Jim
comes across the same family and discovers the husband has been shot dead.
After exchanging a few words, he drives on, leaving the newly widowed immigrant
to struggle with her wagon as she drags it toward their land. These are not the
actions of a committed or principled lawman or even a caring human being.
Although he was moved by
the plight of the immigrants, Jim did little to help them until he was stirred
to take a stance against the forces of wealth and power by the brutal rape of his
girlfriend Ella by members of the association’s gang of hoods and killers. Even
then, he appears to hesitate but finally throws in with the immigrants who,
facing destruction, make a stand against those willing to casually wipe them
out. In the end, however, they lose the battle and Ella is killed in an ambush
during which Jim kills the cattleman responsible for the attack and then he
mourns Ella.
In one or two other
places, there are nods to existentialism as Jim suggests each of us must make
our own decisions and make our own way. I wondered if this was at the core of
Jim’s lack of action in the face of injustice and his refusal to marry or take
responsibility for Ella, but the scenes at the end of the film caused me to
review these thoughts.
Some thirteen years
later, we find Jim living in opulent luxury on board a yacht. He is accompanied
by the same beautiful girl he pursued in Harvard at the start of the film and we
realise she may be his wife.
He looks around and
appears tearful, disappointed, regretful and perhaps even embarrassed or
ashamed by his surroundings. Was Jim a rich man playing at being poor (as was
stated at one point in the film)? If he had another life to which he could
return, was this Harvard-educated man (who used his knowledge of Roman battle
tactics to help the immigrants in the final battle) ever truly committed to his
work as a marshal? Does this explain his unwillingness to take action? Was he
married while he was seeing Ella and does that explain his lack of commitment
to her?
As he looks upon the
opulence and security that surround him and he appears upset, is he doubting
the value he has given to his life? Is he troubled by his conscience? Did he simply
and too easily give up the worthy cause of defending the poor from self-serving
rich people who effectively run the country? Did he take the easy option of
rejoining the rich set after his adventure in Wyoming?
There is much that could
have been great about “Heaven’s Gate” but the audience should not have been
left to interpret scenes or input motives, background and character. It is
reasonable to expect guidance, pace and purpose from the director and writer.
Apart from structural
issues, the film may have fared miserably at the box office because ultimately
there is no-one to root for, not even a tragic hero to support, and the film
offers no positive outcome or hope, and that is hard to swallow having invested
three and a half hours in the film.
Of course, there is
always the possibility that this negative outlook was just what Mr Cimino was
aiming for as a reflection of society and its infrastructure.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
Friday, 16 August 2024
Reflections on characters and themes in “Civil War”
Reflections
on “Civil War”
Written
and directed by Alex Garland
Starring
Kirsten Dunst, Cailee Spaeny, Wagner Moura
and
Stephen McKinley Henderson
Intense, unidirectional,
visceral and graphically violent, “Civil War” presents us with a warning of potential
consequences of political, social and moral division, taken to extreme yet
ominously plausible.
In the context of the
film, we learn that the President of the USA is dictatorial and has acted
outwith the terms of the Constitution in that, among other things, he is
serving a third term, has disbanded the FBI and has fired upon his own citizens
to bring them under control. We hear the President claim democratic authority
under the Constitution and the broader legal system yet he appears to be
undermining and spurning restrictions and regulations set out in the same
Constitution he has sworn to uphold.
It is implied the
President has abandoned rule by law and principle in favour of personal
entitlement, judgement and preference. He applies personal perception and
acumen rather than apply a considered overview in which varying points of view
are respected.
As a result of this
attitude at the top of government, numerous blinkered, narrow-minded and
self-serving individuals are willing to act on their own beliefs and
convictions and they rationalise positions and manipulate situations and
language to justify dubious, amoral and criminal behaviour.
The President and his
supporters are opposed by the Western Forces, a coalition whose intention it is
to remove the President from power. Opposition appears to be based on
democratic order and principles but in the face of amoral, brutal and
remorseless attacks and attitudes, they must engage the enemy using similar
tactics.
Eventually, divisions
have become so deep and entrenched, and experience and pain so overwhelming,
that each side has lost sight of argument and reason and resorts to action
without recourse to discussion. It becomes a matter of shoot first and ask
questions later as all participants seek to survive and impose their view.
There are shocking, awful
and disquieting scenes in which victims are tortured, beaten and murdered,
often without hesitation or consideration on the part of the aggressor. This,
we may assume, is the consequence of the abandonment of objective justice and
laws, replaced by partisan beliefs and skewed views, including personal acts of
revenge and retribution, now apparently validated by manipulation and simple
dismissal of principle and values at the top of government.
This may also suggest
that “civilisation” may be little more than a high-minded façade behind which
lie profound selfishness and self-indulgence that require little encouragement
to come to the fore.
We witness unbridled and
brutal destruction and devastation and thus become aware of the fragility of
the order, culture and even the very buildings that we take to be established
and eternal, yet here we see and understand how easily and quickly these pillars
of progress and society can be undermined and destroyed without due care and
attention to their maintenance.
The events of the film
are seen through the eyes of and conveyed by a party of journalists. Presumably
journalists have been chosen as our eyes and ears because, at their best,
journalists seek and promote the apportioning of responsibility and
accountability based on truth, fact and balanced investigation.
Lee, Joel, Jessie and
Sammy represent varying ages, experience and reactions to what they witness but
all are committed to the cause of truth and accountability as they set out to
interview the President before he is besieged by the Western Forces who are
making rapid progress and are closing in on Washington.
All are determined and
hardened to some extent, though Lee appears disillusioned and even slightly
detached, that is until they become personally involved in events and go
through horror and distress first hand, as opposed to maintaining a
professional distance.
They lose friends and
witness brutal and terrifyingly casual executions of colleagues, and in a sense
we in the audience share their horror and loss as we have developed a rapport with
and an understanding of these characters and, though we have already witnessed
dreadful events and cruelty, the victims in these events were unknown to us
while now we share the loss of friends and colleagues and the pain that
inflicts.
Lee is particularly
traumatised and her detachment crumbles as she is forced to live the pain and
loss she has for so long merely reported, but previously she was able to hide
behind a façade of professionalism and professional application.
Indeed, there may even be doubt as to her desire to go on in this messed-up cauldron of misery as she saves young Jessie but fails to apply the very advice she gave to her protégée regarding keeping low when under fire.
Perhaps she had lost hope
in humanity.
Curiously, despite all
the gruesome and heartless violence, the film ends on a note of political hope
in spite of the dystopian atmosphere and the crushing indictment of man’s
inhumanity to man, a trait which may lie beneath our fine aspirations to
principle, values and humanity.
Fast-paced with
exceptional performances and gripping direction, “Civil War” is something of a
concept film which drives hard and fast toward its destination and leaves its
audience virtually beaten into submission. Perhaps the producers hoped this
tactic would prove all the more effective in persuading its audience of the
dangers and consequences of the path of division and conflict we appear to be
following at present.
Of course, the ultimate
irony is that this film is likely to appeal only to those already convinced by the
observations and viewpoint behind its premise. Sadly, while art may capture
truth, reality frequently resists learning from it.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
Wednesday, 17 July 2024
Reflections on characters and themes in “The Ghost and Mrs Muir” (1947)
Reflections
on “The Ghost and Mrs Muir”
Directed
by Joseph L Mankiewicz
Screenplay
by Philip Dunne
(from
a novel by Josephine Leslie (as R A Dick))
Starring
Gene Tierney, Rex Harrison and George Sanders
“The Ghost and Mrs Muir”
is a film I watched and enjoyed in my youth and at that time I accepted it as a
charming, pleasant, romantic comedy. I viewed it again a few years ago,
somewhat half-heartedly and interrupted by a variety of events and other
distractions, but I enjoyed my nostalgic return to a happy memory from my youth
and jotted down the following somewhat romantic notes:
This is a film that
presents a feminist-minded homage to spiritual love that can reach across the
divide between physical and spiritual existence, across time and across social
divisions.
Daniel Gregg and Lucy
Muir appreciate and complement one another. She supplies pensive devotion and
affection while he, rather ironically, supplies life, dynamism and unguarded
humour. He treats her with respect but not with kid gloves or as a possession.
They form a team in which a meeting of minds and an appreciation of nature and
beauty is the essential trait rather than physical passion.
Although Lucy concedes to
physical and emotional temptation and has her heart broken, Gregg knows that
time is irrelevant and waits until she can join him in spiritual happiness,
unburdened by mere physicality.
However, recently and
quite by chance I came across an online article discussing the film and it
presented a quite different theory regarding the underlying themes of the film.
I have to say I found the conclusions of the article quite unconvincing but it
was enough to make me want to view the film again and possibly review my
thoughts about it, and I’m certainly glad I did as I found a further and this
time more attentive viewing most rewarding.
Lucy Muir is a
free-spirited, independent-minded young widow and mother who struggles with the
somewhat restrictive mores in vogue at the end of the 19th and
beginning of the 20th centuries. She rejects and defies the
perceptions and societal norms applied to women of the period, is determined to
maintain self-respect and aspires to a sense of fulfilment, i.e. not conceding
to others’ views, plans and wishes, but leading a life on one’s own terms.
Having married when young
and in a romantic daze, she is now a thoughtful and resolute widow with a
daughter. She is reasonably self-assertive and reveals a desire for
independence and self-reliance quite regularly in her dealings with others, but
she is equally frustrated in that, largely due to the fact she is a woman, she
now feels badgered to be conformist and goaded into pleasing others rather than
follow her instincts.
In search of a new home, she
views Gull Cottage, the former residence of the now deceased Captain Daniel
Gregg whose portrait dominates the main room and whose ghost is reported to
haunt the building. Lucy is quite taken with the house, the portrait and the
Captain’s “presence”, and is inspired to rent the property. She is also more
personally inspired by the Captain’s spirit as she engages in conversation with
his ghost and, as they find one another intriguing and perhaps admirable, they
come to a mutually acceptable agreement. She may live in the cottage and she
will write up the Captain’s memoirs under a pseudonym, an endeavour that will
lead to success and financial independence for Lucy.
In reality, I would say
that Captain Daniel Gregg is an alter ego who allows Lucy to live vicariously
and is a conduit or cipher who enables Lucy to express herself and, more
importantly, assert herself. She has adapted to the man’s world around her and
projects her innermost feelings and ambitions through the persona of Captain
Gregg.
In a sense, this is a
modified version of duality popular in the 19th and early 20th
centuries, but here, rather than being torn between good and evil, Lucy is
conflicted by acquiescence, as expected of her by society, and assertiveness as
she follows her natural instincts.
Fundamentally, Gregg’s
existence as a “ghost” is a tool in Lucy’s quest to gain respect from others
while at the same time achieving self-respect. Gregg offers a channel for
Lucy’s feistiness and she admires and profits by his spirit (no pun intended),
yet she also appreciates his willingness to reason with her and to compromise.
Beneath his bluster, Gregg listens to and respects Lucy, qualities he displays
with no-one else, while also offering her objective advice that reveals common
sense and affection. Essentially, Lucy projects on to Gregg the qualities and
traits she most admires in herself and which she aspires to see in and share
with society. She is effectively externalising inner thought as she reasons
with herself and uses Gregg as a sounding board and a means of expressing
herself.
Although she finds this
exercise in spiritual self-respect rewarding, she recognises her physical and
social needs, and the validation of being loved and valued by another, and so
she gently sets aside Gregg (who takes on the mantle of the pained lover who
sacrifices his spiritual love to physical and emotional need) in favour of
romance and reality.
Ultimately, however, she
is disillusioned and dissatisfied by romantic love and in the end she is
released from expectations, social restraints and conventions and once again
turns inward to Captain Gregg for self-respect and fulfilment, not dependent on
the views, actions and judgments of others.
I have no doubt that
holes will be found in my reading of the film but I suspect they will be found
in whichever interpretation you opt for – the literal one or the
psychologically figurative one.
I found this a touching,
thought-provoking and entertaining piece with highly engaging performances
which brings in to focus and questions socially accepted injustices and inequitable
attitudes toward women at the time, but does so playfully and with humour. It
also accentuates the importance of self-respect and integrity in one’s outlook
and self-perception.
It is also worth
mentioning that the author of the original novel published under a pseudonym
whose initials (R A) represented her sea captain father…
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
Thursday, 13 June 2024
Reflections on characters and themes in James Gray's "Ad Astra"
Reflections
on “Ad Astra” (2019)
Directed
by James Gray
Script
by James Gray and Ethan Gross
Starring
Brad Pitt, Tommy Lee Jones, Ruth Negga and Donald Sutherland
“Ad Astra” is a tale of
ambition, science, faith, the existential impact of our actions on others,
family and compassion, and how the pursuit of ambition and achievement may
cause conflict and may require us to prioritise and make choices, sometimes at
the expense of humanity. It also begs questions about whether mankind is really
ready for and capable of advanced space exploration.
The film may be viewed as
a psychological and existential thriller in the guise of a science-fiction film
whose story is almost told in the first-person singular as everything is
recounted from the point of view of main character Roy McBride. Indeed, the
style and spirit of the piece rather suggest that Roy is sharing his memories
with us as he provides a voice-over and his occasional narration contains
reflections, wisdom and lessons learned. There are some jumps in time so he may
be sharing selected memories as one does when giving autobiographical accounts,
and there is little or no external input – we are dependent on Roy and his
perceptions for our tale.
At the start, Roy is
focused, calm and devoted to his mission, almost to the point of being robotic.
He is emotionally detached but professionally engaged and this has had a
negative impact on his personal life and especially his marriage. His work and
his job are the most important things to him. His feelings and emotions are
held in check to allow him to focus on the job in hand. He has devoted his life
to the expansion of scientific knowledge and to being an astronaut or space
pioneer like his father before him.
His father, Clifford
McBride, is a renowned scientist and space explorer who abandoned his family to
extend the limits of experience and knowledge in outer space. Although Clifford
is presented as a heroic, ground-breaking figure, his abandonment of his family
has had a profound but deeply buried effect on Roy and his life, career and
professionalism, but also, and perhaps more importantly, on Roy’s inability to
develop and maintain relationships and come to terms with emotion.
As for Clifford, he was
able to cast aside his familial responsibilities with remarkable ease to focus
on what he perceives as a far greater scientific task and responsibility,
though this single-minded lack of consideration will eventually lead to conflict
and confrontation…
Clifford had total belief in the purpose and righteousness of his mission, the Lima Project, to seek signs of life elsewhere in the universe. Indeed, his conviction in the sanctity of his work appears to have transformed into faith as scientific evidence mounts that there is no life to be found, but Clifford holds on to his purpose-giving conviction and at one point declares he is doing God’s work.
However, his co-workers
do not share the depth of his conviction and, after considerable physical
hardship and disillusion based on experience and disappointment, they wish to
abandon their mission and return home. When faced with Clifford’s stony refusal
to accept both their scientific findings and their desire to head for home,
they mutiny. Clifford’s desire to find extraterrestrial life has become his
purpose and the driving force in his life and, forsaking whatever humanity
remains to him, he kills his fellow crew members because they threaten the
sanctity of his mission.
Shortly after this event,
due to damage incurred in the mutiny, surges of anti-matter start to emanate
from the ship and they threaten all life in the solar system. These surges may
also be interpreted as a threat in terms of loss of hope and faith, loss of
hope in finding intelligent life, but also, perhaps, loss of faith in man’s
purpose and even the very existence of God. Clifford felt he was doing God’s
work and failure may cause him (and others) to consider the possibility we are
entirely alone in the universe, and such thoughts may lead to despair and
social breakdown.
The authorities are aware
of the mutiny and the situation concerning the Lima Project, and they wish to
terminate Clifford and the anti-matter surges or threats to social order and
welfare. However, they do not know Clifford’s exact whereabouts and they concoct
a plan to send his son Roy on a rescue mission, hoping Clifford will respond to
his son’s messages and therefore reveal his position.
The authorities have, of
course, built Clifford into an iconic hero and have lied to and manipulated Roy
to gain his co-operation. The truth would indicate failure and they need to
maintain a façade or image of heroism and devotion to duty in order to maintain
their own positions and protect the righteousness of their enterprise and
public confidence in it. They are guilty of underhand and dishonest
manipulation of Roy (and the rest of humanity, come to that), exploiting
emotional attachment while encouraging emotional detachment, which reduces
chances of dissent or challenge, to serve their purpose.
Roy is on the way to
becoming his father. He is calm and detached, and has learned to follow orders
and set aside emotional complications. However, his mission to find his father
will rekindle feelings, emotions and resentment. He may even rediscover the
value of reflection, humanity and compassion on his journey.
His journey to the
outskirts of the solar system (and, we might say, to the depths of his soul),
begins with a trip to the moon.
The point of establishing
a facility on the moon (in keeping with the purpose of space exploration in
general) is to start afresh and to improve life, but those in command have
created a facsimile of Earth and have imported man-made mistakes and flaws,
encapsulated by moon pirates setting out to capture or steal resources,
suggesting problems lie in human nature and they will not be easily solved
through space exploration.
This point is further
demonstrated when Roy and his crew respond to a mayday on their way to Mars.
They dock with a vehicle which is presumably a base for conducting biological
experiments, illustrating man’s desire to manipulate and control nature and his
surroundings. However, ego and ambition have outstripped man’s knowledge and
capacities and the experiment has gone badly wrong, resulting in violence and
death.
The ropey landing on Mars
further demonstrates the potential consequences of our human failings and the
need and value of keeping a cool, focused head. We are all fragile and
vulnerable and the captain of the ship concedes to fear, emotion and circumstance
but Roy applies his training and lands the ship safely. Roy may be experiencing
doubt about his life and his past but he will not simply indulge emotion. A
balance is to be maintained, tempering emotion with self-control or discipline
in order to make progress.
On Mars, Roy grapples
with emotions, feelings and bitterness that he has buried for years. The whole
purpose of this mission has brought to the fore challenging thoughts and
memories that he has concealed from himself most of his adult life. He now
wants to find his father in order to gain closure – be that in the shape of
confrontation or simply to be able to forget him. This is no longer just a
military operation to find and aid a fellow space explorer, but a personal
quest to seek and confront a failed father who put work and ambition above
family and responsibility.
The authorities show
something of their true colours and purpose and decide to remove Roy from the
mission now that he has served his purpose and they have been able to ascertain
Clifford’s whereabouts, causing Roy to question the purpose and validity not
just of his mission but of his place in the grand scheme of things.
A colleague on Mars,
Helen Lantos, reveals the truth about Clifford’s actions on the Lima Project to
Roy. Her parents were among those killed by Clifford and she seems to think Roy
shares some kind of responsibility as Clifford’s son, if only to face his
father and learn the truth. Once again, the impact of one person’s actions on
many, and in many ways, is emphasised.
Roy appears to agree with
her and he sets off to stow away on the vehicle about to take off in pursuit of
his father. His presence is detected immediately and the crew treats his
presence as hostile to their mission and their lives, so set out to eliminate
him. This leads to something of an existential conundrum as Roy insists he is
no threat but his action, in climbing aboard, leads to violence and death,
eventually leaving Roy alone on the ship to find Clifford. He expresses
profound regret for the crew’s fate but he concentrates on the task at hand,
putting regret and emotion to one side in order to fulfil his mission. He may
be motivated by emotion but he can contain it and act coldly and rationally to
achieve his objective.
En route to Saturn and
Clifford’s ship, Roy reflects further on his father and his wife, Eve,
rediscovering and appreciating the importance of humanity and love.
When Roy eventually finds
Clifford, there is something of a showdown in which the painful truth is
revealed. Clifford did indeed kill his co-workers because his work was
all-important and his sole source of fulfilment. He was devoted to his cause
and because his co-workers threatened it, they had to be eliminated. This was a
purely logical decision based on the sanctity of his mission, as he saw it,
with no room for humanity, compassion or sympathy.
As for his family, they
were rejected with ease and with no regret or second thought. Clifford has
rejected humanity to devote himself to the pursuit of knowledge and as such
serves as a warning to Roy and, indeed, all humanity.
In response to Clifford’s
confession, Roy tells his father he still loves him. Roy has made a choice. He
has learned to appreciate humanity and compassion, and will put that above the
cold and perhaps empty pursuit of knowledge.
Humanity was not enough
for Clifford. He sought higher purpose and validation. Thus, when Clifford
failed to find extraterrestrial life, he lost faith, God and himself.
Roy studies Clifford’s
research and concludes we are alone, but he determines that we can and should
make the best of it and build on what is available to us, primarily by
appreciating relationships and compassion, but also, perhaps, by learning from
mistakes, keeping a cool head and developing possibilities of evolution on
other worlds.
Roy is a better man for
his experiences and what he has learned from them, and this is encapsulated in
receiving and accepting a helping hand as he sets foot once again on Earth. He
also displays a renewed desire to build a relationship with his wife.
It is notable that, like
his father, Roy is treated as a hero on his return. Doubtless the authorities
will have concocted a positive tale around his exploits which will avoid
mention of negative aspects of his actions.
I found this film dark,
contemplative and thought-provoking, with excellent performances from all
concerned and brisk, engaging direction that was effective in both action
sequences and more intimate and brooding scenes.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)