From the earliest days of cinema, films have explored what man can do when cut off from society (and indeed, the interest of the topic pre-dates the art form: think how long ago Robinson Crusoe was written). But in a world ever more monitored, depictions of life beyond borders are often set in space. These include both fictional tales and true stories. 'Apollo 13', for example, is a riveting film, but mainly because of its raw material: in 1971, a manned space mission suffered from an explosion and the astronauts were stranded, thousands of miles from help; amazingly, they managed to fix their stricken craft and make it home alive.
'The Martian' is a fictional story, but is in some ways Apollo 13-redux. It starts with a gripping scene where, post-disaster, the hero is forced to operate on himself: gripping, yes, but also not a scene that needs to be set on Mars. And subsequently, it can't quite live up to this compelling start. As I see it, there are three main problems. Firstly, some implausible science (how can you grow plants without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?) and psychology (the story is set over a period of years, but we never really get the impression that the character is stranded alone for so long). Secondly, the need for the Hollywood virtues where force of character compels eventual triumph. And finally, perhaps, that the remarkable thing about Apollo 13 is not that its crew could have saved themselves, but that they did: the triumph was not one over the laws of physics, but rather a win against the odds. In a fictional story, this is a less compelling narrative structure: why does the character get repeatedly lucky? Simply because the screenwriters wrote it that way.
Yet in spite of its faults, the film's basic set up draws you in, and by the (admittedly melodramatic) rescue scenes, one can't help but watch on the edge of one's seat; and keeping an audience interested for over two hours is not such an easy thing to do. Perhaps the fact that in the real world we've basically given up on manned space travel adds to the appeal: this may be a futuristic story, but at the same time, it also feels like a tale of something we used to do, to boldly go beyond the limits of our planet to see what we might find.
'The Martian' is a fictional story, but is in some ways Apollo 13-redux. It starts with a gripping scene where, post-disaster, the hero is forced to operate on himself: gripping, yes, but also not a scene that needs to be set on Mars. And subsequently, it can't quite live up to this compelling start. As I see it, there are three main problems. Firstly, some implausible science (how can you grow plants without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?) and psychology (the story is set over a period of years, but we never really get the impression that the character is stranded alone for so long). Secondly, the need for the Hollywood virtues where force of character compels eventual triumph. And finally, perhaps, that the remarkable thing about Apollo 13 is not that its crew could have saved themselves, but that they did: the triumph was not one over the laws of physics, but rather a win against the odds. In a fictional story, this is a less compelling narrative structure: why does the character get repeatedly lucky? Simply because the screenwriters wrote it that way.
Yet in spite of its faults, the film's basic set up draws you in, and by the (admittedly melodramatic) rescue scenes, one can't help but watch on the edge of one's seat; and keeping an audience interested for over two hours is not such an easy thing to do. Perhaps the fact that in the real world we've basically given up on manned space travel adds to the appeal: this may be a futuristic story, but at the same time, it also feels like a tale of something we used to do, to boldly go beyond the limits of our planet to see what we might find.