The latest in our series of guest posts by A.E. Williams, author of Terminal Reset: Why the Movie Version of The Martian isn't about Mars - or Science!
Well, I
finally made it to see Andy Weir’s book
“The Martian” as made into a film by Ridley Scott. While I absolutely adore the book (I admit to having read my Kindle
version of it at least six times!),
the movie was a perfect example of how Hollywood can bend the message of almost
everything it touches. Now, this is not to say that it is bad. It’s an awesome and entertaining
film! I absolutely loved a lot of it.
Figure 1: THEY LOOK LIKE THEY ARE ABOUT THE SAME THING
Ridley
Scott, coming off the less-than-stellar sequel to his “Alien” film, (and which
I am loth to acknowledge even exists),
does an outstanding job of story-telling with “The Martian”.[1]
It does seem to be happening on another
planet. The attention to details is so great that you don’t even notice the
special effects as such. [2]
My focus
here is to tell you that the film is NOT
about Mars. Or even NASA. It’s a metaphor for – are you ready for this? –
DIVORCE!
Now, some
may feel that this is me just projecting my own experiences and bias onto a tidy little science-fiction story.[3]
But, hear
me out ---The book is all about Mark Watney getting stranded on Mars.
A marooned
astronaut uses his wits and courage to overcome outstanding obstacles, in a
life-or-death struggle for survival in a hostile environment. This is a story that is as old as history. Many excellent
examples of heroic men overcoming vast odds to succeed can easily be cited,
from “The Odyssey” all the way to “Robinson Crusoe on Mars”.[4]
“Man Overcoming
Nature to Survive” is a concept that we love to revisit. [5]
A modern
viewer of “The Martian” sees a beautifully rendered vision of a poor bastard
stranded on an alien world, figuring out problem
after problem until all is well. They are shown just how important ONE PERSON
is to the entire world!
It’s
narcissism writ large, with Watney substituting as every viewer who is vicariously living the story through him.
And the film carries this off with nary a misstep.
[6]
The film
unfolds neatly, and (SPOILER ALERT) actually has a happy ending for everyone.
In fact, no
one dies…[7]
The reality
of space flight means that NASA has lost a
number of astronauts during its history. These stalwart individuals were
brave men and women, who thoroughly
understood the danger of space exploration. The book and film both get the
attitude and psychology of the typical astronaut correct.[8]
But, the part regarding the mutiny to try to save Watney goes against type. Astronauts
understand the danger and the importance
of mission success. They also are superb
at following orders.
The movie
and the book both get it wrong that any one
person would be THAT important, so as to launch a multi-billion-dollar mission
of mercy.
In reality,
there would be an excellent memorial on
Mars, and his name would be etched on the Astronaut Memorial wall.
Figure 2: BRAVE PEOPLE. A SURPRISINGLY FEW
SACRIFICES FOR SCIENCE
And perhaps
even less[9]…
But, what I
really wanted to speak to in this article is a different thing entirely.
After
pondering the differences between the book and film, I feel that the movie is
actually about how men perceive divorce in America today.
Say what?
Are you insane, A.E.?[10]
OK –
Here is how
the story unfolds – in the book:
·
Astronaut Mark Watney is part of a
crew, with a strong, independent female in charge.
·
They are all following her orders,
when suddenly, something unplanned occurs
·
Watney is knocked unconscious and separated from the rest of them[11].
·
They are forced to leave him,
thinking he is dead.
·
When he comes to he’s been
abandoned in a hostile world, compelled
to live by his wits alone.
·
Every decision he makes is life or
death to him.
·
A large group of people mobilizes to keep him alive when it is discovered he did NOT die.
·
The crew is kept in the dark about
the actual truth of things.
·
When they find out what’s going on,
they immediately mutiny and take matters into their own hands.
·
They return to the initial location and try their damnedest to rescue him.
·
They succeed, and Watney rejoins
the crew.
·
Everyone is happy again!
This follows a typical American divorce scenario and
path thus:
·
A man has a family.
·
His wife is a strong, independent
woman. Everyone is happy. Then, -something- happens.
·
The woman
must make a hard decision, and ends up taking the family away.
·
The man is now on his own.
·
The woman
depends on other ‘authorities’ (attorneys) to guide her.
·
Her first concern is the children.
·
The man is also dependent on these
‘authorities’, and his friends, to try to keep his life together.
·
The outcome is uncertain.
In the
‘dream’ ending, (which is the one many children crave), the parents are united,
and status quo ante is obtained.
In the
‘real-life’ ending, many times the father is removed from the family permanently
-or perishes. Reconciliation is possible but unlikely.
The movie
“The Martian” is the dream ending.
While they
are not married (hey, this is a metaphor,
remember?) Commander Lewis leaves Watney behind for the ‘safety’ of the rest of
the crew.
The finale
of the film has Lewis substituting for Dr. Beck during the rescue sequence.
This diversion from the book is what cemented my mindset regarding the divorce
metaphor for me.
Commander
Lewis is cast as the savior; a redeemer who has come to liberate Watney from
his exile. She effectively gives him back his life
and unites him once again with his ‘family’.[12]
The
interesting part, to me, is why does Watney WANT to go back to Earth?
Think about
this for a moment, to see how deep is the conditioning:
Watney was
surviving on his own, practically and efficiently.
Sure, he
had a couple of bad turns, but he would have made it HAD HE IGNORED NASA![13]
All they
needed to do was launch a food rocket, and take their time doing it. The
circumstances of how the failure of the resupply mission exploded would have most definitely been identified in the real
world. One thing NASA is, post-shuttle, is CAREFUL!
Now, I can
hear you from here shouting “But, LONELINESS!
Man is a social animal! He belongs on Earf!”
Really?
There’s a
ton of precedent against that viewpoint.[14] Mountain men, sailors, soldiers, explorers and
adventurers throughout history have tested their mettle ALONE.
Astronauts
are specially chosen for their ability to
adapt to long periods of solitude. They are self-sufficient in almost EVERY
way.[15]
Mark Watney
could have been the first man to actually live on Mars, is all I am saying
here.
As long as
the water and oxygen machines were maintained and the occasional carbon
absorbing filter reused, (and maybe NASA sends him an occasional shipment of toilet paper)[16],
the dude NEVER needed to come back to Earth.
Therein is
the danger in the non-Hollywood-massaged metaphor - that a man really doesn’t
need anyone to survive and thrive. There
is a message here that he can live his own way, without interference from
meddling bureaucrats, or people who will
eventually screw him over.
“The
Martian” is also a study in convincing viewers that no man is an island. That
he requires a vast infrastructure of ‘experts’ and ‘geniuses’ to allow him to
live a full and fruitful life.
You can
hear the subtle subtext of “You didn’t
build that” echoing in its portrayals of how hard NASA (the government) is
trying to rescue him. [17]
Now, I
certainly don’t want to come across as somehow pro-men and anti-women here.
My position
is how the medium really IS the message, as McLluhan stated.
Figure 3: ONE OF THE MOST UNAPOLOGETIC EXAMPLES OF IRONY EVER?
In
conclusion, I find “The Martian” is a splendid
book.
It speaks
to the wonders and meticulous processes that science can provide, and is a
rousing tale. The pacing is fast, and we care about Mark Watney. The ending is
contrived, but all-in-all, it’s a fine
example of man triumphing over adversity,
using his wits. Oh, and maybe some
science…
The film,
while technically brilliant, seems to have some intrinsic problem with the idea
of solitude. There was a conscious effort to downplay Mark Watney’s smart-ass
attitude, as I read it. His triumphs were predicated on a need to be
vindicated, not by his own survival, but by how successful he was at reintegrating into a society that literally
abandons him. Watney was cast into this as a metaphor to reflect how dependent
a modern man is upon society, (and specifically one that is veering away from a
patriarchal hierarchy[18]).
Left to his
own devices, Mark Watney may have eventually ended up as a real Martian.
Up
Next:
November
- Cyborgs, Artificial Intelligences, Trans-Humans, the Singularity and the
Merging of Humans and Machine.
December
- The Physics of Science Fiction Weapons.
January
– Some of the Thinking Behind “Terminal Reset”.
A.E.
Williams, October 11,
2015
[1] I leave it up to the
motivated reader to find the rest of the pertinent details about the actors,
etc. over on IMDB. Or Google…
[2] When the crew is moving about in the Hermes, it is so seamless you forget it is not possible to film
this kind of thing in gravity.
[3] And, in all fairness, I can certainly point to events
in my life that have given me some perspective on this. This is also an attempt
to present this premise from a decidedly male worldview,
so you will please excuse the tone. I am not at all arguing against or for
feminism. There are two sides to relationships,
as we know. I’d like to voice my arguments using some slight amount of male privilege. The last time I checked, I do not
qualify as female.
[4] Which is to “The
Martian” as “Peter and the Wolf” is to “Dances with Wolves”.[4]
[5] So much so, that Joseph Campbell called it “The Hero’s Journey.”
[6] Sure, there are a few - like Jeff Daniels’ portrayal of a total
a-hole NASA Director putting up with Danny Glover’s asocial uber-nerd presentation of the basic slingshot maneuver. And
Lewis at the very end. But, at least they sort-of-kind-of omitted the
Beck/Johanssen romance bit from the book.
[7] Can you even believe that? I mean, this is a RIDLEY SCOTT movie,
for Pete’s sake! I expected at least one exploding astronaut, just to spice
things up a bit, at the end there.
[8] Having met a few, I’d just like to add that astronauts are only
typical in that every one of them is a demigod.
[10] Like Sheldon Cooper, my mom had me tested and I am not crazy!
[11] Literally blindsided
[12] This does not happen in the book,
and is my main point in just how
different are the messages between these two versions of the same story.
[13] Watney was doing pretty well on his own. He had managed to grow
food, and could have probably
survived until the next mission reached him. Ask why couldn’t the ARES 4
mission just land at the ARES 3 site? It was even hinted at, when they
discussed ‘retrieving his body’ using ARES 6. Once NASA got back in touch with
him, he was basically ordered to try to reach the MAV at ARES 4. This event was
far more hazardous to him than just staying put. NASA was ready to send
supplies, and that could have included landing another MAV right at ARES 3
again!
[15] Male astronauts, as of this writing, are unable to bear offspring. It
is probable that female astronauts can probably inseminate themselves and
reproduce unaided, although NASA is mum on the subject.
[17] I
really do not want to politicize the film, since the book does a great job
explaining the rationale for the rescue efforts. But this is another instance
of how film and print differ greatly. The book goes to great lengths to explain
how the entire world is cooperating to rescue Watney, once he is discovered
alive. The politics behind this decision, and the inclusion of the Chinese
space program, speaks more eloquently to the point than I can in a short
article.
[18] Jeff Daniels seemed to be channeling Hillary Clinton, don’t you
think?
No comments:
Post a Comment