Skip to main content

No Space for a Stowaway


Was it Alfonso Cuarón’s Gravity that opened the door for the space disaster movie subgenre? There seems to have been a lot of them lately, movies that centre on a space mission, usually with some palpable degree of realism in the details and protocol, that depict the various ways things can go wrong. They often rely on that pronounced intensity that comes naturally off of the isolation and unknowable mystique of space -the quality summed up so succinctly by that famous tagline “in space no one can hear you scream”. Recently, half of Midnight Sky was this kind of movie, and it fit in very well to the theme of “everything in space can kill you” that Gravity most excelled at. But Stowaway, a film directed by Joe Penna, takes a different approach, centering on a different kind of life-threatening situation that is more psychologically distressing, and more human.
It’s a very contained affair: three astronauts are embarking on a two-year scientific mission to Mars only to find after they’ve taken off and are well on their way that they have an accidental stowaway in a launch support crewman who suffered an injury while making repairs behind some panelling and fell unconscious. The title may infer that the tension will then come from the stowaway being dangerous or maniacal. Instead he is a friendly guy who acclimates to the situation and the crew rather well, yet threatens their lives merely by breathing. It becomes apparent there simply isn’t enough life support for four people on a mission meant for three, and it means difficult choices will have to be made.
It’s a much more scientifically sound take on the space thriller story, exploring a problem that would logically arise from having an unexpected addition to a crew compliment; and which may be less exciting than a field of debris or a spacewalk gone wrong but is no less dramatically provoking. Of course it’s not like Stowaway avoids these kind of catastrophes outright –the major oxygen device onboard being damaged inadvertently by the stowaway is what exacerbates the issue, and a radiation storm provides the backdrop for the climax. But by and large the films’ conflict is psychological, and very concerned with the ethics of the situation.
The film makes it tough, going out of its way to emphasize the stowaway Michael Adams’ (Shamier Anderson) virtuous qualities: his guardianship over a sister with an implied developmental disability after losing their father in a fire (he still has the burns), his aspirations as an aerospace engineer, and his genuine curiosity and desire to help with ship functions any way he can. And everyone is torn up about what seemingly has to happen, responding to and acting on it in different ways. Penna allows no character to be the “bad guy” in this, he’s more interested in examining their moral toll and psychological trauma. He also invests enough time before the crisis becomes apparent to establish a cordial relationship between Michael and the three astronauts, especially Anna Kendrick’s team medic Zoe, who has a particular unspoken sexual chemistry with Michael –and who is naturally the least accepting of his ascertained fate.
Kendrick is not an actress you’d expect would be terribly well-suited to a serious space movie, but for the most part she manages alright. Her trademark brand of quirky bubbliness is there for sure, but she takes to the weightier material with sufficient poise even if she doesn’t quite sell some aspects of her characters’ expertise or romanticizing. Much better off is Daniel Dae Kim, who I happen to remember played an astronaut before in one of the more memorable episodes of Star Trek: Voyager. He actually gives probably the best performance of the movie as the passionate biologist David, forced to sacrifice his lifes’ work for the sake of their survival. He also is the one to take the most significant dramatic initiative, playing the moral quandary of it with great sympathy. And of course Toni Collette is great as the mission leader Marina, simultaneously the most in control and stressed out person on the voyage. Honestly, if the cast has a weak link it’s probably Anderson, who doesn’t quite pull off the limited characterization as well as his co-stars, and for being the titular stowaway and catalyst for the immediate danger, he disappears into the background for quite a lot of the last act as Kendrick and Kim take on the heavier action of the climax.
That is where the movie diverges from its intimate tone of gradually encroaching danger and ethical torment to be a race-against-the-clock last ditch endeavour that involves climbing the tethers of the launch ship in the middle of a radiation storm. The anxiety of this sequence is no less strong but I do question the narrative place it ends up. For much of the movie it’s clear that somebody is going to die, but never entirely who, save for Michael. But what does happen in the end just doesn’t really sit right, beautiful though the aesthetic ultimately is. A crucial choice that doesn’t feel built to adequately. Maybe it comes down to where the story is centred and that it ought to be on Michael, the titular figure and unwitting source of the whole conundrum. His story though is filtered through Zoe primarily, and occasionally David and Marina. And the ending especially makes it about Zoe much more than Michael to the point it almost feels like he was a plot device to get Zoe to the place she needed to be.
Notwithstanding some of these issues in structure and focus, it is refreshing what Penna did with the modern space movie. His intensity is as good as any similar action piece and the movie does force you to reckon on some level with your personal moral barometer. What would your choices be in such a dire situation? It’s fittingly claustrophobic too, without drawing attention to that fact, though of course that might just be another intrinsic aspect of the setting. Movies it seems really are determined to deter audiences from becoming astronauts; Stowaway certainly does its’ part.

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Disney's Mulan, Cultural Appropriation, and Exploitation

I’m late on this one I know. I wasn’t willing to spend thirty bucks back in September for a movie experience I knew was going to be far poorer than if I had paid half that at a theatre. So I waited for it to hit streaming for free to give it a shot. In the meantime I heard that it wasn’t very good, but I remained determined not to skip it entirely, partly out of sympathy for director Niki Caro and partly out of morbid curiosity. Disney’s live-action Mulan  I was actually mildly looking forward to early in the year in spite of my well-documented distaste for this series of creative dead zones by the most powerful media conglomerate on earth. Mulan  was never one of Disney’s classics, a movie extremely of its time in its “girl power” gender politics and with a decidedly American take on ancient Chinese mythology. It got by on a couple good songs and a strong lead, but it was a movie that could be improved upon, and this new version looked like it had the potential to do that, emphasizing

The Hays Code was Bad, Sex in Movies is Good

Don't Look Now (1973) Will Hays, Who Knows About Sex In 1930, former Republican politician and chair of the Motion Picture Association of America Will Hayes introduced a series of self-censorship guidelines for the movie industry in response to a mixture of celebrity scandals and lobbying from the Catholic Church against various ‘immoralities’ creating a perception of Hollywood as corrupt and indecent. The Hays Code, or the Motion Picture Production Code, was formally adopted in 1930, though not stringently enforced until 1934 under the auspices of Joseph Breen. It laid out a careful list of what was and wasn’t acceptable for a film expecting major distribution. It stipulated rules against profanity, the depiction of miscegenation, and offensive portrayals of the clergy, but a lot of it was based around sexual content: “sexual perversion” of any kind was disallowed, as were any opaquely textual or visual allusions to reproduction, and right near the top “No licentious or suggestiv

Pixar Sundays: The Incredibles (2004)

          Brad Bird was already a master by the time he came to Pixar. Not only did he hone his craft as an early director on The Simpsons , but he directed a little animated film for Warner Bros. in 1999, that though not a box office success was loved by critics and quickly grew a cult following. The Iron Giant is now among many people’s favourite animated movies. Likewise, Bird’s feature debut at Pixar, The Incredibles , his own variation of a superhero movie, is often considered one of the studio’s best. And for very good reason, as the most talented director at Pixar shows.            Superheroes were once the world’s greatest crime-fighting force until several lawsuits for collateral damage (and in the case of Mr. Incredible, a hilarious suicide prevention), outlawed their vigilantism. Fifteen years later Mr. Incredible, now living as Bob Parr, has a family with his wife Helen, the former Elastigirl. But Bob, in a combination of mid-life crisis and nostalgia for the old day