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
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more