Skip to main content

Geopolitical Tensions Come to the I.S.S. in Feeble Space Thriller


The central tension of I.S.S. is difficult to take seriously in a post-Soviet world. Even with Russia and the United States once again on the diplomatic outs, it is a kind of cartoon the idea of a war and that old jingoism spilling over onto the international space station in the form of murder and sabotage. It is a fundamentally silly premise, no matter how much one characterizes the destruction on earth in apocalyptic terms or makes paltry shows at political commentary. I’ll give I.S.S. this, the geopolitical angle is a new one as far as I know for the space thriller genre. It doesn’t make it any more effective than an Apollo 18 or Life though.
The dominant sympathetic perspective here is of course the Americans, specifically that of innocent I.S.S. newcomer Kira Foster (Ariana DeBose) joining the crew of six as a bioengineer. After a short period of adjustment, the astronauts notice frightening flares down on Earth and then receive orders secretly from each of their governments instructing their representatives to take control of the station by any means necessary. Naturally the Russians make the first move and a deadly cat and mouse game develops amongst the surviving space-farers.
The use of a very real and present I.S.S. as a setting is fascinating, tying the movie to a specific relatable context for its broad unrelatable plot. Still, the film makes use of its realistic contours -director Gabriela Cowperthwaite creating a sense of claustrophobia through the highly limited space available to the crew, who additionally have to deal with such things as artificial gravity. The closeness makes the sense of danger and paranoia more immediate, even as it hampers the suspense. But Cowperthwaite doesn’t much utilize that to begin with, even when the film veers into the occasional place of horror. The movie holds back on a lot of the creative potential within this environment for tension. Sleeping cubicles that are never utilized, cabin pressure and gravity variables -there’s only one space-walk on the outside of the station and what becomes of it is greatly underwhelming.
Drama seems to be more of a priority for I.S.S., but it can only muster up incredibly dull drama, such as a relationship between American crew Captain Barrett (Chris Messina) and one of the Russian astronauts Weronika (Maria Mashkova), that is the singular driving force behind their resistance to mutiny. And for being the film’s star player, DeBose is not given much to work with. There’s one small scene to give some troubled history relating to a past relationship but it has no bearing on her personality or actions during the course of the movie. She is largely an empty vessel of a protagonist, while characters around her are slightly more interesting, or at least played as such. John Gallager Jr. as the other American, driven to xenophobic hostility through concern for his children back home is one such example -if the script isn’t in any way invested in examining his motives. Pilou Asbæk as the Russian commander gets to play a little against type and turns out the best performance as a result -contrasted against the frenetic choices of Costa Ronin as his brother and the main antagonizing figure in that crew.
But even with such a menacing guy representing the destabilizing force to peace, there’s very little intensity that comes out of any of the threatening actions. When one character is knocked loose out in space (using the CanadArm as it happens), you can’t help but think back to how viscerally aesthetically terrifying a similar sequence was in 2001: A Space Odyssey, and how comparatively boring and unimaginative it is here. No thought is given to creatively using the mechanics of space, except for when someone is stabbed and the blood comes out as little floating droplets -which may be accurate but isn't very visceral. It's already a slow burn of a movie, building suspense very clumsily -except for one halfway tense but also quite silly scene over lunch late in the film. Yet the physical confrontations that inevitably result of these are hardly played with much competence either. The violence is consistently muted, the action restricted -probably due to the film’s unwarranted aspiration to realism.
All through this the movie faintly endeavours towards some kind of dull political comment. A facile observation on xenophobia and cultural mistrust, opining to be directed at the United States as much as Russia but with a very clear bias in its efforts to emulate the atmosphere of Cold War thrillers. It is all truly vacuous as it comes with a sense of smug satisfaction -as though alleging that our inability to trust each other across national boundaries being our doom is a wholly inspired concept. On the contrary and as expressed here, it is painfully basic -with nothing to say in a modern sense about the social-political relations between the two superpowers, or how competing cultural identities beget violence. You’re just supposed to take it that these people will on a fly choose to kill their colleagues simply because their faceless government tells them to. And it’s message on cooperation ultimately, with one on each side morally compromised and reluctant to go through with the objective, could not be more hollow. The movie merely postures at challenging themes of international relationships, when all it really does is recycle trope after Cold War trope.
I.S.S. tries to go for an ambiguous ending -though ‘try’ is a generous term for the minimal effort put in at the script level- as a way around having to come up with something creative for the fate of the Earth. It just comes to a stop instead, and does not have nearly the substance it takes to get away with that. But it is fitting punctuation for a movie that had so little to offer beyond one half-formed idea not given to artists who could make something of it. It is the most typical January movie of the month unfortunately, a bland thriller with no vision almost designed to be forgotten by the following week. Russian, American astronauts, and the I.S.S. deserve better.

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