Summary. Miners on a Mars two hundred years in the future
accidentally release some ghosts of the original Martians. This happens just as
a well-armed team of space cops headed by Lieutenant Melanie Ballard (Natasha
Henstridge) prepare to transfer the planet’s most dangerous criminal Desolation
Williams (Ice Cube) from a local jail cell to the planet’s top prison facility
in the outpost city of Chryse. It’s hordes of murderous ugly ghosts vs. a ton
of automatic weapons.
Commentary. John Carpenter is a bit of an icon for me. Not
in the same league as, say David Lean at his best, but, as I’ve said elsewhere,
his movies show the courage of his convictions. He makes well-crafted
deliciously fun sci-fi/horror/adventure movies. He uses top production
designers and directors of photography and other skilled behind-the-cameras
talent. He puts attractive, talented actors and actresses in front of the
camera, and asks his whole team to go that extra mile to create outlandish situations
that far transcend any B-movie pretentions that so many lazy critics can’t see
beyond.
The look of this picture is fantastic. The Mars in this
movie is like no other Mars. The matte paintings and the miniatures, especially
of the trains, blend together perfectly to give a real sense of place.
This model train is pretty awesome in the film as it races through the Martian night.
John Carpenter’s Ghosts of Mars is a delightful “popcorn”
movie to watch and help you feel you’re not wherever it is you really are. This
film handily transports you to a dark, dirty, dusty, dangerous Mars, every
second of which is during the creepy Martian night. You never get to see vistas
of deserts or ranges of mountains. We all stay focused on the horrible things
that happen when night falls on Mars.
Enthusiasts.
“John Carpenter’s Ghosts of Mars ... has the courage to be a
potent little B- movie in an era when most movies take B plots and inflate and
dilute them to such an extent that the flavor disappears. Ghosts of Mars
provides a full- fledged blast of undiluted B-movie zest.”—Jeffrey M. Anderson, Combustible Celluloid, August 2001
“It’s cheap thrills all the way, served up with the kind of
situational purity that only Carpenter seems to care for these days. It’s that
simple and that much fun.”—Paul Malcolm,L.A. Weekly
The ghosts of Mars featured in The Ghosts of Mars.
John Carpenter’s Ghosts of Mars (2001)
USA. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Screen Gems, Storm King
Productions, Animationwerks, C. 2.35:1. 98m
CREW:Director John Carpenter. Script Larry Sulkis, John
Carpenter. Producer Sandy King. Score John Carpenter. Director of Photography
Gary B. Kibbe. Production Designer William Elliott. Editor Paul C. Warschilka.
Casting Reuben Cannon. Special Visual Effects The Chandler Group, ShadowCaster,
Amalgamated Pixels. Miniature Effects Hunter/Gratzner Industries.
CAST: Lieutenant Melanie Ballard Natasha Henstridge.
Desolation Williams Ice Cube. Sgt Jericho Butler Jason Statham. Bashira Kincaid
Clea DuVall. Commander Helena Braddock Pam Grier. Whit- lock Joanna Cassidy. .
Formal Notice: All images, quotations, and video/audio clips used in this blog and
in its individual posts are used either with permissions from the copyright
holders or through exercise of the doctrine of Fair Use as described in U.S.
copyright law, or are in the public domain. If any true copyright holder
(whether person[s] or organization) wishes an image or quotation or clip to be
removed from this blog and/or its individual posts, please send a note with a
clear request and explanation to eely84232@mypacks.net and your request will be
gladly complied with as quickly as practical.
Consider
this my "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
moment. 💥
Notice: Please be advised that there are photos
containing nudity near the end of Part 3 of this blog post.
As I did in my book, I’m
using the opportunity this blog holds to vent or discuss my feelings about
occasional other movies I feel have been unfairly treated. For instance, I
believe that Tobe Hooper’s 1985 science fiction epic Lifeforce (a worthy successor to Hammer's Martian classic Five Million Years to Earth) is woefully misunderstood and has been unjustly maligned
for thirty years. Because Lifeforce
immediately preceded Hooper’s remake of Invaders
from Mars (1953) and since the two films shared much the same creative
talent, I’m spending a few moments here commenting on Lifeforce to finally give it its due. Lifeforce is in my mind a brilliantly conceived and perfectly
executed—truly a perfect—great film. But as you will see below, I’m in the
minority, it would seem.
Tobe Hooper used $25,000,000 to make Lifeforce, a positively fun,
thought-provoking science-fiction/horror movie that, among other things, paid
clear homage to Hammer's final decade of over-the-top delights and in
particular to Nigel Kneale's thought-provoking science-fiction/horror movie Quatermass and the Pit. (see commentary on Pit: https://redplanetonfilm.blogspot.com/2017/07/five-million-years-to-earth-quatermass.html . Henry Mancini's
martial score is absolutely genius, and I never tire of reveling in its sublime
intensity. The story and plotting is perfectly coherent with a clear beginning,
middle, and end. It's a bit of a mystery story as the heroes try desperately to
locate the alien girl. The story is linear in the extreme. There is absolutely
no confusing mixture of genres. The production values, practical effects, and
special visual effects are absolutely first rate. There is nothing wrong with
the film, nothing bewildering, nothing incoherent; in fact, it does everything right. It is
lyrically beautiful. In my view it is a perfect film. It is a wonderful
entertainment, every bit as much as The
Wizard of Oz.
That said, I repeat, Tobe Hooper’s
1985 science-fiction epic Lifeforce
is woefully misunderstood and has been unjustly maligned for thirty years.
The majority opinion, from 1985 to the present
So much for my opinion. Now, how does
one factor my perceptions alongside most other critics’ opinions both in print
and on the Internet over the years, with a big bump in 2013 due to the release
of the Blu-ray unaccountably setting off a tsunami of renewed (mostly
sarcastic) attention. Of course, most critics (and they are legion and include
2013’s newcomers) have reviled the film, saying things like:
"uneven"
"ridiculous"
"crazy"
"ludicrous over-acting"
"indulging in the most reactionary
representations of sexuality"
"a melodramatic travesty"
"hysterical"
"a mess"
"deeply silly"
"an object lesson in failure"
"the worst movie ever made"
“a truly bad movie ... a real contender
in the worst big-budget movie ever stakes”
“the narrative borders on incoherence”
"No life. No force. No dice."
"one of the flat-out looniest
movies ever produced"
"tasteless and lurid and demented"
"a car-crash of a movie"
"over-ambitious"
"unfocused and overblown"
"illogical"
"incredibly slow"
"a jaw-dropping farce"
"absolutely boring"
"a miasma of lazy storytelling,
massive plot-holes and tragic performances"
"Lifeforce is a dog....sink[s] to an astonishing new low on a
regular basis"
And trust me, this is only the tip of
the iceberg!
Another annoyance
One of the presumed aspects of the film
that is mentioned over and over and again, in fact, nearly always, and often in
combination with the above sorts of hysterical belittlements, is that Lifeforce supposedly mixes genres to an
extreme extent. Sometimes the reviewers say this is a good thing. Others
complain that this is ill conceived. Yet, as I said above, the movie is linear
and has a beginning, middle, and end. Each “act” makes perfect sense and flows
from one to another seamlessly. Thus, there is no reason to artificially call
attention to different aspects of the plot as though there is something
intrinsically separate or different about its various plot elements. After all,
would you ever stop to analyze Casablanca
as a mash-up of romance and war movies, or even if you did, to make a big deal
of it? Or Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula
as a combo classic horror movie with a tragic love story, or to make a big deal
of it? There is simply nothing intrinsic about Lifeforce’s various plot elements that demand that reviewers should
dismantle the movie and call attention to its various layers, yet it happens time and
again, as for example (and, again, this is merely a sampling):
“[It is] a movie that borrows a little
from a dozen other influences and blends them together…
“The film hits every genre and hits it
hard…”
“Hooper’s film melds together so many
different genre conventions…”
“[I]t is a kitchen sink mash up of
every known genre laced together...
“It’s accurate and fair to say that Lifeforce…blends together three,
distinct genres that are generally kept poles apart from each other….”
“The film is a hybrid of genres...”
“…starts as outer space saga, then
becomes a vampire movie, then turns into an end of the world story…”
“Lifeforce conjures no less than every
conceivable doomsday scenario…”
“…its got a little bit of everything
blended together...”
“Lifeforce is a mixed bag of tricks….”
“How often do you find a sci-fi/horror
hybrid that dares to walk the high wire?”
Variant U.K./European graphic/poster.
The trouble with both
As I point out constantly in my book,
there is something suspicious when reviewers across the board begin saying the
same thing over and again more or less at the same time. I cannot help but feel
that these critics are taking the path of least resistance by repeating other
critics ad infinitum. It's like lemmings, and it is simply boring—not to mention
annoying—to see the same thing said in review after review, over and over and
over again as though saying it so often makes it true. Probably, all these
reviewers/critics/commentators are just trying to be in the “in crowd,” trying
to be popular—a perfectly normal human behavior, but it’s one thing to revel in
piercings or Adele or Subarus, and quite another to destroy a multi-million
dollar objet d'art along with the
careers and reputations of its creators.
1985 Lifeforce trailer.
Greater latitude than the book
All the quotations above are nonsense of
the highest order—pointless, mind-numbingly endless, lemming-like criticism—at
least in my view. Frankly, I’m convinced that much of this criticism was and is
purely prudist in origin, as Mathilda May unconcernedly walks totally nude
through much of the film, and far too many "modern" commentators are
apparently made much too uncomfortable to be able to view the film in an
objective light.
Special
photo juxtapositions by Thomas Kent Miller;
Formal Notice: All images, quotations,
and video/audio clips used in this blog and in its individual posts are used
either with permissions from the copyright holders or through exercise of the
doctrine of Fair Use as described in U.S. copyright law, or are in the public
domain. If any true copyright holder (whether person[s] or organization) wishes
an image or quotation or clip to be removed from this blog and/or its
individual posts, please send a note with a clear request and explanation to
eely84232@mypacks.net and your request will be gladly complied with as quickly
as practical.
Notice: Please be advised that there are photos
containing nudity near the end of Part 3 of this blog post.
Greater latitude than the book 💥 .
. Since
Lifeforce immediately preceded
Hooper’s 1986 remake of the 1953 Invaders
from Mars and since Hooper’s two films shared much the same creative
talent, it was not, and is not, inappropriate to finally give Lifeforce its due. This blog provides me
with greater latitude than the book, where I merely touched on this subject.
Here I will discuss Lifeforce here
without restraint, particularly in relation to Hammer Films’ Five Million Years to Earth/Quatermass and
the Pit. My book contains many Mars movies—but few are perfect. Five Million Years to Earth is one of
the perfect ones. Like Casablanca,
not one frame is out of place. It is my sincere position that the same can be
said of Tobe Hooper's Lifeforce,
which is brilliantly conceived, perfectly executed, and is, frankly, a truly
great science-fiction film, jump-starting from the very first pulse-pounding
note of Henry Mancini's epic martial score to the final shot of the vampires’
spaceship drifting off.
Bullied into failure
I
find it truly reprehensible and incomprehensible that the film was bullied into
failure and obscurity. Lifeforce
was and is a practically perfect film, but its own Tri-Star distributor for
obscure business reasons chose to malign the film and recut it into
insensibility for American audiences; further, the company went out of its way
to do "its utmost to distance itself from the director's intentions and
spirit," according to Cathode Ray Tube.com creator Frank Collins.
Naturally, in a situation like this, the negative energy filtered down from the
top and the critics and then the public followed suit, and then maligning the
film became the order of the day—the “in thing” to do!
In
fact, I spell out the process in Mars in
the Movies, saying, "The best in human nature does not thrive when
there is disharmony. There are many fine films that have tanked at the start
not due to the inherent quality of the movie but because of the climate of
hostility that for some reason exists within the management of those films'
respective studios. This negativity affects pre-release promotion and creates
an environment of rumor that, once begun, is impossible to shake. And once a
negative rumor begins to circulate, a kind of pack mentality takes over and
critic after critic, often not even consciously, sense the prevailing attitudes
and climate about a movie and automatically dismiss it. Of course, critics'
dismissals seldom automatically spell disaster for a movie, but there is
something about malice generated at the top executive level of a film's own
company that is far more toxic than common garden variety criticism." All
and all, this sort of rabid behavior is a sad commentary on the proclivity of
humans to so easily fall into lemming-like actions, attitudes, and opinions.
Vindication
In
Mars in the Movies, I say, "What
virtually all critics miss, among other things, is that Lifeforce is largely a remake of Five Million Years to Earth/Quatermass and the Pit…. I have
been perplexed why I’ve not found anyone else who noticed such an obvious
Hammer connection.”
Alas!
At the time I wrote that, I was not familiar with a certain comment made by
genre expert Stephen Jones in his The
Essential Monster Movie Guide: A Century of Creature Features Film, TV, and
Video (2000) that read: “Loosely based on Colin Wilson’s novel Space Vampires, [Lifeforce], Hooper’s lively blend of science-fiction and horror
begins like Alien (1979), turns into
a remake of Quatermass and the Pit
(1967), and ends up looking like a Hammer gothic.” (Obviously, this is yet
another of those ubiquitous recurring references to the mixing of genres (see
Part 1 of this posting), but at least the Quatermass and Hammer parts are right
on the money.)
Lifeforce is clearly a sort of $25 million amped
up remake of
Five Million Years to Earth
/ Quatermass and the Pit.
Thankfully,
the word “virtually” covers a multitude of sins and kept me from painting
myself into an embarrassing corner! Nevertheless, my point is still valid
since, clearly, too many critics who really ought to have known better were
either uncharacteristically dim or too apoplectic from 1985 to 2013 to see any
obvious connection. Some, however, in their 2013 comments on the Blu-ray
finally took the blinders off and, surprise!, saw the similarities, though,
again, only saying so begrudgingly, and likely only because some other critic
had called attention to the fact, but even still, usually making irrelevant or
incorrect claims regarding Quatermass in general and not about Quatermass and the Pit. As I researched
and wrote the book, I admit I was not at all aware that the Blu-ray release had
generated so much—a veritable flood—of commentary and criticism.
Nevertheless,
it was when I watched the making-of documentary on the Lifeforce Blu-ray, that I saw in an interview Tobe Hooper explain
how Cannon gave him $25 million, free-reign, and the novel The Space Vampires by Colin Wilson, and said, basically, go knock
yourself out (hoping for a Star Wars–like
reception). Hooper then shares how giddy he was. “I thought I’d go back to my
roots and make a 70 mm Hammer film.” I felt so totally vindicated!
After
all, the connection between the two films is utterly obvious for anyone with a
basic foundation in science-fiction cinema (and as an aside, while researching
my book I discovered to my utter astonishment that far too many so-called
science-fiction film experts have no basic foundation and regularly speak
nonsense as a result):
• Quatermass and the Pit/Five Million Years to
Earth is about an alien species (Martians) that had been influencing the
development of humankind (through genetic mutation) for millions of years—from which derives the ancient legends of the devil—and
concludes with epic scenes of London being destroyed by vast, nearly occult
powers in the form of rampaging lightning-like bursts of (paranormal) energy
focused on a huge glowing alien manifestation made of pure energy (the giant
head of a grasshopper-like Martian, see figure below), which is effectively short-circuited by
cold-iron, the traditional enemy of the devil (in the form of an overhead
crane), by way of self-sacrifice.
Quatermass and the Pit's "huge
glowing alien manifestation made of pure energy".
•
While, Lifeforce is about an alien
species (vampires) that had been influencing the development of humankind
(through absorption of its life force) for millions of years—from which derives the ancient legends of the vampire—and concludes with
epic scenes of London being destroyed by vast, nearly occult powers in the form
of rampaging lightning-like bursts of (spiritual) energy focused on a huge
glowing alien manifestation made of pure energy (the huge column of human souls
rising into space, see figure below), which is effectively short-circuited by cold-iron, the
traditional enemy of the devil (in the form of a fearsome sword), by way of
self-sacrifice.
.
Lifeforce's "huge
glowing alien manifestation made of pure energy".
Clearly the title "Five
Million Years to Earth"
was consciously derivative of
Ray
Harryhausen's "20 Million
Miles to Earth".
The
fact is that I "got" this, or understood this, at my first viewing
(it may have helped that Five Million
Years to Earth was one of my favorite films at the time!). But it might be
enlightening to explain the background of my first viewing. My first son
Nicholas was born on February 15, 1985. Then there came a period of several
months when getting him to sleep was difficult. My wife and I took turns
holding him on our shoulders and walking him around the house endlessly. I
mentioned this to my friend Gail Morgan Hickman, and he suggested that I play
the video of Lifeforce to keep my
mind occupied. He said he thought I'd like it. I'd never heard of the
film and had zero preconceptions. We'd only just bought our first VCR, and the
whole idea of home video was new to me (though very quickly I learned to loathe
VHS, but that is a very different story). At that time, I watched Lifeforce over and over, and please note
this was the tragically cut American pan-and-scan version. The film was
nonetheless riveting despite having these serious counts against it. And it did
the trick. (And it was probably helpful that I was at all times too preoccupied
pacing around the house to be too critical!) The film kept my brain occupied as
my perambulation soothed Nicholas into sleep night after night.
Two more fine films that
were absolutely destroyed by negative and/or confused energy generated at the
top executive level of their respective film companies (per Mr. H. Ellison and
Mr. M. Sellers, respectively). Ahhh! I can see all the eyebrows
raising, the nostrils flaring, and hear the harsh mutterings of disbelief. For
details about the care and feeding of lemmings, please see my book Mars in the Movies: A
History.
Formal
Notice: All images, quotations, and video/audio clips used in this blog and in
its individual posts are used either with permissions from the copyright
holders or through exercise of the doctrine of Fair Use as described in U.S.
copyright law, or are in the public domain. If any true copyright holder
(whether person[s] or organization) wishes an image or quotation or clip to be
removed from this blog and/or its individual posts, please send a note with a
clear request and explanation to eely84232@mypacks.net and your request will be
gladly complied with as quickly as practical.
Both in
my book and on this blog, there a great many Mars movies. In my view,
though, only the five shown here are perfect. Note that three are
variations of H.G. Wells' paradigm-changing THE WAR OF THE WORLDS. To read more about each of these five films click on the photos.
Formal Notice: All images, quotations, and video/audio clips used in this blog and
in its individual posts are used either with permissions from the copyright
holders or through exercise of the doctrine of Fair Use as described in U.S.
copyright law, or are in the public domain. If any true copyright holder
(whether person[s] or organization) wishes an image or quotation or clip to be
removed from this blog and/or its individual posts, please send a note with a
clear request and explanation to eely84232@mypacks.net and your request will be
gladly complied with as quickly as practical.
The
Martian is the most successful, most honored Mars movie ever made. Mind
you, not the most honored science fiction movie; for example, in 2013 Gravity was nominated for ten Academy
Awards and won seven, Inception
(2010) nominated for 8 and won 4, Avatar
(2009) nominated for 9 and won 3, E.T. (1982)
nominated for 9 and won 4, and Star Wars
(1977) nominated for 10 and won 6. The
Martian was released in October 2015, and as of this writing, it has not
only made more than $600 million worldwide, it’s received 26 prestigious
awards, including two Golden Globe awards and four National Board of Review
Awards, and has earned 135 nominations, including seven 2016 Academy Award
nominations for Best Motion Picture, Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading
Role, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Achievement in Sound Mixing, Best
Achievement in Sound Editing, Best Achievement in Visual Effects, and Best
Achievement in Production Design (winning none unfortunately). It’s on the 2015
Top Ten lists for the Los Angeles Times, Rolling Stone magazine, the New York
Times, Vanity Fair magazine, Variety magazine, the Washington Post, Vogue
magazine, U.S. magazine, People magazine, New York Post, The Atlantic magazine,
and The Wall Street Journal.
Thus, it is utterly ironic but, when it comes to evaluating The Martian, I am at a complete disadvantage. The
reason is that the film does not follow in the traditions of past Mars movies.
It’s almost as though director Ridley Scott had never seen any of the two-dozen-plus
previous movies covering the same ground (and covered in this book), or if he
had, he went out of his way to ignore every cinematic Mars trope or device that
I unconsciously expected and unknowingly anticipated. I am at a disadvantage
because I am a fan of Mars movies and have been nearly all of my life, and I’ve
come to expect characteristics that transport me away from the here and now and
into a world of wonder. But The Martian
does none of that.
Nevertheless, the film is a mega success both financially
and critically. One would be hard pressed to find any critic in the land or any
reviewer who had anything negative to say about this film. Furthermore, all my
friends and acquaintances who have seen the film are delighted by it, saying
they really felt like they were on Mars. Clearly, Scott and his talented crew
made all the right decisions and pushed all the right buttons and honed their
picture to appeal to the teens and young adults of today. They succeeded in
making a Mars movie to which ordinary people can relate. As a Mars enthusiast
who has long hoped for a piloted expedition to the Red Planet, of course I am
thrilled this film is helping fuel the “virtuous cycle” that is growing and
will certainly take us to Mars sooner than later.
This interesting
juxtaposition compares two views of Mars rovers from 2013’s The Last Days on Mars (top two images)
with the Mars rover from Ridley Scott’s 2015 The Martian (bottom image). The top two views show Jordan’s Wadi
Rum desert successfully transformed into a Mars-scape that feels truly alien.
Additionally, the rovers shown are nearly all, remarkably, computer-generated
digital creations. Contrastingly, the manner in which The Martian’s settings were photographed, also filmed in the Wadi
Rum desert, failed to convince me that I was viewing Mars. Also, the rover from
The Martian was a real vehicle built
for the movie.
.
.
Comments on 2D Theatrical Viewing.
Still, I needed to discuss the movie from my point of view, as
I have done with all the Mars movies in this book. Since this blog is largely
about my feelings and thoughts about all these movies, I felt I should record
my honest reactions about The Martian.
As do many action movies these days, The
Martian was released in both ordinary 2D and in 3D. I first saw the movie
in a theater in 2D, and this first set of comments is a reflection of my views
after that first viewing. Following that are my comments after seeing the film
in 3D some months later. Then I conclude with some final thoughts.
When discussing George
Stevens 1965 Todd A-O The Greatest Story Ever Told, Gary Allen Smith in his
Epic Movies states: “The Arizona, Utah, and Nevada location photography, while
beautiful, never conveys an illusion of the Holy Land. George Stevens’ desire
to shoot the picture entirely in the United States ... was commendable but why
use landscape so patently American? It often looks as if the characters have
stumbled into a John Ford Western.”
Smith’s observation and query echoed through my brain for
the full two-and-a-half hours of The
Martian. Though I know it was filmed in the deserts of Jordon, the topography
chosen and any complementing digital matte paintings were sufficiently like Monument
Valley in the American Southwest that I was continually distracted. Ever since
NASA’s two Viking Landers touched down on Mars in 1976, I’ve taken a keen
interest in Martian topography and terrain. I’ve followed the images sent back
by Vikings 1 and 2, Mars Pathfinder/Sojourner, Spirit and Opportunity, the
Phoenix Mars Lander, and Curiosity, and I have yet to see anything from the
real-life images that leads me to believe that The Martian got the surface of Mars right. This is the first thing
that troubled me. Rocketship X-M, Robinson Crusoe on Mars, Red Planet, and The
Last Days on Mars all present a craggy Martian surface that does not
unceremoniously yank me out of my pleasant suspension of disbelief.
The surface of Mars in The Martian didn't seem quite right to me (above and below)
That said, veteran film reporter Pamela McClintock wrote in
her article “How The Martian’s Ridley
Scott Replicated Mars in the Middle East” published in The Hollywood Reporter,
“The director used the vast landscape of the Wadi Rum desert in Jordan ... to
realistically portray the planet.... [W]ith The
Martian, [Scott] set out to create the most scientifically realistic,
visually accurate replica of the planet ever put on film. ‘I wanted to get it
right,’ he tells THR. “The way Stanley got it right on 2001.” ... [Nearly] the
only CGI in the film ... involved coloring the sky butterscotch and adding
mountains and some carbon dioxide clouds.”
In my view, with the available information from the rovers
and landers, his addition of these mountains went a bit too far.
Then again, most of the serious “Voyages to Mars” movies
discussed in my book provide a sense of wonder—that special something that
you can feel tingling in your spine, that breath-taking awareness that you’re
actually witnessing something amazing, something impossible. But The Martian has none of that. Two criticisms
from noted papers cut to the
chase:
“Given the enormousness of its subject, there is a radical
lack of awe in this movie.”—The Christian
Science Monitor.
“As elaborate and expensive-looking as The Martian is, it’s almost totally lacking in poetry.”—The Village Voice.
In fact, Stephanie Zacharek of the Village Voice makes some further comments that touch exactly on my
concerns with the movie. She says, “[Scott is] workmanlike in his approach to
science, which always trumps magic in The
Martian—that’s the point. But if we can’t feel a sense of wonder at the
magnitude and mystery of space, why even bother? ... Even Mars’s craggy
landscape is less than vivid. Portions of the film were shot in Wadi Rum, in
Jordan, but cinematographer Dariusz Wolski fails to make this desert landscape
look otherworldly—the Death Valley of so many B westerns looks more mysterious
and threatening.”
Whether Scott consciously avoided “poetry” is to be determined—but
there is no doubt that he opted for a hardware-oriented, realistic 21st-century
portrayal of Mars and its exploration that intentionally avoided any subtle
imaginative touches that could pluck at the strings of our subconscious quest
for wonder.
Clearly supporting such a decision was Scott’s choice of a
composer. No doubt keeping on track with Scott’s desire to stay focused on the
practical and concrete, Harry Gregson-Williams’ film score is rather vanilla.
Nowhere can be found the awe-inspiring and breath-taking chords and tones of
Leith Stevens, Bernard Hermann, Nathan Van Cleave, and Ferde Grofé, among
others. In fact, as I was heading home from the theater, I even wondered if the
movie had any score at all. I couldn’t remember one. A quick visit to iTunes
settled that problem, but also clarified why I couldn’t remember the score;
there wasn’t much to remember. This was keenly ironic, since Scott is the same
fellow who approved one of the greatest ethereal scores of all time, Vangelis’
Blade Runner. To give credit where it is due, portions of The Martian soundtrack sound like a light-weight Vangelis wannabe.
In addition, the soundtrack is punctuated with hit tunes from the 1970s and
80s. Admittedly, some of these do work well with the scenes they back up, but
this is just another way to drive a wedge between my sensibilities and 2015
audiences.
This bit of the score of The Martian demonstrates
my disappointment with the mainly pedestrian
music that Ridley Scott felt was appropriate.
Comments on 3D Home Viewing.
.
This review is about my first 3D viewing The Martian, nevertheless it’s the
second time I watched the movie. On my 70-inch HD 3D TV, The Martian looks wonderful; the depths are multi-layered and fun
to view; Ridley Scott shot the film with 3D cameras, which I’m told exhibits
better 3D than the films that are shot in 2D and then later digitally converted
to 3D. This time, I listened for the score by Harry Gregson-Williams, and
again, except for a few highlights, it is largely the score that I can’t hear.
The interiors of the film were shot in Hungary, which boasts
one the largest sound stages in the world. One scene that I noticed
particularly is the main entrance to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena,
California. Granted the time frame of the story is in the future, but I rather
doubt that JPL will ever boast an entrance reminiscent of an airplane terminal.
When I knew the lab, JPL was mainly a functional cluster of nondescript office
buildings surrounding labs and testing facilities and didn’t have a grand
entrance per se. Chalk this up to dramatic license. The exteriors of The Martian were mainly shot in Jordon
at Wadi Rum, where three previous Mars movies had done filming, Mission to
Mars, Red Planet, and The Last Days on Mars. Of the three, The Last Days on
Mars used the location to the best advantage, creating an inspired backdrop
that really felt like Mars. Of course, Mars is a whole planet with about the
same land area as earth. Across that vast area, views on Mars will inevitably
come in a near infinite variety of aspects just like earth’s multitudinous
views. Therefore, it’s probably unfair to nitpick this particular Martian
surface, yet after a lifetime of watching Mars movies, The Martian doesn’t feel quite right. While the added CGI mountains
may be part of the problem, it is more likely this is a result of the uninspired
score. My favorite films in this subgenre are Conquest of Space (1955) and then
ten years later, Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964). The scores for both these
films were composed by Nathan Van Cleave and both scores complemented their
films perfectly, imbuing the Martian landscapes with special significance, with
a near tactile sense that the events and places on the screen were not remotely
mundane or prosaic, but something truly awe-inspiring. The Martian, regardless of how wonderful it is in so many other
ways, simply does not convey to me what I need a Martian film to convey—awe,
wonder, mystery. But, as I’ve said, Scott seems to have succeeded in doing just
that for millions of other moviegoers. Far be it from me to rain on the parade.
I am no doubt mired in images and feelings from the remote past. In excellent
3D, Ridley Scott’s The Martian is
fun. I intend to watch it several more times, and I expect that many more of
its treasures will come to the fore.
Where it began.
A Note Upon Further Reflection
.
With further thought, I
think I understand now probably why Scott chose to use a score that didn’t call
attention to itself. This film is about the third visit to Mars. Journeys to
Mars are now routine in this film’s timeline, and the planet holds few
surprises. The awe and wonder that would by intrinsic to a first voyage to
Mars, and which most earlier films tried to convey, would not be so appropriate
here. The Martian is all about
pragmatism; thus the score was also pragmatic. Also, since the last major
voyage-to-Mars movies were released fifteen long years ago, the vast majority
of The Martian’s expected audience
will never have seen them or any of the earlier Mars movies and, therefore,
will have nothing to judge this film against. Scott had a blank slate, and his
instincts have proven sound.
In conclusion, I have little doubt that The Martian is in fact an important leap in the headlong momentum
(Andy Weir’s “virtuous cycle”) that’s building and that will inevitably result
in humans being sent to Mars not too long from now. For that reason, The
Martian deserves all the honors that
it has received and is an important film. In June 2016, an extended edition of The Martian was released on DVD and Blu-ray.
Summary. Eschewing
some details here and there, the story adheres well to Andy Weir’s best selling
novel. The third manned mission to Mars has barely begun when a monstrous
sandstorm threatens the spacecraft. Commander Lewis makes the decision to
immediately abort the entire mission and leave Mars. Even still the storm is
upon them and the main communications dish is blown away and strikes biologist Watney.
Nobody can see him; all presume he was killed by the flying antenna, and they
take off to rendezvous with the main orbiting craft Hermes. It turns out that Watney
was only knocked senseless and was pierced by a piece of metal. When he makes
it back to the elaborate Hab and realizes his status and that he is all alone
on Mars, he develops a plan to survive for four years until the next Mars
mission arrives. At this point, the film becomes an updated version of 1964’s
Robinson Crusoe on Mars. Watney has all sorts of tricks up his sleeve and does
wonders with duct tape and plastic sheeting. He makes excellent use of the
functioning Mars rover that was left behind. In the meantime, NASA, which had
reported him dead, notices from orbital imagery that a rover is moving and
realizes he is alive. Watney has an epiphany and realizes that the Pathfinder
Mars mission of 1996 had landed not all that far away, and he feels it’s worth
a long expedition to salvage it for its communications equipment. At NASA, it
is quickly concluded what he is doing and the earth-bound twin of Pathfinder
that had been used for testing is brought out of mothballs, along with its
retired controllers. NASA then hatches a plan to communicate with him, which
succeeds in making our marooned “Martian” very happy. Following this triumph,
plans are formulated to send him supplies, which is easier said than done, and
then the Chinese government unexpectedly coming to the rescue. But when all of
NASA’s and Watney’s plans go south, and there is no way he can survive alone,
the Hermes crew (who had been kept in the dark and only learns after a long
delay that Watney is alive) disobeys orders and heads back to pick him up, even
though it will add 533 days to the mission. All is well that ends well.
Formal Notice: All images, quotations, and video/audio clips used in this blog and
in its individual posts are used either with permissions from the copyright
holders or through exercise of the doctrine of Fair Use as described in U.S.
copyright law, or are in the public domain. If any true copyright holder
(whether person[s] or organization) wishes an image or quotation or clip to be
removed from this blog and/or its individual posts, please send a note with a
clear request and explanation to eely84232@mypacks.net and your request will be
gladly complied with as quickly as practical.
