Movie Review: "Tomorrowland"

Tomorrowland (2015)

PG

3 Stars out of 5

Director                                Brad Bird
Writer                                   Damon Lindelhof, Brad Bird
Cinematography                 Claudio Miranda
Music                                    Michael Giacchino

George Clooney                   Frank Walker
Hugh Laurie                          Governor Nix
Britt Robertson                    Casey Newton
Raffey Cassidy                      Athena

 

Brad Bird began his career at Disney as an animator studying under one of the original “nine old men”, Milt Kahl. His film career as a director (and writer) began with the remarkable “The Iron Giant” (1999). This film began a short string of critically noteworthy animated films: “The Incredibles” in 2004 and “Ratatouille” in 2007. In 2011, he turned his attention to live action films with “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol”. Each of these four films has earned marks of 90% or higher on Rotten Tomatoes’ website. Besides the critical acclaim though, it is worth noting that there are themes throughout these four movies that come together with somewhat less success in his latest live action movie, “Tomorrowland”: who is best qualified to lead a society, great artwork, strange mixtures of peoples and/or archetypes, and the value of optimism over despair. Some of these are lofty ideas to be sure, but are poorly mixed in “Tomorrowland”, and ultimately introduced into a movie that could not quite deliver on its core philosophical message despite its good intentions.

To be sure, a movie rooted in a section of a famous theme park has a big challenge in front of the writer: how does one write a compelling story that utilizes the theme park and its inherently rosy view of the future without descending into drivel. This is clearly not an easy task, and I give full credit to Bird and Damon Lindelhof as the writers in crafting a story around that sense of wonder and optimism to found at Disneyland’s Tomorrowland, and in placing it in counterpoint to the growing sense of distress felt by so many Americans as they watch the daily news on TV. Bird and Lindelhof have written a story that describes a parallel world built by scientists and artists sometime around the end of the 19^th century. This alternate world has advanced technologically far more quickly than the grey, humdrum world we all live in. They have flying trains, gravity defying swimming pools, and rocket ships that look remarkably like Disney’s old “Voyage to the Moon” ride. That is all well and good; we are talking about a movie inspired by a theme park after all. But what is a little unnerving about the underpinnings of this alternate world is the sense of elitism that underlies this alternate world’s creation and governance. Those poor scientists (Edison, Tesla, et. al.) had to leave our world where they and their science were underappreciated.

We first meet that alternate world’s Governor Nix (Hugh Lurie) at the 1964 World’s Fair in New York. A young inventor, Frank Walker (Thomas Robinson) tries to interest the Governor in his flying machine – a backpack rocket device made from two Elextrolux vacuum cleaner canisters. The governor’s not interested, but his young assistant, Athena is. She manages to get Frank to Tomorrowland, the alternate universe world where she and the Governor come from. The story then jumps forward 50 years or so to the present where we meet the twenty-something, Casey. She is a young dreamer intent on going to space. Like Frank she is “recruited” by Athena, who is still a young girl. Thus begins an oddly violent and philosophically disconnected series of battles fought by the grown up Frank (George Clooney), Athena, and Casey against Nix and his minions. How did a story that preaches optimism in the face of despair turn into a series of scenes where homicidal robots (“audio-animatronic” robots in keeping with the Disney nomenclature) blast into non-existence first responders and anyone else that might seem to oppose the now murderous Governor Nix?

There is sci-fi artwork inspired by the Art Deco movement in some scenes, while others rely heavily on a Disney version of sleeping beauty’s castle brought into the future. This movie can be artistically clever, and while it is pointless to criticize the science, it is not pointless to decry the uneven philosophy/morality propounded overtly and covertly throughout this movie. I fully embrace any vision that argues for optimism with regards the future. Yes, let’s not give up in the face of global climate change, but fight to the end the right of those living on this planet to preserve it. To make such an argument is almost the only reason I don’t give this movie a lower score than the one I have given it. But when you have a group that seem to also have the upper moral plane in your movie such as those that live in Tomorrowland, and then have their leader to both extol the value of science in finding a way to a happier life and then to condemn those left on Earth to their fate since they are “savages” and thus deserve no less; especially when that same leader is the one manipulating events to bring about their demise. What a strange messenger for both hope in the future and disregard for others Bird and Lindelhof have created in Nix. It seems almost like an argument for not just the disregarded elites to survive but to also be the sole survivors.

The counter-argument could be made that Nix is merely the “bad guy” and Frank the “good guy”. It should surprise no reader who will win in the end. Maybe it is that simple: Frank’s vision is the one that prevails and Nix with his negative connoting name and vision get squished. Perhaps, but the sense of elite entitlement/victimhood is a theme that passes through this movie extensively and I end up with the nagging feeling that Nix was onto something in Bird’s mind but that he just needed to tweak it up a bit. The other aspect that is seriously disturbing is the relationship between Frank and Athena. Young Frank not realizing that Athena was a robot fell in love with her in a touching young love kind of way. By the time the 60 year old and now aware Frank re-meets the still nine year old appearing Athena, his love for her is hardly less dissipated. Okay, science fiction, so what are you going to do? I don’t know, but the scene where the elder Frank cradles the dying Athena is a good definition of creepy- not unrequited-love. When (spoiler alert),  he drops her into an infernal machine in order to blow herself up and the machine with it, I am left speechless at the weirdness of this whole scene. Clearly intended to be sentimental, the scene ends up being simply uniquely strange.

Whether to watch “Tomorrowland” or not, will depend on one’s interest in FX vs. story. The special effects are impressive and fun to watch. The scenes where Athena’s magical World’s Fair pin allows Casey to jump from our world to Tomorrowland in a visual sense but not in a physical sense is the FX center-point of the movie and partly what attracted me to movie in the first place. The other aspect that attracted me is George Clooney’s acting, and in this movie he is first rate. The scenes Clooney are in are believable despite the writing. However, his acting and the FX do not for me out-weigh the negative effects of a movie that so loosely grips its moral and philosophical foundations. “Tomorrowland” is a visually interesting but cinematically troubling movie that I cannot really recommend.

Gravity

Gravity

2013

Science Fiction/Drama

4.5 stars out of 5

Alfonso Cuarón’s Gravity can like much of fine fiction be enjoyed on multiple levels. The first and most striking is of course the amazing cinematography and technical/artistic skills (editing, sound editing, lighting, special effects, and score) that went into this production. From the opening shot in low Earth orbit, the camera glides toward a bright spot on the horizon that slowly resolves into close-ups of two astronauts working alongside a space shuttle, and then even closer to the faces of George Clooney and Sandra Bullock. We’ll be seeing more of Bullock’s face as the movie progesses. The artistry in writing and directing such a long pan have been seen before, even from Cuarón (see "Children of Men", 2006), but in this case, the pan is achieved with a remarkable degree of brilliance.

The movie can also be watched for the play of emotions across Bullock’s face as she portrays Dr. Ryan Stone. Not just the terror and fear that infect her, but also the remembered pain of a lost child. The inner turmoil in the Stone character is subtle at times during the various quiet moments of the movie, but glaringingly obvious during her most desparate moments of despair.

The story line is a simple and oft repeated one: a team of individuals is lost in space (or at sea, or in the desert, or jungle), and has to fight their way to salvation, both physical and spiritual. Bullock as the neophyte astronaut, Stone is joined in this journey by George Clooney as Matt Kowalski, a experienced and mature astronaut. After the destruction of their space shuttle and loss of all other life, the movie follows Stone and Kowalski through their heroic attempts to save themselves.

The story can also be watched as an allegory about Man in Nature vs. Technological Man. For all but the final beautiful shots along a shoreline, we see Bullock and Clooney surrounded by much of  the technology that Man can muster in the early twenty-first century, but also by the yawning and uncaring void of space. They are in a place where it requires all of man’s ingenuity to surive, and where at any given moment they are seconds away from death. When our hero does reach that shoreline, and we hear the birds singing, see the grass growing and the previously black, but now blue sky, you can strongly sense an argument that this is where Man is supposed to be; at home on the planet on which he has evolved.

That last scene plus one earlier on during Stone’s self-rescue are pivotal, in terms of gaining an appreciation of what the writer/director Cuarón and his writer son Jonás Cuarón have as an overall message: the “delivery” or rescue of Man as viewed via the allegory of birth. There are multiple birthing images as Stone moves down tunnel-like parts of the various space vehicles she enters, viewed alongside panoramic  views of Mother Earth. The most clear images are those where the Cuaróns use a scene of Stone in a fetal-like position with a single umbilical-like hose floating around her, followed later with her emersion from a watery environment, to crawl, to stumble, and then walk on dry land.

To me then, the story can be used in these somewhat more subtle interpretations as a revisit to the old Luddite argument against technology or the pride of Man (i.e. if God had wanted Man to fly, he would have given us wings); that is to say Man is not evolved for Space, thus he does not belong there, and by going there, he is an affront to the normal functioning of the universe. Or and I favor this interpretation more, that the birthing images are clever metaphorical tools for describing a deliverance of/to our stricken hero.

A final note: as a scientist I always watch such movies with a skeptical eye for mistakes. Many have commented already on the massive differences in orbital height for the ISS (International Space Station) and the Hubble telescope, and consequent need for a rather large change in velocity to get from one to the other. And I have to agree, this part bothers me, as well as the apparent fact that the offending satellite whose destruction causes all the havoc is apparently in the same orbit as the Hubble, the space shuttle, the ISS, and the Chinese space station. Rather convenient for the story, but considering the overall artistry of the movie, these are objections that I will pocket. This movie is a must see for every adult.