Note: the author of this review has viewed Voyagers on a digital screener of the house. Before you decide to see it – or any other movie – in a movie theater, you need to consider the health risks. Here is an interview on the matter with scientific experts.
If Nothing Else, Hollywood’s latest spatial odyssey, Voyagers, devises a new solution to the mystery of intergalactic travel, that old comparison of distance versus time. The film takes place in 2063, when the couples of an increasingly uninhabitable earth begin to plan for a new beginning outside the stars. They have found a planet that can sustain human life. The problem is that it will take 86 years to get there. How will anyone survive long enough to establish mankind’s new home? In the science of the past, the biggest fictional thoughts on the fictional NASA looked at cryogenic sleep, wormholes, and accelerated speeds to cross the vast cosmos without screaming along the way. In Voyagers, the strategy is much more long-term: the crew will consist of children who will grow up on board the ship and then have their own children, who will grow again until birth and the bigchildren resettling the species. Instead of leaving the world a better place for future generations, they are leaving the world for a better place to be inherited and colonized by their descendants.
Most of Voyagers is compiled ten years after launch. The crew, born and bred from anonymous donors with the sole purpose of completing the mission, has grown from test tube babies to ghostly remote vending machines – they are like a private school wonder at the disposal of sheltered Amish youths. The captain and head of the project, Richard (Colin Farrell), oversees their one-way outing, which decided in the awkward role of everyday authority figure: he is father, boss, teacher, therapist. To keep everyone at work and out of trouble, teens are given a glass called The Blue – a liquid that, like the obligatory medication of Lois Lowry’s dystopian medium-length school clothes The Giver, suppresses the more intense emotions and natural desires of growing boys and girls. But what will happen if humanity’s last, adolescent hope stops taking the chemical equivalent of a cold shower?
G / O Media can get a commission
Anyone weaned on a steady diet of life stories in a gaze soaring through the unknown is likely to anticipate the trajectory – the psychological, technological and potentially extraterrestrial obstacles these interstellar homeschoolers face. Why does every predecessor mention? In that way, space lies madness. Better to scan Voyagers for allegorical meaning; there is no shortage of it in the discord of the tribe that erupts from its ominous silence. While these YA astronauts come in contact with their basic instincts – a journey that begins with an exploratory suitcase, before turning into teenage authority Kurt Cobain who once called territorial pissing – the film points to a classic rebellion story in the classroom which is sucked into the scientific space. Is the children’s primordial spindle a metaphor for a sudden flush of puberty hormones, and perhaps the general disillusionment that sometimes accompanies them? Another way to read the film among a number of people is as a drama about one generation that goes hand in hand with the expectations of another – about Zoomers (in the spirit if not era) pushing back against the environmental and professional obligations created by the failures of their elders.
The problem with Voyagers is that its power is completely allegories. The more the film begins to look like a deep space Lord of the Flies—Full with fairy-tale-like beasts, remote Piggy and urgent chases over the futuristic version of a remote island – the more predictable it becomes. Neil Burger, director at the helm of this pernicious vessel, gives the conventions a seductive sheen of usability: he has created a zero-G thriller that is both appealing in its cosmic and cosmetic design and claustrophobic. credible how impeccable it makes space travel seem. What he did not do is exploit the audience in the sensory awakening that drives the plot. Burger tries to express the experience by expanding feverish flashes of conflicting water, jumping animals, blooming flowers and pupils. This is basically the same way he visualizes the balloon intellect Boundless– “expand the mind” as a music video shortcut of stock B-roll deleted from a database.
Perhaps the increasing conflict of the film would have been more exciting if the characters themselves (played by people like Tye Sheridan and Lily-Rose Depp, under an ensemble of fellow twenty-type models) were not such blank eyes. That is, to be honest, by design: we follow a group of rescues who are literally born, and live lives devoted only to great duty and scientific protocol. Natural they would be awkwardly socialized robot teens without personalities. But the film’s climax scramble, its war between rational responsibility and its hedonistic rejection, never gets more than an abstract pulse, because the young Americans who take sides in the struggle are so interchangeable. (Only Dunkirk‘s Fionn Whitehead, as the insane twilight of a villain, makes a great impression.) Voyagers is smooth and distracting enough and even sometimes artistic in his vision of a future wrestling in the hands of children with the burden of their importance to it. But it is also a story about the struggle for humanity that makes humanity itself theoretical, just like the scientists in the film who devised his deceptive experiment in the galactic visible destination.