Non-Fiction Science Fiction

Rating: 9/10 (4 November 2015)

In the science fiction community, Ridley Scott achieved legend status decades ago. On top of being an exquisite filmmaker, he seems to have the mind of a Comic-Con geek. This trait has resulted in some of the most imaginative adaptations in sci-fi history. It may come as surprise to some viewers to learn that "plausibility" is a cornerstone of the genre. You will learn in a hurry that spectacle is not enough to succeed in making a sci-fi film, there must be a satisfying answer as to how, (A good deal of the failure of Exodus: Gods and Kings can be attributed to this notion.) It shouldn't come as a surprise that when given the task of making a massive production about a Mars mission, Scott leaves very little to cry foul over.
The Martian is technically a science fiction film. It takes place in the near future with technology that doesn't quite exist. What seems tempting for many writers of the genre is to take the "fiction" aspect and build it to massive heights. If the story could take place in 2020, it might as well take place in 3020. This offers wiggle room to develop inventions and environments that are conceivable, but only need the explanation of "it's the future" to satiate critics. The Martian challenges not only critics, but actual scientific professionals to pick apart the verisimilitude of the story. In that way, this film is closer to Apollo 13 and Castaway, than 2001 or Mission to Mars.
Matt Damon is the astronaut specializing in botany among a team on the surface of Mars. When predictable circumstances lead to him being marooned on the planet, a very familiar plot is set in motion; man vs nature with an impending rescue mission. What dictates the success of the clever problems and solutions, is Damon. While the story does ping-pong between developments at NASA and the struggle on the red planet, this is still a whole lot of Damon. There is little doubt that the story will end with anything but NASA operators throwing papers in the air with hugs, and the reunited crew making the trip back to Earth. Despite that predictability, it is amazing how effective the tension here is. All the answers to survival questions like food, water and communication are well thought out and the destination is nearly irrelevant compared to the journey.
Another commendable cliché sidestep, is the murky antagonist role. It is easy to say that Jeff Daniels, the politically-driven head of NASA, is the villain as his motives for getting the astronaut home safe aren't purely sentimental. He lets budgets, public opinions and self-image dictate decisions and outcomes. There is not a moment of redemption or poetic justice for this character, because in the scope of the conflict, he is a reasonable man. The all-star cast of Jessica Chastain, Michael Peña, Kate Mara and Kristen Wiig seems bloated considering the lack of melodrama, but the consistent humorous undertone throughout the film belongs in capable hands. There is really no other way to approach a man attempting interplanetary agriculture, wrist deep in his own feces, than with a smirk.
The technical congruencies, guarded special effects and remarkable pacing might not make this a new standard for the genre, but it shows a discipline that is alien to the budget and audience. Now that Ridley Scott is in his late 70's, his abilities aren't waning. It is selfish of me to hope that all his upcoming sequels come to fruition before his timely passing, but if his heart remains in it as adamantly as it is now, why shouldn't both our dreams come true?