11 ms·
Wasn’t Ad Astra the antithesis of Interstellar though? Ad Astra seemed to argue against horrors committed for the sake of achieving greatness, eventually destr
by undershirt 7y ago
Wasn’t Ad Astra the antithesis of Interstellar though? Ad Astra seemed to argue against horrors committed for the sake of achieving greatness, eventually destroying us when we lose sight for what it is all for—people. Interstellar seemed to argue for the necessity of losing this humanity on the chance that it will work out anyway (an optimistic take on Murphy’s Law)—Cooper abandoning his daughter; Brand pushing the artifice of Plan A; Mann sanctifying his survival instinct; all to “rage against the dying of the light”.
For example, look at Clifford McBride of Ad Astra. He’s the “best of us” succumbing to the same tests of character as Dr. Mann of Interstellar—even repeating his same poignant line “yes…yes…yes” to affirm absolute commitment to the mission: the fall of the brightest angels to evil committed for an ostensible good. The difference of messaging is in the outcome of their missions: the failure in Ad Astra to find intelligent life, versus the success in Interstellar to save the species.
Also fun mentioning that Ad Astra ends like Blade Runner 2049, where the cold protagonist, employed as the system’s greatest weapon, regains a sense of humanity after subverting the system’s mission. Though Roy actually completes it for them, still pedaling the propaganda that you should ultimately still serve the oppressive system.
- moneytide1 7y agoI saw Ad Astra as a story told with a backdrop of a near-future humanity that has established permanent settlements on multiple terrestrial bodies. At the time of your comment, I had not yet seen the movie - I'd only seen the cover poster displaying a well-known space-suit-clad citizen chosen by society throughout the past couple of decades to demonstrate ideas and experiences (Brad Pitt, same with Matt McConaughey). Movie, television, music, and now algorithmic news feed themes are my preferred methods of gauging public sentiment (programmed or natural). The final detail of the end credits says that there were "15,000 jobs created by this film". This verifies the interest and subsequent investment channeled into a theory and demonstration of the interstellar human experience. Now I am fresh out of the movie theater, and have consumed the media in it's entirety. The first person narration of Roy began the film with this line: "I always wanted to be an astronaut... at least that's what I told myself." This seemingly confirmed my theory of "propaganda meant to inspire current generations". But then the protagonist's ailments became apparent post-primate-attack when he is conducting his psychological evaluation. He describes how he is familiar with the rage of the primate. He understands their pain, but unlike them he is able to discard it and carry on, "remain calm" as he says at the beginning (debrief psych eval describing the fall from the antennae). This is the first instance of violence committed by a life-form confined to a metal tube in a vacuum for an undisclosed amount of time (the Norwegian craft was meant for biomedical research, and perhaps the primate aggression was exacerbated by human experimentation). Then there are the comfort rooms - a solution meant to simulate conditions on Earth so as to soothe the distressed extra-terrestrial-human. To paraphrase one of the final quotes of the movie, Roy describes the need to "rely on others and share their burdens as they share his". The pain of solitude was not worth the prospect of discovering "other life". He has no children to orphan in the name of relentless exploration ("yes, yes, yes"), as his father did - yet he realizes he is living out a similar life while underwater on Mars sneaking his way onto the Neptune-bound ship...