Skip to main content

Project Hail Mary

 I was going in thinking about Interstellar and Arrival, because those sci-fi films are intentional dramas. And the Nolan brothers write, produce, and direct with the intention of producing an emotional response. If you have seen Interstellar, you know.

There’s always a risk of being cheap and mawkish with that effort, but I think both Interstellar and Arrival earn their payoffs with characters we care about and costs that aren’t repaid neatly.

This film kind of sets us up for something similar: Hero goes on an apparent suicide mission to save the world. He finds more than he bargained for. He’s reluctant. It jumps around in time to fill in the background. But this film replaces the sorrow with humor and a kind of plucky optimism. It’s not like self-sacrifice is absent; not at all. But “Coop” saves the world FOR his kids, Tom and Murph. In a way, the world IS Tom and Murph. Love drives him. Grace had no one on Earth; he found a purpose in deep space. He didn’t even willingly go. Where Arrival and Interstellar are human dramas in the medium of science fiction, this film is a buddy comedy in the medium of science fiction. It’s definitely got deep themes of friendship and love, but you can enjoy this movie. You won’t need to emotionally process, most likely. “That was cute and funny,” you’ll probably say.

I was weeping and shaking, still sitting in the theater after both public viewings of Interstellar. I was glad to be alone when I watched Arrival at home.

I don’t like it when popular films are derided for pleasing audiences. But it’s absolutely true that this one takes a lighter touch with sorrow and loss. I doubt I’ll cry over this one. And that doesn’t mean I didn’t enjoy it, or that it was frivolous. It just didn’t demand an emotional toll from me anywhere near those other films did. And in a way, I appreciated the break.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...