Movie review: "Elysium"

[John]

Elysium
Director: Neill Blomkamp
Writer: Neill Blomkamp
Stars: Matt Damon, Jodie Foster, Sharlto Copley
Opens: August 9, 2013
Screened: August 7, 2013
John's Grade: B+

Neill Blomkamp turned in an instant classic with his debut feature film, 2009’s District 9. It is everything we ask for in science fiction. Smart and thoughtful, it draws you in with wildly exciting action and a fully realized world, all the while exploring issues that might be difficult to broach directly. It’s not just an entertainment vehicle; it’s a conversation starter.

But knocking it out of the park on your first try can be a mixed blessing for an artist. You’re expected to top yourself the next time out. When you inevitably fail to trump near perfection, you’re written off as a one-hit wonder. Sometimes this is deserved (see: George Lucas). Sometimes we need to delay condemnation until we have more evidence (see: Peter Jackson). And sometimes in our rush to pan the inferior follow-up, we miss the fact that the follow-up, while indeed inferior, is still a pretty fine piece of work when judged on its own merits.

So it is with Blomkamp’s sophomore effort, Elysium. As with District 9, social equality is again under Blomkamp’s microscope. We’ve ditched the aliens, however, and moved the action from Johannesburg, South Africa to Los Angeles, U.S.A. It’s 2154 and the City of Angels has seen better days. Indeed, it looks much like the Johannesburg shantytowns we saw in District 9. The dirt-crusted denizens of this dive aren’t alone in their misery. Humanity has so thoroughly polluted their homeworld that the ultra-rich have decided to blow this joint. They created Elysium, a posh space station orbiting Earth that allows the haves to continue to live in the manner to which they are accustomed. Meanwhile, the 99 percenters are stuck back on this ruined lump of rock, staring up at the sky in envy.

Every so often, though, people do more than stare: they dare to make a dangerous illegal run up to Elysium. Sure, it’s a fool’s journey: if you’re not shot down, you’re sure to be rounded up by Homeland Security. But the risk can be worth it if you can make it to one of the medical pods inside every Elysium home. These marvels can fix anything, from mending broken bones to eradicating leukemia. So you end up being caught and deported back to Earth; at least you return cured. And since you’re not going to find a single one of these pods on Earth (why that is, I cannot say), people are willing to risk the journey.

Reformed car thief extraordinaire Max (Matt Damon) finds himself in need of one of these pods when he receives a lethal dose of radiation at work. The good news is that his old crime boss periodically runs illegal immigrants up to Elysium. The bad news is that he’s not going to help Max unless Max helps him extract valuable bank account information straight from the mind of an Elysium bigwig who is visiting Earth. Max has little choice but to accept this offer. But the mind extraction turns up a prize far more valuable than bank codes. It’s perhaps too valuable. Suddenly, Max is being hunted by agents in the employ of Elysium Defense Minister Delacourt (Jodie Foster). With just five days to go before he succumbs to radiation poisoning, this is a complicating factor, indeed.

It’s a great setup. So why is Elysium inferior to District 9? Three words: shades of grey. District 9 has them; Elysium does not. Wikus, our “hero” in District 9 is no hero at all; he’s a bureaucrat who thinks nothing of mocking the aliens he’s evicting from their homes. Even when an accident throws him in with these aliens, he still cares nothing for them; he only wants to save himself. In other words, Wikus is no hero at all; he’s actually a bad guy. His transformation from self-centered jerk to selfless hero is slow, steady, and earned. Meanwhile, the poor, oppressed aliens aren’t all squeaky-clean angels themselves. Some of these fellows are worthy of Wikus’s scorn. This is the kind of nuance we see all too rarely in storytelling.

“Nuanced” is not a word people will apply to Elysium. Here, good guys are good and bad guys are… well, they’re monsters to the core. Young Max is raised by a sweet and selfless nun who symbolizes the good people of Earth. The citizens of Elysium, by contrast, are universally cold, calculating, and ambivalent to the suffering of their Earth-bound cousins. Don’t expect shades of grey when it comes to message, either. Perhaps “aliens as a cipher for race relations” was an allegory easily interpreted, but never did the movie force an opinion on you; rather, it presented an argument and allowed you to draw your own conclusions. Little to no effort is made to obfuscate the issues raised in Elysium; it’s explicitly clear that we’re having a discussion about immigration, universal health care, and the indifference of the rich to the suffering of the poor.

And it’s not really a discussion, either, because you’re only getting one side of the story. The rich of Elysium are cold-hearted bastards who would sooner blow your approaching shuttle out of space than have their poolside barbeque disturbed. They horde their healing pods for themselves; Earthlings can fend for themselves. The writers have gone to so much effort to make Elysium’s rich despicable. Indeed, they have gone to too much effort. These villains have crossed over into Caricature Land. Foster and William Fichtner, two talented actors, turn in absolutely dud performances because they are so one-note. Foster must be singled out for abuse here: a two-time Oscar winner simply has to find more dimensions to a character than she brings out in Delacourt.

But for all these missteps – and I don’t mean to trivialize them, because they are significant – there is enough done right in Elysium to warrant a seal of approval. The issues may be presented in obvious fashion, but they are still timely and they still provoke conversation (as witnessed by our group’s lengthy post-screening debate). “On the nose” does not equal “dumb.”

And there’s some real smart storytelling here, too. Max is a relatable hero who keeps having complication after complication heaped upon his undeserving shoulders, each a bit more dire than the last. The stakes keep rising and rising, and once the radiation poisoning hits, we have our ticking time bomb of urgency: five days and you’re toast.

Moving back to the issue of stakes, technically this is another “save the world” summer blockbuster story, but since that aspect of the film was so ham-handed, I ended up focusing more on Max’s personal stakes, and I think that helped me enjoy the film more. Max has loved Frey (Alice Braga) since they were kids. When he reconnects with her years later, he learns that she has a child, Matilda (Emma Tremblay), who is terminally ill. At the start of his character arc, Max has one goal: “I’m not going to die.” When Frey asks Max to help Matilda, it doesn’t jive with his goal and he refuses. It’s just as enjoyable to watch Max’s slow transformation from self-centered to selfless as it was with Wikus in District 9.

Also like District 9, Elysium remembers that you’re not just here for a moral; you’re here for a good time. In this case, that means some thrilling action scenes that somehow aren’t ruined despite shaky-cam overuse. (Note to filmmakers: There is absolutely no excuse for shaking the camera when you’re filming a motionless scene set on a flat plain that is not in the throes of an earthquake.) You’ll need to have a strong stomach: people explode like blood sausages left and right, and one unfortunate fellow has his face literally blown off. If you can stomach it, though, you’ll enjoy some of the best fight choreography of the year.

I do wish that the writers had the guts to leave a seemingly dispatched baddie dead instead of bringing him back for a final beat-‘em-up showdown. By that time, though, I was on board with Max. I cared about his journey – not his “save the world” journey to Elysium, mind you, but his internal journey from “I’m not going to die,” to, “I’m not going to let the people I care about die.” If you can draw me into your protagonist’s story like that, you’re doing something right.

How much morality play you can tolerate in your weekend entertainment outing will determine if Elysium is worth your time. I caution anyone who knows that they will dislike a film that espouses beliefs contrary to his own to stay far, far away. Amongst my screening group, I was by far the most positive on the film. The majority of the group disliked it, either because of the on-the-nose handling of the issues or because the film’s worldview differed from their own. While one member of the group lauded the film’s portrayal of “social justice,” another deplored its “class warfare.” I understand this criticism. Our worldviews matter. They define us to a certain extent. Personally, though I feel passionately about many issues, I try my hardest to leave my politics at the door and judge a work of art on its artistic merits. But I totally get that some people are not inclined to do that. Know thyself. If the bludgeoning meta-message is going to upset you, steer clear. If you can tune out the drone of the hammer and focus on the smaller story, that’s where you’ll find Elysium’s beating heart.

[John]

I'm definitely in the minority on Elysium. Most critics are panning the film as vastly inferior to District 9, and I confess that they make compelling arguments.

CriticWire's Sam Adams points to reviews by NPR's Linda Holmes and ThinkProgress's Alyssa Rosenberg that tear down Elysium for different reasons. He also applies Charlie Jane Anders's "7 Deadly Sins of Worldbuilding" (which I highly recommend you read, especially if you like to write) to Elysium, noting that it commits six of the seven sins.

Tasha Robinson and Scott Tobias of The Dissolve don't agree on much, but they share disappointment in Elysium. Tasha gets in the zinger of the exchange, quipping, "Blomkamp has made his Mallrats." And they are hardly alone. Blomkamp's latest has disappointed far more than it has entertained. I stand by my review, but there are cogent points made here that deserve to be noted.

[Matt]

I caution anyone who knows that they will dislike a film that espouses beliefs contrary to his own to stay far, far away. Amongst my screening group, I was by far the most positive on the film. The majority of the group disliked it, either because of the on-the-nose handling of the issues or because the film’s worldview differed from their own. While one member of the group lauded the film’s portrayal of “social justice,” another deplored its “class warfare.” I understand this criticism. Our worldviews matter. They define us to a certain extent. Personally, though I feel passionately about many issues, I try my hardest to leave my politics at the door and judge a work of art on its artistic merits.

But shouldn't that be what any art is about? To make us think. To explore issues that we might find uncomfortable. Whether it is music, dance, film, sculpture, painting, writing. Whatever the art form, the more it makes us think, the better that art form. And it doesn't matter if we agree with the message of the art form. The simple fact that it inspires a degree of intellectual curiosity is what separates it from the rest. Disagree with it, it's okay to disagree. But feed your mind. Embrace your intellectual curiosity.

I'm not trying to be political here. Let me be clear on that. But I am a big believer in intellectual curiosity. I think it's the greatest gift our species possesses. It doesn't matter to me what your beliefs are, but what I want to know is that your thinking things through. That your willing to challenge your beliefs. If you can challenge what you believe, what you think you know, and explore a variety of views, and still come to the same conclusions, well bless you. And I am not talking about politics. It can be anything in life. It can be your views on the designated hitter. It can be your views on the opposite sex. It can be your views on religion. It can be your views on child rearing. We all have a different way of interpreting the world around us. But, and I speak solely for myself, I would find my existence meaningless if I wasn't searching for knowledge, if I wasn't yearning for a better understanding of the world around me. And what I find, at least for myself, is that the more uncomfortable something makes me, the more I realize that I really need to explore why. Especially so when it comes to the most personal matters in my life, such as my relationships with family, and friends, and even just the every day world around me.

I have a great many things that my views have changed on over time. Part of that is the years that have gone by. All these lines on my face getting clearer. But another part of that is that I am willing to explore my thoughts on something. I question everything. I challenge what I think I know, and try to disprove my own beliefs. At 18 I knew everything. At 48 I know nothing. But at the same time, I know more at 48 than I did at 18. And for that, I thank all of those who have inspired me to think. Be it a friend, a teacher, a co-worker, or even a film maker.

[John]

But shouldn't that be what any art is about? To make us think. To explore issues that we might find uncomfortable. Whether it is music, dance, film, sculpture, painting, writing. Whatever the art form, the more it makes us think, the better that art form. And it doesn't matter if we agree with the message of the art form. The simple fact that it inspires a degree of intellectual curiosity is what separates it from the rest. Disagree with it, it's okay to disagree. But feed your mind. Embrace your intellectual curiosity.

That's open for debate. Should art be to make us think, or should it entertain us? Or both? Should it matter if we agree with the worldview put forth by a piece of art? Different people will give you different answers.

My answer has always been that my favorite art entertains and intellectually stimulates me, and that I welcome different worldviews because it challenges my current belief system. I can certainly think of examples that don't jive with those answers, though. I love me some Die Hard, and I won't insult anyone by trying to pass it off as a thinker. Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy are just about the most intellectually stimulating books I have ever read, but they are also kind of dry. Any chance of my enjoying The Hangover was torpedoed by humor that struck me as overtly homophobic and racist.

For the record, I agree with your take, Matt. I want art to make me think, and I like it when it challenges me. The reason I put that disclaimer into my review is that I know there are a lot of people out there who don't want that from their art, and I don't want to send them to a film that they are almost guaranteed to dislike. Because Elysium really is overt with its politics. I look at it in the same way as cautioning parents over violence that might make them think twice about taking their family to a film. Everyone has different tastes and tolerances; I just want to be mindful of the preferences of others.

[Arroyos]

But shouldn't that be what any art is about? To make us think.

That's open for debate. Should art be to make us think, or should it entertain us? Or both? Should it matter if we agree with the worldview put forth by a piece of art? Different people will give you different answers.

Art is vast, gentlemen, it contains multitudes. It can make us think, it can entertain us, it can anger us or disappoint us or make us feel things we've never felt before. It can transport us to new worlds or help us see the most banal parts of this world in a new light. Art is magical.

But an art work, be it a film, a novel, a poem, a play or a painting, is no greater than its audience. For most of the folks who paid one penny to stand in the pit at the Globe Theatre, Shakespeare's HAMLET was a highly entertaining revenge play. It held their attention.

For some of the members of the royal court, seated in the third balcony, the play was a challenging critique of their belief about monarchy and the rights of royalty. It made 'em think.

For a few desperate men and women scattered throughout the theatre, the play suggested that violence might be a way to redress their grievances against the Crown. It made them think hard.

And for Shakespeare's fellow playwrights, and scores of writers of all sorts, HAMLET was an inspiration. It changed the nature of theatre for all time. It made one young man's inner thoughts the stuff of drama. It invented the interior monolog and gave voice to the contradictory and self-deceiving thoughts that muddle our thinking and frustrate our actions. For the few in the Globe who saw the play that way, it changed their artistic lives.

So a play can be many things to many people, and it can both make us think and keep us entertained, but it rarely does both at the same time for the same person. If the film entertains you and makes me think, that should be sufficient. To expect more is to expect gold in every pan you dip in a Sierra stream. That way madness lies.

[Lions]

I have found that I approach different forms of entertainment differently. I'm going to hold a move like Transformers to a different standard than a play like Hamlet. I'm also going to hold different movies of different genres or moods to different standards. Even within a genre, you'll have different reactions based on the tone of the film. Contact is also sci-fi, but it's nothing like Transformers. I don't judge them the same. Sci-fi movies also tend to be places where I expect to be presented an alternate view of values and ideals. I don't expect the world a century from now to be the same as it is today.

[John]

I have found that I approach different forms of entertainment differently. I'm going to hold a move like Transformers to a different standard than a play like Hamlet. I'm also going to hold different movies of different genres or moods to different standards. Even within a genre, you'll have different reactions based on the tone of the film. Contact is also sci-fi, but it's nothing like Transformers. I don't judge them the same. Sci-fi movies also tend to be places where I expect to be presented an alternate view of values and ideals. I don't expect the world a century from now to be the same as it is today.

I probably do this, too, at least to some extent. I don't think we're alone, either; I would guess that part of the reason that so many people are ripping Elysium apart is that they went into it expecting smart science fiction and instead got just an entertaining summer popcorn flick set in the future. Wouldn't we all be satisfied if we got just that out of the next Transformers movie? Probably. But Elysium sold itself as "smart" sci-fi, and thus it gets judged in a different, more stringent manner.

Speaking of which, io9's Annalee Newitz weighs in with "Here's What Elysium Did Wrong - and What It Did Right." It's a balanced examination of the flaws and successes of a film that is being derided as one of the biggest letdowns of the year. Her take: Character arcs are completely butchered, but despite missteps, there are some positives in the film's world-building and use of allegory.

I have read dozens of well-conceived essays on Elysium, and I am prepared to admit that my initial take on the movie may have been a bit over-enthusiastic. I confess that, upon further review, there are some gaping holes in the film's logic. It is not as "smart" as I initially suggested; it ignores logic when it is convenient to do so, and I can see where that would put people off. It bugs me some, too, but not so much that I am prepared to ignore the fact that I was entertained. I am lowering my grade on Elysium from "A-" to "B+" in recognition of the fact that the movie is indeed a lot of fun but not quite the thinker I originally suggested it to be.

[Lions]

Wouldn't we all be satisfied if we got just that out of the next Transformers movie? Probably.

I should provide the caveat that I was entertained by the first Transformers enough to not bother watching any of the others.