Ad Astra (so we can then go home)

Pitt is an astronaut going to find his dad who was thought to be lost decades ago on an expedition to Neptune but who might be behind energy surges that are killing people on earth. On route, they respond to an emergency call from an animal health orbiter. No reply when they near the craft. Upon entering, they are attacked by crazed monkeys. Pitt then has a psychological profile (one of several, a theme in the movie) where he relates to the monkeys' rage, his rage at his father’s abandonment, his worry that’s all there is. Very flat delivery, nearly emotionless.

Voice over much like "Apocalypse Now" but with less obvious story, less exposition. He fails his next psych profile but stows away aboard the next flight that, after he is told by a secret recording of an apparent mutiny his father put down, is clearly aimed at destroying his dad’s outpost. His presence is detected immediately at launch, leading to a fight where all but the crew dies, not his fault though he accepts responsibility. Aphorisms from his dad, odd videos, more and more AN with dad as Kurtz. Not the heart of darkness but the vacuum of darkness. He finds dad, fights, ‘let me go, son’, ‘why go on…’. But he does, let go and go on.

Amazing graphics. Pinpoint sun, multiple axis of movement, weightlessness, backgrounds, lighting and reflections. Holding a panel like a shield against rocks in orbit, like a snowstorm?! Anyway, interesting use of momentum. Then using the explosion destroying his dad’s outpost to help propel him home?? Trivializes the geometries and forces of interplanetary flight. Final psych profile, ending “submit”: “I am active…focused on the essential to the exclusion of all else…” and wife is waiting. “I will rely on those close to me and I will share their burdens as they share mine.” (Nice line!)

They grafted a ridiculously optimistic ending onto a fundamentally hopeless story, which produced a profit at the box office instead of an expensive dud but did not fool anybody, really, hence the marginal public scores. Not bad. 3.8

A Proposal for Modesty

We all make mistakes, so don’t feel too superior if you find yourself in a discussion over the holidays with a 2016 Trump voter. We all thought Trump would improve his behavior after winning the election, maybe even ‘pivot’ after taking office. Most of his voters probably expected that he would move from provocative to productive, once in power. Even the many who considered him deeply offensive expected him to moderate his rhetoric and try to unify a larger slice of the electorate.

So, admit it, you were probably also surprised (proven wrong) as Trump’s behavior went from bad to even worse. Nobody expected his lying to actually accelerate. Nobody expected him to withhold aid to an ally, in a shooting war with our enemy, in seeking personal political advantage. Nobody expected him to besmirch our long-standing allies and befriend some of the most undemocratic despots. Nobody expected him to blow up the deficit (ok, strike that, many did). Even those who wanted stronger enforcement of immigration laws did not envision the inhuman cruelty of separating children from parents. Even those who wanted to get tough with China did not plan on arbitrary tariffs, withdrawal from beneficial trade agreements, and self-inflicted economic damage with no end in sight.  Even those who think our military is overextended did not expect us to abandon noble allies to suffer the revenge of Syria, Turkey, and Russia.

How do you persuade your interlocutor to change their vote in 2020? Stating the simple truth, that they behaved foolishly and should ‘wake up’, or something like that, won’t produce a pleasant conversation or the outcome you desire. Instead, first try to find something praiseworthy in what motivated them to vote as they did – maybe a general feeling that ‘things are heading the wrong direction’, be it wealth disparity, climate change, trade imbalance, budget deficit… find something. (Presupposing they are not outright racists, acolytes of Ayn Rand, or anti-vaxxers, in which case they are probably allergic to logic or common sense so just quit). Then point out, as gently as possible, how disappointing the last 3 years have been and how unlikely it is to improve. If that doesn’t work, ask them what distinguishes steadfast from just plain stubborn?