Walking out of movies, I often disagree with the sentiments of the crowd. As they enthuse “That was so awesome!” and “Great action scenes!,” I silently bemoan the lack of female characters, the unnecessary booty shots (as in the recent Star Trek: Into Darkness), and the preponderance of blow-em-up-and-kill-em-dead scenes.
As I left the theatre following After Earth, the new Will and Jaden Smith movie venture, I disagreed with audience sentiment, but for different reasons. As I heard people complaining the movie was too slow, didn’t have enough action, that there wasn’t enough death, I was thinking about how great the father/son relationship was depicted, about the sister so strong she protects her brother even after death, about the tech-genius mom who lures her son and husband away from the warrior world of killing aliens.
My fondness for the film was not shared by those exiting the theatre with me – nor is it shared by other critics – at least none that have reviewed the film yet. Instead, the general reaction seems to be “yawn.”
Now, the fact some audiences judge how good a movie is by death count aside…what worries me about movies (and thrilled me about After Earth) circulates around the fact that most movies are still telling us the same old regressive, outdated, power-happy stories where men rule the universe and women get naked (or rescued). Even in futuristic, fantasy, sci-fi, super-hero and animated movies, where there is the possibility to rewrite what humanity, gender, race, existence and so on mean, more movies than not stick to the same script. Man is hero. Woman is in background. Person of color is villain. America is savior. “Others” whether they be aliens, monsters, foreigners, LGBTQ, or simply from a different neighborhood, are killed off or assimilated.
This is where After Earth is different. Yes, it has male heroes, but it also has female ones. The heroes are people of color. The “savior” is not a nation or even a planet, but a family that loves one another. There are some evil Others (ursa aliens) but the film shows that assuming evil/malice on the part of Others often is misguided – as when the young Kitai Raige (Jaden Smith) assumes the bird who will ultimately save his life is trying to kill him (this savior bird is a female while the evil ursa is a he – another nice flip of the usual script).
At the outset of the movie, we learn earth has been destroyed as images of destruction flood the screen. The images are not futuristic, but of present-day earth – humans attack one another, cars wash away in giant tsunami waves, animals struggle in the latest sludge dump from yet another mega-corporation. In contrast, the sleek world of Nova Prime (the planet humans have relocated to) looks like a lovely location kitted out by Ikea.
The United Ranger Corps (the new global military) could serve as an advertisement for diversity – they are male and female, racially diverse, differ in age and size. This future force is not your typical muscled-up, all-male fighting force. This might seem like a small matter, but how often are such filmic elite forces represented with the true diversity that makes up our world? Hardly ever. Further, how often do they not have guns? This military core does NOT have guns (nor the futuristic equivalent of guns). And this is exactly what disappoints many film critics.
While some grieve the lack of action scenes, referring to the “potential” for “intense action sequences” that bewilderingly are not taken advantage of (“it cashes in on only a few of them,”) others caustically lament the lack of guns, as here: “the script …fails to explain why future warriors, whose technology allows for a ‘cutlass’ whose two ends morph into any type of blade the user requires, choose not to use guns or lasers against the mighty Ursa. One assumes it’s because somebody saw Darth Maul and thought his double-trouble light saber looked cool.” Yeah, because choosing NOT to use guns is flat out CRAAAAZZZZY.
So, what did I, unlike other reviewers, like about this film?
For one, there is a powerful mother in it. She is not dead. She is not evil. She is not a cartoon of femininity. (Disney, I am talking to you.) No. She is smart, articulate, say-it-as-it-is woman. I would bet she is a feminist. She has no qualms about telling her warrior husband Cypher Raige (Will Smith) that he is failing as a father, informing him “that boy in there is trying to find you…he doesn’t need a commanding officer, he needs a father.”
And the fact the film is critical of Cypher for being such a gung-ho warrior, right down to mocking hyper-masculinity via his symbolic last name, Raige? Swoon. And that it ends with the battle weary Kitai telling his Prime Commander father that he no longer wants to be a Ranger but instead work with his tech-savvy mom? That when he says “dad, I want to work with mom,” Cypher responds “me too”? Double triple swoon.
Further, as my daughter pointed out on our drive home, the film showed heroes need more than strength and weapons – they need strategy and smarts and drive – and they need each other – as when Cypher and Kitai must help one another in order to survive, despite the animosity and hard-feelings that have built up over the years. These are no Iron Men or Men of Steel or whatever other HARD MALE super-hero you want to throw in the mix. No, they are neither uber-hard or uber-male. Rather, they are human. How sad that such a depiction is so rare in this genre of movie as to seem like a revelation.
More sad still is that reviewers are bewailing that Jaden is not ‘man enough’ to be an action hero, as in the New York Daily News review that quips “It’s not Jaden’s fault his voice is still a few octaves too high for an action star, but it doesn’t do him any favors when his character is lifted to the nest of a giant eagle that decides to mother him.” Ah, yes, how emasculating! A less-than-baritone voice and being mothered! What are these reviewers drinking? Straight testosterone with a chaser of misogyny?!?
Such critics do not mention the depiction of family relationships the film proffers. I suppose such matters don’t have enough “action” to be worthy of comment. But, the exploration of family the film offered included something not often explored in films – dealing with the death of a sibling. Young Kitai is still traumatized by watching his older sister Senshi (Zoe Isabella Kravitz) be brutally impaled by an alien, and his father still blames him for it. Said sister visits him in his dreams as he makes his dangerous trek across the now hostile earth, saving his life by waking him up when needed.
As for the father/son relationship at the heart of the film? While I was besotted by the crash scene in which dad Cypher helps the panicking Kitai breathe through his mask, I was equally enamored of the many other scenes that captured something that is not a mainstay of the big screen – a father’s love for his son. Here, and throughout, the film was refreshingly free of macho bravado. In fact, the various nods to Moby Dick in the film hint that Cypher is debilitated by his own hunger for power, much like Captain Ahab and his relentless quest for the great white whale. (Moby Dick is the only “real” book the Raige family has ever seen in the post-book world of Nova Prime)
As with that literary classic, the film has its philosophical moments. Cypher’s refrain to his son is “take a knee” – an action that calls for kneeling down to the ground to “root yourself in this present moment.” Intoning “recognize your power…this will be your creation,” Cypher is like a more serious, more male Oprah, cheering on his son with the power of now. In another part of the film, he echoes the sentiment that we create our own realities, noting that we are “telling ourselves a story.”
If there is truth in this idea, that we at least partially create our reality by the stories we tell ourselves, then we had better worry about the fact many film critics and film goers seem to want stories saturated with violence and action – where the violence should be action-packed and the action should be violent.
Films are telling us all a story, stories which shape our experiences of – and expectations about – reality. I enjoy stories like those told in After Earth – stories where parents love their children, where sisters protect their brothers, where giant mother birds morn the violent deaths of their baby birds so much that they turn to mothering a lost human boy on an inhospitable planet – a planet that became uninhabitable because of … you guessed it… violent action.
If you are a crazy peacenik feminist like me, with a soft spot for movies that value love and non-violence and collaboration and an image of the future that is not dominated by Tom Cruise or Chris Pine or Robert Downy Junior knock-offs, go see After Earth. If you want explosions and death and booty shots, well, I am sure there are plenty of summer blockbusters in the pipeline that will deliver.
Comments 39
Friday Roundup: March 31, 2013 » The Editors' Desk — May 31, 2013
[...] W/ Pen. No guns? No problem! “Generation after generation, marriage plays a role in replicating [...]
shawn — May 31, 2013
Well written review. I have to admit I was pretty excited to see the movie until the reviews came out, but my current disdain for useless critics lead me to read the comment sections which follow most critiques. I believe your point of view of the movie is likely accurate as Will tends to lean toward making movies with meaning(even the action ones), but the comments people are leaving seem to smell of politics to me. I find them highly personal, especially the critical ones that come from people that haven't seen the movie. I even read one that describe Will as being racists! LOL!
Anyway I'm going to see the movie for what you've described, a deeper meaning.
Friday Roundup: May 31, 2013 » The Editors' Desk — June 5, 2013
[...] W/ Pen. No guns? No problem! “Generation after generation, marriage plays a role in replicating [...]
Bob Noneyabiz — June 6, 2013
You are so illogical it's hilarious. The reason people think it's dumb they don't use guns is because it doesn't make any sense not to. Why would they not don protective suits to mask their scents (as in the last part of the movie, and shoot the aliens from a safe distance? The reason people thought the eagle saving Katai was dumb is because it was a completely random tangent to the story with no real significance (also, why did the eagle drag him across the ground and cover him with it's body instead of flying him to one of the geothermal warm spots so they could both survive?)
I could probably spend an entire day pointing out the sheer idiocy of both the movie, and of your review, but I'm pretty sure that most of my points will be lost on you anyway.
Oh, one more thing I forgot-- you praised the movie for not incorporating guns cause "choosing not to use guns would be CRAAAZZY." Haha yes actually in that situation it literally would be! The whole idea was hilarious, because they were still going into battle and killing things with their "cutlasses". It's still war, still violent and terrible, but just a much more idiotic approach to things because it would cause significantly more loss of life than necessary, much more than if they just shot the aliens instead of running at them with "cutlasses." Anyway, I thought that rare piece of completely illogical and idiotic gun-hating dogma you wrote was quite funny.
Jan — June 6, 2013
Bob's point is the only idiotic thing I read here. And to mention it as very rude. Where are your manners people. Althought the movie does raise the question of why there were no firearms used in the movie, but one needs to look at the setting, it's 1000yrs in the future. Mankind has abandoned the previous technology that has contributed to the demise of it's previous planet earth.
People could have different values and beliefs at this time, so there could be a possibility for a reason there are no fire arms...
The point is, the producers are painting a picture here of a scenario... It's a science fiction. If you want reality, then the aliens would have just bombed humans in the new planet, and the human retaliated with guns and firearms.
But then again that would have just been another crappy over the counter, realistic action movie, we've seen that already In STARSHIP TROOPERS.....
I see it as an intellectual movie, gives you a lot to ponder and think about, it's not for everyone because not many people use their heads these days.
Jester — June 9, 2013
I just saw the movie yesterday and I had a difficult time understanding what was going on in the movie. It was not made like the other action packed movies. The plot and story seemed out of wack but non the less showed enough of itself to let you know what was going on. I just want to thank you for explaining your views/opinions on the movie that others would not have considered. It took me many reviews to find one that corrilated with what I was looking for (The question I was looking for was about the bird saving Katai). And much like the movie, everyone has their own story to tell the way that they choose to see it.
Vandana Singh — June 9, 2013
What a very interesting review! I will watch this movie. There is plenty of intelligent science fiction literature, but few films go beyond shoot-em-ups and special effects. Which is a pity because SF is the one genre that allows us to radically revision everything from technology to social systems and values. Unfortunately American SF has strong roots in colonialism and 'masculinity' (see for instance Justine Larbalestier's The Battle of the Sexes in Science Fiction) but SF literature at least is starting to come of age.
Thank you!
Jimmy — June 10, 2013
What bothered me was that the movie never explained why they were not using guns, if they said the humans decided to abandon guns because of XYZ reasons I would be OK with that. Nothing was mentioned and the setting of the movie felt incomplete, and we had to watch a civilization so advanced that they can warp travel through space and they are charging aliens with cutlasses?
A single line of explanation in the beginning where the movie introduced Nova Prime would have taken care of the gun issue, or a simple scene of a few seconds during any part of the movie, instead I watched the whole thing wondering why they couldn't use their space travel technology to make better weaponry. The lack of logic TOOK AWAY from the amazing father son relationship because it would distract any logical person from enjoying the rest of the movie.
Jess — June 14, 2013
Simple if something is going to kill my children . I would work to invent something that kills it the most efficiently .That would probably be some kind of gun
Jess — June 14, 2013
And (excuse me for paraphrasing or misquoting ) hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side kid. And yes Hans shot first. Now i will shut up.
Lynn — June 16, 2013
How about a bow and arrow! Why walk up to a mountain of teeth and claws with a sword? There is a reason the human race has survived saber tooth cats and short faced bears. Long range weapons! Why would an advanced race decide to design a genetically engineered weapon without sight? I also ring it hard to believe that their futuristic tech only fails or breaks at the most inopportune times! This so-so movie could have been much better if some common sense were used.
shawn — June 16, 2013
I'm not sure you part time critics actually watched the movie. They were on a training mission to train the rangers to ghost. To lose their fear of the monster. which is also why the monster was onboard the ship with them. They were not hunting or involved with any war type efforts. As a training mission there is no need for weapons. Guns are inherently a product of fear so it wouldn't make much sense to have them in this training. On their way to their location they encountered the asteroid storm, they used their warp drive the get out of the storm. Their guidance system misguided them I 1000 years into the future. This is On reason why there were no weapons. The movie was about bonding with yourself your surroundings and your family.
Chad — June 17, 2013
The humans used to decorate trees as corpses were flat out CRAZZZZZY.
One of those things gets anywhere near you, or anywhere far from you, you lay down HEAVY suppression fire. Even if some smug guy in pajamas is in the line of fire - you have your life and the lives of your loved ones to protect.
Chad — June 17, 2013
As for the movie, it was not immersive as there was so much that felt like plot coincidence. How did we destroy the Earth? The suggested answer is we lived on it - while that is a standard view for fanatical environmentalists (waiting for the right virus to wipe us out ect.) it is a slap in the face to anyone who loves living. Humans are now living on a different planet, but not destroying it, yet life there seems very familiar (family dwellings, tall buildings, waterside property). The character with the most knowledge of Earth, the General, tells us everything has evolved to kill humans? Not so much without any humans around - and when there were, presumably we'd have used guns or fire on any upity species of beast. Then, the most dangerous thing is the Ursa.
What is the father son revelation? The kid got lucky - the eagle saved his life. Then the kid was victorious over the Ursa. So saving himself also saved his father. Ummm, if it was some dope he had never met before the crash landing, he too would have been saved.
Okay so there was the whole mentoring thing. But that was based on the notion that fear is a choice. Well it ain't. Its an emotional response to one's situation. When confronted with an Ursa, fear is the proper emotion. The choice is what to do when confronted with an Ursa.
And the most riveting distraction, ummm, the kid thinks his father holds it against him that he didn't do hand to hand combat with the monster that killed his sister? And why was the sister suicidal anyways (I mean, the kid was safe, so run - you say she needed to stay and defend the kid, lol, who defended the kid after she was dead)? And why is the whole society suicidal (I mean, running around unarmed or armed with only a blade getting skewered on tree branches)?
The answer: this future society is suicidal because that is what it takes to 'not destroy the Earth'. A sick and twisted story, couched within a tale of father/son love.
shawn — June 18, 2013
I'm going to go on a limb and guess most reviewers do not have children otherwise you'd understand the father son and family conflict vs a career parent. You would have clearly understood the dynamic .
Also have the same war hawks figured out why there was no breathable oxygen on our beloved planet after 1000 year's? No humans, no weapons, on the planet or on an advanced starship? Simple logic would say if weapons were the great solution humans would still inhabit the planet. But they don't.
Perhaps the movie would have had a flying man with a cape for it make sense to the arm chair critics.
shawn — June 29, 2013
I'm not sure I understand why folks think the bird was saving "Katai?" The bird thought she was saving one of her own "babies" that must have fallen out of the nest. Not the human. Remember humans had not been on earth for over 1000 years so the bird would have no idea that it was a human zipping past its next heading toward the ground. Its natural reaction was to save its offspring and bring it home. Why else would the bird bring him (it) back to its nest? When the youngster helped protect the nest and "its brothers and sisters" from the big cats, the birds understandings were confirmed. She saved her falling baby. This is also why she saved him from freezing later in the movie. She thought it was her baby.
Jonathan — September 24, 2013
I totally agree with this article sci-fi action films especially the classic films like Alien, Terminator or even Avatar should have a strong female lead instead of...oh wait..
Jason — October 11, 2013
I am a Sci-Fi nut, who was also anticipating this movie. I really enjoyed it! Great story line and decent action. While watching the movie, I thought of my young son.
Your review is spot on! Bravo!
Blacky — October 23, 2013
I believe there should be at least some explanation in the movie itself why the technology of fighting against the beast is not much different than the stone age, same time they have worm hole space travelling capability, it doesn't make any sense , sci-fic should always be logical to some extent, take Jurassic park for example.
Barbara Daniels — November 27, 2013
Other than the fact that the absurdity of no guns hit me about this movie, it looks like Jaden could use another 20 pounds. Excluding Will, so could the rest of his family.
Joe — January 2, 2014
Great review. I really enjoyed this movie and I didn't have a problem understanding most of the things that most responders here are complaining about (Chad, ahem). Although it might be because while I enjoy things blowing up and gratuitous booty shots I also enjoy films that require you to pay attention and actually think about what's happening in order to understand it. I don't usually need (or enjoy) the over the top, obvious scenes that spell out the solution to the viewer. Those movies where I can literally hear people in the row behind me gasping that 'they got it' noise 10 minutes after I figured it all out and know exactly what's going to happen and how it's going to happen end up being the least satisfying. I'd rather have a movie leave with unanswered questions to ponder and talk about with other people later. This might be why many people born in the US 'don't get' foreign films that often require a little more effort. Or even read books.
As a father of an 11-year-old girl, I also appreciate strong female characters that go toe-to-toe with other characters (I'm talking to you, Kara Thrace) without needing to be butch. Unfortunately most of those characters are found in 'alternate' media (eg, graphic novels). Whenever possible, I expose my daughter to those ideas that women can be smart, funny, wise, strong, and win. If she chooses to be 'soft' or 'hard' in the process, the choice is hers.
Angus Thermopyle — January 7, 2014
Well after months of resisting, I downloaded me some After Earth to see how bad it truly was.
And let me say, the magnitude of negative reviews to this flick still doesn't do it justice. There is just so much wrong with this movie, on so many levels, I'm surprised even a Liberal feminist could find this many positives.
But more to the topic, it's just impossible to accept that in a future where we have the warp drive, interstellar star-ships, and other fantastic technology there are NO advanced weapons better than a techno-melee weapon. And that the future of mankind is being threatened by BLIND ANIMALS!!??
Even today, in 2014 with our technology and weapons, we would utterly and completely wipe out these "Arsa's". Pheromone smelling abilities or no, they would have absolutely no chance.
Sci-fi fantasy can be fantastical and unbelievable, that's the fun of it, however it must always make sense within it's OWN universe. After Earth does not. If they wanted to portray a possible future mankind, hey no problem, knock yourselves out. But one just cannot suspend disbelief enough to accept everything that makes no sense here and is illogical.
But this is just one example of the horribly bad writing on display here. I mean, it's just SUCH a badly written movie, it's really insulting to sci-fi fans.
Take a knee, blogger, and watch this tripe again. But WITHOUT imposing your world view on everything.
Johndar — January 16, 2014
This review has some good points, such as sci-fi movies not having to be big violent action films all the time. Strong female characters and diverse casts are also something I would love to see more in this genre of movies. However, to dismiss some of the naysayers of this movie as to only caring about big action scenes and gun blazing shoot outs is deflective of a lot of the legitimate criticisms of the movie.
I am one of the people with the belief that fire arms not existing, at least when it comes to infantry, is in fact crazy. Not because I require gun violence to enjoy a sci-fi film, but because it's just a logical fallacy considering the enemy they face in the film. The film is in fact filled with illogical information, and from what I've read that seems to be the biggest fault with the film. Not the lack of action, not the character plot, but the setting and world make little sense.
If you enjoyed the movie, awesome. The way you talk about it it sounds like a pretty great film, and I'll give it a chance. However, I still think that a lot of the criticisms on the setting are pretty legitimate, and shouldn't be dismissed so easily.
Johndar — January 16, 2014
Another comment, sorry, but the review you linked to was pretty level headed and even handed and didn't offer the criticisms you claimed to be railing against. It mostly targeted the setting and held a few tiny criticisms of the stars acting. Granted, I thought the remark about Kitai "not being made of the same tough stuff as his father." a little misplaced, as I thought that was kind of the pointo f his character and growth, it was mostly a pretty good article.
Lithose — February 3, 2014
I'm so sorry you can't see why it's CRAAZZZYYY to not use a projectile weapon against an enemy that doesn't have one. Lets do an experiment though. I'll put you in a field with a half starved tiger that has been trained to view you as lunch and THEN I'll ask if you want a high powered rifle or a spear.
I think you'll find the decision much less CRAAZZZY after that little bout with logic.
Mark — February 18, 2014
"A less-than-baritone voice and being mothered! What are these reviewers drinking? Straight testosterone with a chaser of misogyny?!?"
The only one, who is looking at it from sexist lenses, is you. The reviewers only pointed at the absurdity of an eagle from a quarantined planet mothering a newly arrived human. I don't understand why feminists have to berate men in every given opportunity and cry sexism. Next, you might say the CGI eagle is a feminist, who knows??
I saw the whole movie and I must say it was pathetic right from the beginning. There was an attempt to create an emotional bond between the eagle and Kitai, which failed miserably.
Rb — July 26, 2015
I think you are over thinking it and yes in a futuristic society where we've had the technology for projectile weapons for thousands, if not tens of thousands of years and the technology for guns would be what? Over 1500 years old? Why there aren't any weapons that are more advanced/used at longer range than a few meters (when thrown).
Now I am not saying that After Earth is pure garbage as I have heard some say about it. It had it's moments but it wasn't really great either. Too much left unexplained, bad acting on Jaden's part and the part with the mother bird saving him that you praise was kind of dumb