in which i write about a movie i haven’t seen

I have not seen The Martian, and probably won’t, but this article annoyed me: “What’s Missing from The Martian?”

The premise of the piece, in brief, is that The Martian is an amazing technical achievement, but that we don’t get enough, or maybe any, background on any of the characters, including the protagonist.

I think this is a really incorrect approach to movie writing (and, really, writing in general). Matt Damon’s character is stuck alone on Mars for years, and he survives (spoiler, I guess). He uses science to solve problems, and maintains his sense of humor. That’s not enough? You also need a family life and what movies he likes and watching him play solitaire?

It’s not enough to watch a character do something extraordinary?

To take another example from Ridley Scott, how much information do we get about Ripley in Alien? Not a heck of a lot, and Alien is pretty damn awesome anyway.

This also makes me think about Good Night, and Good Luck. In that (excellent) film, we see Edward R. Murrow play a vital part in changing history, and we learn almost nothing about his personal life. Which is fine with me.

Not that it’s bad to include the personal stuff, but it’s not essential when you’re telling about somebody doing something amazing.

Also, I have to say that the movie (The Martian) is 144 minutes long already.

I wonder, by the way, whether Scott decided to make this movie, about a scientist surviving because of his scientific knowledge and creativity, to make up for the “scientists” in Prometheus, who were all nitwits and psychotics.