The Martian

I second the recommendation for the Martian. It is one of the few movies that does justice to an excellent book. 

I third the recommendation for The Martian.  

Also, I have a perhaps odd thought about it: it reminds me of the best of Nevil Shute.  Like Nevil Shute it is highly and approvingly technological, pro-science.

And even more, there are no “bad guys”.  In virtually every Nevil Shute book I can think of (and I have read them all at least once), there are good, virtuous people doing good things, sometimes fighting almost impossible odds — and winning.

Yet there is no enemy. (In Nevil Shute there is the occasional Nazi, and sometimes socialized medicine, but that never drives the story, merely acts as a setup)

And for those who say there has to be a bad buy so there is someone for the good guys to fight, I say “think again”. The Martian left my heart pounding.

A huge thank you to Dominick Bertolino (#1)  for recommending this movie. I normally shun sci-fi  movies, but I saw this one based on his recommendation.

The movie is fantastic. It has been ages since I have been so deeply moved by a movie.  My wife and I  left the theater together with a high sense of excitement.

What you need in any story is a ‘life or death’ threat. Having bad guys in the story may supply that threat but one can also use ‘man against nature’.

Personally, in stories which I read or see in the theater, I like my threats to be conscious so a really ‘proactive’ bad guy(s) suits my taste. But the movie does sound exciting and I plan to see it. 

“Man against nature” is not a conflict of values. It can be engrossing, though. I hope it is, because Jean and I are going to see “The Martian” this afternoon.

In her fiction writing lectures, Ayn Rand  pointed out that the esthetic ranking, from low to high, is: 

Man vs. nature

Good vs. evil (hero against villain)

Good vs. mistaken good (Roark vs. Dominique and Wynand, Galt and Francisco vs. Dagny and Rearden).

To Harry B, #7:

I don’t think Nevil Shute is quite any of the three, unless “nature’ includes far more than nature itself.  For example, in Trustee from the Toolroom, one of his best, the story is of an ordinary man who is a brilliant designer of mechanical miniatures.  He describes his designs and constructions in a magazine whose readers are passionate about this hobby and passionate in their valuing of him.

He is called upon to travel around the world in order to XXXXXXX (sorry, completing this sentence would be a bad spoiler).  But as he travels, having no sophistication and no money, he is helped along the way by his fans, some of whom meet each other for the first time and all of whom are wonderfully generous in their repayment of what he has given them.

It is a story about valuing and, as often is the case with Shute, about valuing technology and human ingenuity.

There is no villain.  But it is also not “man vs. nature”.  

I’m not quite sure what it is.  

And I think The Martian is similarly not about anything vs. anything.  It is a joyous expression of human ingenuity and of life-valuing.

Hope you enjoy it!

Since I’m interested in story telling technique, I’m going to read Trustee from the Tool Room to see if I can figure out precisely what the conflict is.

Although I know that Shute is a well respected writer, I have to admit a prejudice against his work. I saw the movie ‘On the Beach’ and personally found it so absolutely appalling that I have not read anything of his since. But perhaps TFTTR will change my feelings about his work.

To Douglas M, #9.

 I’ll be so glad if you can get over thinking “On the Beach” is all there is to Nevil Shute.  I can understand your view, especially if all you know of it is the movie.  The book is somewhat better, but still not one of Shute’s best by any means.  It is about good people, behaving well in an awful situation, but being totally passive.  No valuing involved.

If you like Trustee from the Toolroom, try A Town Like Alice, a close second in my view.  It actually has villains, the Japanese during WWII, but the story is not about the hero[ine] vs them, it is about…well, maybe you can name it better than I can.

Enjoy, I hope.

Yes, Trustee from the Toolroom is his best. I haven’t read it in a long time, so I can’t recall enough to analyze its central conflict. But since his novels are about character, I assume it’s an issue of a man’s choice to remain loyal to his highest value, and not to sacrifice it. (I do remember the benevolence of the help he got from unexpected corners, as he traveled the world.)

A Town Like Alice rivals Trustee for top honors in his work. It is more obviously Romantic. Everyone should read it.

While I’m on the subject of terrific books that not all Objectivists know, if you haven’t read Shane by Jack Schaeffer, you have a treat in store for you. The well-known movie is only a very pale reflection of the novel.

I enjoyed The Martian, although I felt there was a real lack of internal conflict, which gave it a certain deterministic feel. 

Matt Damon’s character, for example, just seemed destined to solve problem after problem as if the will to do so was automatic. He gave a short monologue at the end of the movie explaining the basic choice to act or give up and die, but the struggle to make this choice was never made real.

Aside from the main character, there were many opportunities for internal conflict that were simply passed off with a word or two. The decision of the crew to spend another 400 days in space and risk their lives in order to save their stranded colleague was presented as a “no-brainer.” And the conflict on the ground regarding whether or not it was “about one man or the safety of the entire crew” was settled with a few short exchanges.  

Like I said, I enjoyed the movie, but I do find the lack of internal conflict to be quite prevalent in today’s movies, and this lessens my enjoyment of them.

I agree with Harry Mullin that the movie does justice to the book.  It is an excellent translation of the book (and reasonably faithful in detail) into a standard length movie medium.  But for those who see the movie and haven’t read the book, be aware that the movie had to have roughly only about 30% of the scenes of the book.  There were many many more situations in the book, in which Watney, the hero, had to solve scientific and technological problems, or suffer the deadly consequences.  To the extent the inventiveness and skill of Watney, in the face of adversity, is the core attraction of the movie, then the book is even more of a pleasure.  Of course, some may like the film more because it is, after all, a film, with all its visual excitement and immediacy.  But in the novel there is extra pleasure involved in all the scenes that in the movie had to be cut to make it standard length.

Also, one important detail was changed in the movie, and I’m not sure why.  In the book he is an engineer, known as Mr. Fixit by the crew and NASA, and simultaneously a botanist.  (The astronauts all had more than one crucial area of expertise.)  In the movie, he is portrayed only as a botanist, who happens to also be very skilled at mechanical and electrical systems.  It seems the writer decided that the audience couldn’t grasp that one person could have two specialities.  In the book, his botanical knowledge is crucial for one important technique he uses to stay alive, but almost all of the other methods he comes up with to stay alive are driven by his mechanical engineering skills.

 “It seems the writer decided that the audience couldn’t grasp that one person could have two specialities.”

I have studied screen writing and written ‘spec’ scripts so I’ll suggest another explanation for why this issue is handled as it is in the movie.

In adapting any book for film, one must keep the movie audience with you in telling the story. The name is ‘movie’. They move and then they’re gone which is part of the valuable immediacy of film.

On the other hand if there’s something you don’t get while seeing the movie you can’t, as you might reading the novel, take a break, get a cup of tea, reread the passage, think about it, etc.

Writers doing an adaptation are aware of this issue and do seek a certain simplicity of story telling consistent with telling the whole story and not ‘dumbing down’.

I can’t be sure that this concept applies here but since people seem to think that the writer generally handled the adaptation well, it’s possible that it did.

I enjoyed “The Martian,” but not to the extent of others on HBL. I agree with Jim Allard that the lack of internal and inter-personal conflict made it seem deterministic. I recall two good moments to the contrary, however. Both involved decisions that the commander of the mother ship (“Hermes”) had to make: one at the beginning and one at the end.

P.S. There was some sub-rosa agenda about China; does the book, like the film, seem to push China and the Chinese?

The left out scenes  John G. mentions I think account for the “determinism” noted.  For those who felt that after seeing the movie, I’d be curious if you read the book whether you  still feel that way.

There are 4 major catastrophes/challenges he faces in the book – only 1.5 are shown. I say 0.5 because the HAB explosion is shown  but not explained. He has to figure out what happened and why. Just duct taping over the hole makes little  sense in my view. 

Douglas M’s point about the medium is certainly true (I found his “the name is ‘movie'” observation particularly helpful). Nevertheless, I think there were many opportunities to  remove extraneous wide shots of Utah red desert scenes and include more of the story. For example, Purnell’s explanation of his “maneuver” that the Hermes uses was very well done. Also showing how Damon planted the garden using fast stop-motion worked well. By contrast, Damon’s preparation of the Rover and the near disaster involved is not explained at all. “The  combined intelligence of the planet came up with ‘drill holes and hit it with a rock'” was very funny. But showing why it was necessary and what the astronaut needed to accomplish would have improved the suspense of the film in my view without confusing an audience.

As to the Chinese (HB’s question), I don’t think there was a sub-rosa agenda. The “scientist to scientist” comment by the Chinese Space chief seemed to be another riff on the anti-bureaucratic theme of the book and movie. Or more positively, the constant portrayal of how thinking minds work, rules be damned. 

One particular example of this thinking was how the Hermes captain comes up with blowing the hatch to slow the ship down–recall the Damon character’s attempt to be Iron Man. “How does he come up with this  stuff…” says one of the crew in admiring exasperation.

The constant demonstration of just this distinctively human capacity kept me from putting the book down and left me cheering after the  movie.

I have yet to see The Martian, but some of the comments, e.g., “there was a real lack of internal conflict, which gave it a certain deterministic feel,” reminded me of another observation Miss Rand made in her Fiction Writing book.

Recalling from memory, she said the difference between genuine, absorbing, suspenseful drama and mere melodrama was that element of internal conflict, though I don’t think she used those words. If I understand (and remember) correctly, she meant making a character have to resolve a difficult moral dilemma. He starts out convinced he’s right, then has to challenge and overcome that core belief — and the tougher it is on the hero, the better.

Or, as HB put it in Posting #7, above, the highest sort of conflict of values is: “Good vs. mistaken good (Roark vs. Dominique and Wynand, Galt and Francisco vs. Dagny and Rearden).” 

To say she was good at making things tough on her heroes is a vast understatement! 

I think there is a certain confusion about The Martian. It is true that the main character does not have a conflict–that is because he made the choice to live right away and NASA et al. supported him (except in one instance). This does not imply determinism. In a certain way the movie is a much more exciting and sophisticated version of the “life in danger” type of story that used to be found in Readers Digest (e.g., lost in a plane crash in the wilderness, injured and surrounded by wolves). I don’t know if RD still does this kind of piece; they used to have one of these in almost every issue–man, determined to survive, against nature. But the struggle for survival was always a choice. Of course, RD always brought in God–the movie, mercifully, did not.

You can say that this type of story does not make for a great art work due to the lack of conflict, even lack of plot. (AR says plot has to be based on conflict). It simply shows heroism, problem-solving, and tenacity. The triumph of reason over nature. That’s what you can love about it. In this near-bankrupt culture it is great to see something like this, especially on a planetary scale. (Artistically Belle was a better movie).

I really appreciate Dr. Locke’s thoughtful comments. His comparison of “The Martian” to Reader’s Digest stories is perfect. I’ve always loved those stories for the reasons he states:

heroism, problem solving, tenacity. The triumph of reason over nature. That’s what you can love about it.  

Without detracting from these important values, I think it’s beneficial to analyze one’s own experience in terms of what was actually portrayed in the movie vs. what one filled in based on his own (Objectivist) knowledge. 

The movie’s lack of internal conflict doesn’t imply determinism, rather it is experienced as determinism.

While the main character made the choice to live right away (like flipping a switch) and then proceeded to take all the existential actions that this choice implied, I know that life is not like this. I know that the choice to live is an ongoing process that requires strength of will and resolve of character, especially for a man struggling to survive, alone on a planet without food, water or oxygen. 

This crucial (internal) aspect of being a man was largely absent in the film, yet I can admire the problem solving, triumph of reason over nature, etc. – the struggle to survive – because I understand the kind of character and volitional resolve that this kind of struggle requires. Thus, I can project these virtues onto the main character. I can see his problem solving and his use of reason over nature and understand that this is the product, not of a deterministic machine, but of a volitional mind at its best – of man at his best.

But that’s the rub. Art is not a presentation of ideas to be evaluated, it’s the concretization of ideas to be experienced. “The Martian” did not show volition, it showed the results of volition and left it to the viewer to fill in the hole.

Nevertheless, I want to stress again, that I did enjoy the film and completely agree with Dr. Locke when he says,

In this near-bankrupt culture it is great to see something like this, especially on a planetary scale.

Yes, to both Ed Lock and Jim Allard, who don’t really disagree. All that would have been required to make the movie dramatize conflict and volition is to show the hero, Watney, struggling against a desire to give up. The most obvious way to do that would be for him to have arranged some high tech, highly visual, way of ending it quickly–i.e., his suicide. The have him start to initiate the suicide process, watch it begin, then leap to interrupt it, and say something, like “No! I still have my mind. There must be a way. I can beat this planet.” 

Maybe a back story, presented earlier in flashback, of him earlier in life facing and surmounting a smaller-scale challenge, when those around him were telling him that it’s impossible and to give up.

There would have to be several similar dramatizations of him wrestling with himself, perhaps giving him some (valid or mistaken) premise pulling him in the other direction.

I’d bring in the line from Housman’s poem. Maybe, instead of that stupid disco music, he finds someone has brought a book of poetry on the trip. He reads aloud,

And how am I to face the odds

Of man’s bedevilment and God’s.

I, a stranger and afraid

In a world I never made.

Then he responds, “I DID make this world. I fought hard to get here, to make it my home for 6 months. I am not a stranger. I am not afraid. The odds are long–REALLY long. But I can face them. I won’t give up.”

I have not yet seen the movie but I think it’s reasonable to propose an internal conflict for the leading character based on what he might have gone through to decide to go to Mars prior to the beginning of the story. He would have considered the fact that going to another planet entailed significant risk of death before he decided to do so.

That the story tellers chose not to dramatize this may be a defect of the movie itself but I think the internal conflict was available if they had chosen to do so.

In a work of art, the sense of life conveyed by the work, and the work’s effectiveness in conveying this sense-of-life, trump everything else. An analysis of the techniques used in the work can add to one’s enjoyment of the work, but it is not essential.

HB in #20 wrote:

All that would have been required to make the movie dramatize conflict and volition is to show the hero, Watney, struggling against a desire to give up.

While that did not happen in the movie, it definitely did in the book.

Regarding comment 19 (Jim Allard) and 20 (Harry Binswanger):

Harry says: “All that would have been required to make the movie dramatize conflict and volition is to show the hero, Watney, struggling against a desire to give up.”

Jim says: “‘The Martian’ did not show volition, it showed the results of volition and left it to the viewer to fill in the hole.”

I don’t agree that the film (or book) failed to dramatize conflict and volition.  First, AR defined conflict fundamentally as a conflict of values within oneself (in “Art of Fiction”, chapter 4).  The author presented plenty of conflicts for Watney in the book, though in the movie the screenwriter and director made much less of that trove of conflicting circumstances, and focused more on making it an action flick.  But even sticking to the movie, Watney faces internal conflict when devising his system of making soil (so he won’t starve to death) because he describes the unbelievably disgusting details of having to stockpile his and other crew members’ feces and work with them to make use of the bacteria they posses that can create viable soil for planting crops.  And he describes his choice to risk blowing himself up in order to create large quantities of water, by manipulating hydrogen and oxygen and lethal fire (which could easily explode him and his habitation).  Simultaneously, such instances are concretizations of volition. 

And for conflict with others, a couple instances are, the bitter fight among the managers regarding informing the Hermes crew of Watney’s survival; and the NASA flight director’s deliberate subversion of the NASA Director’s decision to not use the inventive solution for rescuing Watney which a NASA orbital dynamics math wiz came up with.

As for HB’s issue of showing a struggle to give up and not do so — the film doesn’t do a great job of that, whereas the book does, so that is again the adaptation’s problem.  A related limitation of the film (as good as it is), is evident by the fact that the novel had at least two separate scenes in which Watney mentions that he figured out how he would commit suicide if he failed at a crucial task, rather than waste away and die. 

As for Jim Allard’s sentence I quote above, I really can’ t make sense of it, since “The Martian” is presenting volition concretely every minute, and as AR insisted, a good artwork acts for the beholder as an inductive emotional and intellectual experience in that you take the particulars presented and grasp the wide underlying issue yourself.  The movie/book is a paean to volition as well as to determination and grit and clear thinking under enormous pressure, in the face of massive challenges.  I can’t make real the “hole” that JA refers to.

As AR says in “The Art of Fiction” (Chapter 3), which is relevant here, in regard to how a writer chooses to portray his characters and present his plot:

“If man has the capacity of choice, then he can plan the events of his life; he can set himself purposes and achieve them. If so, his life is not a series of accidents. Events do not “just happen” to him; he chooses what he makes happen (and if accidents occur, his purpose is to overcome them). He is the architect of his own life.”

The author Weir certainly portrayed his character Watney as the architect of his own life.

I’ve been enjoying the interesting posts regarding The Martian, and the secondary topic of Nevil Shute, brought up by Cynthia Gillis (Posting #10, above) and mentioned by HB (#11). Since I’m a big fan of Shute’s books and recently reread Trustee From the Toolroom, I thought I’d weigh in on the conflicts in the plot, without revealing any plot-spoilers.

One conflict, which is a recurring theme of Shute’s, is man vs. government — innocent men trying to escape the effects of an overreaching, over-taxing, growingly-socialist British government. I’d say this is the central conflict because it’s what sets the plot in motion, requires the hero to attempt some ingenious problem-solving, and sets the terms for the final resolution of the story.

There’s also an element of man vs. nature, through which he shows how this conflict is or ought to be faced by courageous men. And there’s an element of man vs. man, and an internal conflict — the hero, at one point, is faced with the choice of standing by his convictions or giving in — a choice made tougher by the fact that his expertise has largely been gained by designing and building models, and his conclusions challenge the expertise of a wealthy industrialist and a team of experts.

Shute’s themes honor and celebrate competent people from all walks of life. And they always express such enormous benevolence that one is left with the feeling of being uplifted, and of enjoying the privilege of spending time in his world.

Thinking about this (and some wonderful private emails with other HBLers) motivated me to take from my bookshelf The Far Country, another Shute novel that I’ve had for years, which I’m now enjoying all over again.

John Gillis writes:

I don’t agree that the film (or book) failed to dramatize conflict and volition.

… Watney faces internal conflict when devising his system of making soil (so he won’t starve to death) because he describes the unbelievably disgusting details of having to stockpile his and other crew members’ feces and work with them to make use of the bacteria they posses that can create viable soil for planting crops.

I don’t see internal conflict here. Watney was disgusted by the process of stockpiling feces, but the choice was never dramatized. He wasn’t conflicted over it, he simply did it because that’s what he had to do.

And being disgusted by feces is not the kind of thing a man deserted on Mars would be conflicted over – or even care about – which is why he was making a joke of it more than anything.

And he describes his choice to risk blowing himself up in order to create large quantities of water, by manipulating hydrogen and oxygen and lethal fire (which could easily explode him and his habitation).  Simultaneously, such instances are concretizations of volition.

These are instances of volition, but they are not dramatizations of volition. He simply stated that there was a risk as he proceeded to go about his business. Yes, it was a choice, but he made it with the ease of deciding to cross the street or choosing between chocolate and vanilla – even easier than this, because what other choice did he have? He had to do what he had to do, right? He had to follow the science.

Contrast “The Martian” with “Castaway” staring Tom Hanks, which has a similar theme. Hanks has to figure out how to survive on a small uninhabited island, cutoff from civilization. Although, it was nominally a story of man vs. nature, the majority of the conflict was internal: Could he go on? Was it worth it to him? Would he be rescued? How does he deal with loneliness, failure and uncertainty?

“Castaway” does not feature the kind of heroic use of reason that “The Martian” does, but it does offer a better dramatization of man’s basic choice and will to live – that it is a choice.

Just read Shane on HB’s recommendation — very good novel, highly recommended.

I saw The Martian yesterday and really enjoyed it. To me the best aspects of the film was the fact that it unequivocally concretized the efficacy of reason and the power of science.

One of my favorite scenes depicts the purpose Whatney finds for a crucifix.

Most HBLers are probably pretty tired of the Martian discussion, but I’m going to take a chance and bring it up again.

Based on the private recommendation of several HBLers (thank you!) I’ve postponed seeing the movie until finishing the book, which I did a couple of days ago. It was terrific! And now I’m looking forward that much more to seeing the movie.

As John Gillis (#24) mentioned, in the book there are several instances of internal conflict in Watney’s mind, not only with regard to planning possible methods of suicide, but also one brief scene in which he is in despair with the sheer magnitude of his tasks, and with things that keep going wrong. He’s briefly tempted to give up, but almost immediately turns back to solving the problems he’s confronted with.

As others have said, the book is a wonderful illustration of the idea that man survives only through ceaseless use of his rational faculty. This is dramatized by the supremely inhospitable Martian environment, but it reminded me of an important point made by Alex Epstein in his book The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels: the same holds true here on earth.

Environmentalists speak endlessly about the mystique of “unspoiled nature.” But the natural environment of planet earth, unimproved by the awesome technological developments most of us enjoy today, is not very hospitable either. Okay — it’s better than Mars. But compare the life expectancy of human beings back when they were “one with nature” with what it is today. Here’s to “spoiling” things as thoroughly as we can!