Voyagers
Voyagers PG-13 Lionsgate 2021
In 1954, William Golding wrote the perennial High School classic “Lord of the Flies” about a group of British boys stranded on an uninhabited island and their disastrous and often lethal attempt to develop their own society. Voyager writer and director, Neil Burger, took that idea and put it in outer space. The time is 2063. The Earth is in bad shape and a suitable planet to colonize has been found but it will take an 86-year long journey to reach it. So, a couple of dozen genetically generated children are created and raised within the confines of a contained environment deprived of a normal human experience to make the journey without feeling the loss of Earth. Along the way, they will reproduce, and raise up a few generations who will reach the planet and begin a new human colony.
Richard, a compassionate, well-intentioned scientist, played by Colin Farrell (The Gentleman, Alexander the Great) insists on joining the youthful travelers with whom he has bonded, on the journey. Apparently, the plan before this was to pile a few dozen twelve-year-old children into a spaceship with a computer program to raise them, launch them into deep dark space, and wish them well. What could possibly go wrong with that?
The children are daily given a liquid supplement (cleverly called “The Blue” because it is blue) which unknowingly suppresses their emotional desires and helps them remain calm for the long journey. It also represses interest in sex to prevent the youth from reproducing too early and creating a population explosion on the ship that would endanger the mission. It is designated that the youth will reproduce at the optimal health age of twenty-four through artificial means. A couple of inquisitive teens Christopher, played by Tye Sheridon (Ready Player One, The Night Clerk) and Zac (“Dunkirk” alum Fionn Whitehead) discover the true intention of the blue and stop taking it. The result is a lack of impulse control and hormonal behavior that reveals the true personalities of the genetically created children to varying results. After the unfortunate and abrupt death of Richard, a power struggle grows between the straight-shooting Christopher and the shady Zac that splits the crew into two camps. The teens all stop taking the blue drink and chaos ensues.
If this sounds like a long set-up, that is because it is. And Burger’s premise is clever and interesting in the tension it creates considering the teens are aware that they will never reach the planet and are forced to console themselves with the knowledge that they exist solely to serve the needs of a future generation. However, the execution of the premise often leaves audiences who can readily see the problems with the plan asking themselves why certain decisions were made. It is difficult for a movie not to come across as insipid when the audience is that far ahead of the plot.
Lionsgate’s marketing of “Voyagers” truly mischaracterized the film as a sex-drenched teen nightclub in space. Clearly the studio didn’t have confidence in the film’s merits to try and sell the story on what it actually is which is a philosophical look at human nature. There are characters who seek out their more noble selfless natures and those that give in to their lesser demons and quickly devolve. There are plenty of timely examples of the crew blindly following political leaders who fuel their fears with hatemongering and monster stories to misguide them. There is a poignant scene where a crew member is falsely accused, and the crew is convinced to murder him based purely on fear and hatred. Just as Golding’s novel, highlights our societal weaknesses to avoid them, Voyagers follows the same idea. And the results are a timely look at our culture that deserves discussion.
The acting is effective across the board and the plot is intriguing, however, critics will likely write this off as a teen flick because the actors are all young and attractive and there are some plot holes in the premise that are difficult to overlook. Some would argue that “Lord of the Flies” suffers from the same problem, but that doesn’t eliminate it as a relevant novel. Burger didn’t help his cause by throwing in a few gratuitous moments of awkward sexuality and shots of partially dressed cast members in an effort to attract teen audiences. Who knows how much of that was the director’s decision and how much was forced on him by the studio?
That being said. It isn’t a movie for kids. Adults and their older teens might find it intriguing for a thoughtful conversation, but the sensuality might be a bit uncomfortable to sit through together. There is a considerable amount of blunt violence creating uneasy moments. So sadly, a thoughtful remake of “Lord of the Flies” with some interesting points for meaningful contemporary dialogue falls victim to the salacious Hollywood machine whose excesses overplay storytelling once again. So just like our food processors who lace all our food with corn syrup to get us to consume it, movie makers feel this incessant need to dip all our movies in sex and violence because they don’t believe our youth will ever be drawn to intellectual ideals on their own.
Content Overview
Language: Surprisingly none
Sexual content: We catch a brief glimpse of two teens engaging in sex. Flashes of close-up bare skin are shown to represent budding sexuality, the two main characters make out on a bed, nothing explicit is shown, they wake up together. A good amount of sexual content is inferred. A boy repeatedly grabs a girl in a very inappropriate manner.
Violence: Several murders occur. A great deal of punching and hitting. There is an attempting stabbing and a few instances of assault. A man is electrocuted.
Objectionable content: Video clips of war are briefly shown as are clips of animals hunting and eating each other. A girl who is trying to calm the insanity is bullied and murdered for speaking up against a crowd.
