Mark Reviews Movies: THE AERONAUTS

Become a fan on Facebook Follow on Twitter

Review by Mark Dujsik | December 5, 2019

With The Aeronauts, screenwriter Jack Thorne really pushes the limits of "inspired" in the phrase "inspired by a true story." This tale, about a pair of balloonists who break an altitude record for science and in order to prove themselves, is certainly based on a real event. The problem—at least for those who genuinely care about such things—is that only one of the central characters was a real person.

Does it really matter? It almost certainly will, again, for some, who prize historical accuracy over the fictional fancies of filmmakers. For most, though, it'll probably just be a bit of trivia to attach to an underwhelming movie. Yes, James Glaisher, a scientist who was among the pioneers of meteorology, existed, and indeed, he did take to hot-air balloons on multiple occasions in order to take measurements amidst the layers of the Earth's atmosphere. One of those trips, in 1862, was the one depicted here, in which Glaisher and Henry Tracey Coxwell, an avid balloonist, ascended to the highest recorded altitude at the time.

Glaisher's story and the achievement of that record are depicted here, although the scientist's real-life co-pilot isn't present in the balloon. Considering how dull Glasisher is in terms of his motives and his general character, perhaps the elimination of Coxwell from the flight is for the best.

That's the thing about changing history. It's questionable, for sure, especially when filmmakers are banking on the notion that their story is worthwhile, primarily because it actually happened. It's also, though, a dramatic necessity at times.

Could Thorne and director Tom Harper have made an engaging story about two learned men taking to the skies, taking measurements, and eventually facing a life-or-death struggle to descend to the ground? They could have, although it would have been a completely different movie. It also seems unlikely, based on the evidence of the movie we did get, which features an invented character who's far more compelling than Glaisher is and Coxwell probably would have been.

That character is Amelia Wren (Felicity Jones), a professional balloonist, whom James (Eddie Redmayne) calls out of self-imposed retirement and isolation to help him on his study. Before a certain insecure segment of the male human population works itself into a tizzy, yes, Amelia is a woman, and yes, her character is replacing a man from the historical record in this fictionalized account. Without her presence, though, it's arguable that this story wouldn't possess even the inkling of dramatic conflict and impact that the movie does have.

The story itself, which is just the two characters ascending in a hot-air balloon while talking and taking measurements, essentially plays out in real time, with a lot of flashbacks filling in the gaps and the repetitive parts of the flight. We learn that James has become a laughing stock in the scientific community of London for his idea that weather can be predicted. Redmayne plays him with the self-seriousness and tunnel-vision determination that one would expect.

Now, imagine that James' partner is of a similar nature. That might not work as well as having Amelia as the balloon's pilot. She's an entertainer through and through, who arrives at the balloon launch riding atop a carriage and doing flips on the stage. When the balloon is in the air, away from the curious eyes of the audience assembled to see history made, she removes the stage makeup and gets down to business. This is serious, dangerous work, and she knows that. Her (also fictional) husband Pierre (Vincent Perez) died while on a flight with Amelia. She watched him fall out of the balloon to his death thousands of feet beneath her. That's the reason she stopped: Amelia blames her own reckless need for glory as the reason her husband died.

All of this information is communicated through those flashbacks, which take up a good portion of the story. They're about as enlightening as they sound, which is to say that we get the point of these characters as soon as the key information about their pasts is revealed. The rest of it, which seems to exist to fill in time before the situation in the balloon becomes perilous, repeats the same details or explains how Amelia and James connected for this flight. Accuracy doesn't inherently make a story interesting, but inaccuracy doesn't necessarily make a story so, either.

As an adventure tale, about a feat of derring-do among and above the clouds, the movie is occasionally thrilling. Harper relishes in the depictions of those great heights (giving us vertigo-inducing shots looking down as Amelia tries to fix some things) and the natural forces working upon the characters as they rise (There's a storm, which turns to hail at a certain height, and the freezing cold above the clouds makes one of Amelia's hands mostly useless—when she needs it the most). The lengthy climax has Amelia traversing up the balloon to release the air, and it's genuinely terrifying.

None of those feats, though, explains or justifies exactly why this story is important or worth telling in this particular way. The Aeronauts sometimes works as a visceral experience, but the human side of its tale is severely lacking.

Back to Home

Buy Related Products