Jennifer Lawrence - Aurora Lane (Passengers) #7: "It's a helluva life!" - Page 13

**Jen's Herald** · 02-07-2017, 06:31 PM

i would never want to be on the bad side of Aurora.

**J-LawForever** · 02-07-2017, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jen's Herald (View Post)

i would never want to be on the bad side of Aurora.

No you do not.

That was one of my fave scenes. It was so sad and heart breaking. Followed by the scene of Jim talking to her over the load speaker and how she breaks down at him.

**Jen's Herald** · 02-07-2017, 10:33 PM

here's something to consider...

Jim went a year alone, driven to near insanity and suicide, but never once considered waking up anyone, other than a crewman or officer who could help him, and obviously he thought that crew person could put them both back in hibernation. i still believe Jim was a very morale person, even with his questionable decision to wake up Aurora. he was very unstable and under severe mental stress and duress, as evidenced by his near suicide attempt, and don't forget he was drinking a lot, as a coping mechanism to loneliness and unending isolation. in his state of mind, he saw Aurora as a sort of a savior-figure, and needed that connection to maintain his tenuous hold on existence. i believe fate intervened to save his life, and the lives of those other passengers and crew, including his angel of mercy, Aurora Lane. i believe that Jim was also a believer in fate, and some part of him was seeing her as something of a life preserver to his mentally drowning self, and he grabbed on for dear life.

fate brought two totally different people together in a life-changing and dramatic situation, and saved a lot of lives in the process. fate was the unsung hero in this fine film. i really want to see it again!

**Violent Delights** · 02-08-2017, 09:08 AM

or, you know, a plothole.

TPF1138 · 02-08-2017, 10:09 AM

sunworshipper · 02-08-2017, 10:55 AM

That's not a plothole, that's the whole point of the film.

TPF1138 · 02-08-2017, 12:16 PM

Okay, now I'm not so confused.

Quote:

Passengers: A Sexist Film?

Comment writer Amber Allcock considers whether the sci-fi hit film deserved the feminist criticism it has received

Passengers was initially released on the 21st December 2016. With an impressive cast line-up (Jennifer Lawrence as Aurora and Chris Pratt as Jim) the movie was set to take the sci-fi world by storm, bringing a romantic dimension to the inter-stellar backdrop. The film centres upon the pair and their journey to a new planet, Homestead II. The star ship, Avalon, carries a total of 5000 passengers who are placed in hibernation pods, but as the ship reaches an unforeseen malfunction, Jim is awoken 90 years too early, alone, and thus begins his year of isolation which provokes his awakening of Aurora, an attractive, ambitious young woman - an action central to the film's feminist criticism.

This being a fundamental part of the plot means it is unsurprising that the film has been regarded nothing more than a ‘shallow sci-fi’ which neither the ‘rapport between Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt nor the impressive effects can quite redeem’, whilst others have regarded Jim a ‘creeper, kidnapper and abuser’ as he ‘forces Aurora to live a life of monotony with him’. He’s even been looked upon as both a rapist and a murderer - that’s some killer combination. Nonetheless, the movie spends a good chunk of the time following Jim’s internal debate to wake Aurora. If he does so, he will effectively be ‘murdering’ her, because there's no chance at reverting back to hibernation, or so the pair initially believe. If he doesn't, he risks living in misery and loneliness. It's not a spur of the moment decision of lust. He watches Aurora’s application video to Avalon, noting her ambitions and dreams to embark on the spaceship after her father encourages her to live an extraordinary life in order to write extraordinary stories like himself.

The fact that Jim debates this action, of course, doesn’t take away from its problematic nature. And we get it - who is Jim to effectively decide to take away Aurora's life? There’s no denying that Aurora’s stunning appearance had some kind of impact when he decided to awake her over the other 4998 passengers on board. But since the film is already a far-fetched extension of reality, it seems strange that someone would take a sci-fi film and analyse it as though it is intended to in anyway mirror reality or social ideals. First of all, they're on a ship to space. That's pretty out there, literally. But rather than Jim’s central action being sexist, the film seems to utilise the ‘romantic’ stereotype as a way in to its key message, which divulges a sense of what the purpose of life is - a message that can be founded in both real world and outer space contexts.

They both get a chance to live an existence unlike any other. They have determination: a goal to save the other passengers, a chance for Aurora to write the most extraordinary story of all. Sure she doesn't choose it, but they both have a sense of living; they live the most unusual story and don’t follow the normal path. By waking up early they save the ship, the lives of the passengers and even grow life – trees and nature – in order to create a better existence in time for the others. Yes, it unfortunately follows every Hollywood classic story line. Yes, it uses love and relationships as the perfect catalyst to creating the story, but for that reason it can’t be blamed entirely for its typical sexist plot, as it merely belongs to a group of movies which also do the same. If we were to look at every movie as intensely as critics seem to have looked at Passengers, we would see a need for a complete reform of the structure of films and their potential implications.

Quote:

Rather than Jim’s central action
being sexist, the film seems to
utilise the ‘romantic’ stereotype
as a way in to its key message

Besides, much of the movie’s criticism leaves out the moment where Aurora gets the choice whether to go back into hibernation, and she refuses it. She wants to create life for the future passengers, she wants to make a difference, and she wants to save them. Surely this is another fragment of evidence for the film's intention to show what true purpose of life is: compassion, companionship and love for human-kind which she acts upon when abandoning her own dreams for the greater good of the ship. All these things, in some way or another, provoked Jim to wake Aurora up in the first place. With this in mind, Aurora is hardly depicted as the passive female which these feminist critics paint her to be. She is far from submissive when she learns it was Jim that awoke her, and not a pod malfunction as she first believed. Jennifer Lawrence displays Aurora boldly - a character which at this moment is not so far from her own. As an advocate for equal pay and planned parenthood, Lawrence definitely wouldn't take up such a role if she herself thought the plot was sexist.

To reduce the film's plot to encouraging youngsters to believe that 'it’s okay to gaslight someone you think is hot, because they should sacrifice their life to Netflix and chill with you until you both die' therefore seems farfetched and extreme. Most films, in some way, contain a love story which probably depict a submissive female. But that's a whole other issue. This film, as far as I'm concerned, utilises the typical love story structure. Yes, it has the potential to create alarming speculation from a feminist perspective, but since it is such an extension of reality perhaps critics should focus on the more subdued messages that derive from a tale dominated by compassion. It's human nature to love and be loved - to turn every love story and regard it as 'bull****' and a 'pile of steaming ****e' which promotes the objectification of women seems to be missing this point. The pair instead have reformed their own lives and the lives of others, living a life of passion, purpose, and pursuit. This, for me, overrides the fact that they ‘fall in love’, which has led to critics arguing the film is just ‘one sick male fantasy'’. Ugh.

**J-LawForever** · 02-08-2017, 09:20 PM

Everything is sexist now it seems. Or another thing.

I agree with one point. critics were so hung up on one part. They completely forgot about the part where Aurora has the chance to go back to sleep and fix the error, and get her lif back. But she says no and stays with Jim instead.

sunworshipper · 02-08-2017, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-LawForever (View Post)

They completely forgot about the part where Aurora has the chance to go back to sleep and fix the error, and get her lif back. But she says no and stays with Jim instead.

No, they didn't forget. They just call it Stockholm Syndrome or that the male writers wrote her character acting according to their sexual fantasies. I swear the only thing that would have pleased some would have been Aurora pulling out a knife and plunging it into Jim's heart. screaming "Die, mother----er, die!"

TPF1138 · 02-09-2017, 04:55 AM

It's not unreasonable to note that the movie's ending is too neat, I think. For my part I feel it could use more ambiguity. They'd need to be careful not to undermine the themes, but a sense that our two protagonists have not fully resolved their issues, that there are still conversations to be had, and trusts to built (though very much on a foundation of love), would've served the finished picture better. I argued this after reading the script. Had they aimed for that, they might have gotten the debate about forgiveness and contrition that Morten Tyldum wanted, rather than the hysterical condemnation, and censure.

I think they went someway towards addressing the 'neatness' of the original draft's ending in the finished movie, but getting that balance between the romantic fantasy and the inherent human conflict is not easy. They didn't quite get where they needed to be in the final analysis, and the resolutions feel 'too easy', but that's hardly a capitol offence. Most Superhero movies are guilty of the same thing.

Bottom line: The undercurrents of sexism and sexual politics inherent in most romantic fantasy might be in evidence, as the below article concedes, but I reject the frankly reactionary charge that the movie represents a kind of deviant male fantasy.

sunworshipper · 02-09-2017, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TPF1138 (View Post)

It's not unreasonable to note that the movie's ending is too neat, I think.

I agree with that myself. Them getting back together romantically so quickly just felt wrong. Another pacing issue was how Jim's descent into deep depression was so telescoped. It worked for me personally because I was spoiled but he went from playing basketball and dancing to being completely over it in just a couple of minutes. I believe that they cut that part down to bring in Aurora sooner. The audience needed to to stew in Jim's despair a while longer to better understand his decision.

TPF1138 · 02-09-2017, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunworshipper (View Post)

I believe that they cut that part down to bring in Aurora sooner...

I think so too, but I think the real issue is that Pratt hasn't got the chops to really sell the existential despair necessary. We feel for him, but we don't feel WITH him. As a result the desperation required to 'accept' the choice he makes is not communicated as viscerally as was needed, and so doesn't penetrate to certain members of the audience. Particularly those intent on engaging with the movie more as an intellectual exercise.

Had it been Lawrence tasked with conveying that sense of crippling isolation (and I'm not advocating such a swap necessarily), then that telescoping would not have mattered. I'm not talking about gender either, I'm talking about the fact that Lawrence has made a career of crafting performances that collapse objectivity, that draw audiences into feeling what she feels, right alongside her. That's true too, of Passengers.

sunworshipper · 02-09-2017, 07:06 AM

I agree and disagree with that. I agree that a better actor could have pulled it off that abrupt transition but disagree that Pratt isn't a good enough actor to pulled it off with some help from the filmmakers. That is, I think it would have worked with more scenes showing a more gradual slide. Hell, I even think that Aurora's post-breakup story could have been beefed up to show us her own struggles with loneliness.

**Violent Delights** · 02-09-2017, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TPF1138 (View Post)

???

any half-sensible person (that figured out how to open the pods) would open one of an engineer or high-ranking official with the knowledge to solve the problem, rather than just a woman that he's attracted to/lies to and sentence them both to life in that place.

Quote:

That's not a plothole, that's the whole point of the film.

you can justify it however you need to for the existence of the film, but it just wouldn't go down like that if the characters showed basic sense when it came to how to deal with it in the first place, If not then, at least once he's already woken Aurora.

I'm all for suspending belief, but not when people justify a lack of it as being "the whole point" of a film.

TPF1138 · 02-09-2017, 09:00 AM

Oops! Double post.

Forum Affiliates
The Hunger Games Fansite, X-Men Daily, Hunger Games Daily, Jennifer Lawrence Source, JLaw Online
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page


Fan Forum > Female Celebrities > Jennifer Lawrence > Aurora Lane (Passengers) #7: "It's a helluva life!"