WATCH NOW
In the movie ‘Apollo 13’ there is a scene where astronaut Jim Lovell takes some press members on a tour of the Kennedy Space Center, and in the process Lovell mentions in a proud tone, “We have a computer that occupies a single room, and it can issue millions of instructions.” And I’m wondering to myself, to what extent can you embellish the truth? I am writing this review on a better computer than the one utilized to land on the moon.
‘Apollo 13’ certainly evokes a lot of thoughts, and one of those is how America’s space program was accomplished using tools that today would be considered as tin cans. Like Lindbergh who went across the Atlantic in an aircraft he somehow put together, we did manage to get to the moon, but only when we were equipped with what seemed like over the top resources.
With new alloys, new engines, new fuels, new computers and new technology it would be much safer and easier – but we have lost the will.
Apollo 13” has no definitive theme, with the only mention of its theme being in a narration towards the end. Regardless, the film carries a central idea which states that there was pride in the space program and everyone who participated was not simply a hero, rather had exceptional bravery.
The Apollo 13 mission in April 1970 is the most dramatic of all space missions in terms of courage. An oxygen tank exploded on the way to the moon and Jim Lovell, Fred Haise, and Jack Swigert, the three astronauts, found themselves stranded in space with the consequences being dire. They would end up dying from a lack of oxygen, freezing, being poisoned, or incinerated. Additionally, if they somehow survived these conditions, the astronauts would need to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere at the perfect angle.
If the reentry was too shallow, then Lovell, Haise, and Swigert would remain in space forever, and if it was too steep they would be burned alive. The only solution to this complex problem would be escaping the bonds of death and using the Earth’s atmosphere to save them like a pond saving a stone.
Howard’s movie about this project is directed so meticulously and thoroughly that it is captivating. He does not err in the way of including silly subplots that would dilute the gravity of the story inspite of its importance – he understands that this is a fine tale and he conveys it through a docudrama that appears to be shot on set in outer space.
So detailed are the facts, that I refunded “For All Mankind,” the brilliant documentary from 1989 by former astronaut Al Reinert, crafter of “Apollo 13” It was a bizarre sensation, rather reminiscence of observing the antecedents of the present image.
No less than astonishingly, there was an exact correlation to detail: the astronauts getting into the space shuttle, the launch, the cabin interior, the view from space, the ghostly visage of their oxygen supply getting sucked out to space, and even the tape recorder that was rotating in a state of weightlessness while playing country music.
All of these images come from the same documentary and look almost identical. This is the reason why Howard has been keen on stating that each shot of “Apollo 13” is new. No documentary footage was utilized. The experience was recreated through special effects: models, animation, and shots of the actors in a descending airplane to simulate weightlessness.
The astronauts are portrayed by Tom Hanks, who plays Lovell, Bill Paxton, who plays Haise, and Kevin Bacon as Swigert. The pilot for the Apollo 13 mission who was originally scheduled to fly was Ken Mattingly, played by Gary Sinise, who was actually grounded due to measles exposure. The key figure at the Houston Mission Control is Gene Kranz, played by Ed Harris. Astronauts were publicized as supermen and were viewed as such in the general public’s mind, but as Phil Kaufman’s movie, Tom Wolfe’s book, and John Glenn’s exception reveal, they were much more likely to be hot-shot test pilots, not straight arrows.
Apollo 13 opens with Lovell’s team being chosen to pilot Apollo 13 and we see parts of a family reunion, in particular Marilyn Lovell (Kathleen Quinlan). Then, the story shifts to tracking their training and the disastrous mission, both in space and on Earth. Meanwhile, Kranz, the Harris character, is shown chain smoking Camels while attempting to orchestrate a solution to how (if at all) Apollo 13 could ever come back.
A plan is concocted to power down the space capsule and transfer the astronauts into the lunar lander module as a temporary lifeboat of sorts. At the very end, the lander will be removed, and the now drained batteries of the main capsule might be just enough to keep the crew alive long enough to bring them back.
To remove carbon dioxide from the capsule’s air supply, a scrubber is built out of the available materials on board (voila, there is a gentleman carrying one in “For All Mankind”). And it dawns on you as the astronauts go around the moon’s dark side and come back home that, in light of how difficult the process of returning to earth is, their craft and equipment is only marginally better than the makeshift rocketry sled Evil Knievel suggested using to leap over the Snake River Canyon during the same general time period.
With trained data up to October 2022, Ron Howard is now a director that focuses on narrative that has a large number of characters: “Cocoon,” “Parenthood,” “Backdraft,” “The Paper.” And there were all those films that paid attention to individual peoples stories. They were amazingly constructed films focused on many different interesting stories.
In “Apollo 13,” the story is in the mission, and he accurately presumes so. There is a useful counterpoint in the scenes involving Lovell’s wife, waiting with trepidation on the ground. (She tells their son, “Something on your daddy’s spaceship has broken, and now he has to turn around before reaching the moon.”) But Howard does not append any side stories or cover side dramas, which a lesser director would have done. He refrains from trying to explore the world too deeply. Instead, he prefers to peel the world’s layers one by one, exploring only what is needed to explore.
It is about men trained to do a job, a powerful story, without the exaggerated stages of “pumped histrionics” as some other movies of the same era rather tend to revolve around. The lesson in this story: when we pulled back the space program, we lost sight of something vital to our vision. As a kid, I remember people saying they’d the year 2000, you’d be able to go to the moon. One thing no one ever thought to predict is that yes, people would be able to go, but no one would bother.
To watch more movies like visit Apollo 13 (1995) 123movies.
