Updated: 21 June 1997

APOLLO 13

3/4

If you are comparing notes, you'll notice that of the five movies nominated in 1996, I gave this show the lowest marks. I may be evaluating the film unfairly, based on...well, read on.

Let me first say that I very much enjoyed not only this movie, but the quality of the filmmaking. I really think Ron Howard outdid himself here, in everything from the tight space he had to work with on the ship, to the authentic feel of time on the surface.

The performances are rightly credited with being outstanding across the board. Ed Harris is excellent, in a role that would have seemed written for him had it not come from real life. The rest of the "crew" is outstanding as well. The one caveat here might be the normally brilliant Gary Sinise--whose performance, oddly, I felt I had seen before.

And the story.

Here we finally come to the big "BUT." The story is both the tremendous strength of the film, and its weakness. This, I feel, is in the way that Ron Howard has approached it. Allow me to explain:

Before seeing the movie, I repeatedly heard of how this incident seemed almost fabricated for the sake of drama, playing out like a dream of Aristotle's, therefore perfect for dramatization. I had also heard, years before, about how the incident was ultimately resolved. Herein lies the problem. Knowing what's going to happen--how it is going to end--deflates the drama and basically reduces the suspense to nil.

Now, this might not have been a problem, were this movie shot as a character piece. Had it centered on the interaction between the players as they faced their dilemma, developing their personalities relative to each other and their danger, then drawing meaning from their reactions, the entire issue would have been sidestepped thoroughly. But then it would have been a different movie.

Ron Howard saw a story brimming with tension, wrapped in voyeuristic suspense. A perfect subject. He shot a film that everyone already knew the ending to, unraveling his intentions. I found it frustrating to sit there during moments that were supposed to heighten the thrill I was supposed to be having. It was clutter. I waited instead for the neat weightless scenes that I knew were genuine, trying to catch a glimpse of Hollywood mechanisms in the great set. So much for dramatic elements.

Hitchcock knew that suspense could be built on a cunning combination of an audience's ignorance and foreknowledge. He would allude to the bad thing that was going to happen [or to the bad thing that very well could happen]. He then would string you along wondering when [or if] the fright trap would spring. This is the heart of suspense. And APOLLO 13, sadly, had already donated its heart to history.

Ron Howard has made a very good film. As I said-I very much enjoyed it. But it was not, I think, the film he intended to make. If I am unfair in my assessment, it is in assigning so much value to the standard of director's intent. The story controlled this movie. A film like COCOON felt more in the grasp of a master who knew precisely what he wanted from his work. Academy-Award nominated movies should fall into the category of the latter, not the former.