Since the earliest years of cinema, science fiction has
inspired filmmakers. Its major subjects — space travel, time travel, alien
encounters, robots, the future — translate easily to
film, the most magical of the arts, the most hospitable to the possibilities of
fantasy. The form also responds to the dreams and fears of its time — the
threat of a hot or cold war, the possible existence of a superior civilization,
the concept of some apocalyptic disaster.
Not surprisingly, as a result of advances in technology, the
form continues to flourish and remains immensely popular in our time;
unfortunately, it also tends to depend less on the imagination of speculative
fiction than on the available chemical, technical, and electronic developments.
Most contemporary science fiction movies rely for their appeal on stunts,
explosions, and computer generated images, with all the depth and subtlety of
the comic books they so often adapt.
The new movie “I Origins” (a pretty much meaningless pun of a
title) differs from most science fiction in actually employing some of the
authentic, verifiable science and technology of our time as its subject and as
a vehicle for its meaning. Amazingly, in a refreshing departure from
contemporary fashion, beyond the usual magic of the cinema itself, it uses no
special effects, no car chases, no superheroes or supervillains.
Partially narrated by its protagonist, a scientist named Ian
Gray (Michael Pitt), it confronts the ancient questions about the conflict of
reason and faith, body and spirit, fact and truth. Gray’s work concentrates on the evolution of
the eye, studying the development of vision in various animals, ultimately
leading to experiments in creating vision in eyeless creatures. By coincidence, a random series of odd events
leads him to a billboard displaying a compelling pair of eyes; by another
coincidence he meets and falls in love with Sofi
(Astrid Bergès-Frisbey), the woman whose eyes appear
on the sign.
Although fueled by mutual passion,
their relationship also emphasizes the essential debate between the scientist
who respects only facts and the believer who assumes the existence of the soul.
The tragic ending of their love leads Ian to a deeper level of research and
finally draws in the science of ocular identification, the fact that the human
eye is as distinctive and individual as the fingerprint. The movie opens again
seven years later, with Ian married to his fellow researcher Karen (Brit
Marling) and the author of a book challenging the arguments of intelligent
design about the evolution of the eye.
When a physician tests their infant son for autism through
visual experiments, however, Ian discovers the possibility of the eyes actually
providing a window to the soul, a concept totally contrary to his work and
belief. He and Karen ingeniously solve a genuine mystery that results from the
tests on his son, a feat that finally inspires him to travel to India — where
the government institutes a program of ocular identification — in search of
another pair of eyes. That search inspires the strong emotion that ferments
beneath the surface of Ian’s life and work, even the motivation he had not
realized existed behind his research
The movie’s series of mysteries and quests provides a strong
structure for the display of its central problem, a generally convincing
depiction of the conflict between science and belief, the substantial and the
mystical. In its final resolution, it also establishes a quite reasonable
combination of intelligence and emotion, which need not necessarily conflict in
the ways that Ian initially believes.
Again unlike most of its kind, “I Origins” depends for its
meanings on a resolutely authentic exploration of the science and technology of
its time. Ian’s laboratory looks like the real thing, his work looks like real
work, and the locations in New York and Delhi provide an entirely plausible
context for the picture’s subject and themes. The script consciously avoids
anything like melodrama or exaggeration in most of its important moments and
suggests that science fiction film at its best can raise the sorts of questions
that often propelled the plots and people of its previous incarnations. The
form needn’t follow the pretensions of the comic books, but may aspire to
something more solid and more profound.
This article appears in Jul 30 – Aug 5, 2014.
