By Calder Stenn, Editor-in-Chief
On the surface, “Annihilation” is a blend of some of science fiction’s classics. Much of the movie follows a similar formula to that of “Arrival,” while also deriving characteristics from the Alien saga and director Alex Garland’s preceding film, “Ex Machina.”
In what seems to be his established style of heavily layered sci-fi horror, Garland adapts Jeff VanderMeer’s eponymous first novel in the “Southern Reach” trilogy into a stunning picture which, at the same time, is diminished by its deep dive into convoluted symbolism — something “Ex Machina” did a fantastic job of executing while maintaining its coherency.
The movie, which marks only Garland’s second time directing, is set primarily in a fictional place called Area X, based on the Florida coast. Lena (Natalie Portman) is a biology professor at John Hopkins University and a former soldier.
Her husband, Kane (Oscar Isaac), has been gone for over a year on a highly classified mission. Lena presumes he is dead until he returns — and suddenly becomes fatally ill.
Long story short, Lena becomes wound up in the happenings of Kane’s highly-classified government mission, which leads her to an area of marshlands where a mysterious yet ever-expanding habitat called the Shimmer has taken the lives of 12 government-sponsored teams.
The story in itself initially appears promising, especially for a movie debuting this early in the year — a time which is inundated with B- and C-list movies, post-Oscar nomination flurry — but this intrigue is dampened as the film runs its course. Think of a blockbuster with the awe-inspiring complexity of Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” and “Interstellar” but with the lackluster elaboration of J.J. Abram’s TV series, “Lost.” This sci-fi flick embodies the aforementioned description, as it becomes evident that the plot arch is practically a facade for a greater message that isn’t well articulated.
While “Ex Machina” clearly voiced a concern for the modern world and the inception of robotic beings, “Annihilation” seems to whisper a variety of messages that only further convolute the story due to their multiplicity.
It can be established that one of the movie’s primary focuses is disease, or more specifically, cancer. The Shimmer consists of an ecosystem forged by mutations. Cancer cells also appear to be an integral part in Lena’s field of study.
Other related details indicate how Garland is primarily focused on the metaphor for a disease that has plagued the world for centuries, yet the movie also speaks to another area of concern: climate change.
A subtle yet significant thematic conflict throughout “Annihilation” is person vs. self, and how humans’ self-destructive tendencies hinder them from carrying out a task. Garland alludes to this through a recurring pattern where everyone who enters the Shimmer gradually breaks down emotionally — even physically at times. This seems like a potential nod to societies’ inability to work together as a collective unit to solve the issue of climate change — specifically in the U.S.
Furthermore, the Shimmer is described as this phenomenon that is constantly changing and mutating the environment it occupies, which seems quite analogous to the way in which climate change is impacting the Earth today.
Although indications of these modern-day allusions seem rather explicit at times, “Annihilation” is still a difficult film to unpack in its two-hour timeframe. Prominent contemporary issues such as the above tend to be lost in translation during the incessant flurry of violence and other tense, fast-paced moments.
It is easy to forget what Garland is trying to convey, as his directing fluctuates between the ordinary sci-fi thriller and a highly symbolic one; there is too much of the ordinary and not enough of the latter.
Unfortunately, this manifests itself in the least convenient spot: the movie’s final act. From the get-go, this film evokes profound thematic elements in reference to modern day issues, yet fails to unify itself into a single focus — or at least is pretty confusing to actually discern.
It’s safe to assume that the movie’s conclusion is somehow related to prior thematic conflicts within “Annihilation,” but it’s much more difficult to understand exactly how. The finale ultimately seems like a newly-introduced element that further convolutes the film’s whirlwind of allusions and symbolism.
The film’s ambiguity is bothersome, but it could nonetheless become the backbone of its success, as audience members may return to give it another go.
On the other hand, whether the popular audience of moviegoers is ready for this — and something potentially more complex than Nolan’s work — is rather uncertain. Thus it is this dilemma that may sink Garland’s latest experiment, or in this case, annihilate it.
4 out 5 stars (I like movies that don’t make sense.)