The Aeronauts

There's little groundbreaking about 'The Aeronauts', but that isn't to diminish what an excellent and genuinely thrilling experience it is. At its best, it's 'Gravity' in a hot air balloon, a nail-biting and awe-inspiring adventure of human beings pitted against the ferocity of the elements. Tom Harper has done a sterling job elevating Jack Thorne's screenplay and imbuing it with tremendous tension. Even with its faults, 'The Aeronauts' knows exactly what kind of film it needs to be and does so with great aplomb. If you can see it on the big screen, don't miss the chance. Those set pieces deserve to be seen on as big a screen as possible.

• Daniel Lammin

Read Daniel's full article... https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-aeronauts-a-thrilling-adventure-on-the-edge-of-the-sky

The Aeronauts ascends through the weathering clouds to deliver a beautifully panoramic adventure. The sky is our limit. Our ambitious endeavours, boundless by the mysterious stars that plague the night. Eloquent diamonds dancing on a twinkled canvas. The infallible lust for discovery, eternally motivated to make the world and ourselves more habitable. Safer. Predictable.

Harper’s loose adaptation of Holmes’ novel, for better or worse, takes the capabilities of artistic licence and alters history for the sake of entertainment. Whilst unnecessary in depicting the scientific discoveries and world-shattering record at the time, Harper’s daring adventurous thrill-ride passes through the stratosphere with vivid colours. Meteorologist Glaisher and balloon pilot Rennes attempt to break the world-record height of 23,000ft, but soon encounter a battle for survival when their minds become deluded from the insufficient oxygen.

As I was saying, artistic licence is a powerful element to filmmaking. In the wrong hands, an irresponsible change in history could be produced, tarnishing the events that actually occurred. Conversely, it could be used to elevate a vital moral that, whilst enhances entertainment, retains the delicacy of history without diminishing its achievements. Harper and Thorne teeter on the two halves, precariously floating through thunderous clouds of inaccuracy. The removal of Glaisher’s scientific partner Coxwell, replaced by the fictional Rennes, was haphazard. With no acknowledgement of his existence, The Aeronauts clearly rains down upon the realms of light entertainment, and that’s absolutely fine. But to utilise Glaisher’s real persona instead of fictionalising his character whilst retaining his discoveries, felt deflating for Coxwell.

Having said that, the addition of Rennes and surprisingly making her story at the forefront of the narrative, inspired a bountiful amount of female empowerment during the repressed Victorian era. Her lack of knowledg...

The Aeronauts is a100-minute long illustration of the rule in Ebert's Little Movie Glossary that teaches us, "no good movie has ever featured a hot-air balloon," though it takes it less than 10 minutes to show why — right about the point where a poor, defenseless dog is parachuted from a hot-air balloon; the animal makes a safe landing, which of course raises the question, how does a dog, lacking both the brainpower and opposable thumbs, successfully operates a parachute?

This film actually illustrates something else, and it’s that 'sex sells' has been replaced by 'gender sells.' The most significant balloon flight depicted here is based on the September 5, 1862 flight of British balloonists James Glaisher and Henry Coxwell.

However, while Glaisher appears in the film (played by Eddie Redmayne, who looks like he landed on his face after his own parachute failed to open), Coxwell has been replaced by Amelia (Felicity Jones), a purely fictional character.

The lesson seems to be that it's not enough to discredit a real person simply because they belong to the male persuasion, but on top of that they have to 'empower' a unnecessary character that the filmmakers have dreamed up because they can't be bothered to research the subject their film is supposed to be about — if they had, they would know that the history of aeronautics is not short on women; for example, Katharina Paulus, who invented the first collapsible parachute (and didn’t endangered a dog’s life in the process, I’m sure).

Well, I like Jones and I like Redmayne so I had high hopes for this, plus it was based on true events... and I understood that it was going to be exaggerated for dramatic effect, but I didn't think it was going to be a total rewrite of history.

I don't mind taking artistic licenses when making movies based on historical events... but I had no idea that Henry Coxwell was a woman named Amelia Rennes and I didn't know that she was the only one capable of doing anything of value on the flight.

But, I guess politics got in the way of history, and they decided that a total rewrite to the point where it was based around a fictional character needed to be done because the truth had too much meh patriarchy? Because they couldn't depict men as being intelligent or daring in any way?

They went woke, and filled it with trope of the new woke fad.

So, Jones doesn't really struggle, she never makes a mistake, she is always more intelligent, stronger, and braver than anyone else around her, while everyone else around her is a bumbling fool that only succeeds because of her capabilities.

And, of course, her character is entirely fictional.

But, it's a success if you want to entirely rewrite history to suit a political agenda.