After I saw the preview for Little Joe, an artsy fartsy sci fi inspired drama, it landed pretty high in my list of movies that I wanted to see in theaters that was opening on December 7, 2019, but I was unable to because I have a life outside of movies and was too busy living it. Visually it was distinctive and arresting. It was clearly made with a firm vision, skill and talent. A woman directed the film so I wanted to support it on opening weekend to insure that future women directors would benefit from the reception of this film. Also I love sci fi movies woman protagonists, and the film being artsy fartsy was the cherry on top because at least there was a chance that the filmmakers would explore the deeper meaning behind the fears evoked in this film. Unfortunately this film did not last more than a week in theaters, and I can assure you that the new movies appearing in theaters the subsequent did not seem better at least visually so I had to wait until it became available for home viewing. Then I further postponed watching the film at home because a global pandemic really wrecks your ability to fully concentrate on and digest a film so I had to wait for two months until I felt capable of appreciating the film and not affected by the psychologically challenging effects of functioning as fully as possible in self isolation.
I still wish that I saw Little Joe in theaters, but am glad that I did not spend any money on it. It is about a single mother scientist who is trying to create a plant that makes people happy, but when her plant has unintended side effects on the people who breathe its pollen. The film promisingly bandies around some really provocative societal concepts then lets the whole proceedings fall like a failed souffle. Even before I watched an interview with the director, Jessica Hausner, I correctly had the impression that Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Frankenstein inspired her, but imagine if she considered that once she exposed and examined the underbelly of society, instead of recoiling in horror, the filmmaker responded by saying, “Oh cool. I can work with that” and happily complied with the aliens or encouraged the good doctor to keep up the good work. Ahhhh, to be a part of the fifty-two percent must be intoxicating. Instead of resisting, you figure out how to live your best inauthentic life.
Little Joe suggests that the sacrifice of the authentic self is the only way that society can smoothly function, and it can actually be nice, a happy ending. I feel very torn about her take on society because on one hand, it is actually pretty authentic to acknowledge reality and the constant compromises that we make to exist and acknowledge that to achieve some level of success, one must commit ethical suicide or risk being seen as a madwoman. It is also kind of horrifying that she simultaneously has the perspicacity to see the underlying violence, avarice and predatory manipulation of nature—so she is not blind, but her best response is to ignore, enjoy and further propagate it. Hausner deliberately wanted to make the apocalypse or death of humanity into a happy ending. Hurrah for knowing who you are, but I cannot enjoy this film knowing its point. I want to better.
My biggest problem with Little Joe’s story is this idea of this mad scientist’s passiveness. The story never really grapples with the idea that she consciously is a reckless, irresponsible, unethical scientist and insists on treating her like a victim as if it is happening to her. I am not saying that she has to be maniacal or have a grand plan or that she cannot become a victim of unintended consequences. The film magnificently depicts how women in any profession, but particularly in science, are at risk of being discounted as emotional and crazy for expressing any dissent even while being successful in contrast to men who can literally be physically confrontational and not suffer any backlash or considered emotional. Somehow physical violence is not emotional. Still I thought that the film itself undercut her level of agency and her decision to insidiously exploit the blindspots of the system for personal success and satisfaction were too underexplored then entirely swallowed her up as if she was completely a victim of it. There has to be a way to do both. This film cannot accept her villainous side.
Little Joe really emphasizes the importance of being a breeder or a mother and makes her latest creation too accidental instead of an intentional creation and a choice. She did choose one child over another, but the film really insists that this plant is just like a child in that the parent cannot completely control what it will do once it is out in the world while refusing to grapple with the fact that she elected to put it into the world, it was not like a child who has to enter the world regardless of whether or not a parent actually wants it. The film was too afraid to explore the duality of her nature and ask to whom she is a good mother and a bad mother.
Also Little Joe made one character act as if she knew more than she could about the protagonist’s actions. Hausner actually said that in her films, she does not have all the answers to her story so this character’s comments and actions are dissonant with Hausner’s stated goals. It is also dissonant with reality. Hausner wrote and directed the story. She actually does have all the answers even if she cannot admit it to herself, does not want to face it or fully explore her stories to its furthest corners. It appears that like her mad scientist protagonist, there is a abdication of responsibility and knowledge that just is not true.
I was actually most fascinated with the character, Ric, played by Phenix Brossard. I theorized that Ric was the first one infected off screen and found his character fascinating. I also thought that it was amazing that Hausner never considered the idea that the protagonist was not the first one infected. She wanted her protagonist to be acting of her own volition then pulls punches on exploring the full implications of her characters’ choices whereas the men are depicted as ethical, emotionally vibrant then corrupted and distorted by an evil women. Women are at fault yet not guilty. Men are good actors until they fall under the sway of a suspect woman then become bad actors but victims. It would have been helpful if the film spent more time establishing what the characters were like before they went under the influence.
If you want to get an idea of what Little Joe was like, imagine if Wes Anderson decided to remake Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but fell in love with a Presidon’t supporter. Also Hausner is a huge Maya Deren fan and apparently got her soundtrack from Deren’s third husband’s music. I am not familiar with Deren’s experimental film though I have heard of her, but if you are, maybe check it out. I did not enjoy it in spite of the visual richness and potential inherent in the story. It was a disappointment, but I will agree with Hausner’s idea that our environment shapes us in ways that we mistake as independently formulated.