Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:23 pm
#1730473
Persuaded Mrs.G to a trip to the local cinema last night to see The Aeronauts, the new and very hyped movie about James Glaisher's 1862 gas balloon ascent up towards the tropoause. It was a true event, although his pilot Henry Coxwell got airbrushed out from history here and replaced with a fictional "Emilia Renne" who is clearly based upon French balloon pilot Sophie Blanchard who, in all likelihood, he'd never met.
What's it like? Well as a piece of period drama, pretty damned good. The drama was impressive, only a few odd bits of anachronism. Felicity Jones and Eddie Redmayne both acted their parts brilliantly - although without doubt it was Jones' movie, and she played the part of aviation action hero brilliantly well. If she doesn't at-lease get nominated for an Oscar for this, there's no justice.
As somebody who has spent a lot of time on airborne meteorology research some of it rang true, some of it did not. The nature and mechanism of the measurements were certainly very plausible, the meteorology they were experiencing was pretty convincing also. The conduct of people in a scientific society - rather less so. Redmayne as an obsessed research scientist? - I could name half a dozen easily with much the same behaviours and attitudes. Swarm of butterflies at 23,000ft? Maybe not - but it was lovely cinema.
The whole movie is basically around a single balloon flight (which happened, just not with a woman pilot), and the situation and history told in remeniscences and flashbacks. Does that work? - yes, really very well - the storytelling is first rate.
A good 3/4 of the movie is set in an open wicker-basket cockpit (or over, or under it): having somewhere North of half a thousand hours in open cockpits did the sense of being there work? - very very much so. Including the sense of terror of being too **** high and probably not in a good place at-all, when being bounced about in turbulence or a pilot getting out of their depth. I will freely admit to getting quite vertigal in a number of scenes.
Anyhow, it's a British flying movie, go see it.
G
What's it like? Well as a piece of period drama, pretty damned good. The drama was impressive, only a few odd bits of anachronism. Felicity Jones and Eddie Redmayne both acted their parts brilliantly - although without doubt it was Jones' movie, and she played the part of aviation action hero brilliantly well. If she doesn't at-lease get nominated for an Oscar for this, there's no justice.
As somebody who has spent a lot of time on airborne meteorology research some of it rang true, some of it did not. The nature and mechanism of the measurements were certainly very plausible, the meteorology they were experiencing was pretty convincing also. The conduct of people in a scientific society - rather less so. Redmayne as an obsessed research scientist? - I could name half a dozen easily with much the same behaviours and attitudes. Swarm of butterflies at 23,000ft? Maybe not - but it was lovely cinema.
The whole movie is basically around a single balloon flight (which happened, just not with a woman pilot), and the situation and history told in remeniscences and flashbacks. Does that work? - yes, really very well - the storytelling is first rate.
A good 3/4 of the movie is set in an open wicker-basket cockpit (or over, or under it): having somewhere North of half a thousand hours in open cockpits did the sense of being there work? - very very much so. Including the sense of terror of being too **** high and probably not in a good place at-all, when being bounced about in turbulence or a pilot getting out of their depth. I will freely admit to getting quite vertigal in a number of scenes.
Anyhow, it's a British flying movie, go see it.
G
I am Spartacus, and so is my co-pilot.
FLYER Club Member
