The scientific and romantic passions of Marie Sklodowska-Curie and her husband Pierre Curie, and the reverberations of their discoveries throughout the 20th century.
If you had to name a female scientist, most people would pick Marie Curie. In fact, while I know there are many brilliant women responsible for scientific greatness (such as the brilliant mathematicians from Hidden Figures), I couldn't name another one. Therefore the idea of bringing the life and accomplishments of Marie Curie to the big screen is something that could fill a gap in the cinematic market
While the opening scenes are very generic, what director Marjane Satrapi does really well, is building intrigue and instilling empathetic characteristics in her lead protagonists. Marie Curie is portrayed by Rosamund Pike as an incredibly intelligent and driven, to the point of being high-strung. This intelligence is displayed through a focus on the technical aspects of the scientific process, and through that, this film improves in quality. This is a biopic, and as such, it is easy to bypass integral components that give the audience an accurate representation of the struggles and obstacles that were in place, but enough focus is spent on the process, in a manner that may not be completely understood, but can be followed. The process of turning 4 tonnes of material into a few millilitres of radium, is not visually exciting, but it builds a rapport with the audience, as we understand the work and intelligence that sits behind Marie Curie’s discovery.
Radioactive does not only look at the origin of the discovery but the cost and applications of that discovery. A discovery that occurred because the maths didn’t add up, nothing was known about the properties of the element. Quite a significant element of the discovery--that happened during Marie Curie’s lifetime--was the eventual unearthing of the physical effects of the element when it is concentrated into significant quantities. It adds a layer of danger when people are creating uses for the product without a thought about the long-term effects. In an interesting choice in the narrative, Satrapi chooses to inject additional scenes into the film--from other periods in time--turning the science that the audience may not understand, into recognisable applications that came from the discovery of radioactivity; from nuclear energy to nuclear bombs and X-rays.
The set design and costuming are well done, creating a strong period feel to the film. The authenticity in the design does mean that the colour scheme can become rather repetitive with a lot of cotton, browns, and blacks. This monotony is broken up with a number of colourful regurgitations that contrast the normal colour scheme, utilising the fluorescent and radio-luminescent nature of radium to form a connection with trippy, flowing visual displays to portray dreams, nightmares, hallucinations, and flash-forwards in time.
Not all of these visual displays work, however, and while they are useful in theory, in practice they disrupt the narrative flow of the story and are used in a manner that could be construed as emotionally manipulative. Marie Curie was highly intelligent, but to attempt to connect her--in a grieving manner--to the negative applications of her discovery that occurred 10-50 years after her death…is visually breath-taking, but very much in bad taste. The depiction of a certain WWII event was particularly cringe-worthy to watch.
The direction of the narrative is also unclear. Is this about the intelligence of Marie Curie? Is this about the dangers of science? Perhaps it is providing commentary on how women are not supported in STEM careers like men are? Or is it about the power of love and collaboration to reach greater heights? The film flits between themes often contradicting itself, or simply changing stance with little justification. Combine this with the narrative disruptions from the flash-forwards in time and you end up with inconsistent pacing that may frustrate the audience at times.
The non-science elements are rather under-developed, with characters appearing and disappearing depending on their relevance to the radioactivity storyline (family members included). That being said, the strongest element of the human characters is the connection between Sam Riley’s Pierre Curie and Rosamund Pike’s Marie Curie. Riley is incredibly charismatic, and perfectly conveys that sense of admiration and devotion, whereas Pike battles with the conflicting priorities of being a scientist and being a wife.
Radioactivity is the story of Marie Curie and has a wealth of information about the woman. While it follows the generic formula for a biopic--the rise to fame, the fall from grace, the revival--the one theme that is well-executed is the strong sense of sacrifice, and it carries the film to fruition. Slightly messy in a narrative sense, the characters of the Curies and the procedural direction works well to create an intriguing film overall.
Radioactive is in cinemas from March 26, 2020