Watching Styx is an uncomfortable experience throughout, and a film that raises many questions. The film outline has told us exactly what to expect so there’s no surprise when Rike spots the stricken vessel overloaded with refugees, after she has been happily sailing, reading, enjoying her solitude, and anticipating reaching the scientifically created paradise.
Rike (Susanne Wolff) is an emergency doctor working in Gibraltar who has set sail on a solo voyage to Ascension Island, part of the British Overseas Territory. Previously barren land, the British introduced trees and non-indigenous planting; now there is lush bamboo and the Green Mountain (cloud) Forest, and she is intrigued by the idea of this fully functioning artificial ecosystem created by Charles Darwin, Joseph Hooker (explorer and botanist) and the Royal Navy from around 1843.
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution describes the process of natural selection and survival of the fittest yet, in creating the self-sustaining and self-reproducing ecosystem, they interfered with the natural order, and created a thriving habitat.
Warned of a storm coming, she makes some preparations yet fails to lash down the mainsail, and it is bewildering to see her clambering about on deck at night in the storm, in her oilskins, but neglecting to clip on at any point. Does she represent Europe, and are we meant to assume she is cavalier with her own life and future?
Rike is the product of her education and training, so her instinct is to save life. She is white, German, fit and healthy, educated, capable and resourceful, and in a well-equipped 12 metre yacht. The refugees are black, sick, in a wreck of a boat, and without resources. Those wishing to cross the Styx need to pay the ferryman, but they have arrived in hell.
First, Rike radios for international assistance. Alone, and in a small vessel, she is told not to assist. Twice, she is told to leave the scene because she is contributing to the ‘chaos’, the reverse of order.
If this film is about survival of the fittest, the natural order would have her obey instructions and sail onwards, with her health and resources intact, and leave the weak to perish. Medical intervention, however, sustains and prolongs the lives of the less fit and the least likely to survive and interferes with the natural order.
She waits. Help does not arrive. She radios a commercial vessel. The skipper refuses help because it’s against company policy and he would lose his job. Does this vessel therefore represent Capitalism, continuing on, regardless of human lives? Still she waits. The refugees are howling and wailing, and some jump into the sea and try to swim. One teenage boy reaches her yacht and collapses, and she manages to drag him out of the water and into the boat, saving his life with her sophisticated medical equipment and expertise. Oddly, he has some chemical burns. When he recovers he grieves for his sister and for his people.
Finally, she acts to ensure assistance arrives, by issuing a Mayday distress call for herself, firing flares, activating her position finding beacon, and turning off all systems. Boats arrive to save her and the surviving refugees, and the voice of authority we hear is British.
Many questions indeed. If she is an experienced yachtswoman, why does she leave doors swinging and banging, and not clipped open or closed? Why did she fail to reef down the mainsail before the storm hit her and, worst of all, why does she not clip on when out on deck?
It would have been so easy to have got these sailing precautions and procedures accurate so her casual attitude and risk-taking behaviour must have been intentional. She is not fearful; she has everything she needs. Watching this casual, foolhardy sailing is excruciating, but is the director demonstrating that Europe is sailing into a catastrophe?
Why do the refugees have chemical burns? Are they from Mauritius which she has recently passed? Is there a war there, or do they represent the ‘chaos’ of poorly led, conflicted countries?
A rational woman of science encounters disadvantaged humanity. Logic and compassion compel her to intervene and improve their lot. However, she is weak without her team around her, so her effectiveness is compromised. The commercial vessel (Capitalism?) and Coastguard (Law/Authority?) do not act. One country, without backup is weak indeed.
Angela Merkel acted with compassion and humanity when she opened the German door to Syrian refugees, and other Europeans also expressed the beautiful logic that we need young immigrants to re-invigorate dying villages and towns. Her humane response alienated many voters and she lost power and popularity as a result.
One woman, without support, cannot effect change. However, an individual has agency, the choice to act with morality, and can cause trouble. The refugees are many, but under-resourced, and helpless. To cross the river Styx one needs money.
I was initially puzzled by the long opening sequence of Styx: observation of the Apes of Gibraltar as they wander round and climb on walls before we are introduced to Rike, and vaguely irritated as it seemed overlong scene setting to indicate British territory. What meaning has the director intended?
Styx cannot surely be saying that the British and Australians will not help alleviate the world’s distress when they so easily can? (The British of course have only a tiny boat/island that won’t hold many people). Is it perhaps another Brit-bashing narrative? Britain has meddled overseas in many ways; missionaries, health and education programmes, building initiatives and overseas aid, leading on Abolition movement, and with foreign policy and political tampering, all of which leave a lasting global legacy. We’re damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.
It is unclear from this film whether the director’s intention is to leave an impression that not intervening is the natural order of nature. If, however, Darwin’s team managed to create, in decades, a functioning ecosystem, would Fischer give us this example of starting a new habitat of non-indigenous co-operation and co-habitation as a possibility for a new thriving community?
Comments