While other contemporary films of the same type (eg. High Life) gained its niche following group, Voyagers remains loathed by those eccentric enough to watch B-movies in look for new auteurs and for more casual filmgoers who are just looking for a “good” story which conforms to nowadays’s convention of storytelling vacuum.
Voyagers lacks what other films as the previously mentioned High Life have: its exploitative imagery. For a movie which premise allowed it to brim with grotesque scenarios, Voyagers’ content feels highly softened, censored even. It’s a movie which sells itself as a psychosexual sci-fi yet it is devoid of any sexual appeal, it’s almost sexless. Perhaps this is what made the eccentric lose their interest and label it as generic, because yes, on the surface the film doesn’t deliver what it promises and instead focuses on a “generic” spacial quest with an Scott-esque flavor (most noticeably giving some nods to Alien).
For people who were here for mere entertainment it will also disappoint, it doesn’t have the grandiose, or “epic” (but ultimately vacuous) cinematography of film’s like Villeneuve’s Dune or Miller’s Mad Max which imageries exist to be printed and used a poster on a teenager’s room. Nor does Voyagers sells itself as deep or thought-provoking, Burger is truly concerned in developing the story and through it answer the questions he raised at the beginning, on the surface it looks as if this was a mere generic film only interested on moving its simplistic plot as it rejects the (annoying) trend of films nowadays in which dialogue is used as literal text and an expository resource. This common gimmick begs the audience to remember a film by how “quotable” it is instead of its visual motifs, so no wonder that when a movie breaks the rule to instead embrace pure cinematic ways it is disregarded as lackluster.
Reality is, however, that Neil Burger’s Voyagers is more cerebral than what the general consensus might suggest. It is not Scott’s Alien, nor Denis’ High Life or Kubrick’s 2001, instead it is Godard’s Alphaville and Lucas’ THX 1138. It is a film about the dehumanizing effects of technology in contrast with naturalistic vistas, in Voyagers emotional attachment and love is not forbidden but physical contact and sex are.
This film opens with a montage of colors, blue and red (two primary colors) compose it, the two of which, as it is soon stated, represent water and oxygen: the beginning of life. It is not a coincidence that after this scene a montage of human procreation follows. An egg is clinically fertilized with a sperm and so a new life begins, however this happens with no means of physical or sexual contact. In this montage procreation occurs in a sterile environment, detached from any sense of parenting or love. It is also absolutely deliberate then that when Richard approaches these children he does so while wearing personal protective equipment.
Sex is not weaponized nor is it used for exploitation (as other films that evoke to this “primary instinct” do), instead it is an extension of affection and the means to humanize these robotic humans. There is a contrast between how people like Zack see sex and how people like Christopher and Sela see it, it is lust of power against sexual and affective desire, but it still lust nonetheless.
For Zack sex is loveless just like living should be lawless, his lust of power is almost as great as his lust for sex, both of which he acquires by manipulation. Several montages evoking war, predators and human chaos raise the question of whether in our most primal instincts and natural desires lies this very cynical and egotistical motivation by which Zack guides his actions. However, he doesn’t become a tyrant due to natural selection but because he is an opportunist who desires to be admired, this contrast with Christopher and Sela, who instead gain power through empathy while at the same time they also needed to recur to violence, answers the question: barbarism is not in our nature but it has been utilized as a means of surviving so violence is not instinctive, but search of power is.
This is the reason why procreation becomes part of our needs, it is not a selfless cause (keeping humanity existing) but about personal heritage. It would be stupid to say that sex is solely viewed as a means of reproduction though, as power and pleasure are what also makes sex desirable to us. We are rational beings after all, so we are capable to make sense of our impulses and not be wildly driven by them. It is this ability to not only rationalize our needs but form meaningful human connections what makes human sex different than that between animals. The moment we lose these characteristics that makes us human is the moment we succumb to chaos.