Directed by Marjane Satrapi
Written by Jack Thone, based on the book by Lauren Redniss
Starring Rosamund Pike, Sam Riley and Yvette Feuer
Running time: 1 hour and 49 minutes
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for thematic elements, disturbing images, brief nudity and a scene of sensuality

by Rosalie Kicks, Old Sport

“I am interested in all science that confronts prevailing attitudes.”

Did you ever love something despite the fact that it is killing you? In a nutshell, this is how I would describe the relationship Marie Curie (Rosamund Pike) had with science. I mean, when you’re sleeping with radium under your pillow, there is no question about it… it’s love. 

Marjane Satrapi’s fifth feature, Radioactive is essentially a biopic mixed with historical fiction, spiced with dramatic romance and layered with lessons. It is the type of the film that left me wondering what exactly it was trying to say. After some late night pondering, I came to the simple conclusion: it tried to tell too much. A picture that got lost within itself, that much like other historical science flicks (ie Current War) that I have watched, would have been best served as a mini series. 

The film opens in Paris 1934, Marie Curie collapses in her laboratory and is taken to the hospital. While death creeps in, she experiences her life flashing before her eyes. Significant memories from her past suddenly flood her semi-conscious mind. The meeting of her husband Pierre Curie (Sam Riley), the discovery of radium, the birth of her daughters and the hardships of trying to assimilate into a community that never wanted her there in the first place. The depiction of these events are interrupted with future events. Moments that she most definitely was not alive for, but are connected to due to her finding of radium. 

It is hard for me to describe this film as it is about so many little things, which inevitably is its biggest fault. Going in, I thought this was going to be a story about a female scientist and her experiments that changed the world. In the end, I had no doubt of the significance that her findings made to the scientific community and the world as we know it, but I was left with a lot of questions. Like how did she gain an interest in science? What exactly was driving this particular person to confront the patriarchy? It was clear that this lady’s accomplishments were not just incredible but heroic, yet I was left with the feeling of why? I still don’t really know who this person is other than a scientist that just so happened to be a wife and a mother.

There is also the film’s issue of inter-cutting future events to demonstrate how Marie and her husband Pierre's finding of radium impacted, and continues to alter, the world as we know it. In the field of science, there is no question that an invention or discovery has long lasting effects, much beyond the originator’s life. In this circumstance, the scenes of showing how radium was utilized to create the atomic bomb, administered as a treatment for cancer and its role in the incident that occurred in Chernobyl, left me feeling confused. As much as I felt it was important to demonstrate the effect the Curie’s findings had on our society, each time it cut away to one of these events felt jarring, as it was often done at inopportune times. I wanted to know more about Marie and as much as the scenes of the future were stylish and shot impressively well, each time they occurred took me out of the story. In discussing the film with my husband afterwards, it was concluded that if this story was taken more seriously and given the time needed to tell it, these scenes would have played great as bumpers at the end of each episode in a mini-series.

If anything is clear from this story, it  is that there didn’t seem to be much of Marie Curie’s life that didn’t involve a confrontation. Whether it was fighting for her place at the scientific table or struggling to make a connection to her husband until it was unfortunately too late. There is a moment within the film in which her daughter remarks that it must have been hard to make it in the field of science as a woman, in which Marie Curie clarifies the hardships were due to, “lack of resources and funding more so than being a woman.” This is a line that will stay with me - especially in looking at Marjane Satrapi’s filmography. Her first film, the Oscar nominated Persepolis, was made in 2007. She would not go on to make another film until 2011. Prior to making Radioactive - her fifth feature - she had not made a picture since the 2014 comedy horror, The Voices. It made me wonder what happened? One could say it was due to her gender. Marjane may only have made five films, but in viewing it, I surmise the reason for the lack of work is not due to her talent behind the camera. Sooooo, why doesn’t she have a more extensive filmography, could it be a lack of resources?

Radioactive is available to watch on Amazon Prime today.