Annihilation is the new Alex Garland film that has been the topic of conversation this week, but not because of its undeniable quality. It was announced the film would not have an international theatrical release and would instead be distributed outside the US by Netflix. The reason why: Producers thought it was "too intellectual".
The film follows a group of women, all scientists, who venture into the "Shimmer", a bubble-like area affected by an extra-terrestrial phenomenon. Many have gone before them, none have come back except for Natalie Portman's Lena's husband. The plot and trailer hint at another good sci-fi film, something in the order of Alien Covenant, but what you get is a much more insightful and artistic - even if slightly disturbing - rendition of the genre.
I remember countless of thought-provoking films being highly distributed and consumed in the past that now became cult classics or are simply regarded as great masterpieces of their time. Even less successful attempts had worldwide premieres such as Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain and more recently his controversial Mother. So why was Annihilation deemed too intellectual?
Sci-fi has several brainy names in its record, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner to name a couple, but the vast majority, whilst thought-provoking, cannot be necessarily called "too smart". There is an expectation that sci-fi should deliver its message in the guise of action and entertainment, and even though that isn't a bad thing per se, it highly limits the genre's capabilities.
Perhaps big names of the past could deliver quality without being doubted, but young (or relatively unknown) filmmakers are being pressured to dumb down their content in order to get published and survive. Alex Garland is not exactly unknown, he has successful works in his name like Ex Machina, and that is probably why he got the financing for such an ambitious project. It's a pity his reputation wasn't enough to grant his film a proper worldwide release.