It is Michael Keaton’s Multiplicity in space (and without the laughs). That’s about as much as I can say about Moon without giving too much of the plot away. Sam Rockwell proves he can carry an entire movie basically by himself, playing astronaut Sam Bell, assigned to a lonely moon base by Lunar, Inc., a large conglomerate which is mining a mineral on the far side of the moon that is valuable as an energy source. He is two weeks away from the end of his three-year stint and looking forward to returning to Earth and seeing his wife and young daughter. His only companion as the film begins is Gertie, a helpful robot voiced by Kevin Spacey, reminiscent (I suspect purposely so) of Hal 9000. But soon another companion shows up at the moon base – another Sam Bell. And things begin to get interesting.
Directed by first-time director Duncan Jones (David Bowie’s son, interestingly enough) and based on his original story, Moon is an interesting, small-budget, indie film with thought-provoking existential implications having to do with things like identity. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, good sci-fi typically involves intriguing philosophical questions, and so it is with Moon. It’s difficult to review them here without spoiling much of the film. I will just say that there is a moment when Bell is frustrated to tears, looking at the Earth as it appears over the Moon’s horizon, and we feel the frustration along with him. It is a defining moment in a film that is well done and very well acted. And with that, I can really say no more.
I really enjoyed this movie too, rainey. The sinister undercurrent that’s present almost from the beginning I somewhat expected, just from what little I knew about it beforehand. And Spacey’s unnerving voice was absolutely perfect. When he’s involved, you sort of expect bizarre and interesting things.
But what I didn’t anticipate was how much more nuanced this soon became. This went deeper than your run-of-the-mill “ordeal in outerspace” movie. What I thought might be a black and white, hero-villain type story turned into something far more complex. And I don’t want to say too much either, but there was another moment in the film that just about broke my heart.
And yes, very well-acted by Sam Rockwell; he made believable what could have easily been melodramatic. Good, thought-provoking movie.
I think I know which other moment you’re referring to. Yeah, it was a good movie, wasn’t it? Nuanced is a great description. Sometimes these little low-budget indie films are the best. It’s getting to the point where I’m seeking them out.
About 20 years ago, there was a British series called Moviedrome, in which Alex Cox (the director of Repo Men and Sid & Nancy, among others) would introduce a film he considered odd, overlooked, important, masterful… it introduced me to all sorts of films I’d never otherwise have seen. Mishima, Django, Knightriders, the criminally-overlooked 84 Charlie Mopic (which if you’re looking for low-budget indie is a must)…
I watched “Moon” yesterday. It’s not bad. I have to admit that I thought Gerty would be more like Hal than it was… so the ending struck me as a bit Hollywoody, but I am always a sucker for schlocky endings, so wotthehell. I think I still prefer 2001: A Space Odyssey, though.
I have to admit that I kept wanting to ask: if Gerty can run the station, why do they need humans in the first place? And even if they have humans, why just make clones of one? It all seemed a bit contrived for effect in that respect, but I still appreciated what happened between the clones and Gerty which drove home the essential message of the film. It looks as though the maker of Gerty was like a benign god, while those that used Gerty were not and had to be subverted. I wonder if the designer had that possibility in mind from the beginning. That certanly was not the case with Hal, although there was a transcendent force at work over and above all that in the case of the lone astronaut in 2001. All there was in “Moon” were Sam clones and Gerty. Even though there is an implied mind behind Gerty, it’s not evident and is definitely human.
Have you seen Tarkovsky’s Solaris? That movie had a profound effect on my psyche, in the most sublime way. I think maybe “Moon” fits in with that type of genre, sci-fi that makes you think about the nature of the universe. Is it indifferent … benign … or malevolent? It’s as though it is however the consciousness of the filmmaker wishes us to perceive it; but ultimately each of us has to form our own perception and decide how it works.
The article also discusses Verne’s view of dystopia, also mentioning those of Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Ray Bradbury, P D James, and Margaret Atwood. Another great one not mentioned is Lem’s Futurological Congress, where the problem of Malthusian over-population is solved through virtual reality cells.
What is ultimately being lamented is the scientific concretization that occurs in dystopian societies, to the detriment of the arts and humanities; and I would add to that, to the detriment of nature. Living on the moon as a clone, supported by a machine and surrounded by stark dust and rocks seems just as likely a metaphor as any. At least there was still a Hawaii to escape to, for the moment anyway
Classic atmospheric sci fi with references to a whole lot of other films - in fact some of the tension is absolutely premised on you having seen 2001 and Hal!
In my view those low budget 1070s and 1980s sci fi films were unbeatable - Moon stands out like a bit of an ossais in a recent desert of decent sci fi.
Personaly I think Sci Fi films should almost have to be on low budgets!
Anyone seen Primer - now there’s a low budget head wrecker!?
Truthfully, you will never get a decent sci-fi movie out of Hollywood or the American mentality. The best you can do is a fairly good B movie like “Moon.” I do enjoy American mindbenders, though, mainly because I’m American and there’s something about the American geist that infuses the movies that makes them entertaining… and I like being entertained. There might be some thought in an American movie as well, but it will always be subordinate to the entertainment and profit motive… like our recent viewing of Inception.
But if I want art and something to make me really think and raise my consciousness, then I have to go foreign – to 2001, Tarkovsky, and so on. It’s not the amount of money spent, it’s the energy of the artist behind it that makes films like these work on such a high level.
Anyway, I understand that Radio Free Albemuth is coming out soon. Won’t it be interesting to see what the filmmakers do with that? I plan to read the book soon to prepare myself. Maybe they’ll do better out of Dick than the makers of Bladerunner did, although I greatly enjoyed that one too. It’s just that when I actually read “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” I came to realize that it was an entirely different work with a take on religion that was truly fantastic. I understand that Linklater did a decent job with A Scanner Darkly, but I’ve only read the book and it’s a great one… but Linklater is eccentric and independent of Hollywood and not likely to go SF again. I wouldn’t mind being proven wrong on this, though.
Words of wisdom there jonquil - that said i rather like the Soderbergh version of Solaris - Tarkovsky’s is a completely different type of film - but there’s room for having a film purely about George mooning over Natascha McElhone
in fact in some ways closer to the original book too!
Sure pulp sci fi is mostly an American invention in the first place.
From this Oirish perspective here are plenty of low budget American films and plenty of b to z grade oldies and their modern imitators…they lack in pretension and subtly but gain in other areas from humour to rough and ready frontier values
And, of course, there is always the unmatchable/watchable American Astronaut - one of my personal top twenty films ever!!
Yoicks. Ya likes what ya likes. Bang those reviews in, for sure. Be prepared for some pops and sizzles out in the stands, though. We loves to throw a few filmic firecrackers out as a tasty mix to spice up our potpourri of peanuts and crackerjacks.
jonquil in her mixed metaphors yogi berra baseball mood
Hehheh. Of course, I do realize that ya’ll play cricket over there. Somebody will have to plant some poppers under some of those sticky wickets, eh. And out of the scorched turf tuffets will come the most popular song ever, The Flying Purple Wicket Eaters, to go down in pop legend selling its original youtubes for dollars slash euros on the halfpenny (or should that be halfpennies on the dollar slash euro?) Kids will have nightmares about flying wicket monsters, but all will still be right with the world because of self-help wicket-gurus. And don’t forget the evolution of language when people will then say: “That’s a flying bit of a sticky wicket, what!?!”
All this from the word “bang.” And they say there’s no infinitely laughable universe. Sheesh.
Go jonquil - actually mushroom season approaches here!
Cricket is sort of a minority past time in Oirland - bad associations with former times - on the other hand our team are going from strength to strength and even managed to beat Pakistan in one of their very bad periods.
Look at me not a child in the house washed - yet - will start as soon as I get back from Italia (in a couple of weeks! )
)