Kate says I admit to being completely enamored of this movie when I first saw it. I also admit to being totally surprised by the twists (keep in mind, I was surprised by the Sixth Sense, so it doesn't take much to surprise me). My surprise was partly built on my assumptions: based on what I'd heard, I'd assumed Moon was some literary sci-fi flick which meant angsty modern stuff in a futuristic setting.
I was thrilled to discover Moon is real sci-fi with classic motifs!
WARNING: Spoilers below.
The motifs are classic, not unusual. In the second viewing, I paid less attention to the motifs and more to the phenomenal Sam Rockwell. I became a fan of Rockwell while watching Galaxy Quest. He is stunning in Moon. Usually, when I am watching one actor play two characters, I can never forget that I'm watching one actor play two characters. With Rockwell, I do forget.
Moreover, he plays two distinct guys with a similar core personality: Sam 2 is angry, energetic, and impulsive. Sam 1 is mature, tired, ironic, and calm. The distinctions remain consistent. Sam 1 and 2 are entirely believable as the same man 3 years apart.
The only snag during the second viewing was questions raised by the script. Overall, the script is well-plotted. Sam's day to day life is made clear immediately, establishing his world and job. The arrival of the "rescue" team creates ongoing plot tension. In some ways, the script is incredibly simple. Only a few things really happen. This type of streamlining propels the action forward.
The snag was the number of questions that go unanswered. I came up with the questions the first time. I thought the second viewing would answer the questions, but it didn't. Who is the girl Sam 1 sees? What exactly did original Sam agree to regarding the clones? What does Tess know? If Eve is 15, and Sam 2 is Clone 6, then original Sam was NOT on the Moon when Tess had Eve (although he may have been on the Moon earlier although that is doubtful). Tess's few clips imply that she knows she is sending fake "home videos"--she reports speaking to Thompson, and she seems uncomfortable with the choices she and Sam have made--but the issue is never cleared up.
There's a difference between being cryptic and being confusing. This is confusing.
The result is a very finely done production which hits all the right notes but lacks depth--not philosophical depth, which isn't an issue, but "What if?" depth.
However, to be fair, if the director hadn't raised the questions, I wouldn't care if they were answered or not. There's much to be said for a nearly flawless drama that concentrates on telling a single story. Simple is good!
Mike says when I first saw the trailer for Moon, I didn't really feel any need to watch it. "Oh," I thought. "Just another movie about some guy going crazy in a secluded place; I know how THAT will end . . ." Turned out, though, that I didn't.
Moon is a return to the classic, "HARD" sci-fi of the 70's and early 80's, before (may the geek Gods forgive me) Star Wars showed up and made science-fiction safe for the masses. It's very reminiscent of classics like Alien (singular) and 2001: a Space Odyssey. A by-product of movies such as these is that the motivations and origins of the threat are very vague, or not explained at all. Really, the story is not about the science, but man's reaction to it: how he endures and grows from the experience.
Moon does a fantastic job creating a realistic and believable future, and Sam Rockwell is amazing in his multiple roles. Kevin Spacey, doing a guest stint as the enigmatic robot companion of Rockwell, adds a lot of soul to the character. The film takes the viewer on a interesting journey with the main character, slowly revealing information only as he learns it. This works great for drawing in an audience but stinks when it comes to providing answers.
The "twist" in the movie caught me by surprise as well, but . . . The film kind of cheated. You see, every movie exists in its own universe which has its own rules. A very easy example is the vampires of Buffy versus those of Twilight. You have different powers, different weaknesses, and different origins. A movie's job is to teach you the rules as the movie progresses, so that when something comes up, the viewer can understand it. The trick with Moon is that . . .
****Spoilers!********
. . . you don't know that cloning even exists in the world until after the clones themselves bring it up. While I suppose this is good for the movie, as it removed any clues to the mystery, it also feels a little contrived when a new concept suddenly appears without any previous introduction. It's sort of like watching a Batman movie and being expected not to question how and why Snoopy showed up to help battle the Joker at the end of the movie.
All in all, though, this is an incredibly made movie, though, as Kate mentions, there are some holes easily found by those paying attention, holes easily solved if more information had been given here and there. Despite that, Moon is one of those great movies that uses a genre as the setting and not as the plot. While space, the moon, and cloning all help frame the story, the movie is actually about self-understanding, self-discovery, and self-acceptance. And it does it extremely well.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Despite that, Moon is one of those great movies that uses a genre as the setting and not as the plot.
I think this is a really insightful remark, Mike! It is HOW the setting is used, not the sci-fi or fantasy jargon, that makes something sci-fi or fantasy.
For example, I have long-contended that Star Trek is really fantasy in space. No matter how often the characters throw around pseudo-scientific jargon, the setting is fantastical, not scientific. It really doesn't matter that the characters are on a spaceship; they could be on a magic carpet (and isn't that what the Enterprise really is?).
This doesn't bother me: I like fantasy in space. But I do think these distinctions matter when examining more hardcore sci-fi authors/films. Asimov's writing is almost entirely character-oriented and yet it is solid sci-fi, not because his characters talk about science all the time but because they take the science for granted in their day-to-day living. It is the REALITY of the rules that makes sci-fi or fantasy live.
thanks!
The great thing about trek is that as a series, it has the time to cover many different aspects of sci-fi over its run.
While there are episodes I would absolutely agree could take place outside of a science fiction setting, I think a large portion of Trek uses the science as the plot and the setting. So much of it seems to explore the idea of man and technology, and technology is often the problem or solution- often in the same episode!
I think the main difference between, say Star Wars and Star Trek, is this concept. While the movie reign of fire was kinda silly, there is a great scene where the adult put on a play for the children, and they reenact star wars in the form of knights and castles. Cute, and it proved that Star Wars, while in a science fiction universe, has little to do with actual sci-fi- it is a fantasty story. Only in the prequels did this start to change.
Star Trek however, many stories could only take place in the sci-fi universe. Most of the star trek Movies, in fact, are such stories.
Now, there's nothing wrong with this- I think it's fun to start exploring and messing with the rules of an established universe- Transporter based episodes are almost always fun, though plentiful.
But I think it takes some skill to create a story that exists in the setting but doesn't depend on it to heavily. I think if you thrw star wars into the dark ages, it'd be much the same thing. You throw Trek back that far, and you end up trying to find a time machine to send them back to the future.
Post a Comment