Moon | Duncan Jones, 2009
Despite the scope and relative newness of the science fiction genre, it seems today increasingly unlikely that any new addition to it can exist without drawing heavily from its predecessors. Of course, most of the great and/or successful Sci-fi films have their roots in the efforts that came before them – The Matrix can thank Dark City, which can in turn thank Blade Runner – but most of them branched out in some way so as to defy convention. Recent additions to the genre such as Danny Boyle’s Sunshine, Joss Whedon’s Serenity or Marc Caro’s Dante 01 have all paraded their ambitious nature yet ultimately barely challenged the genre or indeed their viewers. Moon, the new film from David Bowie’s son Duncan Jones (a connection he wishes to play down despite its obvious advantages) falls squarely into this new and lacklustre group – a group that in general isn’t afraid to pilfer elements from more iconic Sci-fi films yet often stumbles when choosing its own direction. Moon doesn’t hide its striking similarities to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, either, and instead almost plays up this obvious influence. The film centers around a talented young astronaut named Sam Bell, played by Sam Rockwell, as he nears the end of a 3-year solo contract overseeing affairs on one of Lunar Industries’ moon stations. As the date of his return journey looms closer, Sam’s loneliness finally begins to take its toll in the form of vivid hallucinations that cause him to crash his roaming lunar vehicle and consequently slip into unconsciousness. Upon waking from this sleep, Sam unwittingly discovers the terrible truth about his job and his very existence.
Sam Rockwell’s character, Sam, is joined on his lonely lunar outpost by a talking robot named GERTY – voiced by Kevin Spacey – who we are encouraged to mistrust from the very beginning. Spacey utilises his best monotone voice (last heard in David Fincher’s Se7en) to turn GERTY into the film’s only sinister element, and thus drives home what is perhaps the most striking of all the film’s 2001 traits – artificial intelligence turned evil and the Big Brother effect. As with all the potentially interesting themes it deals with, however, Moon doesn’t address this particular idea with much conviction – the sinister robot idea is used to breed mistrust and aid suspense but little more than that. The film takes on such broad and important subjects as human psychology, the negative effects of solitude, perils of cloning, and idea of artificial human memories in a similarly shallow and blasé manner, as if these topics are mere products of the plot rather than doors to rooms that can be explored further. Moon also goes out of its way to exhibit more glaring plot-holes than you can shake a stick of Rockwell’s favourite gum at: why, with the international reputation of Lunar Industries at stake, was Sam allowed to contact Earth so easily and then leave at a moment’s notice, ready to spill his employer’s secrets to the world? We’ll never know the answer to such a question. It should be noted that I’m a fan of Rockwell’s work and am glad that he’s finally being considered/considering himself for leading roles, but if anything this performance only highlights his lack of range rather than convince us he’s actually growing as an actor.
Our Rating:
The more I think about this film, the less I like it.
By: spengo on August 10, 2009
at 5:57 pm
The plotholes are numerous, but the plot is so incidental to the interesting part of the film that I didn’t think it to important at all. I also don’t see why you think they ‘missed’ on GERTY. Had they done exactly what 2001 had done they would certainly have missed, but instead they took the opposite direction to the point where his honesty was almost too honest. It’s the exact opposite of HAL and it only works as it does because of HAL and other similar stories of sinister AI. In those stories the computer starts off nice and trustworthy and eventually slowly reveals itself to be too cold and too calculating. In this instance we see a film that we expect to have some similarly grandiose notions, especially with the situation found on the base, but instead we get a cold, calculating, compassionate computer. Instead of building from friendly interplay to a climax with the computer at the core the film instantly builds suspense with GERTY and then shifts the intensity onto another element. It’s an odd dynamic, but an interesting one, and highlights an interesting problem – how could one be so cold as to only care about the immediate wellbeing of the workers and not any greater existential concerns? That is the point of the film, I think, and works well as a counterpoint to anyone who doesn’t find the film interesting – you only care about plotholes and such nonsense and not the existential dilemma posed by the film and explored in much greater detail than those sci-fi morality plays that have come before it? You must be a cold, calculating computer. Bastard. And, yet, you may be kind, just oblivious of larger concerns. Is that it? Yes, I believe so.
What I found the film did well was the interplay between shared and unshared memories, Rockwell’s interplay with himself (and, additionally, his ability to empathize with himself, as it were, despite having changed so much), and the Blade Runner-esque existential elements (which were only cursorily explored in Blade Runner). I also think that the film functions primarily as a simple character interaction piece with the plot elements merely as expedients or distractions. It’s like Before Sunset on the moon, really. In that I think there is much more to this than other ’sci-fi films’, but you seem to disagree. Such is life. For a cold, calculating robot, that is. Bastard.
By: LEAVES on August 10, 2009
at 9:20 pm
I don’t think such a plot can be incidental, to be honest. If one wishes to draw attention away from the plot and onto the idea of “shared memories”, as you put it, then one should re-think including such big and/or controversial elements – otherwise they just become distractions. I wouldn’t say they “missed” it on GERTY, either, but the use of this particular character I found rather contrived – it plays on the idea of the good-robot-turned-bad, directly flipping it so as to drive home this allusion to 2001 and without actually saying anything at all. There’s still a lot to be said about the dangers of artificial intelligence and the idea of “Big Brother”, especially in relation to today’s society, yet Moon is simply content to lift a plot-line from a more memorable film and then exploit it for cheap suspense. I didn’t appreciate that at all.
The interplay between Rockwell and Rockwell was a part of the film I didn’t see coming and one that at least added some kind of depth to it. Still, much of this interacting between one clone and another isn’t helped by Rockwell’s inability as an actor. I love the guy, I really do, but his portrayal of each clone is so inconsistent that we never quite know which is which – something that wouldn’t be so bad if the plot wasn’t so dependent upon us identifying each one.
By: jedimoonshyne on August 10, 2009
at 9:55 pm
I wasn’t distracted by the ‘other elements’ at all. To me they enhanced the elements and clarified them. If you were to apply this same criticism to 2001 you would surely find a more applicable source. This is a film with one setting. All elements applicable to the setting are fleshed out more as exposition than anything else. 2001 spans 3 settings, all of which touch on huge topics and all of which are entirely ignored in favor of the characters performing various styles of ballet. It’s a space ballet. What the hell is a space ballet? It’s a dance.
As for GERTY, he is a parody. If you don’t like parody of the omnipresent and hyperbolic fear of not merely artificial intelligence but ‘artificial intelligence finding some facet of its intelligence which deems humankind expendable’, then that’s fine. I liked it a lot. It’s funny.
I liked Rockwell in the film, as well. I found that he developed two distinct, consistent characters. I don’t know where you found them inconsistent or indistinct, but I didn’t have that experience at all. It simply comes down to preference, I think.
By: LEAVES on August 11, 2009
at 9:08 pm
Really enjoyed this film as a whole. Not too fond of the first 30 minutes what with its entire focus quickly shifting from one thing to another with little to no shame. Rockwell’s great, plain and simple, and I felt GERTY’s involvement towards the latter half of the film, although quite important, felt a tad forced as it neared its mildly predictable (and implausible) conclusion.
By: afilmodyssey on December 1, 2009
at 3:24 am