As a child in elementary school, I was obsessed with most things science fiction. In grades four through six, I was a dedicated Trekkie (for shame, I know) and I was hassled for my passion by the school yard bullies. My grade seven homeroom teacher introduced me to a plethora of important novels in the genre and I read his suggestions ravenously. Star Wars was as good as a religion and I still remember being positively floored the first time I saw The Matrix. I still find the genre alluring, but I want more out of a film than an excuse to show some “cool” CGI-dominated action sequences. In my humble opinion, sci-fi is at its finest when its roots are in philosophy. The most important sci-fi stories make comments about the human condition and humanity’s relationship with technology. Duncan Jones’ 2009 debut film, Moon, is one of those intelligent and thought-provoking films that I crave.
Perhaps you have heard of Duncan Jones recently because his new film, Source Code, hit theatres a month ago. But I’d wager if you are familiar with his name, it is because he’s David Bowie’s son. Duncan graduated with a BA in philosophy from the College of Wooster and went to Vanderbilt to pursue his PhD. He ended up dropping out from Vanderbilt to attend the London Film School. When he left the university in Tennessee, he’s been on record as saying his family believes he came to his senses. Not only do we learn about ourselves when we watch films, we learn about the people who made the films. Perhaps it’s just because I’ve been conditioned by Sofia Coppola’s films, but I see Moon as a film about the isolation of existence. Is this a trend amongst directors who grew up with famous parents, like Jones and Coppola?
The film starts off with an advertisement explaining that Earth’s energy problems have been solved by harvesting helium-3 from the moon and using the helium-3 to create clean fusion energy. The commercial ends and we are introduced to Sam Bell (played by Sam Rockwell). Sam works alone on the moon, maintaining the machines that harvest the helium-3. He is at the tail end of a 3-year contract, then can return to Earth. The only company Sam has are recorded video of his wife from Earth and an A.I. machine, GERTY, designed to assist his maintenance role (voiced by Kevin Spacey). From early on, it appears his mental state is deteriorating because we bear witness to his hallucinations. When Sam leaves the base to perform routine maintenance of one of the harvesters, more hallucinations cause him to crash into the harvester. Sam awakens in the sick bay of his lunar base, being told he was saved by GERTY. Sam grows suspicious of his rescue and manages to leave the base and track down the harvester where the crash occured. He finds the rover, pinned under the harvester, and crawls back inside to find something that rocks his world. The rest of the film tells of him coming to terms with his finding.
Aside from his interactions with GERTY, and the videos to and from Earth, the film is Sam Rockwell’s to make or break. Being the only actor of note, the quality of his performance becomes amplified. If any actor takes on this dominate of a role and plays the part poorly, the movie becomes unwatchable. If anything, Moon is a testament to Rockwell’s acting ability. He makes the film engrossing and that is not a simple task for a film with so few characters.
Jones has been vocal about how Moon is an homage to the science fiction films that captivated his imagination growing up. He spoke with Sam Rockwell at length before shooting about their favourite classic science fiction movies. For me, the joy becomes being able to recognize the minute details that are intentionally included as a reference to another film. In any of the films that pay respect to their predecessors, the more films you’ve watched, the more fun it becomes. You have your mental library of memorable shot sequences, or quotations, or specific mise-en-scene from however many films you’ve seen and it becomes an Easter egg hunt to notice all the references. GERTY is an oh-so-obvious reference to 2001‘s HAL and Sam’s hallucinations are a likely nod to Solaris. But for me to list them here is no fun. The joy is in building that mental library for yourself. For me, The Simpsons and Quentin Tarantino films are the pinnacle of the skill of the assemblage of references. The more films you’ve seen, the more you’re impressed with how much cinematic knowledge QT is drawing from when he assembles his own films.
*Spoiler Alert* The puzzle of the film unravels when we learn that Sam is a clone. With this knowledge, we are faced with the true philosophy of the film. As the story progresses, the audience doubts whether Sam is anything more than a machine, but I believe this to be paralleled by the increased humanity of GERTY. The machine smiles, frowns and makes funny faces on the little monitor, and makes choices to “help” Sam. The last third of the film is more an observation of an existential crisis; Sam understands he is but a cog in the machine, a necessary appendage to facilitate real life back on Earth. I think this resonates with the working class. To come to terms with your replaceability, the lack of differentiability and how none of those problems that are dire to you matter one shit to “the people in charge” is something that many of our brethren struggle with. This film is a glimpse into the life of no hope for individuality.
There is also a comment tucked into this film about screens and the relationships we have with other people. I have a love/hate relationship with my Blackberry. It is one of the most useful tools I own, but every time I have a conversation with friends or family through that screen, I desire the infinitely more fulfilling face-to-face conversation. Before the claustrophobia of Sam’s loneliness truly sinks in for the audience, you can sense his despair. GERTY’s face-screen, his wife sending recorded video and the video messages from his employers back on Earth all seem so empty and fabricated compared to the possibility of a real conversation. In a world where video can be manipulated to any stretch of the imagination, how much can you trust what you see on a screen? I can imagine those that worship Apple saying that FaceTime changes some of those problems for our own world. But it’s simply more of the same. Nothing can rival genuine human contact and those who live through the screen are bound for the truest form of loneliness.
