Destination
Moon (1950)
is a space-age adventure film from another age, and as such, a kind of unique
film. The sixty-three year old sci-fi
movie involves the (fictional) first rocket launch to the moon, and the brave
astronauts who undertake that dangerous journey.
Destination
Moon’s
special effects and settings still look remarkably impressive today, even if
some dramatic scenes fall flat. Indeed,
the film’s biggest drawback involves the cookie-cutter main characters. There’s a scientist, an industrialist, a military
general, and a comic-relief “goombah”…and
only one of them appears to be under fifty-years old.
Still,
even this decided lack of “real” or dynamic human characters doesn’t undercut Destination
Moon’s stirring and tense finale, which sees the astronauts desperate
to lighten their rocket’s load in order to achieve escape velocity from the
Moon, and return home safely. This
climax generates the intense human interest that much of the film otherwise
lacks.
In
terms of today’s science fiction cinema, two scenes in Destination Moon seem to
have inspired at least a few notable “blockbuster” moments. One involves Woody Woodpecker (!), and an
audience-friendly, animated “educational film” of rocket launches, and the other
involves a dangerous Extra-Vehicular Maneuver on a rocket’s metal hull during
space flight.
Although
Destination
Moon’s characters never seem particularly human or real (and there is
nary a woman or person of color in sight…), this George Pal production
nonetheless continues to impress on the basis of the aforementioned scenes, and
the occasional spikes of style it deploys to make the tale both more dramatic
and suspenseful.
After
a recent government-sponsored rocket launch fails under extremely suspicious
circumstances, private industrialist Jim Barnes (John Archer) is convinced by
General Thayer (Tom Powers) and scientist Cargraves (Warner Anderson) to
spearhead a moon launch. He organizes a
cadre of private industrialists for that purpose, and builds a rocket called
Luna.
Rather
than wait for government approval of the ship’s atomic engine, however, the men
quickly find a replacement radio operator, Joe Sweeney (Dick Wesson), and
launch Luna early.
En
route to the moon, a problem with the radar antenna necessitates a hazardous spacewalk.
Following
a safe set-down on the lunar surface, the crew learns that it expended too much
fuel during the landing. If the men ever
hope to see terra firma again, they
must shed over one thousand pounds of equipment…and possibly personnel.
Time
is not always kind to movies, especially science fiction movies. More than anything else, films are a product
of their historical context, and so it is always tempting to gaze at an old
film and note how very, very wrong it gets the facts, those “what if” prophecies
about the shape-of-things no-longer-to-come.
By
today’s standards Destination Moon (1951) appears a bit antiquated in this very
fashion. Produced by the legendary
George Pal and directed by Irving Pichel, this movie imagines the first moon
landing, circa 1950, and frankly, it gets much right in terms of the science
involved in a rocket launch and the nature of the moon. The film should be roundly commended for such
a close attention to detail.
The
depiction of the moon’s surface, for one thing, is not far off.
For
another, the film attempts to accurately depict zero-gravity, and the lighter
gravity on the lunar surface, and again, by-and-large succeeds on such fronts.
The down-side is that the screenplay’s dialogue laboriously introduces and
explains such concepts, and audiences today don’t need the lecture. This would not have been true, however, in
1950.
Accordingly,
Destination
Moon is a film that -- unlike its contemporary Rocketship XM (1950) -- isn’t
really about space adventuring at all, but rather the nuts and bolts mechanics
underpinning space travel.
Whether
or not this quality makes the film less interesting or more interesting is a
matter for individual taste. That fact established,
the characters headlining Destination Moon don’t seem to have
been selected for their potential “interest” as human beings, but rather for
their (necessary) roles in making the fictional space journey possible.
And
unfortunately, for all the details Destination Moon gets right in terms
of science, it gets a lot wrong in terms of the eventual politics of American
space travel.
In
particular, the film boasts an obsessive -- almost rabid -- dislike of the U.S. government, and imagines that the
wealthy, independent scions of American private industry will band together to
conquer the moon…all for the common good of the nation.
In
fact, Barns -- the enthusiastic industrialist spearheading this mission to the
Moon -- launches his rocket early so as to avoid the U.S. government’s
excessive “red tape,” as well as the government’s concerns over the use of an untested
atomic engine near a populated area.
Of
course, this is a strange viewpoint about the
situation. The same industrialist’s last
rocket exploded on take-off,
scattering debris in its wake. Isn’t it
the government’s job to ensure the safety of the citizenry? Why, I wonder, is it so unacceptable that the
government would demand safety, especially for an atomic rocket launch in the American heartland? If there are Russian saboteurs around, as the film hints, wouldn't it be wise to take precautions?
So Destination
Moon suspiciously views the U.S. government as an insidious impediment, and nothing else, and that viewpoint is
short-sighted.
And
in the final analysis, we all now know that this viewpoint does not reflect
reality. It was NASA -- the government
-- which spearheaded man’s first landing on the moon in 1969, not private
industry. This inconvenient fact of history makes the film’s dialogue about the
virtues of private enterprise seem almost like Bernays-style propaganda in retrospect.
For
instance, the script, by Robert Heinlein, James O’Hanlon and Rip Von Ronkel,
boasts of big business --‘that’s where
the talent and energy is!’ even though we all now know -- or should
remember -- that many of our society’s impressive technological strides of the
last century, whether it be the moon landing or the development of the
Internet, were sponsored by dedicated individuals working in government.
That
doesn’t diminish those accomplishments one iota. Why can’t we love government and private
enterprise, and see that both sectors perform a necessary function in a civil,
functioning, technological society?
Also
rather unbelievable is the film’s idea that a rocket bound for the moon would
not require dedicated, trained crew,
and that an industrialist could lead the mission personally…with no prior space
training.
The
point I should carefully make here is that it doesn’t matter that the subject
matter of the film -- a private enterprise journey to the moon -- was proven
wrong by history. Things like that
happen all the time in science fiction cinema.
It’s that the film, in describing the moon venture is so wantonly
dismissive and negative about the role of government in such efforts. An agenda is clearly at work here, and one that
didn’t stand its first encounter with reality.
Setting
aside the aggressively, viscerally
pro-private industry agenda of Destination Moon it should be noted
that two scenes in the film point the way to future blockbusters of the genre.
In
one early scene, for instance, the industrialist shows a cartoon of the
proposed mission, starring Woody Woodpecker.
Woody adds humor to the informative cartoon about rocketry, and makes
the lecture go down easy. And if you’ve
ever seen Jurassic Park (1993), you’ll recognize that the animated Mr.
DNA performs precisely the same function in John Hammond’s video about the genetic
engineering of dinosaurs. There are many
decades separating these two films (over four, to be precise) and yet in both
circumstances humor and animation are used as “the medicine” to make the
science not just comprehensible, but tolerable.
Secondly,
a scene set in space here involves three astronauts needing to repair a radar
device on the exterior of their rocket. Destination Moon depicts the three
astronauts in space suits, leaving their spacecraft wearing magnetic boots. By our reckoning as third-person observers,
they stand upside down on the rocket hull. After adopting this perspective in
order to reveal the hazards of such a spacewalk, the film flips to a more
conventional “right-side up” perspective.
This
is precisely the visual set-up for a similar extra-vehicular scene in Star
Trek: First Contact (1996). In
that scene, three astronauts -- Picard, Worf and Hawk -- must prevent a Borg
modification of the Enterprise’s deflector dish. The scene begins with disorientation, with
the Starfleet officers “upside down” by the audience’s perspective, and then
rights that perspective quickly, so we are not hopelessly dizzy/sick/nauseated. The staging is so similar in First
Contact that the scene must be homage or tribute to Destination
Moon.
In
terms of the film’s other visuals, Destination Moon boasts moments of
extreme tension and suspense. On launch,
for instance, the film utilizes a series of progressive jump cuts -- growing
ever closer – of a countdown clock. This
technique augments audience involvement, and not one expensive optical effect
is required.
A
countdown also informs the film’s exciting finale. The crew has scant minutes to shed first 1000
lbs., and then 110 lbs., if it hopes to achieve escape velocity. What follows is a mad dash to toss out the
air lock everything thing not bolted down, from seat mattresses to radios, to
space suits. Once more anxiety and
uncertainty is amped up to a considerable level, especially as the crew begins
to reckon with the possibility of leaving one of their own behind.
Destination
Moon arrives
at its arousing conclusion with the inspiring on-screen words “The End of the
Beginning,” and that’s also a good way to parse the film’s place in film
history. It’s important that Destination
Moon was made at all, and that it takes such care to paint a
mostly-accurate vision of a trip to the moon.
If the Pal film had only tread less aggressively into philosophizing about
the role of private enterprise in an eventual moon landing, its reputation for
“accuracy” might be even stronger, to this very day.
How did you see the film? I love this movie but the readily available DVD by Image Entertainment is a terrible print. The colors are very bright but the details are very soft.
ReplyDeleteI'd love to see a better print to really appreciate this film's depiction of man's first trip to the moon.
I rented it via Netflix. The colors looked very vibrant, and the sharpness was pretty good, at least on my goliath television. :)
DeleteBest,
John
The idea that private industry would lead the way in space exploration was an incorrect prophesy for sure, but not unreasonable given the era. The old adage, "What's good for General Motors is good for America," was spoken with no irony in those days. Also, I don't think most people in 1950 realized how much the Cold War would be a factor in the space race. Once the Soviets launched Sputnik, it clearly became political. Fast forward to today and I think the idea has new relevance. Congress clearly has little interest in funding anything, let alone space exploration, and new technology makes private space flight even more probable. If corporations can figure out a way to make a buck off it (tourist cruises, mining the moon, etc.), you can bet the private sector will pursue it vigorously. Besides, they're the only ones with money to do it now.
ReplyDeleteHi Neal!
DeleteI agree with your historical perspective.
My complaint is really with the film's vicious, unthinking hostility towards government and its capacity to "rally" to do something big.
Destination Moon -- made not long after World War II -- doesn't seem to remember that collectively we can do great things when the need arises.
I don't mind the inaccurate prophecy so much as the anger/venom directed at government. It's just so brazenly short-sighted. You know, how dare government regulators gin up worry about the radioactive safety of my private rocket-ship!! It's all nearly...Ayn Randian.
I also agree with your assessment of today's situation. Congress can't do anything, even simple things, and so Destination Moon could become a self-fulfilling prophecy (if not about the moon, then regarding space travel).
I find it very depressing, I confess.
best,
John
Let's not forget the beautiful soundtrack contribution by Leith Stevens.
ReplyDeleteTom Henshaw says:
ReplyDelete"the depiction of the moon's surface, for one thing, is not far off." Well, actually, it's quite a bit off. Renowned astronomical artist, Chesley Bonestell, painted the images of the moon's surface seen in this picture. Beautiful, glacial images of towering peaks and desolate, cratered plains. Bonestell was following on from images created by the Scottish astronomer, artist, and photographer, James Naysmith--in the 19th century, and English astronomer, Scriven Bolton, and Frenchman, Lucien Rudaux--in the early 20th. The truth, as shown by the photos and films taken by the crews of the Apollo missions is collosal in its mundanity.
T. Henshaw
It fits nicely in the category of worst movies ever made. However, it is so bad and so amateurish that it is very funny. The lines are ludicrous. One of the guys in his funny space suit calls the leader “skipper”. As for the unloading of surplus weight at the end, one wonders why they did not think of it before departure. When they remove their space suits the passengers look like mechanics of a country garage. A must for a good laugh.
ReplyDelete