Moonstuck
MOON, directed by first-timer Duncan Jones from Nathan Parker’s screenplay based on Jones’s story, is a sci-fi thriller which is too slow to be thrilling and not slow enough to be 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Which it would very much like to be:
Not only have they stolen designer Tony Masters’ hexagonal corridor from 2001, they’ve stolen the font seen everywhere in the Discovery spacecraft. It’s all over MOON, and it strikes me as a terrible miscalculation. I’m all for the odd little homage, but you should never forcibly remind the audience of a better film that the one they’re watching.
Continuing with the minuses, we have Kevin Spacey quite literally phoning in his performance as the HAL-9000-like computer, GERTY-3000. We have a ludicrous reason to be on the moon in the first place: a fusion plant consisting of sorta combine harvester things that somehow extract “the sun’s energy” from the dark side of the moon and can it up as “Helium-3″ to send back to Earth. I imagine everybody on Earth speaking in a squeaky voice.
This slightly impractical solution to global warming comes by way of producer Trudie Styler, the eco-warrier famed for her tendency to fly everywhere by private jet — she must have a carbon footprint the size of Kitten Kong. If you’re capable of believing your lifestyle is doing more harm than good, you’re probably capable of believing in Helium-3.
Derivative design aside, MOON looks handsome on a deceptively low budget, and if you can overlook questions like “Why does a one-man lunar base come equipped with an entire fleet of moon-buggies?” then the plot is fairly compelling and unusual. And if you’re going to do a movie where basically one actor is onscreen the whole time, this film makes a good case for that actor being Sam Rockwell. What a charming fellow.
Now, since the character/s Sam plays is/are called Sam Bell (to say more would be unfair), you might be forgiven for thinking “Sam (Rockw)ell… Sam (B)ell… I bet they tailored the part for him.” But I don’t believe this is the case. I think probably the character name called the actor to mind and they had the good sense to grab him. Here’s how I think the character was named in the first place ~
In 2001 Keir Dullea plays the hero, Dave Bowman.
The soul duo Sam & Dave creates a clear word association between the name “Dave” and the name “Sam.”
The London-centric expression “born within the sound of Bow bells” gives us the word “Bow” next to the word “bells.”
This explanation is so ingenious and intricate, I don’t believe the filmmakers consciously devised it. But I think that’s where the name came from nevertheless.
June 20, 2009 at 6:36 pm
It surprises me that you chose not to mention director Duncan Jones’ pedigree, that he was initially better-known to the world as Zowie Bowie, son of David and Angie. I read about Jones and his film in a write-up in the New York Times not long back, and of course they had to go there. Where? “Space Oddity” of course. There was a photo of Duncan included in the article, he sports a beard, and compared to his well-known pop he looks positively ordinary, no trace of the exoticism found in his father’s features (must take after his mum). We do know this much, Duncan chose not to name Rockwell’s character Major Tom.
June 20, 2009 at 7:38 pm
lol…Thank you giant kitty for saving our city!
BUT! at what cost?
June 20, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Soooo…. Did it have a clever ending?
In any case, I’m gonna go see it. One of my goals in life is to some day write and direct an ultra low budget sci-fi movie. And this is certainly one of those.
June 21, 2009 at 12:13 am
It has a clever middle and a perfectly OK ending.
Yeah, they seem to make great use of their resources, it’s very handsome and creates a convincing world, visually. I’d certainly recommend it for study to anyone seeking to make scifi on a budget.
I heard about the Zowie thing but then I somehow forgot! Angie Bowie was rather exotic in her way too, maybe the two kooks kind of balanced out, genetically.
June 21, 2009 at 2:33 am
I will have to see this in my usually failed quest to find excellent SF movies (I think there have been less than 20 in the history of the world), but alas it doesn’t sound as though it will make the grade. Poo.
June 21, 2009 at 10:34 am
It’s still kinda worth seeing though. Good enough to be essential viewing for a scifi fan, and a lot more interesting than the big-budget jobs nowadays.
June 22, 2009 at 12:53 am
“Not only have they stolen designer Tony Masters’ hexagonal corridor from 2001, they’ve stolen the font seen everywhere in the Discovery spacecraft. ”
That same font, Futura also crops up in Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut, and Wes Anderson uses a lighter weight of it; bold; with abandon in The Royal Tenenbaums and, actually, everything else. Anderson (I am told) uses the font “because of old italian films,” not due to any association with Kubrick. This seems to fit, but I still get a waft of Kubrick when watching an Anderson film; even if only from the type face.
( All of which reminds me that Woody Allen is also notably consistent: setting a frightening amount of his credits in white Windsor on Black (see: http://kitblog.com/2007/12/woody_allens_typography.html for a step into a strange and terrible world). Although, this seems as nothing compared to Louis Meyer, who had Linocut design and cut five fonts to his specifications for use in Intertitles. )
June 22, 2009 at 11:15 am
Kubrick was very consistent in his zero-tolerance approach to the serif. Allen is utterly dependable in his credits style — you know it’s going to be straight white on black, with either jazz or no music at all.
Anderson’s use of the font doesn’t bother me because, despite his use of somewhat Kubrickian compositions, his films are quite different in tone and setting from SK’s, so the font is adding a new flavour. Whereas in Moon it adds a sameness.
June 24, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Enjoyed MOON, but didn’t love it. And most of that enjoyment was due to Sam Rockwell, who was pretty brilliant in it, and the use of charming honest-to-goodness models instead of the usual CGI.
June 25, 2009 at 12:59 am
Yes, the models are nice. And Rockwell is indeed a fine fellow. I basically stand in the same place as you on this one. I have met a few people who were a lot more enthused though.