Moon (Duncan Jones, 2009)

[karmajuice]

I wasn't trying to argue anything with you, it's just that the process sounds a lot like certain other generic process and I figured I'd point it out. I have no interest in disagreeing with you. But you're being unfair in your understanding of what I said. You accuse me of casting my net too wide, but the genre of Romance is itself a very wide catagory; and I was specifying what elements, narrative and structural, I thought followed the pattern set up by Romance (and I'm not talking about Romanticism, which is a specific 19th century derivation of the much older literary genre of Romance). I think you've mistaken me for saying that the genre of fantasy (Dungeons and Dragons stuff) and the genre of Sci-Fi are the same thing because I'm lax in my definitions. What I actually think is that both the fantasy genre and the Sci-Fi genre are likely subsections of a much larger genre called Romance, a genre that includes the Arthurian legends, the tales of Apollonius, Spenser's Faery Queen, the aforementioned Lord of the Rings, ect. That's not to say Science-Fiction is not a unique development; rather, that it likely shares more with non-scientific fantasy narrative than is often assumed. But I don't want to press the point since this is speculation and you no doubt know far more about Science Fiction that I do. It was just an observation on my part.

Ha, I wasn't trying to argue either. I did sort of feel like you were glazing over the significance of sub-genres, but that was my misunderstanding. Anyway, your observations are definitely correct (and have gotten me thinking about this again, and in new ways). I knew you were talking about Romance, by the way; the mention of Romanticism was my own tangential side-note, because I see a particular connection there. My ideas about this are more developed than I've explained here, but going off on some invented genre in an unrelated thread seemed silly, so some confusion inevitably arose.
And I am not expert on science fiction (although I heartily recommend reading "With Folded Hands", which might be my favorite sci-fi story period, and "Time Wants a Skeleton", which is just good fun).

Schreck, I've read some Dick but not nearly enough. Ellison I'll look into -- danke.

[kaujot]

Duncan Jones on his follow-up and having his film seen by Ridley Scott, Terry Gilliam, and Neil Gaiman:

I love Blade Runner, it’s one of my favorite films, and I’ve always been really… depressed that there was never—not a sequel, because I don’t think it’s right to make a sequel about Blade Runner, but no one’s really tried to make a film which was set in the same kind of world or had that same kind of field. So that’s what I’m doing, a big-city mystery story that takes place in a future Berlin.

Ridley Scott has a copy of Moon right now, actually. I’m a little nervous. I had three people I wanted to watch it: Ridley Scott, Terry Gilliam and Neil Gaiman. Neil Gaiman and Terry Gilliam have both watched it and loved it, so now I’m just waiting for Ridley Scott, which is the big one for me. That’s the really scary one.

Full interview here.

[MyNameCriterionForum]

His desire for approval doesn't bode well for the quality of his film, in my opinion. I wouldn't give a fuck what Ridley Scott or Neil Gaiman thought of a film I had made (though Gaiman is a notoriously nice fellow).

[kaujot]

They're apparently all close friends.

Edit: At least Gilliam, Jones, and Gaiman are.

And if I made a sci-fi movie, I'd love to know what the director of several classic sci-fi films thought of it, and I don't really even care for Blade Runner.

[Antoine Doinel]

It's not unusual for a director or any artist to want to win the admiration and respect of his colleagues.

[HerrSchreck]

It's fine to follow one's own inner voice, but since trusting one's instinct entirely in a big budget 21st Century pop art product is potentially a recipe for financial suicide, it's always a good idea-- first final draft of anything in hand-- to get some feedback from those who know you/practice in your zone of endeavor/are completely opposite of you.

For a variety of reasons. Not least of which to see how other brains process it.

[solaris72]

I remember reading an interview with Lars von Trier where he said that he wanted desperately for Andrei Tarkovsky to see The Element of Crime right after completing it (Tarkovsky saw it and hated it).

[flyonthewall2983]

It's not unusual for a director or any artist to want to win the admiration and respect of his colleagues.

I think it goes without saying that the same can be said for anyone in any profession in life. This being Duncan's first film, I can see why he would seek the advice of such veterans of their craft. If it was his tenth, however, I'm sure that would be a troubling sign of his faith in his own work.

[mfunk9786]

I've scoured the internet for a poster for this film (the first one, with the circles - not the newer one) and have come up completely dry minus a mini-poster (I'm looking for 27x40). I usually only need to go as far as eBay to find a full-sized poster at a reasonable price - but is there some magical place on the internet to find posters for recent and/or upcoming films, particularly indies? I'd really like to have this one on my wall.

[manicsounds]

Found the new poster on allposters.com, nothing on deepdiscount's poster site.

[rs98762001]

It's quite a good film. It may be minor and dramatically a tad underconceived, but it has some interesting ideas, is never overly predictable, and has a wonderful dual performance from Rockwell. A solid debut.

[Robotron]

I love Blade Runner as much as any of its most ardent fans, but I personally think it may be the least rooted in science fiction of any film mentioned yet in this thread. Yes, there's some superficial ruminations on real versus fake people and memories that entertains, although Mercerism was the best thing about the book and its loss was disappointing; but the real achievement I always thought was in being a Hollywood rendition of a Greenaway-esque modernist aesthetic orgy.

[Antoine Doinel]

It's quite a good film. It may be minor and dramatically a tad underconceived, but it has some interesting ideas, is never overly predictable, and has a wonderful dual performance from Rockwell. A solid debut.

Saw this tonight, and agree with this assessment. A fine, crafty sci-fi flick that offers up some nice twists. Definitely one you want to go into knowing as little as possible, and thankfully the trailers don't ruin any of the surprises the film has in store. And yeah, another solid turn by the always reliable Sam Rockwell.

[rs98762001]

Also, props to Jones for forgoing CGI, and instead using models and miniatures for all his effects. Gave the movie a nice old school feel.

[so lightly here]

If Zowie Bowie's debut film is ambiguous as it needs to be to hold the story together, then it is indeed probably the best sci-fi, space, or what genre you want to place this piece in quite some time.

I went with three people, each came out with a different back story and three distinct readings of the film. I must say that I was so busy being entranced by its ultra subtle use of special effects that I am not sure that I heard some of the actual dialogue or saw what was really on the screen.

If there were more summer movies like this, I would be in the theater more often. A small but amazing piece of work from the man whose father fell to earth.

[Nothing]

Hmpf. Passable entertainment, if somewhat derivative (unsubtle Blade Runner, 2001 and Alien rip-offs right, left and centre) and, as with so much modern popular cinema these days, lacking in any genuine weight. Rockwell gives a good performance and that holds the thing together. I wouldn't go so far as to recommend it.

Public Enemies is the summer flick to beat for me, even if it left me underwhelmed. Hopefully Antichrist can top both

[so lightly here]

Jones admits to his love of "Blade Runner" and his set design is an homage to Kubrick's "2001" (plus a little wear and tear). And I would hardly call "Blade Runner" subtle. I think "Moon's" strength is its very subtleness. He shows that a movie can be made for $2m and be infinitely more interesting than the $200m shlock that is most of the summer's offering. I am considering "Public Enemies" but its pricey budget and digital cgi give me the willies.

[Svevan]

I'm not sure that Jones' use of music during the ultra-emotional scenes qualifies as subtle; even Rockwell overdoes it a bit when the score starts to swell.

[manicsounds]

Showing this film for students of mine this weekend. Excited to see how they react to it. Saw it again this morning, and it's certainly still very impressive the second time around. And I'm very glad Sony didnt skimp on the bonus features for the DVD and BD. Jones speaks very well on both commentaries, except for when he talks about Chris Cunningham's video for Bjork's "All Is Full Of Love" and gets the title wrong.... can't remember what he said exactly.

[R0lf]

I've scoured the internet for a poster for this film (the first one, with the circles - not the newer one) and have come up completely dry minus a mini-poster (I'm looking for 27x40). I usually only need to go as far as eBay to find a full-sized poster at a reasonable price - but is there some magical place on the internet to find posters for recent and/or upcoming films, particularly indies? I'd really like to have this one on my wall.

Go to ebay.co.uk and type in "moon rockwell". There are a couple of quad posters available.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

I watched this today and enjoyed it. I'll add to the praise for Sam Rockwell and say that I was impressed by his performance as he had to carry the whole film for the most part. Knowing about how he had to adapt himself for playing the part(s), I'll say that he gained my respect. It didn't sound easy and I was impressed that in the disc interviews he didn't seem to make a big deal about how well he did it. Duncan Jones and crew did a great job. The music was especially good; I think it Mansell's best score yet. I also can't say that robots who sound like Kevin Spacey aren't a bad idea - maybe someday. One thing that I appreciated about the model and minimal CG was how it made the feel feel more contemporary rather than far distant future. Granted, the technological advances needed to build such a base seem far future to me, but the effects work in the film made it feel like this film could be happening now rather than 2080 or 2120 or what have you. Loathe as I am to have anything in common with Trudie Styler, I can't say her contention that the film is a comment on immoral corporate practice felt too out of place although it's not as big a concern for the film as I thought it might be. I'm impressed enough to get the DVD. I'm in the mood for Soderbergh's Solaris now.

[Fiery Angel]

Loathe as I am to have anything in common with Trudie Styler,

You don't want to save the rainforest?

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

LOL. I'd hug a few trees if she asked. I was just amused that of all the things to like about Moon, the one she mentioned was the political angle. It struck me as a tad sanctimonious - which is a characteristic I'd hate to have in common with anyone - althought admittedly not gratingly so. Let's say that Sting and his ilk aren't my idea of activists. I'd forgotten that it was still an issue for her, though. Now that I think of it, Jones' short Whistle also had a political angle, but I found it stronger and better expressed than in Moon where Rockwell's performance was keeping me occupied. Distrust of business and government aren't exceptional in sci-fi, but it had a nice place in Jones' movie.

[flyonthewall2983]

Q&A with Sam, Duncan and others.

Spoiler

They talk a little about using the Criterion DVD of Dead Ringers as a reference point as how to approach Sam Rockwell performing with himself

[flyonthewall2983]

4K Blu-ray coming out July 16th