Why the indie film “Moon” is perhaps the best sci-fi film of 2009 that no one has heard of and puts several bigger sci-fi films to shame
In a year with so many other bigger and splashier sci-fi films overshadowing it, the film “Moon” deserves to be remembered and celebrated for its clever ingenuity. Preying upon every sci-fi buffs fear that this was going to be a remake of the sci-fi classic “2001: A Space Odyssey,” it surprised us all with several delightful twists and turned out to be one of the most sophisticated sci-fi films ever seen.
So what happened with “Moon”? Why did it launch in a year chalked full of superb sci-fi films and yet barely registered on the radar, while films like “Avatar,” “District 9” and even “Terminator Salvation” all went on to make obscene amounts of money at the box office?
Using the 9-prong argument utilized in my recent article analyzing why I thought “District 9” deserved to win the Oscar for Best Picture more than “Avatar,” the following is an analysis of what differentiated “Moon” from its peers.
Profits
Whereas “Avatar” earned in excess of $1.9 billion and “District 9” earned over $204 million, “Moon” grossed only $7 million world-wide. It is hard to fathom exactly why “Moon” did not tickle the fancy bone of the movie-goers. But it can be attributed to several possibilities, such as: too much competition, lack of marketing, no identifiable big names attached to it, no source of visible conflict to drive the story, or even just a lack of interest as there was no “hook” to draw the audience in. Unlike “District 9” or “Avatar” which had visible aliens in all their marketing materials, “Moon” had nothing for the audience to latch onto. It felt a bit too ambiguous to see a poster of a man in a space-suit standing on a white round spiral. Perhaps there was confusion as to whether the film was a fictionalized account of a true story. Nothing alienates (pun intended) an audience faster than the notion that a film may be a documentary — or just as off-putting can be a film based on a true story. Additionally, the tagline was not illuminating or helpful, “950,000 Miles from Home, the Hardest Thing to Face is Yourself.” While absolutely accurate, this bleak description gave the impression of a story about a solitary existence in a remote locale. No one could quite figure out what this film was about and thus stayed away.
Realism
In an area in which it excelled, “Moon” felt very real. It looked and appeared like it was entirely possible that there was a man actually living on the moon. This concept is not entirely impossible for we certainly have put astronauts on the moon and we have been looking for years to find a way to exploit any resources the moon may offer. It was helpful that writers Duncan Jones and Nathan Parker came up with something that the people of Earth needed so much that we had a reason to put a man on the moon for an extended period of time. Using much of the technology currently available today with only modest enhancements, the film felt like a realistic version of what a space station on the moon would look like, as well as populating it with advanced computer assistance that would be needed if we were to exploit the moon’s resources. Thus, the film was immediately relatable and believable. So, in realism, “Moon” simply excelled. It took our visions of the future and made it feel real enough — like it was happening today.
Scope of Story
As far as scope goes, “Moon” cannot quite compete with either “District 9” or “Avatar” because “Avatar” created a whole new world to utilize as the backdrop for its sweeping story and “District 9” used the city of Johannesburg as its canvas for its film. But “Moon,” well, its story was isolated to space station on the moon and its few outlying buildings. It felt nearly myopic in how narrow a scope “Moon” chose to embody. But perhaps its strength lies in staying so tightly-focused and not choosing to distract the viewer with a wide array of locales.
Name Recognition
Without the big names of James Cameron and Peter Jackson splashed across billboards and posters, “Moon” was content to advertise itself on its own merits. Unfortunately, it was then just as easy to ignore. Sam Rockwell is not an immediately recognizable actor. But then, neither was Sharlto Copley in “District 9.” However, in “District 9’s” case, there is no denying that adding the words “Peter Jackson Presents” on its marketing posters was a huge enticement for sci-fi fans everywhere. Even though no one knew exactly what “District 9” was about, everyone assumed that if Peter Jackson was producing, it must be a film to go see. “Moon,” on the other hand languished in its anonymity.
Continue reading article at:
http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/7102
