Great sci-fi rivets those who aren’t inclined
to watch it; in fact, great films invade and conquer audiences from
anywhere. So yes, Duncan Jones’ Moon-set mystery-of-existence
does rely on the silly sci-fi assumption that zero gravity is no matter
in the indeterminate future, but Jones seeks to tell a claustrophobic
and paranoid tale of a man discovering his own exploitation and
betrayal. Neither the film, nor Sam Rockwell’s performance, is
oppressively moody, but curious and determined, and the film is tightly
constructed. The question driving Rockwell is not “Who am I?” but “What
the hell is going on?” Doesn’t one question eventually answer the
other?
This article appears in Jul 9-15, 2009.
What exactly does “… the silly sci-fi assumption that zero gravity is no matter in the indeterminate future …” mean?
Doesn’t she mean that in sci-fi movies, most of the time spaceships and the like all have artificial gravity and it’s a given that humans have figured out how to control gravity in outer space? That’s how I took it, anyhow.
Is assuming people figured out artificial gravity any more silly in sci-fi than any of the other technologies, like warp speed, hyperspace, time travel and English-speaking aliens? Sci-fi isn’t about the validity of the technology, it’s about exploring how people and societies might respond to the existence of these technologies. One of the worst things Sci-fi stories can do is focus on the gizmo’s rather than their implications.
Besides, the moon isn’t a zero gravity environment anyway.
I also liked the movie.