Tuesday, September 4, 2018
Birth of Sci-Fi?
Some commentators have dubbed Méliès's film A Trip to the Moon the first science fiction movie. Not all critics, however, agree. Tom Gunning, the author of our essay on that film, argues for the contrary view. He states, " 'Science' fiction implies a certain sobriety and serious concern with scientific and technological possibilities. . . . But Méliès cannot take his scientists seriously at all, introducing them first as wizards with pointy hats, figures out of fairy pantomime . . . (70). What do you think? While you may not be able to judge whether this is the first of its kind, you can make a judgment about whether or not it qualifies as science fiction. Compare this film with other science fiction movies you have seen. How is it the same? How is it different? Can we call it a science fiction film, a precursor of such films, or something entirely different?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although it does not directly fit into the category, George Méliès’s "A Trip to the Moon" can be rightfully described as one of the original precursors to the modern science fiction genre. Just as organisms, technology, and pop culture have evolved over time, film has progressed from short actualités to a diverse range of species (or types) of feature. Now, each genre has well-defined tropes that are generally consistent across the films the genre contains. Modern science-fiction, in particular, has had an increasing focus on world-building achieved through scientific explanation, special effects, and character-setting interaction. These adaptations are vividly seen in the "Jurassic Park" and "Jurassic World" series. In the original "Jurassic Park", the reanimation of the dinosaurs are solely attributed to the discovery of the extinct animals’ DNA in a crystallized mosquito; with each adaptation in the "Jurassic World" series, however, more detail is added as to how exactly the DNA is spliced, the organisms cloned, and the hatchlings raised with every entry, legitimizing the film’s world and therefore further engaging the modern viewer. When "A Trip to the Moon" was first released, film was already beginning to break apart into distinct categories, but it was still an early stage in the medium’s evolution. Yes, "A Trip to the Moon" holds many characteristics of a modern science fiction movie, but these traits are not refined to the point that it can be considered a true work of science fiction. "A Trip to the Moon" explores the possibilities of scientific innovation, but by featuring the scientists as wizards, Méliès’s work fails to remotely portray the technology as eventually plausible. In addition, the film employs cutting-edge special effects only to magnify the mystery of fantasies instead of endeavoring to rationalize them (i.e. an umbrella magically transforming into a mushroom). The characters in the film, despite actively interacting with their surroundings, have little development or realism in their behaviors, further distancing the scenario of "A Trip to the Moon" from one based on the potential of authentic technology. None of these statements are to say "A Trip to the Moon" is not a miraculous feat of filmmaking, in reality, I find that it is quite the opposite – instead of a being the first instance of a science fiction film, Méliès’s work is a key ancestor preserved in time. Over the course of a little more than a century, filmmakers have molded the patterns, themes, and techniques Méliès introduces in his 1902 film to create the science fiction genre recognizable in films such as "2001: A Space Odyssey" or "Jurassic World". In essence, "A Trip to the Moon" is the wolf, and modern science fiction consists of Golden Retrievers, Newfoundlands, and Irish Setters. As cultures continue to shift and science fiction continues to give way to new, distinct genres of film, look up and remember the pouting projectile-scarred moon that inspired it all.
ReplyDelete(Note: I used "" instead of italics because I don't believe the italics show up when you comment )
In my opinion, A Trip to the Moon by Georges Méliès can not be considered as the first science fiction movie. The reason the film was created was to entertain the viewers and give them the feeling as if they had accomplished one of their biggest dreams: reaching the moon. This object was often used as a symbol for something which is somehow magical and undiscovered, but still reachable.
ReplyDeleteThe audience seeing this movie would never set a footstep on the moon, so seeing somebody doing it and therefore imaginary standing next to them was a big spectacle. Méliès tries to keep things somehow on a real basis to not make the film too abstract, but he over exaggerates in many means and puts the effects and story in front of scientific accuracy.
For example: When the Rocket impacts on the moon with full speed it does not get damaged or bounces; it just stops and the moon explorers get out the seconds after. Implementing some sort of motion or energy transmission would have made the film more scientific accurate, but slowed down the story and be very time-consuming. Méliès choses to continue the exploration of the exotic moon immediately rather than keeping the astronauts back.
Another example: Everybody by this time knew, that the laws of gravity would also be existent on the moon, but still the “rocket” falls off when being pushed off the cliffs. It would have needed a brilliant idea to escape from the moon after provoking the aliens, but the film continues with a strange event which could not be taken as serious science – even at that time.
Also, he lets the actors look extraordinary to support his picture about the whole movie being more a dream than reality: he dresses the scientists like wizards and has the women helping to push the rocket lightly dressed, just like the alien women. Those only differ in skin color, which further expands the view on a colorful, non-real dream portrayed by Méliès. In the book Film Analysis Tom Gunning writes, that “We are in a realm of spectacle” and “tricks and attentions […] are what the audience has come to see” (both p. 48). He further explains, that for calling a film ‘science fiction’ the seen events have to rely on a scientific base and have to be explainable. Even for that time, the shown physics in the film are not accurate at all and the attention Méliès wanted to set was not towards the scientific part, but rather towards the part of viewers enjoying it. He lets down the realism of the film and replaces them with animations and extraordinary events to create a unique spectacle. So he definitely made a film about something we will later on reach through science, but his film can not be considered the first science fiction film because of how Méliès sets his priorities for the film.
Though there is a stark difference between Méliès's “A Trip to the Moon” and many more modern science fiction films, both share core ideas and components that justify their classification in the science fiction genre. It is very hard to objectively define different genres of movies based on certain characteristics; however, I would argue that, from my point of view, Tom Gunning has too rigid of a definition of science fiction to completely exclude “A Trip to the Moon”. One of the most defining characteristics about science fiction is not that the science within the film is used in a completely serious and realistic tone, but that the science within the movie has a part or an effect on the plot of the movie. For instance, movies such as “Jurassic World” or “Wall-E” are generally not thought of as science fiction films first, though they do have elements of science fiction within them. Jurassic World has elements of biology, but is mainly described as an action-adventure movie. Wall-E has many scientific topics and futuristic concepts, yet is far from being described as a science fiction movie. These films use scientific concepts as a way to explain away events within the plot. In this way, “A Trip to the Moon” is much more science fiction than many modern films because of the active role of scientific concepts in moving the plot. The movie uses current, yet unrealistic ideas within science throughout the plot and the film would essentially not be cohesive without mention of science or science fiction. From the cannon and capsule that the astronauts were launched out of to the portrayal of the surface of the moon itself, some form of science fiction elements were involved to create ideas. The main problem with the definition of science fiction is the accuracy of the ideas used within the film. As long as some logical thinking was put into the ideas, the inaccuracies and fantasy elements of science fiction films can be attributed to the fiction in science fiction. No science fiction film is perfectly accurate - the subjects being discussed are futuristic and slightly unrealistic, even films such as Interstellar and The Martian. While “A Trip to the Moon” is significantly more inaccurate and has many more fantasy and comedic elements than most modern science fiction films, science still drives the plot and fictional elements are very present, two of the defining features of any science fiction film. Though “A Trip to the Moon” is much more fiction than fact, the underlying concepts throughout the movie help to create a movie that should absolutely be considered science fiction.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that there are many unrealistic aspects in Georges Méliès’s “A Trip to the Moon”; however, I still believe that the film should be considered a sci-fi film due to its general theme in exploring the realms of space despite the lack of technology present to Méliès in his 1902 film. As referenced in previous blog posts, Méliès features many elements of magic such as disappearing objects, umbrellas turning into mushrooms, unrealistic gravity, and scientists portrayed as wizards. Due to these elements of the film, it is assumed that “A Trip to the Moon” thus cannot be considered science fiction. However, I believe that this disregards Mélièrs limited access to technology. Other famous sci-fi films, such as “Star Wars” and “Star Trek”, have access to newer film technology and special effects that create a futuristic model of technology as a base. The extent of Méliès’s arsenal was the simple disappearing trick through cuts in the film. At the same time, the purpose of his film was to entertain. He cannot be confined to the same realistic standards as Jules Verne in his novels. Therefore, any magical traits are merely an adaptation made by Méliès due to his lack of special effects. The next point I would like to make is that science fiction is a genre meant to categorize literature and film that deal with advanced scientific concepts. “A Trip to the Moon” clearly fits this category, as it bridges science and exploration into film. When considering it came out in 1902, I believe “A Trip to the Moon” should be considered the first science fiction film.
ReplyDeleteDepending on the person you are and the content of history that you are aware of, coming upon one true answer as to whether to this is a sci-fi movie or not is completely up in the air and it depends on the eye of the beholder as to what it is. Personally, I do think this is a science fiction film. This is because it shows the voyage to the moon that at this point in time (1902-1903) hasn’t happened yet (first man on the moon wasn’t until 1969. The pure words “science fiction” puts into mind the pure essence of something you fabricate (fiction). Georges Meiles, a former illusionist without any aeronautical knowledge, leaves out the fact that the makers of the space craft are scientists and just represents them as magicians (a potential aspect in the favor of this movie not being one of science fiction). Perhaps, a hidden message in this film, with Meiles being an illusionist and portraying his characters that are supposedly scientists, as magicians, is that a potential (at that time), trip to the moon is just an illusion and couldn’t be done by any human. The props for sure show that, being that the space ship was bullet and was depending mostly and free motion and air and wind resistance to reach to the moon. Even though this is true, I still believe this film is science fiction. The overall dreams and goals of going to the moon were one of the most prominent ideas and thoughts that were brought to reality.
ReplyDelete“A Trip to the Moon” paved the way for future science fiction movies. All genres must start somewhere, and scifi started here. According to Dartmouth University, science fiction movies are "characterized by stories involving conflicts between science and technology, human nature, and social organization in futuristic or fantastical worlds, created in cinema through distinctive iconographies, images and…cinematic illusion are displayed at their most cutting-edge state in science-fiction films” (https://researchguides.dartmouth.edu/filmgenres/scifi). Based on that definition, “A Trip to the Moon” is a science fiction film. The conflict between the morals behind going and invading the moon and what future technologies could do for humanity is very evident. Old ideas combined with new technology. Western imperialism expanded to the moon shows human nature at the time. “Fantastical worlds” where umbrellas turn to mushrooms and illusions that blow the viewers mind. This film was the most advanced in illusions and tricks at the time. Showing a cannon shooting a capsule to the moon was beyond the technologies available, both in space travel and in movie cinematography. In addition, science was portrayed to the best of the scientific knowledge at the time with a few creative initiatives, like mushrooms and aliens. No one knew about rockets or gravity on the moon or the atmosphere (or lack thereof) in space. Méliès took what he knew, theories of the time, and his own creativity to share with the world. It was unknown to scientists how to get to the moon, so Méliès based his cannon off of a book. He put it out of the ground to make it more entertaining. He did portray scientists as wizards, but magic in the real world was physics. New clocks and machinery was always coming out, so maybe scientists were supposed to be wizards. Often times science seems crazy. Going to the moon seemed crazy. But, like magic, scientists got humans up there even though it seemed impossible.
ReplyDeleteI believe Georges Méliès’ “A Trip to the Moon” is the first science-fiction movie due to its plot predicated in scientific theory and attempted representation of the dangers of space travel.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason the film isn’t considered Sci-Fi is a general lack of concern for science in comparison to the importance of spectacle. I feel that a large portion of Science Fiction as a genre is connected with fantasy, and that the main difference between fantasy and Sci-Fi is the content the story is based upon.
I would agree that the portrayal of scientists as wizards undermines part of the scientific focus of the film, but the basis of the movie isn’t that wizards magically transport a group of men to the moon. The ship is still built by a crew of human workers, and the rocket is still fired off like a bullet. In my opinion, if this were a fantasy piece, the ship would be created in a more fantastical way. If Méliès wanted to, he could have used his stop-motion technique to make a ship appear out of nowhere. Instead, he chose to show it being built.
Looking at “Back to the Future”, I doubt anyone believes the best model for a time machine is a DeLorean that leaves fire in its trail (obviously we have no idea what it would look like), but the more important part is that the car looks cool, so we accept that it’s capable of doing whatever the plot needs it to do. If the cannon were underground in “A Trip to the Moon”, the audience doesn’t get the full effect of the cannon itself. Sci-Fi isn’t always about perfectly modeling reality; it’s about creating an image of the dangers of science/technology in the future based on modern knowledge of a scientific field. It is said in our book that one of the main sources for “A Trip to the Moon” were Jules Verne’s novels exploring “theories of propulsion, orbits, and gravity” (46). This makes the scientific premise of the film, “what if we could use propulsion to reach the moon?”. The challenges the group of space travelers face on their attempt to reach the moon, in my mind, represents the “concern with scientific and technological possibility” that is said to be missing in this film (46).
For having less than 20 minutes to accomplish what modern films do in multiple hours, I feel that the film did well at incorporating the elements of fantasy necessary for a good sci-fi movie while maintaining some focus towards the scientific theory the plot is based on.
The critically acclaimed film A Trip to the Moon is inherently science fiction, yet it is not even close to being a sci-fi film. Based on modern standards, a sci-fi film is something in the likes of The Martian or Interstellar. The two have actual science, stretched only by plot holes created by the relatively short time a movie takes up. A Trip to the Moon is extremely different, as it has no actual scientific values. Theoretically, the movie is about a bunch of wizards getting on a large projectile to the Moon. Wizards legitimately represent the scientists, for whatever reason. One may say that it must be related to science because the moon is involved, (and thus science-fiction), but the entirety of the film is more of a mockery of science than trying to actually depict the reality of science in action. It is science fiction in that it relates to the definition of it being “imagined science” (Merriam-Webster), yet it has nothing to do with contributing to the actual scientific fiction film community. The common science shown in movies is often not explained, nor is it ever crucial to understand the science in order to understand the plot. A Trip to the Moon laughs at the idea of using physics to go to the moon, deciding to take barely a couple minutes to show a journey that, in reality, would take ages. If anyone was truly moved to begin showing science in video because of this film, I would be incredibly surprised, and, for that, I highly disagree with classifying this parody as the very first sci-fi film.
ReplyDeleteFeaturing many unrealistic and otherworldly elements such as scientists being portrayed as wizards or rockets being launched out of cannons, “A Trip to the Moon” by George Méliès has undergone much debate whether or not it can be categorized as a science fiction film. While top film critics such as Tom Gunning have argued that these unrealistic factors negate the film’s ability to be considered science fiction, “A Trip to the Moon” explores the unknown and open-ended mysteries that the moon has to offer. This is characteristic of many modern science fiction films such as the blockbuster Interstellar (2014), which explored the concept of entering a black hole, which to this day, scientists are still unsure of what would happen if one were to enter a black hole. Clearly, the essence of this genre is to expand the boundaries of the unknown through creativity, and Méliès does this through how he portrayed the construction of the spaceship, the cannon launching the space rocket to the moon, and the intense battle between the scientists and moon inhabitants. Despite the inaccurate depiction of how the rocket was sent to the moon and what creatures inhabited the moon, Méliès lets loose his imagination through pioneering film-making techniques at the time such as stop-motion animation to explore something entirely foreign and different. While other modern science fiction films employ more believable methods of explaining unknown phenomena through contemporary video-editing techniques, “A Trip to the Moon” used imagination and fantastical elements to ultimately achieve the same objective of exploring the unexplored.
ReplyDelete