Saturday, January 25, 2014
Birth of Science Fiction?
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)
I definitely would argue that this film is under the category of science fiction. Looking at many science fiction films today, such as Star Trek and Blade Runner, their plots and ideas are not based completely in science. The majority of the films are based on creativity and extraordinary special effects which is what Méliès produced. Google defines "science fiction"as "fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets." By this definition, Méliès did use fiction that was stemmed in his (and societys) former belief of what the moon looked like. He placed his film on the basis of travel and life on other planets, part of the definition of science fiction. While Méliès might be mocking science quite a bit, it does yield specific qualities that most science fiction films include.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Elanna in that science fiction is often far from scientific. Take, for example, the "SyFy" channel on TV. This channel, first of all, fails to correctly spell Sci-Fi and therefore loses much merit for me. With this joke of a name, they have also reduced themselves to low quality programs such as wrestling and obscure cult phenomena such as “Naked Vegas”. True, they are not claiming these to be science fiction shows, but the channel label leads to a confusion of sorts among viewers as to what science fiction really is. Knowing that science fiction is vaguely defined even by its own channel, I do not believe that this loose interpretation of science fiction allows the Méliès film to be categorized as such. This film, in my opinion, is nothing more than fantasy and pure fiction. One could argue that literally any film is 'science fiction' if they pick up on one aspect of the film such as the way the earth looks or the way that a creature is portrayed. Is "The Wizard of Oz" science fiction because it has a cyclone that blows Dorothy and Toto to an unknown world? Just because the other side of the rainbow was unknown does not mean that its portrayal creates science fiction. Méliès’s "A Trip to the Moon" reminds me quite distinctly of Oz. The wizards, the puffs of smoke, the journey to an unknown area of the universe. Why, then, would one be considered science fiction and the other not?
ReplyDeleteMelies film: A Trip to the Moon ultimately portrays aspects of what a science fiction film would include. However, the film does not support true scientific ideals because Melies goal is to entertain the audience. According to Google, science fiction is defined as: "fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets" (Google). A Trip to the Moon is about a group of astronomers who travel to the moon in a space ship to ultimately discover what is on the moon. As seen in the film, the astronomers are wearing floor length cloaks along with pointy hats. By these costumes being worn by the astronomers, Melies inaccurately portrays astronomers during that time period, and makes them appear more wizard like in order to entertain the audience. However, this supports the definition of science fiction by showing "major social changes" (Google). Melies portrayed the astronomers to be wizards who have ultimate power and who can control anything. However in reality, wizards do not exist and the astronomers are supposed to be actual astronomers wanting to discover more about the moon. Another aspect from Melies film A Trip to the Moon which supports the ideals of Google's definition of science fiction, is when the astronomers set of on their journey to travel to the moon. When the astronomers land on the moon, Melies depicts the moon to be this rugged, exotic place by creating never before seen plants, to strange alien inhabitants who try to kidnap the astronomers. This evidence supports the science fiction definition by: "major environment changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets" (Google). Although Melies film A Trip to the Moon, did not reflect true scientific ideals, the film does support the ideas of science fiction because Melies portrays inaccurate information and creates fantasies, in order to entertain the audience.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Elanna and Julia on some of their points, but I think “A Trip to the Moon” was more of a precursor for the science fiction genre rather than being classified as science fiction like Elanna was arguing or completely separate from the genre like Julia was discussing. I agree with Elanna in the sense that Méliès’ film does depict space and extraterrestrial life, so in that sense could arguably be science fiction, but as Julia was saying, I do not think it can totally be classified as science fiction since there are not enough realistic qualities in the work. The wizard-like scientists and “figures out of fairy pantomime” are just two of the many qualities that take away from the films realism. “A Trip to the Moon” is quite revolutionary, as it was the first film to depict extra-terrestrial life, so I think this film really was the basis for all future films depicting space or alien-like creatures. Movies like “Alien,” produced in the 1970s, “Blade Runner,” or even the “Star Wars” films all share common qual55ities that can easily classify them as science fiction according to Elanna’s definition of the genre, such as their realistic depictions of space, extra-terrestrial life, and future technologies; “A Trip to the Moon,” on the other hand, does not follow all of these guidelines, so therefore cannot totally be classified as science fiction in my opinion. What “A Trip to the Moon” does effectively do is introduce the film industry to some of the basic science-fiction qualities which are then furthered in future films like “Blade Runner” or “Alien.”
ReplyDeleteI absolutely think that "A Trip to the Moon" is, at the very least, a precursor to the science fiction film genre, if not quite qualifying as sci-fi itself. Thinking about movies that unquestionably fall under the sci-fi label, such as "Godzilla", "The Terminator" and "Planet of the Apes", what appears to define this genre is an adherence to a set of rules derived from reality. Everything in the worlds of these films can be explained through laws that, despite their divergence from those of our own world, are still fundamentally grounded in what we would recognize as science. Giant monsters, time travel and simian speech might be implausible concepts, but because their respective films explain their existences in real-world terms and concepts, we can more-or-less accept that they are present in realities very much like our own. While "A Trip to the Moon" does indeed revolve around a scientific expedition, it lacks the marriage of scientific fiction and fact that true sci-fi movies possess. There are no explanations or equations in "A Trip to the Moon", and most importantly, no rules. A rocket can fall off the edge of the moon and land on Earth because the film is completely devoid of any semblance of reality, and therefore its action does not need to be guided by scientific lines of thought. Indeed, Melies’s depiction of scientists as wizards is a perfect opening scene for the film, because it clearly announces that all logic and reason is about to be thrown out in favor of fairy-tale fantasy. So while "A Trip to the Moon" played an absolutely critical role in sci-fi’s jump from text to screen, ultimately its complete disregard for reality separates it from the genre it helped establish.
ReplyDeleteIt is arguable that "A Trip to the Moon" is science fiction. I would say that it is because it depicts an idea that could hardly be taken seriously at the time it was created. Even though the scientist are depicted as "wizards" wizards and scientist are fundamentally very similar, except wizards use magic and scientist use facts, however until facts are understood I believe that are similar to the idea of magic, an unexplainable force that can cause interesting and unthinkable outcomes. "A Trip to the Moon" reminds me of "Back to the Future" because time travel seems impossible, just like going to the moon seemed impossible in 1902. The scientist are both eccentric oddballs trying to achieve something new and amazing. However, in "A Trip to the Moon" the work being done is less secretive, the scientist has a whole following of supporters and helpers, whereas in "Back to the Future" Doc's only supporter and helper is Marty McFly, who does not even seem all that interested in Doc's work until he is sent back to 1955, but even then skepticism is present in both films. "A Trip to the Moon" is most defiantly science fiction, an early form of it, but defiantly science fiction.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Melies film, "A Trip to the Moon" can be portrayed as a science fiction film, because of the exotic plot. The idea of going to the moon was so far fetched at the time of filming that many thought it was unthinkable. Therefore, it can be classified as science fiction. Yes, Melies does portray his characters as wizards and this gives many people the reason to not declare it as a science fiction film. However, there are many science fiction films that have exotic characters. For example, The Hunger Games is declared a science fiction film. Many of the characters in The Hunger Games are shown in very interesting make up and clothing, in somewhat the same way that Melies shows his characters. I believe that Melies portrayal of his wizard scientists does classify the film as science fiction. For example, Spider-Man and Fantastic Four are both declared science fiction film. The characters in these films have special powers, and are not normal. The same thing occurs with Melies' wizards, they are not normal, they are wizards. In conclusion, I believe that we can call this film a science fiction film because of the exotic plot and the interesting portrayal of characters.
ReplyDeleteWhile the film, "A Trip to the Moon" is extremely unrealistic and could be correctly classified as a comedy about a group of wizards traveling to the moon, one cannot say it is not science fiction. The reason for this is because there are classic science fiction movies that are not all that dissimilar from "A Trip to the Moon". For example, in the movie, "The Day the Earth Stood Still", it presents an apocalyptic scenario where a massive robot-alien travels down to Earth to destroy humanity for the sake of the planet. It shoots red lazer beams out of its eyes, is indestructible and can single handedly destroy the entire human race. Keep in mind, this is one of the most popular science fiction movies, however, like "A Trip to the Moon" it is very improbable. The wizards in "A Trip to the Moon" travel to mars, and are essentially exploring the planet and run into aliens to capture them. It is true that there are some funny scenes that may pull the audience away from viewing it a science fiction movie, in the larger scheme of things, as mentioned, it is similar to other modern movies.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not think that Meiliese “A Trip to the Moon” should be considered as a science fiction movie. The reason for this is that although the movie is a fun movie to watch, the film lacks a seriousness aspect to it. The so-called “scientist” in the movie are dressed in fluorescently colored lab coats while the actors over exaggerating things when things does not necessarily go their way. At times it was very obvious that these actors were just acting instead of letting the role of the character take over them. When I think of a science fiction I think of a movie such as “Avatar” where the aliens in the movie were fighting for dear life and with a purpose. The acting in that movie was not overly exaggerated. Every thing appeared to be natural. This movie is more of a precursor for the fairy tale genre, where all ages can enjoy. The reason why this is a fairy tale is because the people back then had no idea how to leave planet earth. Instead of using a spaceship in the movie the people were simply inside of this thing that resembled a bullet and they put this vehicle inside of a cannon or gun so that they could be shot out into space. If this movie was to eever air on tv t would not be on the “ScyFy” channel but on the “Disney” channel or “ABC Family”.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Méliès mocks his astronomers as scientists, his choice to portray his characters as such does not alter the fact that the actions and science used in his film was based upon scientific books of his time. Méliès bases his shot-gun projectile off of Jules Verne’s From the Earth to the Moon (Rutsky 73). Verne’s novel, written in 1865, was about the desire to reach the moon and the journey of how they could possibly succeed at their endeavor. Verne actually attempted to do the scientific calculations in order to demonstrate how his idea was scientifically possible. However, we now know that space travel in such a manner is not possible; in the past, the shot-gun projectile method was the only scientific pathway written or discussed. Because of Méliès’s ignorance about future discoveries, his attempt to base his movie A Trip to the Moon off of the science of his own time period reinforces that his movie was in fact a science fiction film. Science fiction as defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary is “fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component”. Regardless of whether or not Méliès’s film is scientifically accurate, his film is still based upon the scientific knowledge of Verne. Because Méliès is trying to make his film scientifically accurate, A Trip to the Moon deserves to be considered a member of the science fiction film family.
ReplyDeleteWhile many consider Melies’s A Trip to the Moon the first incarnation of science fiction, I believe it to be a closer representation of fantasy than that of science fiction. While it does hold a base theme of extra-terrestrial exploration and an encounter of the third kind, no actual science is used or attempted to be used in any way shape or form. The scientists are dressed not in any traditional garb, but in wizard robes for the first segment of the film. Their plan to get from the earth to the moon involves shooting a giant metal bullet, with themselves inside, from a giant artillery cannon. While on the moon’s surface, the men can breathe even without oxygen or any kind of life support system. The race of aliens the scientists encounter are wielding spears and appear to be some sort of demonic tribesmen. Perhaps the most hysterical occurrence is when the scientists finally return to earth. They simply get into their giant metal bullet and push it to the edge of the moon, jump in and then fall back down to earth. Now, to Melies’s credit, not much of the information about space or the moon that exists now existed at the conception of A Trip to the Moon. While I do not consider the film itself to be qualified as science fiction, it can be considered the father of the genre by inspiring thematic material and creating themes for future science fiction films.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jackson, in that, at the very least, A Trip to the Moon should be considered a precursor to the genre of science fiction. It paved the way for futuristic films and set an example for which other sci-fi movies are based off of. But by no means is this film realistic. It is of course over exaggerated which seems to add to the entertainment of the movie.
ReplyDeleteLooking further, I stand by that A Trip to the Moon is definitely a science fiction film. Take for example the movie Sharknado; its mockery on science fiction is the only thing it is known for. A description of the film reinforces this: "A freak hurricane hits Los Angeles causing man-eating sharks to be scooped up in water spouts and flood the city with shark-infested seawater". This movie is ridiculous. But the ridiculousness is its charm. I feel completely the same way with Méliè's A Trip to the Moon. All of the entertainment it brings comes from its over-the-top approach on science fiction. For all of those who disagree on this film being a sci-fi picture, I challenge you to find a better fitting genre for it.
Melies’s film A Trip to the Moon acts as more of a transition between pantomime and traditional science fiction. Science fiction movies are movies in which the viewer is transported to a future where the impossible happens through technological advances. The impossible does happen in A Trip to the Moon, but its incorporation of pantomime themes is actually used to improve the plausibility of the film. Science fiction and pantomime are not irreconcilable in A Trip to the Moon. The wizards act as an explanation for how they manage to fly to the moon rather than any specific scientific evidence. Before airplanes were invented a year following the release of A Trip to the Moon, human flight was only possible in magical scenarios like with the Greek Inventor Daedalus, so space travel was completely out of the question. The inclusion of wizards not only gives the film some merit, but also greatly aids to its whimsical nature. One of the primary goals of a science fiction film is to transport the audience to a different place and time, often by using advanced sets and filming elements. In all of Melie’s films, there was an emphasis on filming technique. He pioneered editing and created new techniques such as superimposition, which he incorporated into many films including A Trip to the Moon. The use of these advanced filming techniques greatly aids to A Trip to the Moon’s classification as a science fiction film.
ReplyDeleteA Trip to the Moon can be considered a science fiction film even if it does not appear to take the scientific part seriously. Sobriety towards science is not a requirement of a science fiction movie. What makes a film a science fiction film is that the film contains some type of advanced technology that does not exist yet and the capabilities of this technology is attributed to some form of science rather than magic or mystical forces. A Trip to the Moon fits this description with premise of the idea of traveling to the moon by firing a capsule out a of a huge cannon.
ReplyDeleteThe portrayal of the scientist as wizards is Méliès’s way of making fun of them, comparing their science to magic, making them seem foolish. There are many other science fiction movies that mix comedies with science. One example of this is Galaxy Quest. This is a science fiction film that is a parody based off of Star Trek. The basis of the movie is that the actors in a TV show similar to Star Trek end up being taken by aliens who saw the TV show and want them to be their leaders. The science of the film is fantastical, similar to A Trip to the Moon, not being very logical, with technology like the Omega 13 device, an extremely powerful weapon with almost magical power to destroy all the atoms in the universe. This is still a science fiction film because even though the science is silly, it has technology more advance than what existed when the movie was produced.
I believe that "A Trip to the Moon" is categorized as Science Fiction for two reasons: 1. because Tom Gunning argues that Science Fiction films are based on possible, tangible science whereas a reputable Science Fiction movie that includes extraterrestrial beings, such as "Alien," has the antagonist of the film something that has no evidence of existence; and 2. Science Fiction refers to a science that stretches the truth (i.e. the science of physics). Both "A Trip to the Moon" as well as "Alien" are representations of films that use information not yet understood by mankind at the time of their creation (such as the physics of the moon and aliens). This is why I believe Méliè's film is characterized as Science Fiction.
ReplyDeleteSome may think the film “A Trip to the Moon” is the first ever science fiction film but I consider it otherwise. I see it more as a fantasy film with the only science element being the space ship. The way they actually go to the moon seems like a urban legend, being shot out of a cannon and then reaching the moon. The reason why it I do not consider it a science fiction film is because of the lack of scientific revelations. When I think of a science fiction film I think of “Water World” where it is a whole new world and is still realistic. “A Trip to the Moon” wizards and aliens seem as if they were part of society at the time. When the film was made going to the moon was deemed as magic, and who can conduct magic? Wizards, they are the ones capable of completing this challenge. Or they are the ones crazy enough to try! The film also doesn’t try and show the science fiction, doesn’t explain anything nor tries to justify anything. This doesn’t necessary make it not a science fiction film but one of the main purposes for a science fiction film is to have people enter into a new realm. The film also depicts the outside world as if it was the worst thing to be in, this alternative reality means that the world is falling in a certain way with the film portrays the aliens. Overall I did enjoy the film but I can’t consider the film a science fiction film because of lack of a new reality.
ReplyDelete