The Dark Side of the Moon: Understanding the Unknown

After my first session of watching Moon I was left with a lot of unanswered questions and confusion in regards to various aspects of the film. Why exactly can the clones only survive for three years? Why are they implanted with memories instead of just being programmed to do their job? Why can’t they know that they’re clones? Why is the moon supposed to be the mecca of clean energy when it seems as if it would actually be more harmful than the current energy sources on earth? These questions, among other potential inconsistencies left me pondering explanations for such little background information in the plot.

After my second and third rounds of screening Moon, I realized that I was not going to be provided with an answer to my numerous questions. Then I suddenly had an epiphany (not literally) that it’s alright that we aren't provided with every little detail. Why is the moon suddenly the source of clean energy? Because the movie is called Moon and the setting obviously needs to take place on the moon. It is also noteworthy that the setting takes place on the light side of the moon rather than the dark. The dark side of the moon or “the far side of the moon” which it is commonly referred to as is typically a symbol for the unknown. Just like the common debate of “light versus dark” and “good versus evil”, the movie Moon grants us an amount of information on the light side of the moon, while the dark side of the moon can be representative of the unknown details of the film.  

In addition to the dark and light sides of the moon, the lighting on the inside of the moon station is equally important. The lighting inside the moon station is blindingly white which is almost unbearable to look at (at least for me). However, it provides a great sense of the setting for the audience because we further understand that artificial lighting is the only light source available on the moon. This blinding light is also a great indication of the sense of isolation Sam must feel. In several Sci-Fi and time travel movies that I've seen in the past, I've noticed that characters often find themselves all alone in a different dimension in what looks to be an endless white room. The white lighting provides us with the sense of isolation felt inside the station, but it also indicates the isolation of being on the moon as well.

In contrast to the bright white lighting, the dark lighting in the basement contributes a completely different perception. While in the basement, the two Sams feel the exact opposite of isolation when they encounter a seemingly endless amount of clones. They realize that there are many inactive clones like them that are just waiting to be activated as soon as the current clones die. One of the Sams is so overwhelmed that he immediately returns to the light into his familiar isolation.

So as we can see, the elements of setting and lighting in the film are interrelated and feed off of each other. The lighting helps to advance the sense of the setting for the audience, while the setting assists us in understanding the variations of lighting. 

The Virgin Mary?

Children of Men was a film that dealt with the concept of what would occur if procreation no longer existed among humans.  This concept is practically unbearable for me to process because it seems to present a problem that is the exact opposite of what we’re facing in our world today. The human population is multiplying at a rapid rate and there is much speculation that in the future we will not have enough resources to maintain our species. However, in Children of Men we are faced with the issue of the human race inevitably dying off unless there is a cure found. This brings me to the widely controversial question that movie presents; did they ever find a cure?  

In the last scene of the movie Theo and the new mother are in a small boat awaiting rescue by the Human Project. The movie then abruptly comes to an end as the “rescue” boat appears out of the fog. This scene was sure to leave a lot of people upset and confused because we are still left with several unanswered questions. I wasn’t as concerned with the fact that we never actually found out why humans suddenly became unable to reproduce as I was with not knowing if the Human Project was actually a trustworthy group. Throughout the movie we saw that the people who were resisting the government were undoubtedly just as messed up as the government. So who’s to say that the Human Project wasn’t just as corrupt as the rest of the world?

Giving them the benefit of the doubt, let’s just say that the Human Project was as reliable as the characters in the movie would have liked to believe. If so, a great deal of symbolism takes place in the last scene. As Theo, the new mother, and the infant child emerge from the foggy tunnel, we hear a loud surge of background music which widely resembles religious or holy music. This is the first of many parts in the scene which provide us with religious allusions. Earlier in the film the then-pregnant mother jokes with Theo that there is no father of the baby and that she is actually a virgin. This quote can be well incorporated in the last scene because we can actually visualize the new mother as the Virgin Mary. The three characters in the boat serve as a sort of trinity together. The mother and newborn serve as a beacon of hope for humanity because her baby is the only key the world has left for survival, just as Jesus was a sign of hope to his many followers. Likewise, Theo represents sacrifice as he bleeds to death in the boat after being shot while protecting the mother and child. This alludes to Jesus sacrificing his life on the cross for God. I also think it is important to take into consideration the name of the rescue boat, Tomorrow. If the Human Project rescue boat is actually a legitimate cause, then the boat also serves as a representation of the hope of humanity for tomorrow. Additionally, it is not coincidence that the main character is named Theo. After all, the definition of the word theo is “relating to God or deities”. So in retrospect, I think this film intentionally contained a lot of religious symbolism, but it’s ultimately up to the viewer to decide whether or not to recognize it. 

Hopefully a Very Distant Future

              Artificial Intelligence is a film that takes place in the distant future. This portrait of the future is hardly recognizable to us. Things we once believed to be true are completely different and our world is turned upside down. New York City, the once glorified city of the world, is now completely under water due to human irresponsibility. Perhaps this is the filmmaker’s way of indicating how he believes climate change will impact our futures. This is a huge wakeup call to the audience as we realize that much of the world’s land mass has flooded causing a large depletion of our natural resources. This lack of resources ultimately results in an international licensing of pregnancies. We see ourselves in a kind of futuristic China where our reproductive abilities are left up to governance. Fortunately, the film presents us with a solution to this problem of reproduction. Robots. But not just any robots, robots that are practically indistinguishable from human beings. These robots or “mecha” are thought to be the solution to all our problems because they don’t take up any resources such as food or water. Sounds perfect, right?

Wrong.

                

               These advanced machines are highly disliked by many humans. But for what reasons? Do they pose a threat to us? Why would we be so threatened by the very thing that’s supposed to be the solution to our every problem? Perhaps we as humans don’t like the idea of something trying to be us that simply isn’t. Or maybe we are jealous of the fact that these machines are perfect in the ways that we can’t be. After all, we can’t live for 2000 years like David can, but I’m sure many of us would like to. Maybe the problem isn’t the robots at all; maybe it’s simply our envy of what they can be that we never will be.

             

             At the end of the day, David really isn’t any different than a human, other than the fact that he isn’t organic. But does being organic really classify us as being a human? Do we really need to be conceived in our mother’s womb to be considered human? I think that in the future it may be safe to say that being born in a science lab is just as authentic as being born from your mother. David can feel love, pain, happiness, and sadness, just as an organic human can. Perhaps the real irony in this whole movie is the fact that David is going on a quest to become a “real boy” when maybe he’s actually more real than all of us. After all, in the end, David is the only trace of the human race left behind. We could even go as far as saying that the human race’s only purpose in the world was to create the robots and once they achieved that, they died off.  So maybe the only “real” beings in the world are robots and God’s plan for humans was solely to create the robots. The most humorous part is that a great portion of the film was spent watching humans attempt to triumph the mecha out of their dislike, but ultimately the mecha triumphed the humans without even trying. I think the real reason that the organic humans disliked the mecha is because deep down they knew that one day they would all be gone while the mecha continued to prosper. This could potentially tell us a lot about what the future holds and I for one hope they don’t create mecha anytime soon because we won’t be around much longer after that. 

Blade Runner Blog

As an English Major with a particular interest in feminist literature, I couldn't help but to comment on the overall portrayal of women in Blade Runner. It seems as if every woman is characterized as inferior to men. All of the replicant women are ultimately created by a creepy and geeky man, Tyrell, who makes replicants out of the personal fantasies he has for what women should be like. On an even weirder note, he gives one of the replicants, Rachel, his niece's memories as if he's attempting to recreate his niece in a sexier body. Rachel is basically a replicant created by men and is considered to be their newest and best model. Everything is perfect about Rachel including the fact that she doesn't even know she's a replicant. Once Deckard reveals to Rachel that she's not a human, she gains a sort of trust in him which he clearly takes advantage of. Deckard is an alcoholic feeding on the vulnerabilities of a poor replicant woman. Deckard is aggressive with Rachel and forces her to repeat various sexual phrases for him. Deckard clearly uses Rachel to get over his loneliness even though she saved his life. Rachel is obedient to Deckard and expresses her love to him even though he never verbally reciprocates it.
     Another female replicant we meet is the stripper with the fake snake. Out of all the occupations that could be available in futuristic Los Angeles, why is she a stripper? Yes, I understand that there are strippers in the world and that it might be a good cover for her, but I believe that there were a lot more options that the filmmakers could have gone with. Lastly, Pris is another great example of the portrayal of women in Blade Runner. Pris is portrayed as one of the perfect female replicants who wears too much makeup causing her to resemble a doll-like figure. Although Pris and Roy are supposedly a team, Pris never acts without his consent. Pris loves Roy and follows all his instructions and goes along with his plans. The only contribution Pris made to the team was luring J.F. Sebastian with her sexuality. Pris seduces J.F. Sebastian well, but that's all she really brings to the table. She depends on Roy to find her more life and Roy is ultimately the one who executes the plan of visiting their "father" for answers. Pris eventually dies while Roy lives because her dependency on him to find more time in life failed.
     So in retrospect it seems as though Blade Runner didn't care to give women any strong roles. Whether this is on purpose or just out of habit due to the fact that Blade Runner was made in the earlier 80s where it wasn't common to give female strong roles, I'm not sure. However, considering that the film is supposed to take place in 2019 it does say a lot about the way the filmmakers thought women would progress in the future, which clearly isn't at all.