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?
A "Trip to the Moon" is a science fiction as well as a fantasy film. It is impossible to determine whether this film is of science fiction or not because during the film's production we do not know the scientific data (if any) they were working with. A science fiction film uses pragmatic science as well as imagined (fictional) science. Under those guidelines, "A Trip to the Moon" can be considered a science fiction film. The two main examples of science fiction in the film are the plot as well as the props. Specific examples include the introduction of wizards as the “scientists” and their launch of a bullet to the moon, the aliens and their flashy deaths, the women warriors and their “armor” (swimsuits), and the fandom of their return to earth. The launch of the bullet to the moon is a specific example of science fiction because they applied their scientific knowledge of bullet propulsion and applied it to rocket science. Similar instances in the oversimplification of science occur in Star Trek; their use of teleportation and “warp speed” (traveling at the speed of light) are derived of science, but exaggerated to capture the audience. In both Star Trek and A Trip to the Moon, the plot revolves around discovery, the unknown, and in 1902-1966 (release dates) space was (and is) the greatest unknown, which is why science fiction films are often in space. One key difference between Star Trek and A Trip to the Moon is that A Trip to the Moon utilizes whimsical aspects. The actor’s movements are airy and dramatic similar to those in a play in order to display what words cannot. In summary, "A Trip to the Moon" is a fantastical science fiction film because of how the actors carried out the plot.
ReplyDeleteMéliès’s "A Trip to the Moon" qualifies as science fiction because it reflects the understanding of the society in which it was produced and is no more fantastical than other films considered to be staples of the science fiction genre. Critics of "A Trip to the Moon," such as Tom Gunning, may exclude it from the science fiction genre because of the scientists’ wizard-like clothing and the showgirls that launch the spaceship near the beginning of the movie. However, it is important to note that notions of visiting the moon must have been fantastical in 1902, when the film was produced, especially before the introduction of rocketry. While Jules Verne may have published books about travelling to the moon that were more grounded in nature, one can reasonably assume that "A Trip to the Moon’s" purpose was simply to entertain the masses due to Méliès’s background. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the filmmaker would present his scientists in wizard costumes. The showgirls launching the ship represent contemporary France’s colonial ambitions. Exploration of parts of Africa and Asia were popular in early 20th century France, so exploration of the moon, representing more “uncharted” territory, would be enticing as well. The showgirls simply reflect the quest for exploration in the society that Méliès lived in. Moreover, many aspects of the film are no more fantastical than staples of the science fiction genre, like "Star Wars." In "A Trip to the Moon," the scientists encounter Selenite aliens, which are somewhat humanoid and, as shown by the scene where the scientists are presented to the Selenite monarch, form societies similar to humans. This depiction of aliens is much more grounded in reality than in "Star Wars," which has forms of life without basis, such as Jabba the Hutt. If "A Trip to the Moon" is not science fiction, then neither is "Star Wars."
ReplyDeleteWhile Melies's movie titled, "A Trip to the Moon" was a significant advancement in the world of filmmaking, it should not be considered the world’s first science fiction as it fails to consider basic mechanics and trades off reality for magic. Entering the film making process, Melies wanted to shift away from the realism expressed in the actualities that the Lumiere Brothers had made famous towards expressionist filming. In his efforts to excite the film making industry, he left behind any basis in reality including the laws of nature that are fundamental to any quality sci-fi production. Instead, he add a sense of magic to his movie such as having the prominent scientist of the era secretly commune as wizards who wish to explore space or have godlike figures pour snow upon the wizards as they nap on the moon. Though some science phenomenon can be considered akin to magic, they ultimately can be explained through scientific principle. This is not to say that a film has to explain the inner workings of everything scientific concept they present, but they must give a name or at least acknowledge the existence of such science. For example, the “hyper drive” is referenced several times in Star wars when on the Millennium Falcon and is credited to have the ability to let the ship go into lightspeed, yet the viewer does not know how it works. However, Melies never explains where the fairies/ gods came from or why the scientists are wizards. Any arguments saying that the wizardry and magic were considered science in the 1890s fail to take into account the advancements of the era such as Newtonian physics and the atom.
ReplyDeleteMéliès’s "A Trip to the Moon" counts as a science fiction film regardless of the lack of scientific knowledge, because of the time period, and the fact that Méliès was a filmmaker, not a scientist. Although there have been more accurate science fiction movies made, they came at a time when more was known about science. While there is more of a mystical sense to this film than a traditional sci-fi film, when someone is the first, or close to the first, to do something, they get a sense of creative liberty. So while we could compare the seriousness of this film to the likes of Star Wars and 2001: A Space Odyssey, those films came after the genre was defined. They had a reputation to uphold, they had the excess knowledge available, and they knew what to expect. If Tom Gunning desired to be such a harsh critic to "A Trip to the Moon" for it’s flashy costumes and supposed lack of seriousness, why would one not also take issue with nonsensical acts in other sci-fi films, such as near unlimited "hyper-speed travel" in Star Wars, with weapons capable of destroying planets. That technology is no more fantastical than a tube capable of soaring to the moon. Méliès's purpose with this film was to entertain in a way that had barely been done before. He paved the way for future films to discuss science, in more proper terms. To Méliès, "A Trip to the Moon" was a technological feat with flashy science and magic to boot. To critique the costumes, or the physics of this movie, without also looking at the time period and context of who had made a film such as this before, it takes away the might this film had at the time of its release. All these reasons encompass the fact that Méliès "A Trip to the Moon" was indeed a science fiction film, with added mystical elements, with a basis in scientific exploration of unknown spaces.
ReplyDelete"A Trip to the Moon" is a film that blurs the lines between science fiction and fantasy; while it does contain several elements that could definitely be considered science fiction at the time, its whimsical presentation of these scientific elements gives it a fantastical touch. It is important to realize that “A Trip to the Moon” was made during 1902, meaning that many of the advancements in physics and engineering that allow us to imagine spaceflight today had not been discovered at the time, so Méliès had to use his imagination to figure out what much of the science fiction elements would look like. For example, the spaceship looked similar to a large bullet; while that is not something that we would imagine today, it definitely had a scientific basis in that anything that leaves the Earth’s gravitational pull would need to move extremely fast in order to do so. Additionally, the presence of other civilizations on the moon reflected the European exploration and colonization of other continents, and the discovery of new peoples and civilizations at the time. While we now know that life similar to the Selenids does not exist on the moon, Méliès did not know of this and presented them as a representation of the unknown on the previously unexplored moon. It is similar to the presentation of the Fremen and the sandworms in “Dune”, who also represent the unknown on a mysterious planetary body. If the Selenids remove “A Trip to the Moon” from the realm of science fiction, several prominent science fiction series like “Dune” would also be excluded from the genre. However, the existence of wizards and the lack of serious portrayal of scientists, while clearly meant to entertain and amuse, pushes the film slightly into the fantasy realm, as many of these “scientists” use strange magical techniques to neutralize many of the Selenites. While these techniques could possibly represent advances in technology that lead to better weapons, the lack of sufficient exposition give the film and these elements more of a fantastical feel.
ReplyDeleteGeorges Méliès’s film, "A Trip to the Moon" is both a science-fiction film and a fantasy. In modern film, there is a very fine line between what classifies as a science-fiction film opposed to a fantasy film. Tom Gunning's critique of the film is completely understandable. It is true that, "Science' fiction implies a certain sobriety and serious concern with scientific and technological possibilities". However most science-fiction movies have parts that are completely not based on science. Take for instance the "Star Wars" series. The movies cover interplanetary adventures for Luke Skywalker and his friends. Many of the planets, flying techniques, and physical abilities of characters are completely based on imagination, as opposed to science. Even with all of this, Star Wars is considered to be science fiction because of its dealing with advanced technology. This is the exact justification applicable to "Trip to the Moon". Because the film's story is based upon space travel and Martian technology, it classifies as a science-fiction movie. However, the film does disrespect scientifically strategy by using what seems to be a gun to launch the wizardly-dressed scientists to Mars. In addition, the Martians had no actual physical composition and would vanish upon being hit. These aspects of this film are what classifies it as a fantasy film. Although there are a lot more scientifically-based science fiction films, “Trip to the Moon” was a precursor to many more of these films to come. Like “Star Wars”, Méliès’s film, "A Trip to the Moon" lies in between the science fiction and fantasy genres.
ReplyDelete*Moon* and *selenites* sorry...
DeleteGeorge Méliès’s “A Trip to the Moon” falls both under the categories of science fiction and fantasy due to its fantastical storytelling and plausible future. Two instances where the film alludes to being a pantomime are the examples of the point hatted scientists and celestial characters. In the beginning of the film, a group of scientists dressed in wizard-like garments discuss the prospect of traveling to the moon and frequently use exaggerated movements to illustrate the purpose of their convening. Méliès takes advantage of having characteristics of a fairy tale by implementing expressive movements and fantastical costumes to both maintain the audience's attention through unfamiliar appearances and apparent actions. These observations are only strengthened when a group of Celestial characters are introduced while the scientists lie dormant on the face of the moon. It is apparent that Méliès was not trying to capture contemporary scientific logic by showing a group of people in costumes resembling that of distant stars and planets, but was rather trying to intrigue the audience by adding comical expression and actions. However, “A Trip to the Moon” is simultaneously a science fiction movie due to its underlying theme of mass colonization, something that European societies attempted to do during the Scramble for Africa. During the middle of the film, the scientists are encountered with a group of Selenite Aliens, and eventually kill the Selenites monarch, thereby angering the indeginous people. The scientists later escape to their vessel and head towards their home, accidentally taking a selenite with them. When arriving, the scientists' townsfolk give them a hero's welcome by throwing a celebration, and ridicule and degrade the selenites' dignity in doing so. These scenes were truly reflective of the sentiments towards conquest among European countries, and makes it reasonable for one to assume how colonization would look in the distant future. These factors lead to the conclusion that the combination of fantastical storytelling and plausible futures result in “The Trip to the Moon” to be ambiguous in its self-identification of film genre.
ReplyDeleteI think that "A Trip to the Moon", while having scientific elements, these elements are used in a comedic way, which causes the viewer to not take the science aspect seriously. The way that this film is used to impact history and talk about colonization takes away from the aspects that could be considered "scientific". The wizard characters who are also the "scientists" resemble conquerors more than scientists. They go to the moon and when addressed by the natives, they kill them. After coming home, they are treated like heroes. In "A Trip to the Moon" there are many aspects of the storyline that don't make sense with physics and other scientific laws, such as how the rocket works and the fact that the moon's atmosphere is the same as the earth's. The idea of using a rocket to get to the moon was one of the most realistic ideas of the film. I think that one of the biggest things that excludes this film in ways from the category of sci-fi is that the science isn't taken seriously, this creates an interesting perspective on the culture of the time and the audience though. I think that the people that would view this movie cared less about it being realistic, and more that it supported their ideas and kept them entertained. I think this movie was also a mechanism to plant certain ideas like the ideas of colonization being heroic. I think that for the time and evolution of science this film also reflects how culture at the time felt about the portrayal of women, science, and the colonized countries and peoples.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Méliés' world-renowned film, "A Trip to the Moon", should not be considered the first science fiction film, due to a lack of plot, scientific backing, and an emphasis on magic. Despite the ever-lasting contribution this block buster gifted to the world of film, the film itself does not embody the complex story line that science fiction films employ. For example, the film follows the story line of a group of people going to the moon, without any real plot events besides interaction with Selenites, a parade, napping, etc. One vital aspect to science fiction is the presence of a futuristic aspect within a complex plot, which "A Trip to the Moon" is missing. Furthermore, science fiction films require a deep-seated base in science, which leads to the basis of the fictional action. However, as mentioned by Tom Gunning in his literary review, "Méliés cannot take his scientists seriously at all, introducing them first as wizards with point hats, figures out of fairy pantomimes" (Gunning 70). For example, the rocket ship being launched by a group of 'show girls' and landing in the eye of the moon are clearly based in magic, as opposed to science. Even though the science of space was not as we know it today, Méliés valued the artistic and entertainment value more than the science backing. While the pantomime-like aspect of the story is what made it so different from the prior films and the Lumiere Brothers' actualités, the emphasis on magic and lack of science is another characteristic that sways the film from science fiction to fantasy. As Gunning discussed, the sheer idea of presenting the Salenites with witch hats and turning stars in the sky into humans detracts from the realistic need of science to back the film. Yes... it is no secret that science fiction is purely fiction. However, films like "The Martian" and "Interstellar" are more reliant on science fiction than they are on magic, unlike "A Trip to the Moon." Méliés film reflects more magic than it does scientific speculation, resulting in "A Trip to the Moon" being categorized as a fantasy movie, rather than science fiction.
ReplyDeleteTrip to the Moon has roots in Sci-Fi, however it's more magical and fantastical elements lend themselves more to fantasy. In my view, I think Trip to the Moon is sort of a hybrid of the two. If I could name this new genre, it would be called space fantasy. It's a fantasy story that takes place in space and as such, it enables the film to not only have sci fi elements, but also allows it to have some more imaginative and creative ideas that are not very realistic. The science essentially plays second fiddle to the story, and the more creative parts are given more thought. There's no attention given to how the spaceship actually works or how they were able to breathe on the moon, it was more about the idea and potential of what space travel could bring. It brings up questions such as are we truly alone in the universe? Would potential aliens we meet in the system be hostile to us? How would we treat these aliens? These are interesting and futuristic questions we are trying to solve nowadays, 100+ years after this film came out. Because of how far reaching these questions were, they immediately struck the creative nerve of the people watching. Now to give some specific examples, things like the women warriors wearing swimsuits or the old wizards figuring out space travel are not very realistically plausible, but the spaceship that was used in the movie seemed to be plausible, and something that could happen. This melding together of realistic sci fi and fictional fantasy leads to it being more of a space fantasy movie instead of being one of the two. While it could potentially fit in either, it being a meeting point of the two makes more sense given the context of the film. Overall, I'd say that A Trip to the Moon is more of a space fantasy film rather than one purely based on science fiction.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Méliès’s "A Trip to the Moon" is a combination of both science fiction and fantasy. Even though this film seems to fail to take scientists seriously, as it portrays them as wizards with pointy hats, the film can still all under the science fiction genre. Now I am certainly not as knowledgeable as the writer of our essay, Tom Gunning, and even though I completely understand and agree with many of his points, over time, there have been many popular movies that are incredibly fantastical, yet they still qualify as science fiction movies. In my opinion, this film falls into the category of movies that are mostly known for their fantastical features but can technically fall into the sci-fi genre strictly based off the movies you can compare it to. An example of these types of movies is “Alien”, a 1979 science fiction horror film directed by Ridley Scott and written by Dan O’Bannon. Although this movie mainly takes place on a starship, it shares some of the aspects that “A Trip to the Moon” did. In “Alien”, the crew is awakened by a distress call from an alien vessel. Later on, the crew discovers that there is a nest of eggs. A living extraterrestrial species jumps out of the egg and begins to leach on to the crew, eventually killing a majority of the members. Ridley Scott’s movie undeniably takes scientists more seriously, than “A Trip to the Moon”, however, both films tackle the idea of space travel as well as encountering different forms of life. This is seen in Méliès’s film when the scientists discover the Selenites living on the moon. Based on the idea of space travel as well as the usage of imagination, I believe “A Trip to the Moon” is definitely more of a fantasy film than anything else, but it can qualify as science fiction as well.
ReplyDelete“A Trip to the Moon” by the Méliès's brothers is a science-fiction movie for the time it was made. The reason I say this is because at the time it was made rocketry and knowledge of the moon were not as developed as they are now. Meaning the Méliès' view of the scientist being wizard like could have been them thinking that’s how scientist in the future would dress like. Or even, when an open umbrella on the moon would turn into a mushroom because the moon seemed like a magical place that no man had actually been on yet so they were trying to make the moon be some whimsical place compared to ours. A science-fiction movie that I think can be compare to “A Trip to the Moon” would be “2001: A Space Odyssey” by Stanley Kubrick. A similarity would be spaceships/space travel, while “A Trip to the Moon” spaceships are not as advance to “2001: A Space Odyssey” they are still spaceships with a set goal of reaching a set destination. A difference between the two films, is there view of the future “2001: A Space Odyssey” taking a more serious approach about how their characters interact with each other, how there spaceships work, and how character interact with the environment around them. While the “A Trip to the Moon” has a group of ladies wearing revealing clothes pushing the rocket into the cannon and their characters over exaggerating their interactions with each other. In conclusion, “A Trip to the Moon” seems to be a very early science-fiction film mainly because there scientific knowledge of the moon and rocketry was not as developed compared to now.
ReplyDeleteMelies’ “A Trip to the Moon” amassed worldwide interest in extraterrestrial life and space; however, it cannot necessarily be called science fiction. As a filmmaker, Melies began to experiment with camera tricks and the “magic of editing”. Melies often attempted to pull viewers in by creating high action and innovative ideas. However, this led to exaggerated sets, props, and costumes. These exaggerated items are the first sign that the film is trading off reality for entertainment value. For example, during the launch of the rocket ship, the Scientist’s (or in this film, wizard’s) assistants are dressed in very revealing clothing. The type of clothing that would be more appropriate for home wear, then in the proximity of a missile. Nonetheless, this lack of scientific integration also had an effect on the plot. Many of the actions that take place in the movie are obviously impossible. Some of these points include the moon having a face, the rocket ship having the same mechanism as a bullet, being able to crash into the moon and earth without a parachute of some sort, and Godlike figures pouring snow on the wizards as they sleep on the moon. All of these things considered, if Melies did decide to bounce ideas off a scientist in pursuing realism, other things that may have been less obvious at the time, like the difference in atmosphere, could have been changed to make the film more realistic. Regardless, “A Trip to the Moon” invited many to think of the scientific and technological capabilities of their time, most likely inspiring many to pursue a life dedicated to exploring space.
ReplyDeleteConnor Carlson
Delete