The Artifice of Artificial Intelligence

For a director like Steven Spielberg, the release of A.I. Artificial Intelligence proved a strange choice upon its initial release. It was poorly received at the Box Office, with critics bashing the film for various reasons. Much of that arguably had to do with the film's strange history. It originated as a project by Stanley Kubrick, who was interested in the question of whether it is possible for a machine to become essentially human. He had already explored these ideas through the HAL 9000 computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey, but was interested in going deeper into the psychology of artificial intelligence.

Over the course of his career, Kubrick began trying to find a way to explore this concept. He eventually found a narrative in the short story Super Toys Last All Summer Long and began planning it. Kubrick was also close friends with Steven Spielberg, and suggested a collaboration between the two. Ultimately, Spielberg turned this down. Kubrick still worked extensively on developing his vision of the film. He wrote storyboards, some early drafts of the script, and even tried to find ways to capture the robot child protagonist. His first idea was to have David played by an animatronic, allowing for him to display an uncanny appearance.

When this proved costly, he considered CGI after seeing it used to make dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. Eventually, it became clear that David would have to be played by a child actor. This in turn was also one of the main reasons Kubrick turned to Spielberg. In the amount of time it took Kubrick to make a film, the child cast as David could age enough that he looks noticeably different from when the film started production. Spielberg, being credited as the man responsible for the modern blockbuster, was much faster. He could cast an actor and film the movie in a much shorter period of time.

The collaboration was later revisited, with Kubrick enticing Spielberg with an opening credit: "Stanley Kubrick presents a Steven Spielberg film." Kubrick planned to start working on the film after he finished Eyes Wide Shut, but he died before production could begin. Spielberg was now left alone, and after being encouraged by Kubrick's family, decided to continue the project. It was a very daring move on his part. Spielberg had to take everything his friend had designed and somehow make a film out of it. After writing a draft of the screenplay based on Kubrick's notes, Spielberg began production.

This has inevitably resulted in a notable controversy. Is AI Artificial Intelligence a Spielberg or a Kubrick film. One could argue either way. It is true that Spielberg was the one who completed the film, but it was based in large part on the vision Kubrick had spent years developing. This dual authorship is alluded to in the opening credits, which identify the movie as "An Amblin/Stanley Kubrick Production." (Amblin is Spielberg's production company, named after one of his first projects). While Spielberg wrote the final draft of the script, the story was designed by Kubrick. Even the often-despised final act where David is found buried in the ice, was based on ideas designed by Kubrick.

Now it would be improper to say that AI Artificial Intelligence lacks the trademarks of a Spielberg film. Even the use of a repetitive title calls to mind the similarly-named E.T. The Extraterrestrial. However, the themes and ideas explored are very much those of Stanley Kubrick. It presents the final chapter in a long series of films that bring out the very simple question of what it means to be human. Throughout Kubrick's career, he explores themes of humanity, both in questioning its nature and in its loss. In his first feature Fear and Desire, a group of soldiers struggle to control their own feelings while under stress. Paths of Glory forces the viewer to question just what it means to be brave, while also showing the human lives wasted in fighting a pointless war. Spartacus sees an army of slaves trying to find an identity for themselves. 2001: A Space Odyssey asks just how advanced a machine can become before it is considered essentially human. In A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick showed how forcing a person to change their nature destroys them. Full Metal Jacket shows a group of ordinary people gradually losing themselves as they are turned into killing machines. Finally, Eyes Wide Shut brings the nature of love into question, and shows how people are driven by their sexual urges. Had he lived to begin production, AI Artificial Intelligence would have simply been the latest incarnation of a theme that had fascinated Kubrick from the beginning.

The plot of AI Artificial Intelligence revolves around robotics. During the film's opening, an unseen narrator (who is not revealed until the final act) explains that in the near future the polar ice caps have melted, flooding much of the world. The government is enforcing birth control regulations, and thousands of people have been displaced by the flooding. As a result of all the social problems occurring, robots have become an essential part of the economy and the workforce.This is hardly an optimistic moment. Already, we realize things are bad enough for the human characters in the film, to say nothing of what will be faced by the robot who will guide us through this world.

The press conference that begins the film's story sets the tone for much of the rest of the film. We meet a scientist named "Dr. Hobby" (William Hurt) who shows the progress that has been made in the robotics industry. He does this, fittingly enough, with a female android. At first she blends in with the others at the meeting, facing away from the camera. It is only when Dr. Hobby begins to show his control over her that she becomes apparent. He orders her to undress, and she has no choice but to follow his orders. For all intents and purposes, she is his slave. Much like how Spartacus was bought and trained to follow orders, this android was built and programmed to do as Hobby asks.

The slave metaphor goes even further when David encounters an old scrapyard. He witnesses a truck dumping a pile of old mechanical parts into a ditch. These old pieces are presumably left over from robots were were found to no longer be useful and subsequently destroyed. Humans see machines as lesser beings only to be kept around as long as they are useful. What is shown is essentially a robot mass grave, not unlike those used by the Nazis to dispose Holocaust victims. David is not alone in this scene, either. He also encounters a group of old worn-down robots who, like dumpster divers, desperately search the remains for spare parts. The fact that many of these robots are in such poor condition that they have to resort to grave robbing just to survive shows humanity's disregard to their well-being as soon as they stop being useful.

Finally, these robots, who are minding their own business, are the victims of slavery by way of the "Flesh Fair," a carnival-like event with an emphasis on the destruction of old robots. In order to find participants, ringmaster Lord Johnson-Johnson (Brendan Gleeson) sweeps the surrounding area in an airship, using a large net and a group of motorcyclists to round up any robots he finds and bring them in. In other words, robots are taken against their will for no other reason than because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. At the carnival, Johnson-Johnson also states that the event is designed to embrace the imagined superiority of humans, emphasizing further the bigotry going on. This idea of promoting human superiority by destroying robots is really not much different from a lynching at a Klu Klux Klan rally to emphasize the alleged dangers of racial integration.

It is strange and ironic then that what Dr. Hobby proposes is the idea of a robot who is capable of loving. He wants to design a robot that is programmed with "everlasting love" and bases its appearance on his own dead son. Hobby appears to believe that the emotions shown by his android slave are nothing more than imitations, and wants to go what he believes is a step further by creating a machine capable of real emotions. Hobby only seems to be interested in seeing if such a creation is possible. When a woman at the conference questions whether the fact that they can build such a machine automatically means they should, Hobby dodges the question.

This calls back to the HAL 9000 computer in 2001. During a BBC broadcast of the Discovery mission, the question comes up if HAL really thinks and feels or if he merely acts like he does. David Bowman (Keir Dullea) points out that this is a question nobody can really answer, but he feels as though HAL is a sixth member of the crew. Likewise, the audience is also left to think about this on a philosophical level. However, the film does seem to support the idea that HAL does think and feel on at least some level.  While HAL speaks in a consistently monotone voice (famously delivered by Douglas Rain), he does show that he appears to have a consciousness.

HAL is also interviewed in the BBC broadcast and speaks fondly of the Discovery's crew. Later, we also see him casually greeting Dr. Bowman and complimenting his sketches. Bowman also has no issue with this, agreeing to show HAL his sketches and even moving them closer so that he can get a better view. This early moment is conveying a sense of camaraderie between man and machine. Bowman treats HAL as he would a human crew member; exactly the opposite of the humans depicted in AI Artificial Intelligence. It is shown that HAL is capable of feeling (being able to recognize Bowman's artistic talents as well as express concerns about the mission), and that he is capable of developing relationships.

It is true that HAL goes on to begin murdering the crew of Discovery, but on some level this makes him all the more human. While the film does not explicitly state the reason for HAL's malfunction, it is given in both the novelization and the sequels: he was given a series of conflicting orders (providing accurate and reliable information while also keeping details of the mission secret) and finds himself confused about how to reconcile them. When Bowman speaks privately with his second-in-command Dr. Poole (Gary Lockwood) in the EVA pod, HAL reads their lips and becomes afraid of deactivation. Bowman and Poole both speak of HAL like a medical patient in critical condition, unsure of whether he will recover and how to proceed if the worst happens.

HAL sees disconnection as equivalent to death; he subsequently panics and commits what is essentially a crime of passion in self-defense. What becomes more interesting is when Bowman finds himself the only remaining crew member. He dons a spacesuit and enters HAL's memory core while the computer is desperately pleading for his life. It is somewhat ambiguous, but HAL appears to be displaying signs of guilt over his actions. If indeed his murders were a crime of passion committed while he was not thinking clearly, he is now starting to come to his senses and recognize what has happened. In any case, HAL remains scared of his own fate, but the danger he has already posed leaves Bowman no choice but to dispose of him.

Bowman's relationship to HAL actually bears a surprising resemblance to that of David and Monica (Frances O'Connor). Like HAL, David is a machine who becomes part of a family. He is initially constructed as an experimented, and tested as a substitute for Monica's son (who has been put into stasis for an indefinite time due to his life-threatening disease). Monica is, like the audience, unsure about David at first. His strange robotic mannerisms and ability to move around the house undetected makes her uncomfortable. Despite this, Monica comes to accept David as her own child, even giving him a friend in the form of a robot Teddy (Jack Angel). Even after Martin returns home, she is the one person who tries to accept David as part of the family. It is the distrust of his father Henry (Sam Robards) and Martin's refusal to accept his "brother" that lead to her having to lose David.

In both cases, it is the person closest to the machine who must ultimately destroy it. Bowman is shown to have an emotional connection with HAL, and he displays noticeable fear when disconnecting him. This is not unjustified, as he is presumably experiencing a mix of emotions. There is the obvious fear of being alone and the shock of losing his crewmates, but there is also his previous relationship with HAL. Making matters worse is that technically Dave is unable to kill HAL so much as lobotomize him. He has to cut off his own friend's higher brain functions while he slowly pleads for his life. All Dave can do is stay focused while trying not to make things worse. The only comfort that can come is when HAL relates his "birth" and offers a distraction for both by singing a song he was taught by his programmer.

Similarly, it is Monica who takes the responsibility for removing David. Henry might have been very cold and casual about taking David to the factory where he was made, and Martin might even have enjoyed it. However, even here Monica displays some compassion for David. She tries to make it easier for him, setting up the trip as a one-on-one family outing. Just as Bowman had trouble disconnecting HAL, Monica has trouble losing David. Unlike Bowman, she ultimately cannot go through with destroying something she loves, and instead chooses to abandon him. Even this is not easy, though. David is shown desperately pleading for his mother to keep him much like HAL pleading not to be disconnected. In both cases, the machines show their humanity through fear.

Monica does try to make it easier for David, calmly explaining to him what is happening and letting him keep Teddy; as well as leaving him money and trying to advise him on how to look after himself. Just like Hal's singing of "Daisy" these provide only a small amount of comfort. Hal's singing is able to calm Bowman enough to finish his job, and keeps him distracted, but it does little to ease the tension of the lone survivor being forced to lobotomize his only remaining friend. Likewise, Monica's attempts to give David the means to start a new life also do little to change his emotional state. It is through such a moment that the machine is able to show its humanity.

It is also through an act of human error that the machine becomes dangerous. Both HAL and David are victims of their own programming. David is programmed with the ability to love, but it works too well. Because of his programming, David is unable to understand anything other than earning his mother's love. HAL was given conflicting orders, and believed he needed to defend himself when he thought the Discovery crew were going to disconnect him. Just like HAL, David is also provoked by humans. Martin is responsible for psychologically tormenting him by convincing Monica to read them Pinocchio, giving David the idea that the Blue Fairy can turn him into a "real live boy." Martin's friends are also responsible for scaring David and his near-drowning, the final act that leads to his being cast out of the family.

This conflict between humanity and artificial intelligence is one that has become a common theme in science fiction. John Carpenter would later borrow it in his 1974 comedy Dark Star. This time around, the artificial intelligence emerged in the form of talking bombs. In this case, the inability of humans to co-exist with machines becomes a source of humor. Unlike HAL, Bomb 20 (Adam Beckenbaugh) is designed to explode making its emotions far more dangerous and yet still human. Like HAL or even David, the bomb is shown to have feelings. It shows excitement upon being deployed, and expresses frustration whenever the computer orders it to return to the ship.

The most famous moment, of course, comes when Lt. Doolittle (Brian Narelle) must face the bomb at the end. In keeping with the themes of human error, this machine has gone unnoticed by the crew until now. The bomb has a very clear desire to explode, to the point where it has no regard for the safety of the crew. This is likely a flaw in programming, but it is also here that the bomb strangely becomes human. Lt. Doolittle approaches the bomb, and begins teaching it the fundamentals of rationalist thinking. Bomb 20 shows its humanity by being able to engage in a philosophical discussion (even if it does not fully understand what its discussing), at one point quoting Descartes: "I think therefore I am." The bomb is capable of independent thought, and is in fact smarter than it appears. Of course, in a humorous twist, this ends up backfiring on the crew when the bomb's interest in rationalism leads it to conclude that they are "false data" before detonating inside the ship.

This idea of a machine acting human becomes a major theme in both the second and third acts of AI Artificial Intelligence. In the second act, the viewer is introduced to Gigolo Joe (Jude Law) a robot prostitute who despite the allegations of Dr. Hobby (who maintained that robots made before David cannot actually feel) does act remarkably human. He is shown enthusiastically engaging with clients, and apparently does such a good job he has to deal with multiple women across different locations in one night. He has a pager which lets him know when there is work to be done, marches through the streets, and even stops to casually greet his female counterpart Gigolo Jane (Ashley Scott). This exchange is brief, but the enthusiasm the two show suggests a friendship between colleagues. Finally, when Joe discovers that his latest client has been murdered, he is genuinely panicked.

It only makes sense that a character like Joe should become a father figure for David. While it is true that he is a very eccentric individual and not even that intelligent (he does after all believe David's claim that "the Blue Fairy" can turn him into a real boy) he develops a close bond with him. When David voices his desire to become a "real live boy" Joe immediately agrees to assist him. These two machines, supposedly unable to think, are forming a close friendship. Joe could have left David and tried to continue his work as a prostitute, but instead he becomes interested in assisting another person like himself. While his solution of asking a program called "Dr. Know" (Robin Williams) might not be the most practical choice, he is showing a newfound loyalty to his friend which might not have been in his original programming. While speaking to Dr. Know, Gigolo Joe and David both have to work together to find the right questions.

When Joe and David go to the flooded ruins of Manhattan, there is a reveal that challenges David's understanding of the world around him. He arrives at the office where he was created, and discovers an identical robot, who is quickly destroyed. David is faced with the possibility that, contrary to what he has been told, he is not special or unique. However, this may not be entirely true. David is showing his humanity at this moment, as for the first time showing that he is capable of anger, but more interesting is the behavior of his double. The two Davids are exact opposites of each other. The David encountered at the office proves to be friendly, enjoys reading, and has no issue with seeing a copy of himself. The David the viewer has followed is much more impulsive, refuses to accept another copy of himself and eventually resorts to murder. Even though these two may look the same, they have shown very different personalities, suggesting that David is more unique than he appears.

However, the true extent of how far these ideas can go is not made evident until the third and final act of the film. At this point, David has managed to find a statue of the Blue Fairy, but becomes trapped underwater for two thousand years, during which time he continues to ask the Blue Fairy to transform him until he runs out of power and shuts down. The movie then jumps ahead to a distant future where humanity has become extinct and a new ice age is underway. With their creators gone, the robots have taken over. Two thousand years later, the descendants of these robots have evolved into an advanced race of beings (who were often mistaken for aliens by the film's initial audience).

An expedition manages to uncover David and Teddy, as well as reactivate both. Their initial motivation is pure scientific interest. The fact that David resembles a human, and would have had memories of being around humans proves to be a remarkable discovery for these robots, who have been studying their creators. However, they do not simply exploit David and discard him when they are finished. Instead, they try to assist him. To do this, they create a virtual replica of David's home. Much like David Bowman before him, this functions as a means to ease his transition into a new world, and eventually to motivate a transformation. The robots initially refrain from speaking to David in person, instead communicating through a projection of the Blue Fairy (Meryl Streep) who eventually "agrees" to briefly resurrect Monica.

The robots depicted here deliver the most compassion David is able to experience in the entire film. Only one is given any major focus, an official voiced by Ben Kingsley (who has also served as the film's narrator, creating the impression that the entire film has been him looking back on the past). This particular individual becomes a new parental substitute for David, being the one member of his race to directly confront him and doing what he can to improve his well-being. He is the one who ultimately decides to clone David's mother (though not without first making sure he understands she can only live for one day) and letting him have the happiest moment of his life.

Throughout the film, David has understood little more than the love for his mother, but now he begins to show that his feelings are much more complex. He is seen playing with a toy spaceship and finds it reminds him of the amphibicopter Joe used to take him to Manhattan. When he spends the day with his mother, the narrator mentions that he was not allowed to tell her what was happening, but he still draws inspiration from his journey. He is shown painting pictures of Joe, as well as other encounters he has experienced over the course of the film. As the day comes to an end, David is able to experience a moment that was forbidden by the society into which he was born: his mother expressing her love for him.

This is what he has always wanted, and it sets up the narrator's final lines: "So David went to sleep too, and for the first time in his life, he entered that place where dreams are made." It is a strange line, often interpreted as meaning his death, but it is something else. David has finally managed to find closure. The narrator refers to "dreams," as in other than being loved. This experience has finally allowed David to move on. He has wanted to become a real boy, and in a manner of speaking, the robots have allowed him to do so. He cannot be literally transformed, but they have allowed him to move past love, allowing him to grow up (although being a robot he will still retain the outward appearance of a child). In that sense, he is finally learning to think beyond his programming, and may even be able to live a good in this future life just as Monica wanted.

This is not unlike the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey, when David Bowman finds himself carried through the "Star Gate" and brought to a hotel room, likewise meant to assist him with a transformation. This room, presumably constructed by the aliens, serves to make it easier for him to make contact. It is also in this room that Bowman metaphorically "grows up" on a larger scale. In this case, his grown involves experiencing a rapid evolution, where he alone learns what is in store for humanity's future (represented by his transformation into a fetus). It is not clear exactly what this entails, but a new world has opened up for Bowman, just as later would for David.

AI Artificial Intelligence depicts this same journey. What 2001: A Space Odyssey did for humans, AI Artificial Intelligence does the same for robots. The final product may have been directed by Spielberg, but it is very much a Kubrick film. The themes of human nature and just what it means to be human presented here are the ultimate extent of a lifetime of movies on the subject. From Fear and Desire to Eyes Wide Shut Kubrick has studied human nature, and AI Artificial Intelligence is no exception. He shows human nature, both the positive and negative, but also how in the end there is no reason to assume machines cannot think or feel. If anything, Kubrick is more worried about how humanity would treat artificially intelligent machines if they were to be made than how they would treat their creators.

The Consequences of First Contact

In Steven Spielberg's 1977 science fiction movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind, we see an ordinary man, Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfus), whose "close encounter" with an alien spacecraft changes his life forever. It is seemingly by total chance that he encounters the craft when he does. Once it has happened, he becomes alienated from his wife, Ronnie, and determined to seek answers, yet when he finds them, it only opens a greater mystery. Who are these aliens? Where did they come from? All we can tell is that they seem to be benevolent, and have apparently made it their custom to take specific people on interstellar voyages, though even that brings up a few more questions, such as how they decide who gets to go. Is there a logical process or do they just choose people at random?

Roy's story represents a much broader idea that has long intrigued writers of science fiction: the question of whether, if we were to make contact, we could truly understand an alien race. It's a perplexing question that has been entertained by numerous writers. Arthur C. Clarke explored this idea in his novel Rendezvous With Rama, in which an alien spaceship of unknown origin enters the Sun's orbit. The expedition into the spaceship, which drives the story, leads to a variety of different theories about who constructed it, what its purpose was, and what happened to the original owners, none of which are ever confirmed or denied.

On film, however, Close Encounters of the Third Kind remains one of the earliest movies to keep the aliens enigmatic. This was not a common trend in 1950's science fiction movies, many of which tried to explain the aliens. The Thing From Another World alludes to these questions with the titular creature, but ultimately it is decided that information on how to kill the Thing is more important. In Forbidden Planet, some mystery is preserved in that the aliens are never seen, but the viewer is still given their history in great detail. Of course, this history ends up mainly being important because it finally explains the nature of the film's antagonist and provides incentive for destroying the city.

Even in The Day The Earth Stood Still, one of the few non-invasion science fiction films of the period, refrains from keeping anything ambiguous. Klaatu does not explicitly name where he is from, but he makes his goals and intentions perfectly clear. He interacts with humans openly, offers valuable information and technology, and in the end makes an entire speech in which he clearly states that he wants the Cold War to stop. One could argue that Gort is a more mysterious character, though he appears to be merely a robot programmed to follow orders.

The film that changed this was undoubtedly Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. When making this classic science fiction film, Kubrick struggled with how to depict the aliens. In the final product, they remain unseen. Only their presence is felt. The novelization provides some insight into their evolutionary past, but beyond that says little more. The only possible appearance they make is in the final act, when Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) finds himself in a strange hotel room. Throughout this sequence, strange voices can be heard, possibly from the aliens (this interpretation is supported by the book, which suggests that Dave has been put into a sort of extra-terrestrial zoo). Still, much like everything else in the film, nothing is known. The only visual representation of their presence is the Monolith, which itself is never definitively explained even in the sequel film 2010: The Year We Make Contact.

Spielberg popularized this idea with Close Encounters of the Third Kind by bringing it into the mainstream and making it more easily accessible. Unlike Kubrick's more abstract film, which leaves much of the story to interpretation, Spielberg produced his take on this material in a more linear and straight forward fashion. The only truly subjective parts of the narrative are in the aliens themselves, while the overall narrative is still reasonably coherent. However, doing so is not without its purposes. By making the story more linear, while keeping the aliens themselves ambiguous, Spielberg is able to explore the consequences of their arrival in more detail.

Another important detail to this narrative is the impact that comes from the aliens' arrival. Whether it is ultimately positive (The Day the Earth Stood Still, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Starman, The Abyss) or negative (Forbidden Planet, The Thing, Battle: Los Angeles, Edge of Tomorrow), the world is drastically changed by making contact. This can occur on an small scale with a focus on indvididuals, such as Jenny Hayden becoming a mother or Elliot bringing his estranged family together. In other cases, it can involve a much larger situation, from major political consequences to either the destruction or evolution of humanity as a whole.

This aspect is only alluded to in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. When Dr. Heywood Floyd (William Sylvester) visits the site of the Monolith's discovery, he tells the astronauts that absolute secrecy must be maintained until the government can determine the best way of revealing it to the public. This however, remains the extent of such discussion, with the rest of the film focusing more on the mystery of the aliens and the technological progress of the future. Spielberg is more character-minded in his film, putting a heavy emphasis on how the two central characters are affected by their "close encounters" with the aliens.

Though it is indicated that there were others with similar experiences, the focus is placed on two specific characters. Roy is the first person in the film to experience a "close encounter" by total chance. He sees what appears to be a spacecraft flying over him while he is driving to work. Roy becomes increasingly alienated from his family. He struggles to maintain his old life, but this becomes impossible to balance with his desire to understand what he saw. He does make a genuine attempt to forget about the extraterrestrial presence, but ultimately there is no ignoring the constant images that go through his head of a strange triangular shape he constantly feels the urge to construct.

Meanwhile, Jillian Guiler (Melinda Dillon), watches her only son get taken by the same aliens. Her motivation subsequently becomes very much the opposite of Roy's. She sees that her son has been affected by the aliens in some way, apparently being compelled to go with them. After he is taken, Julian becomes determined to find him. Like Roy, she also becomes obsessed with the strange triangular shape, which she begins compulsively drawing. It is now clear that, like Roy, she has been affected by her own close encounter, and determined to find her own answers.

Both subsequently find their life changed as a result. The mysterious shape eventually turns out to be an important clue, as well as a map. It is in fact a mountain, and more specifically it indicates precisely where the spaceship is going to land at the end of the film. Julian and Roy are the only civilians to make it to the landing site and witness the arrival of the aliens. Here their lives diverge, as they both react differently to this final encounter. Roy moves closer to the spaceship, and ultimately is taken with the aliens, presumably on an interstellar voyage. Jillian prefers to watch from a distance, and after finding her son, stays home to resume her old life. However, while perhaps not as drastically, Julian's future will presumably be affected by everything she has been through, as is evidenced by her taking pictures of the spaceship. She may continue to live a somewhat normal life, but she will never truly leave her experiences behind.

The theme of the aliens' subjectivity also returns in this final sequence, and it is shown in large part through the American government's interference. "Close Encounters" appear to be happening around the world, including one such incident happening in India, yet the American Government tries to take full control. They keep the visitation secret, covering up the entire event by staging a non-existent train accident and using intimidation to bully civilians into staying away. The few people who do make it past the roadblocks simply end up being "evacuated" even after the scientist Lacombe (François Truffaut) pleads for them to be permitted entry. While the aliens ultimately land in the heavily-guarded airfield, they ultimately choose to take Roy with them, rather than any of the government-sponsored candidates. This is a small detail, but it serves a simple message: the aliens do not recognize human boundaries.

Contact, based on a book by Carl Sagan, presents a large-scale version of the events depicted in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The "close encounter" is replaced by an extra-terrestrial signal, though there is a slight parallel in the way it is structured. In this case, it is based on mathematics, which Dr. Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster) identifies as "the only truly universal language." This is obviously meant to be a way of figuring out how to communicate despite an obvious language barrier, not unlike the use of lights and music depicted in Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Like Spielberg's film, Contact also emphasizes the way the characters are affected by their experiences. Ellie is changed as a person over the course of the story. She remains a scientifically-minded astronomer but also finds herself enlightened when she gets a chance to meet an extra-terrestrial. Like Close Encounters of The Third Kind, the nature of the aliens is ambiguous, and she is ultimately left with nothing more than her word to share with her skeptical peers. Still, this encounter has presented her with a newfound determination, though it has also changed the world around her.

But these ideas can in fact go both ways. It is not only through the perspectives of humanity that an extra-terrestrial can appear truly alien, and it is not always humanity alone that is changed. It can also happen through the eyes of the aliens themselves, and they too can be affected by their encounters with humanity. Nowhere is this clearer than in Jonathan Glazer's 2014 drama Under the Skin. This particular film offers a subjective narrative centered around an unnamed alien visitor (Scarlett Johansson), who arrives in Scotland and tries to blend in with humanity. This leads to a strange paradox: she is depicted as an alien being, yet she is also the most human character in the film.

To achieve this affect, Glazer takes steps to align the viewer with his unnamed protagonist. He makes her a relatable character while also drawing attention to her discomfort and her uncertainty. Little details often serve to remind the viewer that they are merely looking at a mask, such as the awkward smiles she gives passing travelers. She performs small actions that draw attention to her lack of understanding of human emotions, such as her inability to enjoy comedy or going to a restaurant and ordering cake as a main course (an act which ends with her getting sick).

Much like how Roy, Jillian, or Ellie are affected by their experiences in confronting aliens, the mysterious tragic heroine of Under the Skin is also changed by her time spent among humans. Whereas Roy went off with the aliens, the protagonist here instead finds herself trying to live among humanity. She eventually finds herself changing to the point where she wants to become human herself, even trying to have a relationship. Unfortunately, she remains an outsider, unable to fully comprehend the people around her the same way the viewer cannot fully understand her alien mind.

This ambiguity has proven over time to be an effective way of depicting aliens. It logically makes sense that a species from another planet would be drastically different from humanity, and that first contact would not be without its consequences. This in turn leads back to that very simple question: is it possible to understand something that is truly alien? The answer has long been debated, and likely will continue to be discussed at length until such a time when and if contact is ever made. Nonetheless, it is interesting to look at how this subject has influenced so many filmmakers to explore it in drastically different ways.

War Movie Week Bonus: Edge of Tomorrow (Future Warfare)

Doug Liman's Edge of Tomorrow tells the story of an alien invasion with the strange twist that the protagonist, Major Bill Cage (Tom Cruise), finds himself forced to repeat the same day over and over again. At first glance, Edge of Tomorrow might look like nothing more than an entertaining action film borrowing ideas from the likes of Ground Hog Day and Source Code, but it is also a story about war. Edge of Tomorrow is in many ways a war film. It obviously draws from several iconic war films including Full Metal Jacket, Saving Private Ryan, and Black Hawk Down, and also addresses a lot of the same issues as those films. Edge of Tomorrow may be set in the future, but its ideas of war are still relevant both to the past and present.

Unlike many alien invasion films, such as Invaders From Mars, Independence Day or Battle: Los Angeles (all of which placed the invasion in a contemporary setting), Edge of Tomorrow opts to create its own vision of a near future, and with it a vision of a new kind of warfare. The war against the invading aliens (nicknamed "mimics") is one that challenges and defies any conventional understanding of how combat is supposed to work. In a way, this confusion and struggle to adapt to a changing world is no different from how the nature of combat changed with new technical innovations during World War I or how the Gulf War introduced a less clearly defined model of combat where the enemy could be anywhere.

Several details within Edge of Tomorrow easily bring out parallels with earlier wars. Out of all the possible locations the invasion could have happened, the writers chose to place the battle that was supposed to turn the tide in France, with a mix of British, American, and Canadian soldiers landing on a beach and working their way in. This may seem familiar, and with good reason. The film is obviously trying to draw a parallel between how the battle is being perceived with the events of D-Day during World War II, when hundreds of British, American, and Canadian soldiers landed on the French Coast in a desperate attempt to break through the Nazi's defences and gain a foothold in Europe.

Even the battle itself, when seen the first time, clearly draws on a mix of Saving Private Ryan's depiction of the Normandy landings and the start of Black Hawk Down. The characters are seen in choppers, rather than the boats used in World War II, but there is still an emphasis first on the rush of emotions experienced by the soldiers before the shooting starts. The action starts abruptly, and as soon as it does there is also a clear emphasis on the large number of casualties as soldiers are killed left, right, and centre.  Similar to the soldiers who are seen jumping or falling out of the boats in Saving Private Ryan, panicked soldiers are shown falling out of their dropships, complete with a disoriented Cage crawling onto the shores of the beach much like Captain Miller. There are even parallels in the form of the panicked soldiers desperately seeking cover while trying to figure out their next move.

World War II is not the only conflict to be referenced by the film. Another detail of note is the backstory that is given to the war. It mostly remains unseen, but the characters frequently speak of the first major victory against he aliens happening at the French city of Verdun. This town is brought up repeatedly, with Vrataski even being nicknamed "The Angel of Verdun" for her apparent courage and valour on the battlefield. This might not seem like much of significance at first, but there are a number of better-known cities the writers could have chosen instead.

The significance of this choice becomes clearer when one recognizes that Verdun was also the site of a major battle during World War I, fought in 1916 between the French and the German armies. This particular battle ended in a victory for the French, but not without cost. The battle claimed the lives of hundreds of soldiers on both sides, and in the end, not much was gained. The battle of Verdun that is referred to throughout Edge of Tomorrow is eventually revealed to have actually been a false victory; the aliens intentionally set it up so that humanity would think they had the upper hand in the war. In other words, the efforts of everyone fighting there ultimately turned out to be pointless, much like the French and German soldiers who died trying to take Verdun in 1916.

The top officers in the military, represented by General Brigham (Brendan Gleeson) are hopelessly conventional when it comes to fighting the mimics. These are generals thinking like the men and women in charge today (it would not be unbelievable to assume Brigham has previously served in a more conventional war, perhaps even Iraq or Afghanistan), who are applying modern tactics to a futuristic war. In actuality, the war is not as clear-cut as they would like it to be. In fact, the mimics defy any modern understanding of conventional warfare, something that Brigham is unable to comprehend.

As is noted by Sergeant Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt) and her friend Dr. Carter (Noah Taylor), Brigham is making the mistake of thinking about the mimics as an army, and organizing their plans as such. This is a conventional practice for a general, and would be sufficient procedure for a war against humans, but as is explained in the film, one can only come anywhere near a position to fight the mimics if they think of them instead as a single organism. These beings have the equipment to be able to reset the day and anticipate the actions of their opponents. How does one fight a war against such an enemy?

This is what Brigham is unable to grasp. He is a relic of the past, a man clinging to obsolete methods in a changing world. This is really no different from the generals of World War I. Those men were coming out of the Victorian Era, and had been accustomed to organizing strategies based on infantry and artillery, often with imperialistic goals in mind. One of the major problems in World War I was that these same generals were struggling to adapt to a war where that no longer had a place for their ways. They had no understanding of what they were involved with, just as Brigham continues to apply modern tactics in fighting a war where they do not work.

The only ones who have any chance of defeating the mimics are the two central characters, Cage and Vrataski. They, along with Dr. Carter, remain the only ones to actually understand the true nature of the war, creating a natural divide with their superiors. Over the course of the film, Cage makes a few efforts to explain to the other soldiers what has been happening to him. His efforts to convince Master Sergeant Farell (Bill Paxton) prove unsuccessful, and even after persuading Brigham, Cage is still betrayed and arrested as a traitor. The only people he manages to convince are Vrataski herself (who has been through a similar experience) and his bunkmates in J-Squad (though this takes several attempts).

There is a good reason for this. Much like in Paths of Glory, there is a divide forming between the officers and the soldiers. Cage even admits to being a coward at the beginning of the film, and tries to get out of fighting. The reason he is unable to convince any of the officers is because they do not understand the war. The reason he works with Vrataski is she actually understands the true nature of the mimics because she has been on the field. She understands what they are capable of and what they can do in the open, while Brigham remains heavily guarded in his office. This is not unlike General Mireau in Paths of Glory punishing a shell-shocked soldier as a "coward" when he himself would rather let his own soldiers die than face the embarrassment of a bad decision.

Edge of Tomorrow may take place in the future, but it is clear that underneath its surface as a simple action film is a surprising commentary on the nature of war. Edge of Tomorrow shows that while war has always existed, and likely will continue to exist, it is constantly changing. Technological advances, as well as changes in society, can change and shape the way war is perceived and how it is fought. These ideas make it relevant to wars across time: past, present, and future.

Alienation of Female Sexuality

Female sexuality has always been a controversial topic to depict on film. Some feminists, such as Bonnie Sherr Klein and Catherine A. MacKinnon, have accused pornography of “objectifying” women, and argue that any form of sex depicted involving women is produced exclusively for a “male gaze”. Jonathan Glazer’s Under the Skin provides a strong rebuttal to this notion in an unusual way—offering an outsider’s perspective. By casting the sexually curious female as an alien from another planet—literally alienating both her and, by extension, the viewer—Glazer allows us to step out of our own social constraints and look at the picture as a whole.

Under the Skin centers around an extra-terrestrial played by Scarlett Johansson; unnamed in the film but given the name of Isserly in the original book. She arrives in Scotland, her true form concealed inside the body of an attractive young woman. Under the employment of a mysterious man on a motorcycle (played by Grand Prix champion Jeremy McWilliams), Isserly is tasked with seducing men who are then lured into an old house where they are drowned in a black fluid that breaks down their bodies. As Isserley spends time living among humans on Earth, she begins to question her own purpose and, growing comfortable in her new skin, tries to become human. However, despite her efforts, the film constantly reminds us that she is not of this world, and questions just what it means to be “human”.

Throughout the film, Isserley is constantly, and literally, alienated from the world around her. To the average viewer, Scarlett Johansson stands out as she is the only recognizable name to appear (though motorcycle enthusiasts may be more familiar with Jeremy McWilliams). The rest of the cast consists of a mix of unknown actors and random people on the street with whom she interacts in character, unaware that they are in a film or talking to a world-renowned actress. A recurring motif throughout the film is her walking against the crowd, always facing the opposite direction of the movie’s extras and thus displaying a lack of conformity, making her constantly stand out.

By both literally and figuratively alienating the central character, the film also alienates the viewer and places them in a position to experience an alien perspective on the world around her, and in particular the idea of sex. The protagonist experiments in various ways of seducing men, but does it less out of pleasure and more in a machine-like routine way. She lures men to their doom not because of any actively malicious intent, but simply because that is her job (presumably overseen by the motorcyclist).

The first time the heroine finds herself experiencing any real pleasure is when she encounters a deformed man suffering from Neurofibromatosis (Adam Pearson). Upon encountering this man, she finds herself drawn to him and, upon finding out that he has no friends, invites him to touch her body. During this scene, Isserley challenges the claims of MacKinnon and Klein that sex on film is purely intended for a male gaze by seducing a man with a visible deformity, an act which causes the audience feel uncomfortable, making it clear that this is not for anyone's exclusive pleasure.

The idea of pleasure in sex is something Isserley sees as completely alien and struggles to comprehend, as is notable when she finally experiences real sex after being taken in by a friendly young man. During this scene, the protagonist appears to act indifferent while her friend experiences pleasure, though she herself does appear to eventually start to feel something during their intimate moment. When the man removes Isserley’s pants, while she tries to help him, displaying a sense of confusion as though the entire process is new to her. The man then climbs on top of her, seemingly in control. Isserly’s expression seems to suggest that she is feeling something, but is unsure what. In another close-up on the man’s hand, he begins to remove more of her clothes.

As the two embrace, the protagonist's expression starts to suggest that she is experiencing pleasure, but finds herself confused. She pushes aside the man, moves toward the edge of the bed, and shines a lamp into her vagina, apparently checking to see if something has happened. The man stares at her in confusion and says “you don’t like it?” She simply throws aside the lamp, apparently having seen no change in her genitals. Both she and the man are confused about what has just happened. Isserly is confused about having found pleasure in sex, while the man is puzzled by her being unsure about liking it.

In her documentary film, Not a Love Story: A Film About Pornography, director Bonnie Sherr Klein takes the stance that pornography in general is anti-feminist, allegedly because it “objectifies” women for a purely male gaze. Other feminists such as Gayle Rubin argue that the “anti-porn” movements are in fact detrimental to feminism. In reality, pornography is being used as a scapegoat for contemporary social problems, and the real solution is to provide better recognition for female sex workers and encourage more women in the porn industry to move behind the camera and produce films for female audiences.

Rubin's suggestion is not even considered in Not a Love Story: A Film About Pornography, in which Klein only offers information that furthers her own argument. She cites one specific type of pornography, in which torture is staged, and uses it to argue that all pornographic films are therefore movies are equivalent to snuff films depicting actual abuse of women. No reference is made, for instance, to the work of Barbara Hammer, a lesbian filmmaker who produced pornographic films intended for lesbian audiences as early as 1973, or feminist porn stars like Annie Sprinkle. Though the arguments of both sides are aimed at pornography, their ideas extend beyond a single genre and are relevant to film in general.

The mysterious protagonist of Under the Skin has a child-like attitude toward sex and finds herself curious about it, which draws some parallels to the similar character of Lena (Lena Nyman) in Vilgot Sjöman’s 1967 art film I Am Curious (Yellow). Similar to the tragic heroine of Under the Skin, Lena is a young woman curious about and trying to understand sex. She experiments with it through her encounters with various men, and in many of them she is the one responsible for initiating the experience. Lena is a sexually active young woman who challenges the ideas of MacKinnon and Klein by engaging in what they might consider “pornography” and displaying pride in doing so. Under the Skin uses a different approach, by treating sex as something literally alien. By making the protagonist herself an alien struggling to understand it, Jonathan Glazer is able to criticize common attitudes about how sex is often depicted.

I Am Curious (Yellow) provides an early example of a film challenging the ideas of anti-porn activists by presenting a sexually active female lead who “experiments”, fully embracing her sexual encounters and displaying pleasure within them. What distinguishes Under the Skin from I Am Curious (Yellow) is in how it challenges the ideas of Klein and MacKinnon. Instead of simply presenting an attractive woman gaining pleasure from sex, it uses the alien approach to criticize the lack of understanding towards female sexuality.

Unlike Lena, who is precisely the opposite of MacKinnon or Klein’s views on female sexuality, the protagonist of Under the Skin is at first an embodiment of their ideas. She interacts exclusively with men and, at least at first, it is only the men who experience true pleasure during her encounters. Her emotions seem almost forced. When she smiles there is a sense that she is only doing it because she understands she is supposed to, a feeling which constantly reminds the viewer they are not seeing her real face. Every time Isserly lures a man into her house, she puts herself on display for his pleasure, carefully stripping her clothes in a machine-like way. This is precisely in line with how MacKinnon and Klein have interpreted pornography. It starts off resembling the anti-porn claims regarding sex, but gradually shifts to be more in line with opinions expressed by Gayle Rubin.

By having the protagonist represent the ideas of pornography as “objectifying” women for the pleasure of men, Jonathan Glazer is able to demonstrate how confusing this same notion is when she finds herself experiencing sexual pleasure. However, these ideas emerge in a distorted and twisted form, with the female in control and using it to manipulate men. As her quest to become human progresses, she begins to question who she really is—and by extension whether she is capable of enjoying sex. This leads to something of a “sexual awakening” that forces her to question what she sees as “normal”, or—more accurately—MacKinnon and Klein’s distorted ideas of sex in contrast to the reality proposed by Gayle Rubin.

MacKinnon and Klein are convinced that any depiction of sex on film is detrimental to feminism, and that filmmakers are incapable of anything more than displaying women’s bodies for the pleasures of men. Rubin has argued precisely the opposite, suggesting that while there are cases of women being abused in the porn industry, the correct solution to the problem is to promote better treatment of women and produce pornographic films for female audiences, which has happened with filmmakers like Barbara Hammer. By showing both sides through the eyes of an alien, Jonathan Glazer is able to examine their respective views and criticize them through a new perspective.

One Small Step For Man...

Prior to the 1950's, science fiction was a genre not widely recognized in film. In fact, it was almost non-existent as far as cinema was concerned. The genre now known as science fiction is usually believed to have originated in 19th century literature. Several authors from that period are credited with presenting early stories that are now considered science fiction. Some stories by Edgar Allen Poe have been cited as early examples of the genre. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein can also be considered an early science fiction story. However, the genre was first popularized by two major authors from the period: Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, though at the time it was known as "scientific romance" instead of science fiction.

Of these two, Wells is noteworthy for pioneering many popular ideas of modern science fiction. While the idea of time travel was nothing new when he was writing, his novel aptly titled The Time Machine was one of, if not the first, to explore this theme with a scientific explanation (a machine that grants access to the fourth dimension). Wells was also working at a time when "invasion literature" proved popular with readers, and presented his own twist on the idea by making the invaders aliens from another planet. The result was The War of the Worlds, a story in which a race of Martians (another classic cliche of later science fiction stories) attempt to conquer the Earth. Over the following two centuries, this one novel would be adapted into four different movies, a video game, a rock opera, and a radio drama; but it also became the key inspiration for a classic sub-genre of science fiction: the alien invasion, an idea which would be explored across millions of films, television shows, video games, and books. 

By the early 20th century, science fiction had made a name for itself in literature, though it was largely confined to pulp magazines. Authors like Robert Heinlein, Ray Bradbury, H.P. Lovecraft, John W. Campbell Jr., and others began publishing their stories in these magazines. On film, however, it was a very different story. One of the earliest science fiction films was Georges Méliès 1902 film A Trip to the Moon, inspired by Wells' story The First Men in the Moon and Verne's From Earth to the Moon. The story was extremely simple: a group of astronomers get together and decide they will get into a giant bullet that they can use to launch themselves to the moon. They land on the moon (crashing into its eye in the process), have a few strange encounters, and then go home. Méliès had little concern for scientific accuracy, and instead the "plot" was more a tool to create then-revolutionary special effects.

A Trip to the Moon, however, remained an exception to the rule. Many of  Méliès' other films were more fantasy than science fiction. During the silent era, outside of a few rare exceptions such as Fritz Lang's Metropolis and Woman in the Moon, there was next to nothing. Science fiction was barely recognized as a genre. James Whale's adaptation of Frankenstein and its sequel Bride of Frankenstein could both be seen as science fiction today, but at the time they were branded as horror. It was not until the early 1950's that any real change began to occur. This started with a man named George Pal, a producer interested in making films about actual science. 1951 saw the release of a blockbuster titled Destination Moon which marked the beginning of science fiction as a film genre. 

There were a few reasons why it was only now that science fiction was starting to become recognized as a genre. Perhaps the most prominent reason was the role of television, then a new invention that was seen as a threat to cinemas. The rationale was simple, creating more films in colour and with high-budget special effects to create a greater spectacle was meant to attract more audiences (similar reasoning was involved for the later cycle of big-budget disaster films in the 1970's and 1980's). Part of it was also that the space program was in its beginning, and there was an interest in the idea of visiting other worlds. Both America and Russia were already beginning experiments in rocketry (the Soviet Union would send Sputnik, the first manmade object into orbit in 1957), which fueled interest in stories of rocket-based exploration. There was also simple Cold War paranoia (which fed into the first major cycle of alien invasion films, beginning with 1951's The Thing From Another World).

Pal was one of the first to believe that a film based around science would be exciting for the American public, and to an extent he was right. Destination Moon not only kickstarted the popularity of science fiction as a film genre (Pal himself would go on to produce three more science fiction films during the decade, and direct an adaptation of H.G. Wells' The Time Machine in 1960), but also sparked a wave of imitators (Rocketship X-M being the most infamous). Unlike many of those imitators, Destination Moon is what would now be considered hard science fiction, which is basically the polar opposite of space opera (something at the time popular through low-budget serials). Hard science fiction involves detailed research and a concerted effort to incorporate actual scientific facts as much as possible. It was the first movie to really make such a concerted effort. 

The plot is quite simple. Much like Verne's From Earth to the Moon before it, the story was an attempt to realistically envision what a moon landing could look like. Like A Trip to the Moon, The "story" serves as little more than an excuse for the spectacle, but there is also another purpose. Instead of simply showing off various special effects, Destination Moon attempts to educate the viewer on how space travel might one day work based on the information that would have been available in 1951. The film is not even subtle about this. The character of Joe Sweeney (Dick Wesson) serves as an obvious audience surrogate, asking questions the viewer might have and mainly providing an in-universe justification for the other characters to explain how everything works.

By modern standards, this is hardly perfect. The whole film is basically a roundabout lecture about how space travel could be accomplished, but for the time it was radical. To some extent, some of the era's attitudes toward science fiction still show (particularly the cast of unknown actors in place of stars), but it proved one thing: science can be exciting. In that sense, Destination Moon would go on to help pave the way for other, perhaps more sophisticated and better quality hard science fiction films. Pal himself would attempt a spiritual sequel of sorts with Conquest of Space (which attempted to do something similar only now with a mission to Mars), but it also would lay the groundwork for later efforts at hard science fiction. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey may have paved the way for the likes of Contact, Europa Report, and Interstellar; but it was Destination Moon that helped set the stage for 2001 to take form.

Destination Moon came out  1951, almost twenty years before the actual first moon landing would happen. As a result, there are some inaccuracies of note, particularly in the type of rocket that is used. The four central characters travel to the moon in a single-stage reusable rocket. While the technical principles behind it still make sense in theory this is far from what was actually used to land on the moon. Unlike a lot of 50's science fiction stories, the rockets that were used for the moon landing were multi-stage (curiously, this is the one detail about travelling to the moon correctly predicted by Rocketship X-M). 

The difference between a single-stage rocket and a multi-stage rocket is simple enough. Single-stage rockets were for a long time the subject purely of early science fiction stories (though more recently there have been attempts to design single-stage rockets). These types of rockets are designed to be able to go up but also to go down safely in one piece, meaning that they can be used again provided the fuel is available. Multi-stage rockets, like the Saturn V used by the Apollo astronauts, are designed in separate pieces with the intent of specific parts being used for different stages of the mission. Usually when a component of the rocket has served its function it is discarded. In addition, it is worth noting that the film depicts a single voyage to the moon, while in reality it took 11 missions before a man could actually be put on the moon.

Module separation on Apollo 6

The way in which the moon itself is depicted is also jarring when seen today. The lunar surface is envisioned as a cracked environment covered in jagged mountains. Once again, this was due to observational limitations of the era, as no pictures had yet been taken of the moon's actual surface. In reality, it is precisely the opposite of what is depicted in the film. There are no jagged mountains, only smooth rolling hills and craters (2001 would still depict the jagged mountains, but otherwise offer something closer to the reality). 

Curiously, though, it did manage to predict on some level what would actually happen. The all-male crew is perhaps the most obvious parallel (even with a greater number of female astronauts, we still have yet to put a woman on the moon today). The number of astronauts involved in the expedition is also close to history. Destination Moon depicts four men performing the first moon landing, while the actual Apollo missions only required crews of three. The film also alludes to the landing sparking massive media attention around the world, also true to reality. Also, upon landing on the moon, two of the men proceed to step outside and speak to the media about what they have done for humanity, not a whole lot different from when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first people to set foot on the moon.

The idea of the moon landing being the product of American corporations coming together instead of a military campaign also proved to be half-right. Early space experiments were conducted by the military, specifically the army and the air force. The trouble was that both sides were wasting time, money, and resources building rockets and competing against each other. Neither side wanted to share and it proved problematic for the government. 

Eventually, it was decided that neither the army nor the air force would be permitted to continue building rockets, and instead a civilian organization was assembled to conduct research into the possibility of space exploration. This decision would result in the beginning of NASA, which still operates today. Destination Moon's ideas of a group of civilians coming together to plan a voyage into space in anticipation of being asked to do so by the government serves as an uncanny foreshadowing of the government-funded civilian organization that would be formed a decade later.

Also true to reality is the reasoning behind the men feeling such an urgent need to conduct this expedition. Throughout the first half-hour of Destination Moon, the characters speak of a military incentive for going to the moon. The opening scene depicts the failed launch of a rocket that according to the characters would have been a triumph of humanity, and there is immediately discussion of sabotage. Later on, General Thayer (Tom Powers) is asked if intelligence has investigated the issue, to which he simply replies with "they know." When the idea of combining American corporations to construct a rocket to the moon is pitched, Thayer's reasoning is simply that if America does not get to the moon, another party will, and should they succeed it would pose a threat to American democracy. 

The script is vague on this issue, refusing to explicitly name this other party, but it is obvious who the characters mean to refer to: The Soviet Union. Much like Destination Moon, the real-life space race became a situation of establishing power. The American and Soviet governments were competing against each other to build rockets and eventually to put someone on the moon. Each party wanted to get to the moon before the other. President John F. Kennedy famous promised to put a man on the moon by the end of the 1960's. 

Though America ultimately won, the Soviet Union proved to be a formidable opponent. While they failed to land an astronaut on the moon, they did beat America in several other aspects of space exploration. Sputnik was the first man-made object to enter orbit. Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first person to enter Earth's orbit in 1961 and return safely (America launched its first astronaut, John Glenn, a year later). In 1963, cosmonaut Valentina Tereskhova would become the first woman in space (America's first female astronaut would not be launched until the 1980's). In many ways the Soviet Union was one step ahead of them, and at a time when communist paranoia was seen as a valid concern there was a pressing need by the American government to gain some sort of advantage; hence travelling to the moon.

Destination Moon was released before Sputnik, but the Cold War was also reaching its height. It would only be a few years later that Senator Joseph McCarthy would begin his infamous series of "Communist Witch-Trials" that would hit a lot of the American population hard. At the time, nuclear Armageddon seemed inevitable for most people. It was actually believed to be only a matter of time before either the United States or Russia launched their missiles and provoked a massive war against one another. Naturally, any advantage either side could acquire in this conflict was seen as valuable, and that included the possibility of using outer space.

Finally of note is the presence of two serious disasters that fall upon the cast of Destination Moon. There are two dangerous situations both of which come close to ending in tragedy. The first occurs on the way to the moon, when astronaut Jim Barnes (John Archer) falls off the side of the ship while examining its engines. He gets set adrift and the other men have to improvise a solution to save him. The second disaster occurs after the men have had some time to explore the lunar surface. This time, a serious fuel miscalculation forces the crew to think outside the box in order to lose weight until they realize that they might have to leave someone behind. Fortunately in both cases, the tragedy is averted, but they do serve to emphasize that the danger is real.

These two specific situations might not have happened on the Apollo missions, but they do foreshadow the various disasters that would be faced by the real astronauts. Apollo 1 did not even make it off the ground; several technical flaws resulted in the deaths of the three-man crew when a fire broke out in the cabin and they were unable to get out. More famously, the Apollo 13 mission had to be re-routed back to Earth after an oxygen tank exploded. Much like the two crises faced in Destination Moon, this was an unexpected problem that required fast improvisation and out-of-the-box thinking using only whatever was on board the spaceship to get everyone back safely.

When seen today, Destination Moon is a flawed experience, even when compared to Pal's later science fiction work such as When Worlds Collide and Conquest of Space (both of which put more focus on developing the story while simultaneously trying to incorporate realistic science), but it historical significance cannot be denied. It was because of Destination Moon that other, perhaps better-made science fiction films like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Contact, and Interstellar were able to be made. Destination Moon not only predicted the beginnings of early space exploration but also set the scene for the modern science fiction film. Had it not been for the efforts of George Pal modern science fiction might not have existed.

This post was written for the Classic Movie History Project Blogathon hosted by Fritzi Kramer at Movies Silently, Ruth of Silver Screenings, and Aurora of Once Upon a Screen.