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?
Méliès's A Trip to the Moon is not a science fiction film. Much like Star Wars, A Trip to the Moon is more of a fantasy film that borrows the idea of space travel. A film that fits within the confines of the science fiction category is Ridley Scott’s The Martian. When contrasted with a film that is certainly part of the sci-fi genre, it becomes harder to classify A Trip to the Moon as science fiction. As Tom Gunning stated, Méliès did not represent any tested scientific theories such as the giant gun. The same year as A Trip to the Moon premiered, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky had found a way for humans to travel in space via rockets. Whereas in The Martian, the majority of the science was tested and proven to work as shown in the scene where water is produced from rocket fuel. Within Méliès’s film, science was not the main idea behind the film But instead focused its ideas on other areas. A Trip to the Moon had themes of colonization and a priority on special effects. The travelers went to the moon to kill the aliens on the moon all the while using over-the-top effects for each death. The Martian’s storytelling is derived from the application of science. I think it would be wrong to call A Trip to the Moon a science fiction film because science is not one of the major components of its plot. However, the film could be considered a precursor to the science fiction genre because it offered a solid foundation for future films to gradually create the sci-fi genre.
ReplyDeleteThe film A Trip to the Moon by Méliè shouldn't be seen as a science fiction film. A science fiction film is defined as a film that is centered around scientific facts, but can extend its ideas into the near future to create futuristic sciences. So, films like Elysium where futuristic technologies such as the regeneration medical devices exist are considered science fiction because they still follow basic and established fundamentals of science, such as gravity. A Trip to the Moon has two flawed major plot points, the first is when the wizard/scientists ride a bullet shot from a gun on Earth to the Moon, and when the wizard/scientists return to Earth from the Moon by falling off the Moon, however gravity doesn't work like that. People at the time knew that guns weren’t infinitely powerful, so a bullet shot from a gun wouldn’t have been able to break free of Earth’s gravity and through Earth’s atmosphere. The film takes a fundamental of science, gravity, and disregards its significance. A Trip to the Moon not only disregards gravity, but the concept of an atmosphere. The atmosphere was discovered on April 28, 1902, several months before A Trip to the Moon. Therefore, the film overlooked the fact that the moon would have its own atmosphere, so it would require the wizards/scientists to wear some kind of protective suit or something. So, even though films like Elysium contain elements that aren't currently reality, they are still science fiction because they follow established fundamentals of science, unlike A Trip to the Moon where known scientific facts are disregarded.
ReplyDeleteI believe that A Trip to the Moon by Melie should not be considered a science fiction film. Much to Tom Gunning's point, I believe that science fiction implies a level of realism and truth to the science being presented. An example that comes to my mind when I think of science fiction in today's sense is the concept of time travel in Avengers Endgame. While very much a fictional concept, the way they first solve the problem of how to time travel and then explain it within the film brings a level of realism to the concept. This however is not present in Melie's film, as even in the opening scene he loses that sense of groundedness by showing the supposed scientists as wizards, wearing star-patterned robes and cone hats. Throughout the film they act and move as if they were a little crazy, and while this may not be the furthest thing away from mad scientists, it definitely didn’t leave the impression that they were capable of making a functional rocket. Also the entire implication of the rocket being able to be shot out of a large gun disregards a lot science that was well known at the time. I'll cut him a little slack though, because rockets made for humans weren't invented yet, so he really wouldn't know how it would work. Instead of focusing its attention on the science of the space travel, Melie’s A Trip to the Moon instead decides to show the audience a fantastic spectacle that was really unlike anything else at the time. However, because of this it disregarded the science that would have given it a sense of realism and groundedness, making it my eyes not a science fiction film.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMéliès's short film, A Trip to the Moon, should be considered as science fiction because the overarching plot and theme are based on traveling to the moon and exploring it— an idea which inherently belonged to the genre of science fiction. In 1902, travelling to the moon was not plausible given the state of technology. The first flight in history didn’t occur until 1903, so exiting earth’s exosphere was most definitely fictitious science. One instance of the clear-cut intersectionality between science and fiction occurs during the beginning of the film when the scientists congregate to discuss how to go to the moon. Although they were dressed as wizards, portrayed in a disrespectful and childish manner, and weren’t the most detailed in their plans, the scientists still came up with a way to go to the moon, which is science. For around the first five minutes of the short film, the plot is focused on theorizing and constructing an instrument for space travel. The method of getting to the moon presented in the film can be said to be based off of Jules Verne’s novel, From the Earth to the Moon, in which Verne theorizes that humanity will one day travel to the moon in a bullet-like capsule launched from a giant space gun. This book is widely and strongly classified as science fiction, so if the same concept of travelling to the moon is fundamental to A Trip to the Moon, then this film should also be considered a part of the science fiction genre. No matter how little scientific detail is mentioned in the film, at the end of the day, science is still heavily used in the film to advance the plot. Some may argue that this film is solely fiction or fantasy because it doesn’t make a proper attempt to depict science, but in order to be science fiction, the science that is depicted doesn't have to be realistic. For instance, Dune, a very recent film, is based on the fictional planet of Arrakis, which is home to the fictional drug Melange, which is crucial to an unbelievably advanced fictional interstellar society. Dune is a very “out of this world” film because it has little to no roots in modern science and technology and doesn’t follow the established laws of science, but it is still widely identified as science fiction, therefore, A Trip to the Moon is also a science fiction film even though it isn’t necessarily the most realistic or scientifically accurate.
ReplyDeleteMéliès' short film, A Trip to the Moon, should be considered science fiction. Gunning argues that because the movie is not primarily focused on the scientific aspects but rather on the story, it is not a "science fiction movie." However, how many sci-fi movies are based on true science? Are Back To The Future and Star Trek, not science fiction? Science fiction is a genre that relies heavily on the suspension of belief to create a compelling story that can highlight certain aspects of science or technological development. However, if there are no realistic undertones to the plot then would it not be considered science fiction? It is simple: science fiction does not require realism, but rather it needs to have some scientific basis behind its premise. Science fiction stories often deal with futuristic technologies and concepts that haven’t been invented yet. So while the plot of the movie doesn't involve real-world physics, it is still classed as science fiction because space travel forms a core part of the movie's narrative and, more importantly, is based in fiction. Another classic sci-fi movie (regarded by many as one of the greatest of all time) is 2001: A Space Odyssey, which uses a lot of futuristic technologies but doesn't make use of realistic science. It also has some elements of fantasy mixed together; the monolith from the moon is a reference to the ancient mythological symbol of creation. In short, science fiction includes any movie whose plot relies on scientific or technological ideas, regardless of how unrealistic they might seem.
ReplyDelete