A Man on the Moon

What begins as a rather put together looking “human,” ends up turning into a disheveled and depleting clone.  Makeup and performance, two important elements of the mise-en-scene, are carefully chosen to aid in to the progression of the movie, Moon.

Sam Bell starts off as a normal looking guy. His skin looks healthy, his eyes look bright, and he seems as if he takes care of his appearance.  This makeup is purposefully chosen to portray his well-being. It is the beginning of the movie and the part of understanding the movie must have him start in good health. Sam Rockwell, the man who plays Sam Bell, is most likely told to play Bell as a typical human. By acting human-like, we find his character believable and relatable. Bell is supposed come across as normal as possible; only in small, discrete moments do we see his quirky features come out. These moments are what spark our interest and cause us to question his authenticity.

As the movie progresses, we see a change in his makeup and mannerisms. After the discovery of Sam 2, Sam 1 takes a turn for the worse. His makeup is done to show his deteriorating health. His eyes begin to look more sunken and yellowed, his face looks pale, and his wardrobe gets stranger and dirtier. In the pictures below, you can see the side by side comparison of Sam 1 early in the movie to Sam 1 towards the end. With the makeup as a prominent visual aid, his performance only contributes more to the decline of Sam Bell.

With these two elements working in harmony, we are able to see the obvious downfall of the main character. Not only do they manage to do this, but they contribute to some of the deeper meanings of the film. One of the meanings I took away was that “all things must come to an end.” Sam 2 was determined to make it back to earth so that he may have some kind of life there. He told Sam 1 that he, too, could be free. Sam 1 realizes that he does not have much time, so he offers himself as a sacrifice for the lunar accident. Sam 1 knows he can do more good by serving this purpose rather than attempting to escape. In doing so, Sam 2 will live a life on earth (or so we are led to assume) and Sam 3 will continue on harvesting energy on the moon. The makeup and acting add to this by providing the visual aids necessary to convince the audience of Sam 1’s impending end. All components of the mise-en-scene are of high importance to creating this gloomy, dark progression of Moon.

Theo, the boat! We are safe now!

In the final scene in of movie, we see Theo and Kee emerging in a rowboat from an underground canal out into the open sea. The new born baby is crying and cannot be consoled. With his last bit of energy, Theo teaches Kee how to subdue her baby. The baby is quieted as the boat “Tomorrow” appears in the distance. Theo then either dies or passes out from blood loss; we are left with a black screen and laughter of children.

There are a multitude of elements that make up a scene: setting, costumes/makeup, lighting, and staging. I will discuss both the setting and costumes/makeup. In this final scene, as mentioned above, they are in a small boat in the sea. The water is relatively calm. I feel as if this symbolizes they have finally reached their journeys end. They no long have to fear the constant threats they were faced with throughout the movie. The air around them is misty and foggy; this adds the effect of “the unknown.” Kee worries that “Tomorrow” has already come and gone. When the fog breaks, it does so around “Tomorrow” to show that not all hope is lost. Also, floating behind the rowboat is the buoy with a single light on it. Through the mist and fog, there is “a light at the end of the tunnel” so to say. The hardships have paid off and they will finally be able to start anew in a safe location. There is no real need for use of any props. There is so much symbolizing with the nature surrounding the boat.

When reflecting back on the use of costumes, I could not remember what the characters where wearing in this scene. Though the scene was simple, the makeup contributes its fair share. The rowboat is covered in blood, but Kee thinks it is hers. Theo quickly reassures her that it is his blood. The camera pans over to show all the blood in the rowboat. I feel like even though he’s pouring out a significant amount of blood, there is no sense of urgency. Usually when one sees that much blood, there is a high level of panic, but both Theo and Kee act strangely serene. I still question as to why that is; Kee should want to save Theo’s life.

The end when we hear laughter and the screen goes to black reminds me of how Inception ended. Was it a dream or was it real life? For Children of Men, does Theo die in the boat because his journey is now over or will he continue on?

What is LOVE? Robot, don’t hurt me.

Humans have created robots that are capable of giving love. There are so many wonderful possibilities for this accomplishment. Families who cannot have children can have a robot child, friends for those who are lonely, etc. But no! Even though these robots can give love, the trouble stems from the human side. The humans are the problem; they are not willing to trust and give the love these robots need to survive.

Unlike humans, these robots imprint on a person or people. They are programmed to love. Humans have the free will to choose who they love; robots have essentially been assigned who they are supposed to love.

The sad truth is that humans are idiots.

Humans have many external variables influencing their love. Attractiveness, timing, culture, age, location, and so much more. They are incapable of putting these aside to have “unconditional” love as the robots do. I purposefully use unconditional in quotations. Since the humans are the ones who made these robots, I feel as if their love is flawed because humans don’t really know what unconditional love is. The robots’ love might be the most unconditional that can be achieved. Confusing? Think about it.

Humans made these robots, but their human love is flawed. Humans create the robots. Therefore, how can humans expect to have robots with perfect unconditional love? When David makes mistakes, the humans FREAK out. They expect perfection. The people creating these robots are flawed themselves. There is no way to create the perfect, loving robot.

The robots need love; it is their purpose for existing. When the humans deny them the love they need, that’s when things go bad. What the humans needed to realize is perfection is impossible when they themselves who are creating are not perfect. If they could have realized this, David’s small errors could have been regarded as flaws to his programming by humans. Instead the robots long for something that can never be truly attained. It’s like the old carrot on the stick analogy.

Side note, I also can't help but be reminded of the BroBot episode from Jimmy Neutron.

Regardless of my minimal background in film, I feel as if I can say Blade Runner was not as futuristic as expected. The film proposed plenty of futuristic inventions that were plausible, but then contradicted them by having some very outdated ideas. For example, flying cars are an idea that most people agree to be futuristic. Most science fictions movies will have some type of flying transportation; it is almost unavoidable. Well, it is very contradictory to have flying cars then ruin the futuristic vibe by having a payphone. Wouldn’t you think they would have some neat watch communicator that beams a holograph of whoever you’re talking to? Nope. The main character, Rick, uses a payphone in a strip club to get ahold of someone. Truly advanced technology. If you want your audience to buy into the futuristic idea, there has to be some level of consistency. I understand at the time the film was made, there were not cellphones, but one could imagine the future would hold pocketable communication devices.

Despite the many other space-age contradictions, I did buy into the good vs. evil idea. Who was really the “bad guys”? For a quick background on the movie: Rick, the Blade Runner, is asked to hunt down these clones, known as replicants. These replicants have been killing humans and need to be terminated. At first, you are prompted to believe the replicants who kill are evil and destructive. As the movie goes on, you discover the truth of the replicants. Despite their killing, the replicants only really want to more life (since they are only given four years to live). Their intention is so easy to see unlike the intention of Rick, the replicant hunter. He was called into his ex-bosses office and was told to kill the replicants. The reason is really unclear as to why Rick has to kill them. We are led to assume there is a back story as to why Rick “doesn’t have a choice” with the killing. This really makes me think though. Who is committing the worse crime: the replicants or Rick and the other humans? Replicants have motives; they want to LIVE. What is so terrible about fighting for your life? Regardless of being human or clone, any one would fight for their life. If I knew my time was limited, I, too, would have fought for the cure/remedy/whatever it took. Rick is killing these clones because he’s told to. But then he falls in love with one and spares her? If they are all so evil and bad, what makes her programming so different? She will die as well. Why does Rick kill? I wish I knew what his back story was within the whole scenario. The Blade Runner did a great job in making you think about morality in regards to human life. There are many perspectives and arguments that can be made about who the “bad guys” really were.