AirLockAlpha.com

This column contains spoilers for the film "Moon."

In a year with so many other bigger and splashier science-fiction films overshadowing it, “Moon” deserves to be remembered and celebrated for its clever ingenuity. Preying upon every sci-fi buff's fear that this was going to be a remake of the sci-fi classic “2001: A Space Odyssey,” it surprised us all with several delightful twists, and turned out to be one of the most sophisticated sci-fi films ever seen.

So what happened with “Moon”? Why did it launch in a year chalked full of superb sci-fi films and yet barely registered on the radar, while films like “Avatar,” “District 9” and even “Terminator: Salvation” all went on to make obscene amounts of money at the box office?

Using the nine-prong argument utilized in my recent article analyzing why I thought “District 9” deserved to win the Oscar for Best Picture more than “Avatar,” the following is an analysis of what differentiated “Moon” from its peers.

Profits

Whereas “Avatar” earned in excess of $1.9 billion and “District 9” earned over $204 million, “Moon” grossed only $7 million worldwide. It is hard to fathom exactly why “Moon” did not tickle the fancy bone of the moviegoers, but it can be attributed to several possibilities, such as: too much competition, lack of marketing, no identifiable big names attached to it, no source of visible conflict to drive the story, or even just a lack of interest as there was no “hook” to draw the audience in.

Unlike “District 9” or “Avatar” which had visible aliens in all their marketing materials, “Moon” had nothing for the audience to latch onto. It felt a bit too ambiguous to see a poster of a man in a space-suit standing on a white round spiral. Perhaps there was confusion as to whether the film was a fictionalized account of a true story.

Nothing alienates (pun intended) an audience faster than the notion that a film may be a documentary -- or just as off-putting can be a film based on a true story. Additionally, the tagline was not illuminating or helpful, “950,000 Miles from Home, the Hardest Thing to Face is Yourself.” While absolutely accurate, this bleak description gave the impression of a story about a solitary existence in a remote locale. No one could quite figure out what this film was about and thus stayed away.

Realism

In an area in which it excelled, “Moon” felt very real. It looked and appeared like it was entirely possible that there was a man actually living on the moon. This concept is not entirely impossible for we certainly have put astronauts on the moon and we have been looking for years to find a way to exploit any resources the moon may offer.

It was helpful that writers Duncan Jones and Nathan Parker came up with something that the people of Earth needed so much that we had a reason to put a man on the moon for an extended period of time. Using much of the technology currently available today with only modest enhancements, the film felt like a realistic version of what a space station on the moon would look like, as well as populating it with advanced computer assistance that would be needed if we were to exploit the moon’s resources.

Thus, the film was immediately relatable and believable. So, in realism, “Moon” simply excelled. It took our visions of the future and made it feel real enough -- like it was happening today.

Scope of Story

As far as scope goes, “Moon” cannot quite compete with either “District 9” or “Avatar” because “Avatar” created a whole new world to utilize as the backdrop for its sweeping story and “District 9” used the city of Johannesburg as its canvas for its film. But “Moon,” well, its story was isolated to a space station on the moon and its few outlying buildings. It felt nearly myopic in how narrow a scope “Moon” chose to embody.

But perhaps its strength lies in staying so tightly-focused and not choosing to distract the viewer with a wide array of locales.

Name Recognition

Without the big names of James Cameron and Peter Jackson splashed across billboards and posters, “Moon” was content to advertise itself on its own merits. Unfortunately, it was then just as easy to ignore.

Sam Rockwell is not an immediately recognizable actor. But then, neither was Sharlto Copley in “District 9.” However, in “District 9’s” case, there is no denying that adding the words “Peter Jackson Presents” on its marketing posters was a huge enticement for sci-fi fans everywhere. Even though no one knew exactly what “District 9” was about, everyone assumed that if Peter Jackson was producing, it must be a film to go see.

“Moon,” on the other hand languished in its anonymity.

Expediency

In an area of commonality, “Moon,” like “District 9,” was not a film that anyone really had any heads-up that it was looming on the horizon. “Moon” had made a name for itself at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2009, but by the time it was released in June 2009, six months had passed and there was simply no push that this was a film that everyone must see.

While “Moon” did not take 10 years to make like “Avatar,” without any anticipation to precede it, it did not matter if it took years or months to film. In fact, it was filmed in a record 33 days. So, in terms of expediency, it was a fast film project.

Waiting for Technology

“Moon” also did not wait on any developing technology before launching right into filming. Once the idea germinated and the financing was secured, it was rapidly brought to fruition in order to capitalize on the increasing interest in sci-fi films. There was simply no hesitation.

We can only applaud such rapid development.

Love Story

While not as obvious as the love stories offered in “Avatar” and “District 9,” “Moon” had its own love story that was a central part of the film. Sam Bell was desperately in love with his wife and literally counting down the days until he had completed his three-year assignment in order to get back to her. It was one of the core things that kept him motivated and inspired to complete his task and get back to Earth.

Once Sam learned of her death, his desire to return home was moot. He was adrift from what he thought he knew and what he was hoping to come home to. So “Moon” offered no less of a key love story that drove the characters and storyline. For love is one of the most powerful motivators in the universe and, even when you are completely alone, it inspires us to pursue life with passion.

Portrayal of Physical Disabilities

Despite not being immediately obvious, there were two very distinguishable disabilities portrayed in “Moon.” Like Jake Sully who was confined to a wheelchair in “Avatar” or Wikus who was slowly turning into one of the alien prawns in “District 9,” Sam was also afflicted with a physical disability: he was a clone. Sam was not initially aware of that pivotal fact, but once another clone rescued him from his rover crash; it became obvious that he was a clone.

While this may not be perceived as a classic disability, it did limit Sam’s ability to live a “normal” life. For not only did he have a built-in shelf-life (a limit of three years before his body disintegrated), he was also handicapped by the memories of someone else and feelings for a life that was never his – a family that was not his own – a love he would never go home to. Thus, he was disabled on an emotional level because he had become so dependent upon the implanted memories that he could no longer distinguish his reality from the fantasy.

He was not able to establish his own self-identity and pursue a life he would have chosen. His sense of self-identify was crippled. However, “Moon” did nicely portray Sam’s acceptance of the fact he was a clone and how he chose to deal with his revealed disabilities. But there is no denying that he was physically and emotionally handicapped.

Corporate Greed

“Moon,” like “Avatar” and “District 9,” was all about how corporate greed destroyed people’s lives in order to pursue their own profits and agenda. In “Avatar,” it was about securing the single largest supply of unobtanium. In “District 9,” it was about finding a way to use the technologically advanced alien weaponry. And, in “Moon,” it was all about harvesting helium-3.

In all three films, human life was expendable to the greedy desires of corporations.

So after looking at the nine categories that helped distinguish differences in “Avatar” and “District 9,” there are clearly many areas of similarity between the three films. So what were the key differences that may have prevented “Moon” from becoming a serious Oscar contender? Turning to three more categories the differences become a bit more obvious.

Aliens

From the start, it was glaringly obvious that “Moon” had no aliens. Whereas “Avatar” and “District 9” relied heavily on introducing and captivating the audience with new alien life, “Moon” was ultimately the story about one man – albeit, the various cloned versions of one man, but still one man.

Without the wonder of an alien race there perhaps was not enough to draw in and retain an audience’s interest.

Weaponry

Another area of significant difference was the lack of weaponry in “Moon.” Unlike “District 9” or “Avatar,” there were not grand explosions to dazzle the audience. There was no “shock and awe” campaign or heroic maneuvers using advanced alien technology.

Instead, “Moon” relied on the power of the mind to entrance its audience. It was all about the choices that Sam made when he had no knowledge he was a clone and how he reacted to it once he did. But choices are never as mesmerizing as the brilliant display of firepower and weaponry.

Psychological Exploration

In all three films, there was a strong psychological aspect that was the undercurrent of the story.

In “Avatar,” Jake had been seduced by the beauty and freedom of the Na’vi and literally agreed to give up his human existence in order to become one of them. It was a psychological study of body dysmorphia at its finest. But that was a subtle psychological aspect that went unnoticed by many of the movie-going audience.

In “District 9,” it was clear from the start that Wikus agonized over his physical transformation into a prawn and it haunted him as he learned to live with it. But in “Moon,” the entire film was an exploration of psychology. From the moment we first saw that Sam was living entirely alone on the moon, we wondered how he could bear it; and as the film unfolded, we saw the extreme hardship such forced-isolation had on him and his psyche.

Then, as it was discovered that he was not alone, that he was a clone with many copies, and that his life expectancy had an impending expiration date, it was all about the psychological effects those revelations had on him. It was a film entirely about how a person copes with loneliness and the lack of identity.

For in "Moon," they explored what is identity: Who are we? What is it to be human? Are we who we define ourselves or are we shaped by the environment and circumstances of our lives? Can a clone ever be an "original"? Can it establish its own identity? Does a clone have a right to its own identity and life? These were all very thought-provoking and intense questions. Perhaps it was simply too much for the average movie-goers’ mind to absorb.

Conclusion

For the average sci-fi fan, “Moon” was a confection of pure sci-fi at its best. It was set in space, in the future, with technology we do not have today, and it held up a mirror on our society today which we dare not look into but through a lens of fiction. Ask any sci-fi fan who has seen all three films (“Moon,” “District 9,” and “Avatar”) which is their favorite – and they will be conflicted as each film had something fascinating to offer.

But when asked which deserves the Oscar for Best Picture, then it becomes clear that “Moon” and “District 9” are more worthy.

Then ask why “Moon” did not get the accolades and awards-push that “District 9” did, and that is a much harder question to answer. Suffice it to say, it is probably because people have not seen, let alone heard of, this brilliant sci-fi film. But they should. “Moon” is an extraordinary film that deserves a lot more attention.