Moon - Directed by Ducan Jones and starring Sam Rockwell

[VGurcu]

Dramatic effect derives from what is probable. Not what is possible. - Aristotle.

Aristotle could have said that. He also said that earth was the center of the universe, plants had no genders, females are a lower form of humans, and created a wrong theory about 'law of inertia' which was disproven by Galileo many centuries later.

I guess had Shakespeare lived before our expert Aristotle, great portion of his work would be scrapped by the art expert Ar(s)totle; after all what is the probability of Desdemona falling in love with a Moor Othello, just to be killed by him because of a handkerchief? Wouldnt you call it a possibility rather than a probability?
Dramatic masterpiece of cinema; 2001, Apocalypse Now, Godfather, (you name any movie) they all have certain moments of unprobable, unrealistic (whether central or not) premises. It all depends on how far you re willing to go to dissect it.

- the movie presents a realistic universe...There's supposed to be some logic here. So it sets up a universe where things are supposed to make sense.

It's never explained why, but that's OK because this is a fairy tale and a surrealist world.

You need a probable and understandable solution rather than expecting the audience to throw darts at anything on an infinite spectrum of possibility dart board.

I would maybe have never worried about it. But the movie told me it was something I could understand and was logic based. That set up an expectation that it didn't meet.

Just like the master before you, you're heavily relying upon logical deductions. {It is okay to do that, after all entire western civilization work on the same principle (hence we are where we are now) } Sad max very gently made the point I am trying to do

I didn't see any underpinning logic to the rationale behind clones etc either, but since I was engaging with the movie on an entirely different sort of wavelength, that lack didn't (and doesn't) bother me.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Aristotle could have said that. He also said that earth was the center of the universe, plants had no genders, females are a lower form of humans, and created a wrong theory about 'law of inertia' which was disproven by Galileo many centuries later.

Heh heh. Yeah. Except that Aristotles' three act structure and his Poetics on Drama are still valued and taught today. Many screenwriting books and gurus will mention Aristotle as the structural form still prevalant in theatre, and the starting touchstone that the common screenplay 4 act structure is derived from today. And that the Greeks are credited with inventing western drama in a form that's comparable from a narrative view point to modern drama. It's not just act structure. It's a whole slew of philosophies and thoughts about dramatic narrative that modern theories still hold or have grown out of. Some issues of decorum have been eschewed over the years. But structural elementsa and the basis of what makes drama tic are still respected and taught the world over.

In other words: Aristotle is sometimes called the Father of Drama. He's not called the Father of Horticulture or Science.

I guess had Shakespeare lived before our expert Aristotle, great portion of his work would be scrapped by the art expert Ar(s)totle; after all what is the probability of Desdemona falling in love with a Moor Othello, just to be killed by him because of a handkerchief? Wouldnt you call it a possibility rather than a probability?
Dramatic masterpiece of cinema; 2001, Apocalypse Now, Godfather, (you name any movie) they all have certain moments of unprobable, unrealistic (whether central or not) premises. It all depends on how far you re willing to go to dissect it. ...

No you miss the point. And Shakespeare supported and developed the situations of his stories and motivations of his characters. I'm not saying that staffing your Moon mining colony is too far fetched to work. I'm saying that you have to support it. You have to make it probable within the context of the world you create. So that the audience goes - of course they have clones on the moon. You shouldn't require the audience to draw straws to support making the situation work if this situation is central to generating drama and conflict.

And Aristotle and Shakespeare go hand in hand. Here' pick one the 826,000 hits on Aristotle and Shakespeare
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=fic&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=aristotle+shakespeare+&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
most of which deal with the fact that Shakespeares' tragedies are largely regarded as Aristotilian, as in Aristotilian Tragedies, again as laid out in the Poetics.

What Shakespeare would not have done would be to leave you wondering why Desdemona got the boot from a list of several possibilities. Or vagueness. Virtually any possibility can work if it's supported. When it's supported, it becomes a probability.

In Othello it's probable that Desdemona and Othello's affection will prove problematic. A possibility would be that everyone happens to have no problem with them being together because everyone around just happens to be free thinkers ahead of their time. If the story went that way it would take a lot of work to make that probable.

In my screenwriting classes at UCLA. Plausibility was still taught. This was a couple of years ago. Not the eighties or anything. And Western logical thought in screenplays - is the industry. Or what the industry aspires to and what an audience that wants a story and a premise to make sense, wants to see in a movie. Unless it's in the experimental section of a film festival or you're David Lynch (of whom I'm a big fan).

 

[Sad Max]

There's non-Euclidean geometry, so I guess there could be non-Aristotlean drama.

Anyway, one possibility that occurs to me is that the nature of the work means exposure to hazardous doses of solar radiation. Even spending a lot of time in shirtsleeve quarters under a few meters of lunar regolith the work will still likely multiply your cancer risk to the point of making disposable clones preferable to rapid rotations or expensive deep lunar excavation. Perhaps that possibility is even supported by the symptoms the clones develop looking rather like radiation sickness.

Happy?

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

There's non-Euclidean geometry, so I guess there could be non-Aristotlean drama.

Not in a cause and effect linear narrative. That's what a linear narrative is. Aristotelian. If it has a beginning, middle and end that have a cause effect relationship to each other (linear narrative), then it's Aristotelian. Do you mean to suggest that Moon is not a linear narrative that's supposed to make sense?

Anyway, one possibility that occurs to me is that the nature of the work means exposure to hazardous doses of solar radiation. Even spending a lot of time in shirtsleeve quarters under a few meters of lunar regolith the work will still likely multiply your cancer risk to the point of making disposable clones preferable to rapid rotations or expensive deep lunar excavation. Perhaps that possibility is even supported by the symptoms the clones develop looking rather like radiation sickness.

Happy?

Happy? Well. If that was in the movie. I'd be satisified with it. What's in the movie is "Ain't training new employees a pain. Let's have clones."

Beyond that, can I have my experience watching the film? Can I share it? Did I call anyone stupid for liking it? Did I not say I liked it myself? I said my experience was diminished about 20% because it set up the fact that there was cloning as part of the mystery that the main character is trying to solve and that element was never fully justified. I said that going into such detail about it made it seem like I didn't really like the movie but I was just curious as to why others didn't hiccup on it. You and others have said you were just too into it to care. Fine.

That's just my experience watching it.

The film sets up a logical universe and goes so far as to offer expository information about moon mining completely outside of the narrative at the beginning of the film. Whether or no that diminished anyone's experience but mine a discussion not self contained and self evident in the film. This is a basic of all Dramaturgy and narrative - consistency in the expectations the narrative sets up. Maybe breaking that convention is the point of this film. To switch from a logic based universe to a subjective mind job that won't always make sense. If so I didn't get that and it didn't work for me. Doesn't mean anyone else is dumb. I said I liked the film and thought it excelled in all areas except this plot hole.

As it pertains to feeling that the movie made a slight misstep in not supporting the why of this cloning aspect I don't really care about conjecture outside the movie.

To me it was a loose end that, if tied up, I would have enjoyed the movie more. OK?

If I'm going to be told I'm wrong. Or to accept "just because" (I mean tell that to anyone in development), I'm gonna have a discussion backed up by some of my experience.

"Just because" is dismissive conversation ender, at least in terms of plot. And that started all my apparently unappreciated citations and backing up of widely accepted current screenwriting theory. If my points are going to be broken down point by point I'll respond. Or. I can just have my opinion. And it could be valid for me at the time I watched the movie.

 

[Sad Max]

I doubt that anyone meant to suggest that your experience of and response to the film isn't legitimate. And your points *are* well-made and supported.

I think that the 'happy?' at the end of my post should have probably been accompanied by a smiley or something; I wrote it jovially but text doesn't always convey they spirit in which it was typed. I certainly didn't mean to denigrate you or your observations regarding the film.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Yeah sorry.

I'd like to thank the Acadmy for my award in the Best Over reActing category.

Yeah I took the "happy" the wrong way on the heels of VGuru's previous post.

My bad.

 

[stray films]

A few moments could have been the starting point for generic hollywood plot:
-sam trying to "uncover the clone conspiracy"
-sam trying to accept the facts and creating a huge drama without advancing the plot
-evil robot
-mercenaries arriving on a mission to kill

It was refreshing to see the director/writer consistently avoid each of these cliche traps.

They also let the protagonist behave as smart as possible.
The generic hero in hollywood movies is extremely slow. For example Neo in Matrix. Everybody on the right side of the IQ bell curve usually has figured out the meaning of the dialogue heavy filler-scenes in a matter of seconds and goes into mental stand-by mode until there's some action again. No such moments in Moon.

I always kept guessing how the movie would end, there were so many variables that you could speculate on. At the same time there were a couple of very emotional moments. Rockwell should get at least an oscar nomination.

My favourite movie of the year together with District 9 and In the Loop.

Agreed. I also think it is good casting that helped maintain audience attention. A certain person goes for what characters Rockwell does. I thought this film had a lot in common with the underlying commentary of 2001, but the character that Rockwell played had actual internal stuff going on much like the roll he played in Snow Angels. If anything, the main character of 2001 was more a robotic button pusher than Hal who he shut down. Thats kinda fascinating to think of Hal as being this murderous being, a lot like early man. Where as the future man piloting Hal's ship was totally robotic. Like the rolls had switched. Until he got shown what was really up in the end.

 

[leepback]

All I wanna know is, did Rockwell get double his normal fee?

 

[jonE5]

spidey take off your dam spoiler for those who havent seen it.

I mean geez thats horribly rude in any setting but on a film forum? You should know better, i vote for ban.

Aside from this, great, great film, really told its story well, and beatifully.

Dont see to many hard sci-fi movies any more.

Glad this one came out, and not only that but actually worked really well as well.