Skip to main content

Madam, the chances of bagging an elephant on the Moon are remote.

First Men in the Moon
(1964)

(SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen swaps fantasy for science fiction and stumbles somewhat. The problem with his adaptation of popular eugenicist HG Wells’ 1901 novel isn’t so much that it opts for a quirky storytelling approach over an overtly dramatic one, but that it’s insufficiently dedicated to pursuing that choice. Which means First Men in the Moon, despite a Nigel Kneale screenplay, rather squanders its potential. It does have Lionel Jeffries, though.

It was Kneale’s bright idea to bookend the main 1899 narrative with the 1964 landing on the Moon by the UN (will you just look at the supra-national approach! See how marvellous the UN is!) This stemmed from producer Charles Schneer’s concern that “space exploration had advanced to such a degree that it would be difficult to make the story seem believable to modern audiences” (Ray Harryhausen in An Animated Life). Which is evidently assuming audience credulity with regard to the space race, and all things space, and NASA. Ironically, it’s this antiquated aspect, from a post-steampunk perspective, that is arguably the movie’s strongest suit. Harryhausen had considered modernising the material, per George Pal’s The War of the Worlds, but Kneale’s solution effectively adds a “secrets of the past” quality common to his work.

First Men on the Moon is otherwise fairly nondescript with regard to the writer’s prevailing themes, however, and in form at least – if not tone – it has been cited as one of the more faithful Wells adaptations. Schneer considered there was “not enough variety in it for a feature production” (I tend to agree) while studio Columbia initially expressed reservations that there was “not an audience for it… there is too much space fact on television to allow for space fiction”. Well, yes. Quite. On the subject of which, Harryhausen professed to being most proud of the scientific accuracy of the prologue… Ahem, well it’s feasible NASA and Kubrick were taking notes, I’ll give it that.

These sequences, with a spaceship and mothership, and later/earlier ones with the Cavor space sphere, represent probably the best effects work in the movie, which offers some memorable moonscapes but is rather limited in the trad-Harryhausen creature-shop department. The use of widescreen, while it looks quite nice, was against Ray’s better instincts and created numerous complications, limiting the use of animation to three main sequences (the Selenites’ science, the mooncalf, and the Grand Lunar). And of those, the only real “action” set piece is the mooncalf/giant centipede. The Troglodyte insectoid Selenite design is suggestive of Kneale’s own Martians from Quatermass and the Pit, albeit they’re limited in impact through casting kids in costumes.

Harryhausen observed that the lightening in the movie’s tone resulted from Columbia’s demand for an American director (he promptly made a call to The 7th Voyage of Sinbad’s Nathan Juran): “Many of the ‘laughs’ are from his mind, from actor Lionel Jeffries (Cavor) or a combination of both”. Curiously, as a result, there’s much play on space food, so reflecting the previous year’s outright comedy Mouse on the Moon (chickens especially; Edward Judd’s Bedford is “sick of sardines”). There’s no mention of where they go to the toilet, but since this is set in Victoriana, they probably don’t go at all. Jeffries’ enthusiastic playing of Joseph Cavor – inventor of liquid cavorite, the anti-gravity substance that propels their craft to the Moon – is infectious, energising the proceedings where Juran, in his plodding, functional way, singularly fails.

Another Columbia directive was for a female character, added by Kneale and Jan Read, who was brought in for second draught. She takes the form of irksome stowaway Kate (Martha Hyer), who conspicuously sabotages or foils our heroes’ plans through determined ineptitude. Judd was being fashioned as a leading man at the time, post-The Day the Earth Caught Fire (where he’s pretty good); he can also be seen in Invasion, penned by Robert Holmes. His character Bedford, whose motivation in teaming with Cavor is strictly financial (getting out of debt), is determinedly unsympathetic, be it through berating Cavor or attacking Selenites (“You’ve certainly given them a taste of human violence”). His 1964 old-age makeup is pretty poor too, and rather makes him look like he’s been caked in mud.

Kneale and Read don’t really embrace Wells’ themes, aside from the emphasis on humanity’s propensity for warfare; the Selenites’ progress is based on specialisation absent from mankind’s path, who are “brutes”. Jules Verne objected to Wells fantastical invention of Cavorite, but it doesn’t strike me as any more grossly unscientific than accepted doctrine (ie riddled with nonsense and half-truths). Notably, the novel also mentions Tesla (transmissions sent by Cavor from the Moon), someone else who’d fall foul of mainstream narratives. There’s also mention in the movie of unlimited power sources, which is very Tesla: “I’d say it was perpetual motion, if it wasn’t impossible” (power from sunlight). Plus, there’s sound in space.

Harryhausen credited to Kneale the idea that Cavor had a cold, such that his bacteria wipe out the Selenites – “it was a respectful nod at Wells, who had used the bacteria idea in his War of the Worlds” –although it feels a little too close to over-appropriation to me. Ironically, this means Kneale was doubling down on one set of illusory markers of modern society in order to massage the overt fictions of an earlier age. If First Men in the Moon betrays influences, it was also quite possibly influential, in its own low-key way. Flash Gordon’s homemade rocket ship (Zaroff) as envisaged by Mike Hodges? And Doctor Who’s laughably inept insectoid hell, The Web Planet, would be visited only a year later.

It isn’t hugely surprising that First Men in the Moon is rather forgotten, both as a Wells adaptation and in Harryhausen’s oeuvre. It lacks the inspired animations of his best work, and also the adventuring spirit of later attempts to mine Victorian era fiction (At the Earth’s Core). But it’s still an intermittently engaging curio, caught as it is between pillar and post. One might easily imagine Guillermo Del Toro suggesting an authentic, big-budget version, but I agree with Schneer that, to make a successful movie, one would need to go further off text. There have, of course, been more recent takes on the material. Fortunately, I’d been entirely unaware of the Mark Gatiss BBC4 interpretation until writing this review. I intend to resume blissful ignorance directly.


Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism