Skip to main content

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

First Men in the Moon

(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

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

Did you not just hand over a chicken to someone?

The Father (2020) (SPOILERS) I was in no great rush to see The Father , expecting it to be it to be something of an ordeal in the manner of that lavishly overpraised euthanasia-fest Amour. As with the previous Oscars, though, the Best Picture nominee I saw last turned out to be the best of the bunch. In that case, Parasite , its very title beckoning the psychic global warfare sprouting shoots around it, would win the top prize. The Father , in a year of disappointing nominees, had to settle for Best Actor. Ant’s good, naturally, but I was most impressed with the unpandering manner in which Florian Zeller and Christopher Hampton approached material that might easily render one highly unstuck.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

So the devil's child will rise from the world of politics.

The Omen (1976) (SPOILERS) The coming of the Antichrist is an evergreen; his incarnation, or the reveal thereof, is always just round the corner, and he can always be definitively identified in any given age through a spot of judiciously subjective interpretation of The Book of Revelation , or Nostradamus. Probably nothing did more for the subject in the current era, in terms of making it part of popular culture, than The Omen . That’s irrespective of the movie’s quality, of course. Which, it has to be admitted, is not on the same level as earlier demonic forebears Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist .

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne . And maybe include The Happening in that too ( Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

I’ll look in Bostock’s pocket.

Doctor Who Revelation of the Daleks Lovely, lovely, lovely. I can quite see why Revelation of the Daleks doesn’t receive the same acclaim as the absurdly – absurdly, because it’s terrible – overrated Remembrance of the Daleks . It is, after all, grim, grisly and exemplifies most of the virtues for which the Saward era is commonly decried. I’d suggest it’s an all-time classic, however, one of the few times 1980s Who gets everything, or nearly everything, right. If it has a fault, besides Eric’s self-prescribed “Kill everyone” remit, it’s that it tries too much. It’s rich, layered and very funny. It has enough material and ideas to go off in about a dozen different directions, which may be why it always felt to me like it was waiting for a trilogy capper.

You got any Boom Boom Lemon?

Kate (2021) (SPOILERS) The dying protagonist subgenre is a difficult one to get right. The customary approach is one of world-weary resignation on the part of the poisoned or terminally ill party that sweetens the pill, suggesting they’re being done something of a favour. It’s also a smart idea to give them some sort of motive force, in order to see them through the proceedings before they kark it. Such as a mystery to solve; there’s a good reason D.O.A. is generally seen as a touchstone in fare of this ilk. Kate fumbles on both counts, leaving the viewer with a rather icky poisoning – you don’t want to be too distracted by that sort of thing, not least because suspension of disbelief that the already superheroic protagonist can function at all evaporates – and a lead character with the slenderest of relatability working for her. Most damningly, however, is a revenge plot that’s really rather limp.