Seeing Moon triggers my imagination: What if I have a fatal car accident. Before I expire, I am given a choice to clone myself and have the clone injected with all my memory up till now. The clone`s growth is fast forwarded to reach same age as I am now. Will I be able to fully resign to death and accept the clone’s continual existence as my very own?
Moon’s answer (and mine too) is a definite No! Each human, be it the original or a clone, is a separate unique irreplaceable individual.
.
.
Moon
(warning: spoilers!)
Moon explores this question in a thought provoking way. In Moon,we see Sam appears to be a regular human being, working on the lunar surface to harvest energy for people on Earth. He has two more weeks before his contract expires, when he will be supposedly reuniting with his family back home on Earth. The irony is when his contract expires, his life meets the same fate. Turns out Sam is one of many cloned out of the original Sam, who is now living a comfortable life on Earth. This original Sam allows himself to be cloned to produce dispensable labors who work on the lunar surface, doing a dangerous job that probably no one on Earth will want to do. However, a freak accident causes two cloned Sam’s to meet each other face-to-face, thereby exposing this inhumane and evil plan.
Moon is a study of the evolving relationship between the two cloned Sam’s, which started from mutual mistrust and disbelief, leading to the eventual willingness for self-sacrifice which is the most touching. Are they willing to sacrifice for each other because they see in each other his own existence? Do they see each other’s identify as that of his own?
An interesting twist is that the two clones have very different personalities. Extending this comparison to include the original Sam, there are three very distinct human being who may look the same but hardly resemble each other in reality:
1) Sam Original - we hardly know anything of original Sam, but since he agreed to have his clones used as dispensable labor that lasts only three years imply his lack of ethical morals.
2) Sam 1 - gentle (taking care of plants), attention to detail (obsession with model making). I simply can’t imagine him cloning himself to produce free labor.
3) Sam 2 - athletic, impatient, volatile temper; but surprisingly has the willingness for self-sacrifice (originally planned to have Sam 1 transported back to Earth instead of himself)
Sam 1 and Sam 2 are each a unique human being, despite being replicas and are imperfect (can live up to only 3 years). Interestingly, we never see the original Sam, nor any ‘real’ human being - I am certain it is a conscious decision by the director to emphasize the humanity of the clones, and the inhumane morals of so called ‘real’ human.
.
Gattaca
Moon reminds me of another great Sci-Fi film: Gattaca. In Gattaca, a paralyzed Jerome who has the ‘right gene’ wants to go into space to make a name for himself. But his paralysis has doomed his dream. He then entered a deal with Vincent, who has ‘deficient gene’ and would have never qualified for space travel. Jerome provides Vincent with blood, urine samples and his very own identity. The plan is for Vincent to fly into space in the name of Jerome. Sadly, when Vincent achieved Jerome’s dream, Jerome committed suicide. Jerome is willing to accept death when his identify will continue its existence in fame, even though it is in someone else’s physical body. The ending scene from Gattaca is eerily similar to that of Moon, except in Gattaca Vincent is leaving Earth, while in Moon, Sam 2 is flying towards Earth.
.
Blade Runner
Blade Runner also explores similar questions on human identify. Artificial humans, built through genetic engineering, are infused with artificial memory and are built to live only four years (one year longer than the cloned Sam’s in Moon). These artificial humans often don’t even know they are non-human (much like the clones in Moon are unaware of their origin). Where Blade Runner has a bit more sci-fi action sequences, Moon maintains its slower and reflective pace throughout.
.
HAL and Gerty
The funniest part is definitely Moon’s tribute to 2001 Space Odyssey with Gerty. Anyone who has seen 2001 Space Odyssey will have a negative prejudice against poor gentle Gerty from the start! Gerty’s smiley expressions seem more to reflect the emotions of the human clones interacting with it, in order to hide its own emotions and motives (I am talking as if machine can have emotions!) And the sinister, emotionless voice invoking memory of HAL from 2001 Space Odyssey will give all goose bumps.
I recall the scene when Sam fails to enter the right password after many tries. Gerty’s mechanical arm appears in the background approaching an unknowing Sam - is Gerty trying to harm Sam?! No! Turns out Gerty comes to enter the right password for Sam so he can see video clips of past clones’ last moments.
There were a few more shocking moments that can easily passed without notice:
a) when Sam 1 was confronting Gerty about Sam 2 being a clone, Gerty explains as-a-matter-of-fact to Sam 1 that he himself is a clone!
b) When Sam 2 requests Gerty to wake up a third clone, Gerty agrees without arguing as soon as Sam 2 asks “isn’t keeping Sam safe your priority?” (paraphrasing here as I forgot exact words)
Having worked in the software industry for many years, I often encounter software behaviors that are not planned, but turns out they provide new usage scenarios that are value-added. Perhaps Gerty is like that - he is programmed to “keep Sam safe”, which taken to the extreme overrides any consideration for its higher-goal of servicing real humans on Earth. The irony is that Gerty’s programmed behavior is morally superior to any of the real humans using the clones.
.
Interesting Thoughts…
1) Why is Sam called Sam? Perhaps implies “Same”?
2) HAL from 2001 Space Odyssey sounds like “Hell” (actually each letter in “HAL” is created simply by moving 1 letter backward from “IBM”) ; in contrast, Gerty in Moon is not only cute sounding, but turns out to be short for Gertrude - a female name! (so Gerty is a gentle woman with a male voice!?)
.
Unconvincing Plot Gaps?
Here are some plot gaps that are not serious, but nevertheless makes it less than a perfect film for me:
1) why would Gerty the computer be videoconferencing with senior executives on planet Earth, thereby exposing itself to Sam that live feed is indeed working? A computer can easily communicates ‘behind the scene’ just by sending signals (be it voice, visual, or both).
2) if the goal of the corporation is to disallow any live feed communication with Earth, why do they have to first install working live feed machinery, then build sophisticated stations around the area to disable the live feed? They could have installed a fake but look alike system that never works in the first place!
3) Sam asked Gerty to wake up a 3rd clone, intending to kill the clone and put him back into the wrecked vehicle before the ‘rescue team’ from Earth arrives. If this is the plan, why bother waking up the 3rd clone? Why not just kill him while he is still asleep?
I may have been wrong since English is not my first language. So I welcome anyone to explain these plot gaps. Perhaps I simply misheard the conversation?
.
My Verdict…
This is an entertaining and at times thought provoking film. Its introspectiveness reminds me also of Solaris (2002). However, it lacks the strong emotional impact that the aforementioned sci-fi films have on me. Perhaps its meditative pace is disappointingly disrupted by the sudden manipulative excitement of seeing Sam 2 jumping out of the pod seconds before the ‘rescue team’ arrives to reprogram the route of the lunar mining vehicles? The ending perhaps could have been better crafted, instead of relying on ‘cheap hollywood tricks’ for conjuring artificial excitement that is not necessary in such a thought provoking film.
