 |
 |
 |  |
 |  | |||||||||||||
|
archive |
about
us |
links |
contact |
current | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Essential
Films
Buy
this film |
Le
voyage dans la lune [A Trip to the Moon] Starring:
Georges Méliès, Henri Delannoy, Brunnet, Farjaut, Kelm,
Bleuette Bernon |
|
Ion
Martea | |
|
In every canon, there are works that simply have to be included irrespective of their quality. Georges Méliès' most famous work, A Trip to the Moon, is en exemplary case. The effect of the film on film history is widely considered immeasurable, making it almost impossible to argue against its masterpiece status. In the definitive Top 1000 Greatest Films compiled by They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?, the film ranks highest among all the pre-1910 productions and the fifth amongst pre-1920s productions, placing Méliès just after Griffith, Wiene and Feuillade in the list of essential auteurs working up to 1920. So, what makes critics worldwide include this rough and ambiguous work among their favourite films? Moreover, is it included for the right reasons? The creation of canons requires parameters and cinema is fortunate in that because of its novelty (being the youngest major artform at just 118 years), as well as its technological constraints, the search for the essential works in the medium is not necessarily an impossible task for a film critic. In spite of that, there is still a need felt to factor in the represention of chronological periods when choosing one film above another. For the early period in particular, the wealth of experimental productions of a similar quality often leads to creating a token film that represents all. Arguably, A Trip to the Moon became that token production of early cinema. Georges Méliès' fascination with film came early in the game, leading to the creation of a studio headed by Méliès as early as 1896. His background as a magician entertainer helped him develop the medium both technologically and as an effective medium for escapism. The contributions by the Lumière brothers and other European and American mavericks were quickly employed by Méliès, and were assimilated into his artistic output. At first, plagiarising Lumière proved a worthy venture for the magician, who could now get his stage tricks to a larger public. With the innovation of editing, however, Méliès understood that the trickery could be achieved independent of continuous reality. At that point, magical cinema was born, which then slowly developed into a refined genre of the science fiction film. By 1902, technological developments allowed the French director to employ stop-action post-production effects on nearly 260 metres of film (around 14 minutes at a 16fps rate), a length permitting a more complex narrative. For film historians, A Trip to the Moon is the first true manifestation of cinema as an art able to deal with substantial 'texts', thus competing in effect with literature, music, dance and, primarily, theatre. What differentiates Méliès' film from other productions at the time is that the techniques employed are purely cinematic, impossible to reproduce in the physical world. In canonising A Trip to the Moon on these grounds, what is at stake is whether cinema should be seen as a purely technical art. This has serious consequences for how we see the medium's development throughout the 20th century. If we do accept Méliès' achievement as invaluable, then special effects become the main factor in judging the quality of a film and new is placed above older technology, thus positioning A Trip to the Moon beneath The Birth of a Nation (DW Griffith /USA / 1915), which is under Metropolis (Fritz Lang / Germany / 1927). We ascend to Star Wars (George Lucas / USA / 1977), then Terminator 2: Judgment Day (James Cameron / USA-France / 1991), and finally The Lord of the Rings (Peter Jackson / USA-New Zealand-Germany / 2001-2003), by these standards crowned the greatest film ever made. It could also be argued that in being the first cinematic epic narrative, A Trip to the Moon was not simply technologically innovative, but also helped establish the film as a proper work of art capable of inspiring empathy from viewers, be that expressed as laughter, tears or amazement, at any (first or subsequent) viewing. That this could be done using purely cinematic techniques was very important. However, as we have seen earlier in the Essential Films series, Méliès' film is hardly the first production that can be given the credit for achieving this, as either The Execution of Mary Stuart (Alfred Clark / USA / 1895) or even the first film, Roundhay Garden Scene (Louis Aimé Augustin Le Prince / UK / 1888) can also claim that status. So, if the technological factor alone is not enough to establish a film's status, and if A Trip to the Moon was not the first pure film 'text', where does this leave us in trying to assess its significance within the cinematic canon? We must look at the narrative itself. The film is a loose adaptation of HG Wells' The First Men in the Moon and Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon. Theirry Lefebvre, however, identified the source as Offenbach's operetta based on Verne's novel, which was performed in Paris in 1877, with a striking similarity between the stage setting in the latter and certain scenes from Méliès' film. (See Gunning's essay in Film Analysis: a Norton Reader.) The opening scene shows a group of scientists headed by Professor Barbenfouillis (George Méliès) arguing passionately about the need for a trip to the Moon. Here the director stays within his recognisable burlesque, like Offenbach's operetta emphasising the comic rather than the scientific aspect of the story. Swiftly, the preparations for the voyage are under way, with a group of chorus girls launching a bullet-like rocket that soon pierces the eye of the human-faced Moon. The astronauts alight to find the Moon has a similar atmospheric and gravitational environment to the Earth's, with the single exception that stars shine brighter in the sky, and they settle down for a deserved sleep on conquered territory. Up to this point, Méliès is hardly playing a serious game, but he's got more tricks up his sleeve. In the morning, the scientists find themselves in battle with the Selenites, the moon-dwellers from Wells' novel. The battle scene is a textbook of special effects for future generations of film-makers, featuring everything from flights, sudden appearances, explosions, vanishing acts and the disjunction of realistic forms and proportions at every step. Unsurprisingly, the Selenites are easy to kill with an umbrella and the scientists escape at the last minute by falling off the flat-surface of the Moon back to their beloved France, where they are celebrated for their adventurous spirit and safe return. It is redundant to fault Méliès for his lack of scientific awareness, for he created a world of magic that was entirely his own. As the director later remarked, 'the scenario had no real importance', but was used 'only as a pretext, a context for tricks or pleasing theatrical effects', in effect being 'little more than a thread designed to link the various effects'. It makes more sense to think in terms of Freudian analysis of the landing of a phallic-shaped projectile in the eye of a round-shaped planet that obviously exhibits pain, or the scientific etiquette at destroying the surface of the satellite, or even the irony of the frightened heroes being awarded prizes for fake stories of courage - these are all discussions worth pursuing, yet they have nothing to do with any clearly defined narrative. What there is in A Trip to the Moon is a rollercoaster of magic tricks aimed at basic entertainment, in which style renders substance obsolete. Méliès' film has become an icon purely because of its appreciation by the general public. In time, A Trip to the Moon became almost the only early film that was still playing in cinemas, leaving the public enthralled with the magic of cinema in its puberty years, yet still having only one point of reference. Essentially, the film is canonised for becoming and holding its place as a blockbuster, and its age is often seen as a sign of quality. While it may be an important film, however, it is by no means a standard-setter in terms of artistic achievements. A Trip to the Moon is not a bad film, despite the fact that it really belongs within the damned bundle of blockbusters. Its director showed that cinema has a unique capacity at physically recreating worlds that are unachievable in any other art form. Also, unintentionally, he provided all the ingredients for analysing the film text not as integral, but in reference to various developments in modern sciences such as psychology or sociology. Yet, what he lacks is a vision that would help make any argument complete, or at least provide the theories it raises with a basis to make them worthy of discussion. Therefore, it must be clarified that to claim its importance on qualitative grounds is far-fetched, while to consider the film's impact on the development of how the medium is perceived is unquestionably a worthy venture. About the Essential Films series.
|
|
|
