Duncan Jones‘ Moon divided critics at Sundance, which is maybe not much of a surprise. A slow, introspective homage to classic sci-fi with one actor (Sam Rockwell in a perfectly modulated dual role), two locations (inside a moon space station, and just outside it), and minimalist special effects, Moon challeneges the viewer to confront what they think they know about space movies and lonely-man-in-existential-crisis movies equally. Audiences that get it seem to really get it, and hopefully Sony Classics, who are scheduled to release the film in June, won’t push the genre elements over the intellectual elements –– or vice versa –– when the victory of the film is the merging of the two. As I put it in my review, Moon “feels more casual and accessible than any cinematic exploration of the Lacanian mirror stage has a right to be.”
Whilst at Sundance, I got a few minutes alone with Rockwell and Jones, and we chatted about their mutual love of early-80s sci-fi, the technology and technique behind the dual performance, and the real life potential of Moon’s alternative energy fantasy. Beware: there’s a possible spoiler immediately after the jump.
After I saw Moon, I was talking to other journalists about it, and people who are really into it weren’t sure exactly how to approach writing about it, because to talk about Sam’s dual performance, you almost have to go into the fact that his character discovers he’s been cloned. But is that a spoiler? Does putting that in print ruin the viewing experience?
Sam: Yeah, that’s a good question. I don’t know.
Gordon: You know, at end of the first act, we reveal that. So, I think it’s OK; I think it’s OK to talk about. Also, it’s a major part of the film. It’s a major part of what makes Sam’s performance so amazing. So, I certainly don’t have a problem talking about that.
Yes, obviously, the performance is the core of the film. So, two part question: Sam, how do you approach being the two different people, and how do you shoot that?
Gordon: It’s incredibly technical, obviously. And I think Sam had spent an awful lot of time working out the two separate characters. Essentially, it is the same guy, but with a three year displacement in their life experience…
Sam: We rehearsed a lot. We worked out some stuff ahead of time. I prepared quite a bit. Then the technical stuff was tough, the timing, being spontaneous and keeping it fresh and keeping the timing technically perfect.
Did you shoot one character first, or did you shoot scene-by-scene?
Duncan: We would always work out in the scene who is driving that scene. And then that would be the performance that we would do first. And Sam would have the flexibility to be a bit more improv-y with the first Sam. And then we would go back and shoot the other side of it.
I want to talk a little bit about the effects. One of the things that is really great about the film is that there seems to be only as many effects as you absolutely need. It’s not super showy. Can you break down a little bit how you approached creating different types of images, what is green screen and what is digital and what are practical props?
Duncan: There are basically two main locations, the interior of the base and then there is the exteriors on the surface of the moon. For the interior of the base, most of it is in camera. Occasionally, in particular shots where Gerty is kind of whizzing around the base, or moving around, we used CG for those shots.
But, other than that, Sam performs, and then when we have two Sams it’s still a live action performance with Sam. A lot of the time, we had a prop version of Gerty [the astronaut's robot helper/companion] and a prop version of Gerty’s arms. So, just depending on what the shot was, we would try to get away with it in camera as much as possible.
There is some CG in the interiors, but the exteriors were a totally different ballgame. We used a very traditional model, a miniatures technique for the lunar surface and the vehicles traveling across it. Then we would use digital set extensions to actually make the landscape go off into the distance and to create the sky itself.
And then we would add little elements like dirt being kicked up off the back of the car, sometimes some lens flares here and there. It’s a hybrid. The exteriors in particular were real hybrid of live action and CG. But, that’s what I used to do in commercials anyway. That’s what I’m known for.
Sam, can you breakdown the process of acting by yourself in this environment?
Sam: Sometimes we had an actor or a script supervisor reading the lines. Duncan would read stuff sometimes. Robin Shock, who’s a young British guy who was a body double –– from the back, he looked like me –– he was also an actor. So, he and I would run the lines and stuff and we would work out the blocking. But ultimately, I’m the one who would have to get in front of the camera, so I would have to work out the acting choices by myself, really, and with Duncan’s help. It’s a tough process, so I depended on Duncan to guide me through it.
Did you write it with Sam in mind?
Duncan: Absolutely, yeah. There was another project that I wanted Sam to do with me and unfortunately we weren’t able to do that one. But, we had a really good conversation and got on very well, and I decided I have got to have Sam in my first feature film. I really wanted to work with Sam. Knowing what he was interested in and knowing what I wanted to do with the first feature, I left the meeting we were having about this other project and went off to write a project for Sam.
Sam: We geeked out on a lot of the movies that we grew up watching when Sci-Fi came along. Outland, Blade Runner and Alien…
In Moon there are things that seem like references to other movies, that you then take to a different place. It made me wonder if the world of Moon is a world in which science fiction exists. Had Sam the character seen 2001? What sci-fi popular culture would he have been exposed to?
Sam: That’s interesting.
Duncan: It’s a weird time that we set the film in, because it certainly doesn’t adhere to any of the science fiction that is coming out now, like the George Clooney Solaris, where it’s got kind of this iPod chic look to it.
It’s very different from that. It’s much more retro. It’s almost a late ’70s, ’80s version of what the future is. But it still feels relevant to me, because it’s kind of gritty and it’s blue collar and it’s a human story. The technology has a believable functional aesthetic to it. So, it’s almost like time went off in a slightly different direction.
Do you see it as the future in front of us right now, or is it more of an alternate universe?
Duncan: No, no, no. I still see it as the future for us. I just think it’s a very different design aesthetic than where we are right now. But then again, things come into fashion. Right now this [points to an iPhone] is the cool look. In ten years time, we might be going back to quite chunky, clunky-looking Richard Kit, because we just like the aesthetic of it.
So harvesting solar energy from the surface of the moon, this is actual technology that could be used.
Duncan: Absolutely. Fusion power is a real technology which is being developed right now. It hasn’t quite reached its potential, but helium three is a natural resource which would be used theoretically once fusion technology is available.
The situation depicted, that there is not enough helium on the earth, is a fact. And it is also a fact that there is plentiful supply of helium three on the moon. So, starting from there it makes sense. Mining the moon for helium three is a real possibility.
If the film predicts that this could happen, are you in favor of it? Do you think it’s a good idea?
Gordon: Absolutely. I think human beings by their nature use the resources which are available to them. We do need to find an alternative for the energy sources that are limited. And this might give us the time we need to create truly renewable energy sources.
Originally posted on:
SpoutBlog