The Non-Existence of Female Astronauts in Older Science Fiction

It's an interesting experience watching older, perhaps somewhat dated science fiction movies, as well as reading old stories. As long as you can remind yourself that the people behind those films lacked the information available to us now, it is still possible to enjoy old stories of space exploration.

Of course from a technological standpoint, the claims of some can be jarring. We're still waiting on those interstellar-travelling flying saucers Forbidden Planet promised we'd have by 2002 and any story claiming Venus is capable of supporting intelligent life seems outright insane now that we know that planet is a blazing inferno with an unbreathable atmosphere and temperatures supposedly hot enough to melt lead. You just have to remember that the filmmakers did not have access to the same information we have now. Conquest of Space had some notable errors in its vision of the Martian surface, but back then they didn't have any of the photographs of Mars that we do now and certainly hadn't sent probes there. In fact, given how little they had to go on it was impressive they came as close as they did.

Now, technology of the future isn't the only thing that older science fiction movies occasionally tend to make mistakes about. Another area that also can make the experience of watching an older science fiction movie, especially one from the 1950's, to seem particularly jarring is the failure to predict certain changes in society.

Recently, we had the success of Gravity, a tense, critically acclaimed science fiction thriller centered almost entirely around a female astronaut. These days, most astronaut movies, barring historical films like The Right Stuff or Apollo 13, usually tend to have a reasonably co-ed crew aside from a few rare exceptions such as Moon.

The idea of an astronaut being stranded by themselves in space had been used before, but was usually done with a man, as is the case of Sam Bell in Moon or the earlier example of David Bowman in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Before Gravity, the closest examples I can think of involving a woman in this scenario are Ellen Ripley in Alien (which was only for the final act) and Eleanor Arroway in Contact (where the isolation is not given as much focus, and again, it's only for the final act, even if it's the most memorable part of the movie)

However, things were a bit different back in the 1950's, and if you look at older stories of space exploration, you see very different casts in many cases. To bring up an icon of the genre from that time, Forbidden Planet opens with a narrator hastily explaining mankind's achievements, talking about how men and women would land on the moon in the 90's (which oddly enough, might be seen as slightly ahead of us, since even today we've never actually put a woman on the moon) and begin travelling through interstellar space by 2002. 

They do say men and women, so that all seems well and good, like there's some reasonable gender equality in the future. Then we see the group of characters who will serve as our protagonists: a massive expedition crew that happens to be made up entirely of white American men. My guess is that I may have misunderstood what they meant by "men and women" going into space, and what they probably meant was women going into space colonies established by the men to get married, likely acting as a woman would have been expected to in the 1950's, as opposed to men and women both going out to explore space together.

Indeed, a lot of old science fiction stories tended to have all-male expedition crews. You can see this very clearly in a ton of Ray Bradbury's older short stories (The Illustrated Man is an anthology that contains several examples of this), along with movies like Forbidden Planet. Now, female astronauts weren't completely unheard of. They did pop up from time to time in films like The Angry Red Planet or Rocketship X-M.

However, let's take a look at some of the better remembered science fiction of the period. Rocketship X-M does have a certain fanbase but we can't forget it was hastily put together to compete with the blockbuster Destination Moon, which also happens to be one of the first science fiction films to attempt to be as realistic as possible. Naturally, this resulted in having the narrative center around four men.

Later on, George Pal made the 1955 film Conquest of Space which talked about "men" building the Wheel. We naturally see an all-male crew, along with a massive number of people aboard the Wheel and no women among them. In short, according to this film, along with Destination Moon, Forbidden Planet, and various short stories of the early 20th century, female astronauts don't exist.

2001: A Space Odyssey was slightly more lenient, having been made while the women's rights movements were really taking off. It was also released only a few years after Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman in space, disproving the earlier depictions of all-male crews (though America didn't launch its first female astronaut until 1983). As a result, female astronauts do exist in Kubrick's world. In fact, we see Dr. Floyd have a short conversation with a group of four astronauts, only one of whom is a man.

However, even then it's still a very masculine vision Kubrick has of the future. Outside of the scene where Floyd talks to these three women (who curiously enough, happen to be Russian, perhaps something to do with the nationality of the first woman to go into space), there are women among the extras in the briefing scene at Clavius.

However, the rest of the women we see are in more stereotypically feminine professions. The most obvious would be the stewardesses seen on the shuttles to the space station and the moon, but we also see women working as secretaries aboard the station and the first line of dialogue in the film is spoken by a female lift operator.

While there are women visible in the briefing scene at Clavius, it is still the men who do all the talking. Later on when Floyd is taken on an expedition to see the greatest find of modern science, he is also in a group made up entirely of men.

This in turn brings us to Discovery, wherein the active crew consists of two men with another three in hibernation. At this point the only woman to appear is Frank's mother in a transmission. Now even today with a crew of that size it's not inconceivable that a mission like this could still consist entirely of men (although it would be less due to any prejudice of the time and more just a case of it being a small group of people and all the individuals who best fit the strict requirements for the crew just happened to be men), but it is still worth noting that there is no obvious indication of any women being involved. To be fair, though, the less popular sequel 2010 does have a strong female lead among the crew, and the Arthur C. Clarke novel it was based on actually had several major female characters.

Natalie Rae Wass in the role of David Bowman for the stage version of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Yes, apparently that exists. You can read about it here.

Even Carpenter's 1974 film Dark Star opted for an all-male cast, though again it is small enough that it isn't too far-fetched even today. However, the opening crawl does use the term "men" in reference to the crews of ships like Dark Star.

If I were to make any sort of guess, I would say the movie that finally changed it all would be Alien. The women's rights movements were finally getting somewhere in the 1970's and Ripley just happened to be a very good, strong female lead for the time period. Much like the Hawksian woman, Ripley was just one of the guys, but this time she didn't get a central romance, and of course she ultimately had to defeat the alien single-handedly after it killed everyone else in the crew.

Thanks to Ripley, most modern science fiction, barring rare exceptions like Moon (where Sam Bell was the only crew member) usually tends to have much more gender diversity in its cast. Stories of space exploration are no longer about "men" journeying to other worlds, but about "men and women" venturing outwards to explore the solar system and beyond.

Duncan Jones' Moon and the Ex-Novum

If there is one thing I learned taking a science fiction class, it is that one of the most important elements in identifying a work as science fiction is the "novum", which is derived from Latin and roughly means “new thing”.

In short, this is the speculative element; often a new or revolutionary idea that is explained through scientific means without resorting to magic or the supernatural. It can be almost anything, though some common examples include depictions of “futuristic” technology (with varying degrees of accuracy in regards to contemporary science) such as spaceships robots and artificial intelligence, various depictions of time travel, the discovery of aliens in one way or another, or visits to unexplored locations.

All of these could be seen as a "novum", or "new thing".

In Duncan Jones’ science fiction film Moon, one can see a variety of different possible novums, including the Lunar mining base, the artificially intelligent computer GERTY, and the process of cloning. 

However, I'm more interested in looking at an example of an ex-novum, specifically, the setting of the film’s title. The absence of a novum within the film’s setting makes it intriguing, but in a very different manner from prior Moon-based science fiction stories. The general environment and tone of moon are in a very interesting way reflective of a drastic change in the outlook of the science fiction genre, especially with regards to space travel.

The moon has always been a popular choice of location for science fiction stories. In film it goes as far back as George Méliès' A Trip to the Moon, released in 1902. 

That film, however, drew loosely from the novels From the Earth to the Moon by Jules Verne and The First Men in the Moon by H.G. Wells. The former of these two involved a group of arms enthusiasts constructing a massive canon with which to launch a manned projectile toward the moon (Verne even attempted to accurately use contemporary science in designing his method). The latter novel had a scientist develop a peculiar form of metal which could cancel out gravity, allowing him and the protagonist to fly to the Moon where they encounter a race of aliens called “Selenites”.

With these earlier stories, one can see a romantic tone in how the moon is depicted. Subsequently, the moon itself becomes a novum- the “new thing” to be discovered; often with the filmmakers trying to provide creative speculation on how one could travel there and what they would find when they arrived. 

Even the later movie Destination Moon, released in 1950, reflects some of this attitude despite the filmmakers striving to depict the moon as accurately as possible for the time. Simply landing a rocket on the Moon is considered a triumphant achievement.

Now if one is to move into the present- following the actual moon landings in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s- and to look at Moon, there is clearly a very different outlook on the experience of being on the moon. In fact, there is not even any need to show how the protagonist arrives. The film simply starts with him already there, reversing the formula of older stories of lunar exploration. In A Trip to the Moon and Destination Moon, the heroes start on off on Earth and want to get to the Moon; in Moon, the hero starts off on the Moon and throughout the movie wants to get back to Earth. 

Sam Bell feels none of the adventure or excitement that was displayed in Méliès' explorers or the heroes of Destination Moon. Instead, there is a very grim outlook towards living on the moon. Sam is alone, his only companions being a computer and, later on, a clone. The first Sam shown is slowly going mad from his prolonged isolation and increasing homesickness. Though slightly more level-headed, the second clone to appear is hardly any more enthusiastic about his job.

The reason for this change has to do with the actual landings on the Moon between 1969 and 1972. A Trip to the Moon and Destination Moon were both made prior to the Apollo Missions, while Moon was released 37 years later. Prior to the 1960’s, the idea of voyaging to the moon seemed like a fantastical idea. It was a significant piece of history when Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, but by 1972 the landings had started to seem much more mundane and pointless, eventually leading to the end of the program. 

The transition in science fiction can be said to have happened around Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, released just before the first moon landing. In addition to providing one of the most accurate depictions of the moon during the era, this film took a different approach from those before it by focusing less on the first landing on the Moon, and instead looking at where humanity could conceivably go after. While the characters seem to treat working on the moon as mundane, Kubrick still seeks to impress the audience with the technological advancements that have been made in his world. Though advanced technology is prominently featured in Moon, it is hardly treated as impressive. There is also very little speculation regarding the nature of the moon itself. 

George Méliès showed absolutely no concern for contemporary science, even by the standards of his time, when making A Trip to the Moon, preferring instead to let his imagination run wild. 

I'm sure we all remember when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin had to deal with the Selenites after landing on the moon. Boy, it sure was a good thing they brought their umbrellas.

Even Destination Moon, one of the first to actively try to be as realistic as possible, still mistakenly depicted the moon having jagged mountains. 

By the time Moon was released, the moon was no longer the undiscovered country it had been seen as before; leading to a very dull, realistic look at the Moon as a smooth rocky terrain with rolling hills. This is probably the closets of all three to the real lunar surface.

Most of the few contemporary films that show the moon otherwise are more likely to use it as a source of humor. A famous example would be the original Wallace and Gromit film A Grand Day Out, where the main characters build a rocket in their basement in order to go to the Moon for a holiday. The moon as seen here has a breathable atmosphere and a surface that appears to be made entirely of cheese.

Nick Park's photo-realistic vision of the lunar surface.

When the movie begins, Sam has only a few weeks left in his contract and is looking forward to going home. He is visibly unhinged from his long-term isolation, and even shows little concern for himself, evidenced by his worn clothes and initially dishevelled appearance. It is also established that his isolation may have affected his sanity. He appears to be growing increasingly homesick, not helped by the discovery of being a clone.

This provides a sharp contrast to A Trip to the Moon (where isolation is not taken into account) and Destination Moon (where it is acknowledged, but mainly during the climax when the possibility is raised of someone having to stay behind), as well as the extensive lunar activity depicted in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Moon shows that its setting is no longer a desirable place to visit, but rather something that must be endured to achieve a long-term goal.

Another day on the moon.

Well, it could be much woise. At least I'm not Sam Bell.

I heard that, Joe Sweeney!

The visuals are very monochromatic throughout: consisting primarily of white and shades of grey, adding to the idea of the moon being a dull and uninteresting environment in which to be working . Many of the shots go on longer than would be normal in a film, often lasting from seven to eighteen seconds. This helps to emphasize the vastness of the moon and space, and also emphasizes Sam’s complete isolation. Similar shots were used in 2001: A Space Odyssey but were mixed with a haunting score to create a sense of curiosity and intrigue as the men travel to the crater where they've made a grand discovery. 

Hey Rick, judging by this ominous music I have a feeling something mysterious is about to happen.

Moon’s outdoor scenes help to remind the viewer how far from home Sam Bell really is, combined with the film’s own score, a small amount of diegetic sound in the form of the machines and Sam’s breathing. Unlike 2001: A Space Odyssey, Sam is not travelling to investigate a grand discovery related to the existence of extra-terrestrial life, but is, at least initially, just doing the routine job of repairing a broken machine.

Throughout history, humanity has speculated on the nature of the moon and wondered how to get there. Moon provides a very different perspective, changing the experience of being on the moon from a grand adventure to an intolerable and isolated destination.

A Look a Hard Science Fiction

DISCLAIMER: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS TO SEVERAL REALLY GOOD SCIENCE FICTION MOVIES HERE! CAUTION IS ADVISED!

As you may have gathered from reading this blog, I am a huge fan of science fiction, but one area in particular that I find interesting is the genre known as hard sci-fi. This is a very unique kind of brand, and one which is not commonly explored. I myself have even made a few efforts to contribute to this especially fascinating genre.

So let's look at what exactly defines hard science fiction. In short, it is a science fiction story like any other, but one which actively makes an effort to be as realistic as possible. Films of this sort attempt to incorporate actual science and when speculation is required they attempt to provide the most plausible version of how a scenario could play out.

Now one of the most famous writers of hard science fiction is Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote a variety of novels and short stories, many of which incorporated the most accurate science available when trying to envision the future. It is only fitting therefore that Clarke went on to become a technical advisor on arguably one of the best examples of hard science fiction in film: 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Speaking of sci-fi writers, it would also be worthwhile to bring up another case: Robert A. Heinlein (the original author of Starship Troopers), who also served as a technical consultant for one of the first hard science fiction films: George Pal's 1950 blockbuster Destination Moon. This was one of the first efforts to realistically envision the future of space travel. It might not be perfect, especially in light of the actual moon landings, but a lot of the basic scientific concepts still hold up surprisingly well.

This of course brings us to George Pal's other hard science fiction movie, the 1955 box office catastrophe Conquest of Space. This one also may be in no way perfect, but as an early attempt it does make a reasonable effort and may well have paved the way for later science fiction movies. I have previously analyzed this one in greater depth on its own, but here I can point out that this is one of the first to introduce the concept of a wheel-shaped space station, and idea that would later be popularized by 2001: A Space Odyssey.

To help round out the selection of films, we can look at something a bit more recent, and there are a few options to choose from. One of the best science fiction films in recent years is Carl Sagan's Contact, starring Jodie Foster. Though it deals with an age-old question (are we alone in the universe?), it is noteworthy both for providing realistic circumstances by which the discovery could be made, and also exploring the social and political consequences that realistically stem from finding solid evidence of extra-terrestrial life.

To finish off the comparison, I also have three other movies from more recently. The first of these is the recent movie Gravity, a very thoroughly-researched science fiction movie centered on astronauts trapped in orbit after their ship is destroyed. I also have Duncan Jones' 2009 film Moon, along with the more recent independent film Europa Report.

Now a full comparison is a tricky task. I can say it is very likely some of these films have had a major influence on one another, as you can see similarities upon close examination. A simple example would be to compare Moon's GERTY and 2001's HAL 9000.

You might notice a strong resemblance between both. In particular is the distinct "eye" and monotone voice. Also an interesting case in that Moon works this to its advantage. The fact that GERTY so obviously resembles HAL throws us off somewhat, especially with clues towards him having a hidden agenda. It makes it all the more surprising when GERTY turns out to be extremely helpful.

In both cases, it was a fault in programming due to human error (conflicting orders in the case of HAL combined with fear of being disconnected, and an unforseen loophole in GERTY's programming that allows him to act against his superiors), but while the outcome of one was frightening the outcome of the other was actually quite emotional.

On a related note, we can also look at how the Moon has been depicted over time across various works of hard science fiction. Destination Moon, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Moon all aimed to present realistic visions of the lunar surface. In Destination Moon, we get an idea of what seemed like a reasonable idea of what the lunar surface might have looked like before we had actually launched anything into space. You can see some mistakes in the cracked ground and jagged mountains, however.

2001: A Space Odyssey was released only a year before the first moon landing. You'll notice its vision is far closer to the reality. Some of the jagged mountains are still present, but not as strong.

By the time we get to Moon, we have much clearer pictures of the lunar surface. The shots of a mostly smooth plane with small hills and craters is probably the closest to the photos of the actual moon.

However, far more interesting is to look at how the moon is treated in each of these films. Destination Moon was released before the moon landings, 2001: A Space Odyssey only a year early, and Moon a great deal of time afterwards.

In Destination Moon, the lunar surface is seen as an undiscovered country, the successful journey to which would be the greatest triumph of humanity (certainly the mindset during the Apollo Missions). In 2001: A Space Odyssey, we get to see a possible vision of where humanity could go after landing on the moon. The characters act as though living there is an everyday occurrence, but Kubrick still aims to impress us with the technology available in his world.

On the other hand, by the time we get to Moon, there's a very different outlook on living there. Sam Bell displays none of the excitement of sense of adventure felt by the heroes of Destination Moon. Instead, working on the moon is treated as a dull and boring job, as well as one that is excruciatingly lonely. To sum up simply: in Destination Moon, the protagonists start off on Earth and want to get to the moon. In Moon, the protagonist starts off on the moon and wants to get back to Earth.

On a related note, we could also compare similarities in plots. I have previously reviewed both Europa Report and Conquest of Space favorably, but when I was watching the former there were moments where I began to wonder if there was influence from the latter.

One area where I couldn't help finding this was a little trick used in both to create a sense of disorientation (though a little more sophisticated in Europa Report). The launch sequences of both films use an interesting series of shots to create a sense of disorientation within the weightless environment of their respective spaceships.

With these two cases, you get an interesting composition. For most of the film, the part that is usually the "bottom" relative to the camera during scenes on these ships is the back of the vehicle. This, however, creates an interesting effect when we see the "bottom" appearing to be the background, while the crew members in the foreground appear to be the right way up. 

Also, if you look closely there are details that help to indicate this (you may notice the seemingly horizontal ladder in the still from Conquest of Space, while in Europa Report you can see four of the crew sitting on what appears to be the background) 

Also interestingly, though this may be little more than coincidence, I couldn't help noticing some similarities between their endings. In both films, there is a problem with the mission that leaves the protagonists stranded at their destination for longer than originally planned (sabotage by the commander in the case of Conquest of Space, technical problems in Europa Report).

Still, what was more interesting was the efforts to get off. The outcome is very different, but the basic set-up is surprisingly similar. The climax of Conquest of Space has the heroes finally reaching a possible launch window and attempting to take off. Unfortunately, there is a sudden, really inconveniently timed Earthquake which causes the ship to tip over, with the danger of possibly falling under the ground. Fortunately, they are able to re-stabilize and take off.

Europa Report had a somewhat similar predicament in its climax. The remaining crew attempt to relaunch only to crash down onto another part of Europa, this time with much thinner ice (also an area where they already lost one member of the crew). Like Conquest of Space, there is danger in the remaining members of the crew having to figure out how to get off the moon before their ship sinks under the surface. 

The difference is that unlike the previous film, the crew fail to accomplish this. Two of them fall under the ice while trying to repair the ship outside and the third crew member presumably drowns when the ship is flooded, but in her final moments she is able to record proof of multicellular life under the surface of Europa.

On a similar level, we can also compare the climactic sequences of 2001: A Space Odyssey and Contact. Both are incredibly realistic interpretations of scientific discoveries, but there is a peculiar quality to the climax. Both films see their respective protagonists being sent on a strange journey through space by way of some form of dimensional gateway, at the end of which they experience a surreal encounter. Out of these two, Contact's is arguably the more straight forward as some explanation is offered, in contrast to the more ambiguous nature of 2001 which has baffled many a first-time viewer.

In both cases, we do get a sort of meeting with the aliens discovered in each film. However, neither one opts to actually show the aliens. Instead, both Dave Bowman and Ellie Arroway are transported to a strange world seemingly created specifically for them. Most likely this is done by the aliens to allow the human protagonists some degree of comfort in an otherwise unfamiliar environment. In Contact, Ellie is brought to a recreation of a drawing she made as a child based on her imagination of what Pensacola, Florida might look like. In 2001, it is depicted as a stylized hotel room. 

However, the actual confrontations are notably different in both films. In neither case do we see the aliens, but in 2001: A Space Odyssey, they seem to be more interested in observing Dave, while in Contact they are willing to confront Ellie directly (though appearing as a replication of her father). 

Throughout the final scene of 2001 you can hear strange ominous voices (possibly the aliens), and it appears Dave is being kept under observation. It is hard to tell precisely what is happening to him as we see him encountering increasingly older versions of himself, but in the end, as he lies dying, he finally gets a direct interaction with the aliens: he sees the monolith and it transforms into the next stage of human evolution.

This brings an interesting contrast in the motivations of the aliens despite their similar methods. Those of Contact are interested in... well... contacting humanity but wish to take it in steps. Those of 2001 are harder to explain, but while they seem to be interested in humanity, they are less willing to confront us directly so much as observe and to an extent guide our evolution from a distance.

Well, I hope you enjoyed this long-winded ramble about random facts comparing various hard science fiction films released between 1950 and 2013. Perhaps you have some hard science fiction films you've noticed some interesting things about. Maybe you'd like to compare something else about some of the films I've discussed or you've noticed something interesting about some other hard science fiction film I failed to reference. If you do you can share your thoughts in the comments.

I was hoping to find something to say about Gravity. Since I haven't been able to work that one in, here's a good picture I found from that movie. I can let you compare the film's depiction of weightlessness to several other hard science fiction films: