Society and Science Fiction

In terms of story, Gravity and Conquest of Space are two very different ideas. Gravity is more about the individual and self-reliance while Conquest of Space becomes more about humanity as a whole. Conquest of Space therefore makes use of an ensemble cast while Gravity focuses almost exclusively on one individual (George Clooney's brief role the only exception). Conquest of Space involves a mission to Mars, while Gravity remains closer to Earth. In many ways, both films are products of very different eras, with different social standards and views on space travel, something especially evident in how they address the subject of gender.

Conquest of Space, as I have discussed before, utilizes an all-male cast. Producer George Pal also made a similar choice in his earlier science fiction film Destination Moon (which, interestingly, corresponds to the fact that even today we still have yet to put a woman on the moon). The film constantly uses the word "man" in place of humanity.  The trailer proudly boasted that the viewer would live "a strange topsy-turvy life of men who live as no other men have lived before" and the opening narration describes how "men" have built the wheel. When we get to see inside the Wheel, it quickly becomes clear that there are no women aboard. There are only men (though there does seem to be racial equality among those men).

The only women seen in the film are back on Earth, wives, girlfriends, and relatives of the astronauts sending them goodbye messages like the old stories of soldiers' wives saying goodbye before they were sent off to battle or sailors' wives saying goodbye before the start of a long voyage. Basically, female astronauts don't seem to exist in this world, and it is very likely that the space program has restrictions against women serving as anything other than nurses and secretaries (if even that, considering none appear in those roles on the Wheel). That is not to say the film was intentionally sexist. In fact, technically in 1955 there were no female astronauts, at least none of American birth who actually went into orbit. It would not be until almost ten years later that a female astronaut, Valentina Tereshkova, would be launched into orbit, and the first American woman in space, Sally Ride, did not happen until 28 years after the release of Conquest of Space. It is therefore likely that the idea of female astronauts simply never occurred to the filmmakers.

This detail is somewhat ironic today, as there is a small amount of evidence which actually suggests that, at least on average, women are often better adapted physically and mentally to living in space than men, but there was a reason the filmmakers made these choices. In 1955, the space program was still under military control and in those days it had a very specific list of where women were accepted, which was greatly outnumbered by the positions that were willing to take men. Early experiments in space travel were overseen by the army and the air force, and most early astronauts had experience serving as one of those two groups. For this reason, the space program is still shown as being run by the military, and thus all-male as it is not likely that George Pal anticipated the gender integration that would occur in the military decades later.

This was also a time when women were expected to cook, clean, and make babies, thus the idea of female astronauts may have seemed unlikely for the era. As a result, the space program is seen as militaristic and being an astronaut is treated as "men's work". The first mission to Mars is treated like a naval expedition to explore a new world, a group of brave men going on a daring mission to find new resources for humanity. The few women that do appear stay behind and wait for the return of their men, much like the wives of sailors in the olden days. Though this line of thinking may seem backwards today, it would have made perfect sense to filmmakers of the era, who lacked the foresight to recognize future social developments.

Gravity, released 58 years later, has precisely the opposite treatment of gender due to being released under very different social circumstances. In 1955, feminism was making progress, but still was seen as little more than a passing fad by many men of the era. By 2013, it was more widely recognized by people of both genders, and audiences were ready to accept a female astronaut taking on the central role in a science fiction film. Throughout the film the heroine, Ryan Stone, is the only character given any real focus. The only other character whose face is even seen (at least, before his death) is her partner Matt Kowalski. In fact, the movie literally begins with Ryan being cut off from just about everyone. Fifteen minutes in, three of the five astronauts are killed and contact with mission control is lost. The only other person Ryan can turn to is Matt, who is lost soon after.

Ryan stone is therefore forced to rely on herself for the majority of Gravity's narrative. Matt's only role is to help put her on the right track. When Matt "returns" late in the film, he serves a similar function, helping Ryan to regain her confidence. However, what distinguished Matt in this later scene from his earlier role is that his appearance here is nothing more than a dream. There is no way Matt could have caught up with the Soyuz after being left in orbit, and by this point in the film he was likely either already dead or slowly dying of asphyxiation. Matt is instead merely a construct of Ryan's frightened mind, or more accurately her survival instincts.

The conversation they engage in is actually a mental conflict occurring in Ryan's own head between two different sides of her personality. Ryan herself plays the suicidal part of her character, since in a moment of despair she has proven herself ready to accept death by asphyxiation, while Matt represents that small part of her that still wants to survive. The conversation between Matt and Ryan is therefore a symbol of her thought processes as she falls asleep in the Soyuz. The solution that she finds to her problem (using the launching gear to propel the Soyuz toward the Chinese space station), was all her idea, continuing the theme of self-reliance.

The scope of the movie's themes shift. It no longer becomes about the survival of humanity or even humanity in general, just about her own struggle to survive. She has no simple solution or procedure for dealing with the situation as the men seen in Conquest of Space did. Ryan has very little experience as an astronaut to begin with, with this mission being explicitly identified as her first, and this in turn contrasts the militaristic aspect of the space program depicted in Conquest of Space. In that film, the space program is depicted as an organized branch of the military, with spaceships and space stations being run like navy crews. Gravity was affected by one development in space travel that went completely unnoticed by the filmmakers of Conquest of Space.

In 1955, the assumption that the military would still be running the space program in the future would have made sense. However, George Pal and Byron Haskin failed to anticipate the biggest flaw in that system, and the reason why the army is no longer in charge of space exploration. The American army and the American Air Force were both involved in early rocketry experiments, but they became very competitive about it. Both sides were trying to best each other, and neither wanted to share their results. They were wasting money and resources to the point where it started to cause trouble for the government. The solution was therefore to no longer allow the American Armed Forces access to rocketry. Instead, a civilian organization was assembled to take charge of space exploration, this being the origins of NASA, which is still in operation today.

Gravity therefore eliminates the militaristic qualities of the space program. None of the characters are explicitly identified to have any military background. Ryan Stone herself is even established to be a doctor, precisely the opposite of what soldiers are expected to do. In Conquest of Space, the men are established as a unit, or as a team, with each one having something valuable to contribute to the mission. There is a certain unifying quality among them. When something goes wrong, such as their commanding officer's breakdown, everyone has to stick together to continue the mission. For most of Gravity, Ryan Stone has nobody to turn to. She has to rely purely on herself to survive and return home.

The one thing both films have in common is that they aimed to create a realistic vision of outer space. Conquest of Space had to work with extreme limitations compared to Gravity. The former was made in the early days of space travel, long before even the Apollo Missions. Most of the information that was available would have been theoretical, extrapolations based on what could be understood from Earth. By the time Gravity was made, NASA had been functioning for decades: they had successfully put men on the moon, launched probes to other worlds and, through satellite technology like the Hubble, developed the beginnings of a map of the universe.

The models used in Conquest of Space are still very impressive today, but in other areas its limited information shows, particularly in the matte paintings used to depict Earth, and the scenes depicting Mars. When Conquest of Space came out in 1955, there were no clear images of the Earth as seen from space. Even 2001: A Space Odyssey, made a year before the first moon landing, had to take an educated guess on what the Earth looked like. The filmmakers were fortunate to come as close as they did. Meanwhile, the shots of Earth depicted in Gravity could pass for actual photographs taken from orbit, at least by today's standards (the effects in Conquest of Space were cutting edge for its day, it is not inconceivable that decades from now Gravity's special effects might look a little dated to a future audience).

The scope of both films naturally shifts with regards to their respective social climates. Conquest of Space attempts to present a grand narrative of humanity's future. It envisions space travel as the next step forward. The opening narration describes space travel as "the last and greatest adventure of mankind", implying that something amazing is in store. The story centers on a mission to Mars but the film suggests that humanity will go on to explore other worlds in "the vast universe itself". Gravity has a more mundane look at space travel, with a group of civilians who have been living in space for some time but show little enthusiasm for their job. Matt is more interested in breaking a spacewalk record than he is about being in space. Ryan seems more interested in her immediate task of installing a new piece of equipment onto the Hubble Space Telescope than she is in the possible new discoveries it might allow.

Space seems to have lost the excitement that was portrayed in Conquest of Space, and instead living in space has become dull and routine. In the case of Gravity, the crew are confined to Earth's orbit. They have no chance of even visiting the moon, let alone other planets. All they are doing is venturing into orbit to install some equipment into a satellite. When Conquest of Space was produced, it was still in the early days of the space program. Sputnik would not be launched for another two years. Nobody knew for sure where the space program would go, but many science fiction stories envisioned an exciting future of space travel in the near future. It therefore came as a surprise to everyone when that vision did not come true after the moon landings.

Today, "space travel" is largely confined to Earth's orbit in the form of space stations, though probes have been launched to other worlds (and outside the Solar System, in the cases of Voyager 1 and 2) and orbital sattelites such as the Hubble Space Telescope have proven crucial to developing a modern understanding of the universe. This is reflected in Gravity, in which the Explorer's crew is merely a group of civilians doing their job. At best space is dull, and at worst it is a living nightmare. This element is not entirely absent from Conquest of Space, where some of the crew talk about missing their families back home, but they simultaneously recognize the significance of their mission. Gravity refrains from addressing any potential significance of the protagonist's mission. If anything it is nothing more than a routine job, probably not much different from anything that many other astronauts before Ryan have done.

Looking at these two films, it becomes clear that science fiction is a genre that has evolved drastically over the years. Conquest of Space may have been intended as a look into the future, but it also works the other way, as a window into the past. It shows the universe as it was understood in the 1950's, and what men of the time thought space travel might one day look like in a way that seemed to make the most sense to them. By comparing it to a contemporary science fiction film like Gravity, the social changes start to become clear. In both films there was a similar aim of realistically envisioning outer space, but ultimately they are both simultaneously reflections of the eras in which they were made.

This Post was written for the Film Preservation Blogathon hosted by This Island Rod, Ferdy on Films, and Wonders in the Dark

Models Are Not Always The Answer

One of the biggest complaints I hear regarding modern filmmaking is in regards to how common CGI has become, usually by saying that models, puppets, or animatronics are far more convincing when used by a special effects department. Sometimes that is true. CGI has been misused, sometimes it can be overdone, sometimes it might not be done enough, and sometimes it wasn't needed at all, but does that meant that models are always the answer?

The practical effects in John Carpenter's The Thing do hold up a lot better today than the CGI used in the 2011 prequel. Much as I enjoyed the latter film I can't deny that. However, perhaps the reason the effects in the prequel are not as good has less to do with it being CGI and more to do with the fact that it was forced in at the last minute when the film was originally supposed to use similar practical effects (some of which would have been pretty good).

The reason I bring this up is because CGI can be used to great effect when used right, and sometimes models can be even less convincing when used wrong. Plenty of b-movies can testify to the flaws of both, be it the obviously fake models used in the films of the 1950's or the over-the-top CGI monstrosities envisioned in more contemporary ones, the recent Sharknado being a good example.

The fact of the matter is that really both CGI and practical effects have their merits and can be used to incredible effect when done right. To put this into perspective, let's look at to of the most groundbreaking science fiction movies of all time: 2001: A Space Odyssey and Gravity. These two films are probably the most realistic images of space ever put on film (though there are mistakes and liberties taken in both). 

The thing is that while both of these movies had amazing effects, they both relied on very different approaches to making those effects possible. 2001: A Space Odyssey may well have some of the best models ever put on film. Not a single frame of that movie was done using computer imaging. The Earth, the moon, Discovery, Jupiter, and even the famous "star gate" sequence were all handcrafted. That centrifuge you see Dave and Frank hanging out on was actually a giant rotating wheel constructed specifically for the film. The floating pen seen near the beginning was done with a clear disk. 

Now, that's not to say the filmmakers didn't have their limits. After all, the original plan was for Discovery to be travelling to Saturn. While this remains the setting of Arthur C. Clarke's novel (written alongside the script and based on early drafts), the movie ultimately opted to use Jupiter as its setting because the production team had trouble developing a convincing model of Saturn's rings.

By contrast, Gravity was shot almost entirely with CGI. Sandra Bullock and George Clooney wore partial spacesuits, but the visors on their helmets were computer generated to make it easier to see the actors' faces underneath. Some models were constructed for the action scenes but those were still shot against solid-colored backdrops that were later removed to make way for the vastness of space. Even that underwater scene at the very end was shot in a studio against a green screen. 

The results were still amazing, possibly even on par with the effects of 2001. The visuals seen in Gravity were so amazing that specific shots taken out of context could easily be mistaken for actual photographs from orbit. All of this was done with a few models and A LOT of computer graphics. CGI has been growing in popularity since the 90's and it can be used extraordinarily well. Jurassic Park is one of the earliest films to really use CGI and those dinosaurs still hold up well today.

That said, both CGI and practical effects have their own strengths and weaknesses. One advantage of practical effects is that during production it gives the actors something to interact with. CGI can be used to achieve all kinds of objectives, ranging from creating whole environments as in Gravity to something as small as removing unwanted details from the background. Done right, and the result can be something wonderful. Done wrong, and it will look extremely fake and lazy, which will drive away your audience unless that was the intention.

CGI can be used poorly, but just because something is done through models or puppets does not automatically mean it will be any more convincing. Plenty of b-movies can testify to how both can be misused. Modern b-movies, such as those of The Asylum or even the recent cult favorite Sharknado often include hastily edited CGI monstrosities. This is usually the kind of thing people think of when they talk about how bad CGI can be, but older b-movies weren't much better.

B-movies of the 1950's often relied on practical effects since CGI was not yet a viable option, but because they were always so cheap the effects would usually be every bit as bad as the CGI of their modern counterparts. Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space is notorious for its terrible special effects, such as the infamous and obviously fake flying saucers.

If you look closely, you can see the strings.

Plan 9 From Outer Space is really just the best-known example. You don't have to dig too deep into b-movies to find really cheesy ones with lots of (sometimes entertainingly) bad effects. Another good example I have come across would be some of the Japanese b-movies centered around "Gamera" (basically, a giant turtle-like monster who I suspect was intended to cash in on the success of Godzilla and its sequels). Gamera himself is a really weird and not very convincing creature, but one film in the series, Attack of the Monsters (I know, super-original, right?) has this other creature that is obviously played by an actor crawling around in a top-heavy suit.

So really, whether CGI or practical effects ought to be used really depends on the nature of the project. Practical effects may be easier for the actors to interact with but they can be every bit as unconvincing as CGI, and sometimes done right, CGI can be even more convincing than practical effects. The two are not mutually exclusive either. A film can also work effectively by using a bit of both, and to see how that can work you need to look no further than Peter Jackson. 

The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit both make extensive use of both CGI and practical effects. Many of the creatures we see across both films are computer generated but a lot of the sets were largely built by hand, sometimes with a green screen to help fill in the background. In some cases, though, the lines are blurred and one effect requires a bit of both.

A perfect example is the practice of motion capture, where an actor wears a suit that becomes a skeleton for a CGI model. Quite simply, the actor's suit consists of various lights all over their body, and they perform the necessary motions for their character. Then in post-production, the actor is removed but the lights remain (thus capturing the basic movements) and it becomes a frame around which to design the new character. 

Gollumn is a good example from Jackson's films, but such characters are all over the place. The CGI used for Smaug the dragon was incredible, but to make that image possible, the production team had to start with footage of Benedict Cumberbatch in a funny suit. In that sense, Smaug as seen in the final product could be considered a mix of practical and computer generated effects, since while the final product was created by computer rendering it was all based on the movements of a live actor.

Ultimately, neither extreme is better or worse. When done right, CGI and practical effects are both equally capable of making something believable and interesting. CGI can be misused and subsequently look fake, but the same can also be said about models, puppets, or animatronics.  It's all a matter of what kind of movie is being made and how the people involved use the resources available.