SPACE WAS THE PLACE
a dissertation proposal by Fanny Hoetzeneder
From top to bottom: Solaris Dir, Andrei Tarkovsky (1972) 2001: A Space Odyssey Dir. Stanley Kubrick (1968) Alien Dir. Ridley Scott (1979)
BIG BANG I propose to investigate man’s differing portrayals of space exploration and how it reflects differing perspectives of mankind’s own morality. Man’s interacting, examining and journeying through the unknown of space has been differently depicted in science fiction movies from different periods. Therefore in this analysis of space films, I am looking at mankind’s portrayed future through different generations of space films. So far I’ve decided on four potential films to explore this subject: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris, Star Trek and Alien. In my opinion these films are trying to understand and challenge the notion of space exploration and what it means to mankind in different ways, how it can define us by facing humanity’s identity and integrity issues.
SOLAR SYSTEM
and gender identity are raised.
Space films are only limited to the filmmaker’s imagination or idea of the In 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) directed by Stanley Kubrick, man has developed space technology in the year 2001. `it presents a world where man is bored of his technologic tools to which we are totally dependent. When alien intelligence is discovered mankind’s advanced evolution is questioned; issues such as the retrieving of our human instincts and passions are raised.
Mankind has also comprehended highly advanced science, pushing the limits of space exploration to very distant systems in Andrei Tarkovsky’s Solaris (1972). Once again when an alien planet interacts with the psychologist protagonist of the film, human emotions about guilt, death and identity are tested. Space becomes more and more earthly represented, confusing characters and viewers of the boundaries between reality and science fiction
In Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979) man has managed to control space technology to the point where space travel has become industrial. Man is dependant to his technological tools but seem denatured of pains and a primal ‘creatureliness’ aspect. The encounter with the Xenomorphic ignites man’s repressed traumas; questions of integrity, power
future. Therefore this future, our future is as indeterminable as the universe is infinite. This brings me to ask how much do space films influence and design our future? One recurring aspect of science fiction cinema is the technology and time frame are never entirely correct. At times the technology in space films seem archaic for the future ahead of us, for instance in Alien the crew’s camera still look like VHS tape. Other times it can be the film’s timeframe of which the technology is depicted is wrong. (e.g. in Kubrick’s 2001, we would have been able to send man to Jupiter while in reality we can only send satellites).
Finally, if we look at J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek, the technology used is not even understandable for us, like light speed transportation which make us just enjoy the visual of this purposely flaunt future. These issues raise another question: will we ever have a future in space one day? In 2023 a Dutch TV series called Mars One will send 24 persons on Mars in order to live there and become the stars of the series. The ‘Martians’ will never come back on Earth: they will be filmed living and dying for entertainment purposes. How did Space become a show business?
COMETS
cinema and where man’s future lies within those spaces. Space is described as ‘the artificial infinite’ in which science fiction cinema is another representation of reality. (Kuhn 1999: 255) One of the essays written by Scott Bukatman gives an interesting approach to the special effects of contemporary science fiction films:
… ‘[The special effect] initiates a crisis in the subject by disrupting the customary cognized relationship between subject and external reality. It threatens human thought, habitual signifying systems and, finally, human prowess: ‘the mind is hurried out of itself, by a crowd of great and confused images; which affect because they are crowd-ed and confused’ (Kuhn 1999: 255)
Science Fiction Cinema written by Christine Cornea depicts the This cinema of the ‘sublime’ which shows technology that we are not yet
whole history of the science fiction genre. From Orson Welles daring radio play able to create or understand ‘alludes to the limits of human definition and The War of The Worlds (Adapted from the book written by H.G Welles) to the comprehension’ (Kuhn 1999: 251).Therefore, is this the real aim of science fiction 1950s when science fiction films – in conjunction with the Cold War space race movies nowadays? Being astonished with visual images rather than mankind’s - ‘really took off’ (Cornea 2007: 21). This will help me to identify what cultural, future morality? We are confronted to an ‘exhibitionistic cinema’ unable to political and social background science fiction stems from and what it means. understand how future technology works. In this respect, can contemporary Within this I am particularly interested to look at the original Star Trek TV
science fiction films influence and inspire our future like the1970s science
series (1966) with its optimistic and pure idea that humanity and all its races, fiction films did for our future present? (Kuhn 1999:253) nationalities and sexes will one day work together equally.
Alien Zone II is a series of essays about the spaces of science fiction
Above: Utopian ScienceFiction: Star Trek TV series (1966)
On Film is a philosophical essay written by Stephen Mulhall on the four Overall, Alien depicts the same Nietzschean ideas on the ‘unstoppable fecundity’ of Space. An aspect also developed in 2001: A Space Odyssey. fascinating Alien films. Film after film we understand that the Alien series is about
human identity in relation to our body. The real question explored in Ridley Scott’s Alien can be resumed at: ‘what is it about the precariousness of our own human identity that we see in the monstrosity of this monster?’ (Mulhall 2002:
Filmguide to 2001: A Space Odyssey written by Carolyn Geduld analyses
18) Mulhall makes two observations: one that the alien has a ‘parasitic’ mode the film from beginning to end. The Space of 2001 is described as a ‘life force’ of reproduction for its own survival (Mulhall 2002: 19). The oral aspect of par-
that encourages man to escape Earth (Geduld, 1973:44). Since Moon-Watcher
asitism from the alien violates and repress our own individuality, which Mulhall the ape from The Dawn of Man first part of the film has used his first tool (a explains even further:
bone) to kill, men has seemed to have develop further and further these power
tools that are now spaceships and computers. For the writer Arthur C. Clarke
… ‘he [Kane] undergoes a nightmare vision of sexual intercourse, preg nancy and birth. The heart of the alien’s monstrosity is thus that it re lates itself to its host species in a manner, which embodies a particu- lar fantasy of sexual relations between human males and human fe males. The threat stalking the corridors and ducts of the Nostromo [spaceship] is thus a vision of masculinity and femininity, hence of sexual difference as such, as monstrous’ (Mulhall 2002: 20).
and Stanley Kubrick, ‘the symbiosis of man and machine is a necessary part of cosmic evolution’ (Geduld 1973: 53). However, mankind has become bored of his own tools and technology and this is how Geduld explains it:
… ‘Kubrick suggests that as man adapts and evolves, he loses his sense Mulhall’s second point about Scott’s film, is to establish a female protagonist of magic. In the place of wonder comes boredom, the special curse of as the only possible heroic survivor. Indeed, Ellen Ripley is the most sensitive the twenty-first century, when man no longer looks upon his remark able technology with joy’ (Geduld 1973: 46). protagonist towards the ‘masculine sexual violence’ that the alien incarnates (Mulhall 2002: 31). For Ripley, fertility or maternity is the ‘violation or rape upon femininity’ (Mulhall 2002: 31):
… ‘Ripley’s unremitting drive to preserve her integrity is thus, in es sence, an expression of her sense of alienation from life, [...] that which she hates so purely’. (Mulhall 2002: 31)
Above: ‘Kane’s Son’ in Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979)
characters to a certain homesickness:
… ‘ The infiltration of the fantastic space of Solaris by the familiar imag es of Earth is a symbolic distortion [...] the astronauts on Solaris are translated from stable and mundane consciousness to a mode of awareness dominated by guilt-driven images’. (Skakov 2012: 98)
Overall, 2001 is exploring humankind’s evolution within the universe and why emotions and primal instincts have fallen into lethargy:
… ‘the flattening of Moon-Watcher’s primal instincts (or feelings) be gan when he threw the bone in the air instead of jumping up there himself. Kubrick implies some sort of transfer of instinctual response from man to his tool. This is how the tool becomes a weapon, and how- at one level – the computer […] (HAL) turns against its impas- sive creators’. (Geduld 1973: 43)
Solaris is also philosophically about the universal ‘quest of truth’ (2012: 78). For Tarkovsky, Truth can only be unravelled in relation to Earth as ‘Earth is the natural environment in which thinking is grounded for a human being’ (2012:
The works of Robert Ardrey (notably the African Genesis) will also support 78). Interestingly, Tarkovsky states that humankind can evolve and self-discover my argument. The Cinema of Tarkovsky: Labyrinths of Spaces and Time written
its identity only with the aid of Earth whereas for Kubrick it is only within
by Nariman Skakov treats Space as a distorted representation of reality on Space. Earth in Solaris, third film of Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky. The essay on Solaris demonstrates that there is no differences between reality and fantasy or ‘phantasy’ as Skakov writes. (Skakov, 2012: 78) Tarkovsky fills the outer space with abundant earthy images, light and colours engaging the viewer and the
Above: Mother Earth in Tarkovsky’s Solaris (1972)
Left: Dave vs. HAL in Kubrick’s 2001 (1968)
Reference Texts: Cornea, C. (2007). Science Fiction Cinema: Between Fantasy and Reality. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Geduld, C. (1973). Filmguide to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Kuhn, A. (1999). Alien Zone II: The Spaces of Science Fiction Cinema. London:Verso Books. Mulhall, S. (2002). On Film. London: Routledge.
From top to bottom: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris and Alien