DESTINATION MOON (1950)
Synopsis: Scientist Charles Cargraves (Warner Anderson) and General Tom Thayer (Tom Powers) watch in horror as their experimental rocketship, intended to put a satellite into orbit around the Earth, crashes and burns. Cargraves speaks grimly of sabotage . Two years later, Thayer approaches aeronautics expert Jim Barnes (John Archer) about his and Cargraves new project: a rocket to the moon. Barnes scoffs until he hears that Cargraves has designed an atomic engine, and successfully tested a scale model. Barnes gathers his fellow industrialists together, demonstrating a model of the proposed rocket, and explaining to them how space flight is indeed feasible. Thayer then tries to convince the men of the military imperative of the mission: that other nations are also planning a moon flight, and that whichever country is able to locate missiles on the moon first will control the Earth . With money and resources at their disposal, Cargraves, Thayer and Barnes have their rocket, the Luna, built. As the project nears completion, however, obstacles begin to arise: protests against the launch occur, and the men are denied permission to test their atomic engine. Barnes insists that this opposition has been orchestrated, and makes a startling proposition: that they take off without testing the engine at the next favourable time which is only seventeen hours away. Cargraves and Thayer agree, but their plans are thrown into chaos when their radioman, Brown (Ted Warde), is hospitalised with appendicitis. Desperate, the men try to convince Browns assistant, Joe Sweeney (Dick Wesson), to go along; he agrees only because he does not believe the rocket will work. At the last moment, a court order arrives forbidding the men to take off, but they board their ship before it can be served. The launch is successful, and to the joy of Cargraves, Thayer and Barnes and the horror of Sweeney they are soon travelling through space. Despite difficulties such as weightlessness and space-sickness, the journey goes as planned until it is discovered that Sweeney mistakenly greased the ships aerial: it has frozen in place. Barnes, Cargraves and the chastened Sweeney don their pressure suits and go outside to fix the problem. As Barnes and Sweeney work on the aerial, Cargraves goes to check the engines. Finding that his safety line is not long enough, Cargraves unties it. Then, kneeling to inspect the engines, he does not realise that his magnetic boots have lost contact with the ship. The next moment, Cargraves is drifting in space .
Comments: Of all the science fiction films of the 1950s that are today acknowledged as "classics", Destination Moon is the least known and most under-appreciated, probably because it offers so little to the casual viewer. Ironically enough, it is the very qualities that make this film so important that doom it as entertainment: its technical accuracy; its deliberately low-key, almost documentary approach; and above all its deadly earnestness there are no cheap thrills here. Sadly, this means that although Destination Moon is a landmark in the development of the science fiction film, and a pioneering work in the true sense of the word, it can really only be correctly estimated by the viewer who approaches it with some knowledge of its historical importance, and an active sense of good will. You will find no aliens, no monsters, no ray-guns, no strange women in leotards and no "love interest" in Destination Moon; just a painstakingly factual account of how mankind might go about building a rocket that would take him to the moon. Despite this (or perhaps because of it: this was, after all, an era when the expression "Popular Science" was not an oxymoron!), at the time of its first release the film was enormously successful, grossing about ten times its outlay. Those us of living in a time when space shuttle flights are so commonplace as to barely rate a mention on the news any more might find it hard to understand what the fuss was all about. To appreciate indeed, to enjoy Destination Moon as it deserves, we must put ourselves in the place of the audiences of the 1950s, first confronted with a concept so radical, so outrageous, as a rocket to the moon and then told that it could really happen. (The film is rightly listed in NASAs official timeline of the history of space travel.) Destination Moon was made at a time when humanity stood on the brink of an amazing step forward, and by people who were among the first to grasp that such a thing was possible. While the onscreen action is, unfortunately but undeniably, rather stodgy, the production as a whole is nevertheless infused with a sense of wonder, of optimism, of simple faith in man and what he could achieve. Destination Moon is remarkable and, looked at from the correct perspective, thrilling for being the only space flight film made in the heyday of the science fiction film to be truly about space flight. This is not a story about being on the moon, but of getting there; the adventure is all in the doing.
Destination Moon was the brainchild of writer Robert A. Heinlein and producer George Pal, the latter of whom managed to sell a studio on the idea of making a serious film about travelling to the moon after the concept was initially dismissed as "too fantastic". (Film studios werent the only ones who thought so: in 1948, The American Journal Of Physics published a paper in which the authors explained exactly why a human being could never travel to the moon; their chief error was assuming that the 4:1 fuel:rocket launch mass ratio of the V-2 rocket could not be bettered.) From the start, the project was undertaken with the utmost seriousness. Experts were brought in to ensure its authenticity, most notably Hermann Orbeth, an authority on rockets who had previously worked with Fritz Lang on 1929s Die Frau Im Mond (the only other "realistic" space flight film made to that time), and Chesley Bonestell, the astronomical artist whose glorious paintings and illustrations did so much to bring "outer space" into the collective American consciousness during the late forties and early fifties. Together with Pal and Heinlein, these men managed to infuse their other collaborators with their own belief in the realities of space flight, and to have Destination Moon produced under a policy of accuracy above all. The results of this mindset are evident throughout the film, which not only illustrates what was known at the time of its production, but is also startlingly prescient about the things that would happen when man finally ventured into space. When the film opens, Charles Cargraves and Tom Thayer are intent, not upon the moon, but merely upon putting a satellite into orbit. The failure of the enterprise is a crushing blow to both men to Thayer in particular, who has destroyed his career, "campaigned himself right out of the service", in pursuit of the conquest of space but they show themselves to be made of the right stuff, squaring their shoulders and going back to the drawing-board. Two years later, things have changed. When Thayer visits Jim Barnes, he is no longer intent merely upon launching a satellite, but upon being the first to reach the moon itself. Barnes is understandably sceptical, but is swayed by the news of Cargraves "atomic engine", and still more by Thayers argument that the mission is one of national defence; that whoever reaches the moon first will be able to build missile bases there. This call to his patriotism, combined with his love of scientific pioneering, is enough to convince Jim Barnes, who succeeds in recruiting his fellow industrialists to the cause, arguing that they, and only they, have the resources that the program requires, and that they can get the job done in the time it would take the government to finishing debating the point. The moneymen are intrigued but hesitant; and again, it takes Thayers exhortations about missile bases on the moon "There is absolutely no way to stop an attack from outer space!" to seal the deal. (Although it erred in putting the construction of the rocket into the hands of private industry a distinctly Heinleinian notion one of most interesting things about Destination Moon is its anticipation of the fact that the main impetus for the space race would ultimately be military, not merely scientific.)
The film-makers commitment to accuracy was laudable, but it presented them with a substantial difficulty: how to communicate in a comprehendible fashion the concepts on which their story was based, to an audience that (it was assumed) possessed little if any knowledge of them without turning their entertainment into a lecture on astrophysics. To their credit, the writers avoided one common pitfall: they do not have Cargraves, Barnes and Thayer telling each other things that they most assuredly already know, in order to convey that information to the audience. However, in avoiding one trap, the writers unfortunately fell into another one that makes Destination Moon extremely difficult for a modern audience to swallow: scared of talking above their audience, they talked down to it instead. The first manifestation of this comes while Barnes and Thayer are pitching their case to the industrialists. Barnes himself, being in aeronautics, has a grasp of the theories of rockets and space travel; his peers, understandably, do not. This leads to the most unexpected part of Destination Moon: a "training film" starring none other than Woody Woodpecker! The recalcitrant bird and the audience, of course is given a swift lesson in the practicalities of rockets and moon landings; and by the end of it, Woody himself is thoroughly convinced, although the industrialists who, somewhat unbelievably, chuckle goodnaturedly all the way through the cartoon do require more flag-waving from Thayer before they commit to the project. (In what is clearly a step taken to spike the critics guns, Woody initially dismisses the notion of a rocket to the moon as "comic-book stuff". "LIFE Magazine doesnt think so!" retorts the narrator, showing him an issue that just happens to carry a cover story on the production of Destination Moon! [April 1950, for those interested.]) Now, all of this is amusing, in a kitschy sort of way; but what happens next is not. Having successfully launched their pioneers in their rocket, the makers of Destination Moon then felt the need to explain all the mysteries of space travel itself and it is here that the film not only becomes difficult to take in its own right, but bestows upon the science fiction films that followed it, apparently in perpetuity, a terrible legacy: the Odious Comic Relief©. Enter Joe Sweeney, who reluctantly becomes part of the crew when his senior is struck down by appendicitis on the very eve of the mission. Joe (to the surprise of no-one who has suffered torments courtesy of his hideous progeny over the ensuing decades) is a blue-collar working joe (get it?), perpetually wisecracking, and hailing from, yes, Brooklyn. (He doesnt like space because, as he so eloquently puts it, theres "no beer, no babes, no baseball!") Joes layperson status means that he is ignorant of all aspects of space flight, and therefore must conveniently enough have everything explained to him. Unfortunately, Pal & Co. thoroughly overreached themselves here: so eager were they to ensure that the audience missed nothing, that Joes ignorance proves to be of a truly startling magnitude. (At one point, he must even be reminded that, "Theres no air in outer space!" "Theres room for it!" he replies, unconvinced.) It is impossible now to gauge how people reacted to Joe Sweeney in 1950 whether they appreciated his presence, or whether they found his character a piece of unforgivable condescension, as viewers today are certain to do. In any case, it is difficult to believe that anyone ever found Joe other than unbearably irritating and unfunny although whether this would have been the case had an actor other than Dick Wesson been chosen for the part, its hard to say. Ive never seen Wesson in any other film, so I dont know whether his role here reflected his actual persona, or whether he was "acting". Lets hope the latter. Either way, he is astonishingly annoying; heck, even his teeth are annoying! The supreme irony of Destination Moon, of course, is that while its painstaking accuracy had no influence whatsoever upon the film-makers that copied it, its single biggest mistake viz., Joe Sweeney would be unfailingly reproduced in almost every science fiction film made during the years that followed.
In the end, however, you have to forgive the makers of Destination Moon both Joe and Woody, in simple recognition of how much they managed to get right and to predict. The model rocket that Barnes demonstrates to the industrialists is more than three-quarters "reaction mass"; todays rockets are over 90% fuel. The Woody Woodpecker cartoon explains concepts such as overcoming gravity, travel in a vacuum, reverse thrust, and parachute-assisted landings; while the crew must deal with problems including the effects of G-force (real, but overestimated), weightlessness (overcome by magnetic boots), space-sickness, and the difficulty of swallowing in zero gravity. Whole scenes envision what would happen when mankind did ultimately travel into space. The rocket crew marvels at its view of the Earth, anticipating the staggering images that would be broadcast for the first time in 1968 by Apollo 8. (The views of the Earth shown are also an accurate representation of what anyone travelling in a ship following the same flight path as the Luna really would see.) A problem with the ships aerial forces Barnes, Cargraves and Sweeney to don their pressure suits and do an EVA, something which both the Soviets and the Americans would achieve in 1965. There is a problem as the Luna is about to land on the moon, and Barnes must make an abrupt readjustment; the Apollo 11 crew would experience a similar difficulty. Once on the moon, Barnes and Cargraves are contacted by radio from the Earth although due to the particular framework of the movie, it is the media that contacts them, not the government. Most memorable of all, however, is the moment when the moon is first "claimed", an honour that Barnes graciously concedes to Cargraves. The acting in Destination Moon is rarely better than competent, but it reaches its pinnacle here, as Warner Andersons Cargraves must speak around a distinct lump in his throat in order, "By the grace of God, and in the name of the United States of America", to claim the moon "for the benefit of all mankind". (Excluding, we assume, that portion of mankind at whom American missiles would soon be aimed.) The plaque that today rests upon the moons surface reads, "Here men from planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon, July 1969 A.D. We came in peace for all mankind". You can only wonder how far life imitated art.
Of course, it is only natural that Destination Moon wouldnt get everything right, and there are a few flubs here and there. The Luna is a single stage rocket, and a far cry in its design from the three-stage system that would finally get the job done. (Another instance of "copy the mistake": almost every space film for the following decade or so would reproduce the sleek, silvery lines of the Luna for its own rocket.) It also lands on the moon itself, rather than the ship orbiting, and the crew descending to the moons surface in a landing module, as would ultimately be the case. These errors are excusable. More problematic is the simplicity, not to say naivety, with which space travel itself is undertaken. When forces on Earth begin to move against the Luna project, attempting to prevent lift-off, Jim Barnes comes up with a startling idea: rather than wait a month, as planned, they will exploit the next possible launch window which is only seventeen hours away. "But we havent had time to train a crew!" objects Cargraves. "Then well go ourselves," counters Barnes, and they do, just like that dragging the wholly uninformed and unprepared Sweeney along with them. And despite all the expert input, there are a few design flaws in Destination Moon. The worst is the painfully unconvincing "star fields" with which the Luna is surrounded at all times. These were actually realised using car headlights and unfortunately, it looks like it. The "stars", almost identical in colour and intensity, and closer together than real stars ever were, are a major distraction throughout the otherwise well-executed EVA sequence. Another mistake, a more surprising one, is Chesley Bonestells design for the surface of the moon, which looks like a huge dried lakebed, all dramatic cracks and geometric patterns. Bonestell himself afterwards lamented his error, claiming, not that he could have known what the moon looked like, of course, but that he could have deduced it. Be this as it may, Bonestells paintings are one of the true highlights of Destination Moon, and even if his moonscapes are wrong, theyre such a pleasure to look at that we have no trouble overlooking the fact.
(Oh, and by the way: Im perfectly well aware that after my strictures against Outland for ignoring facts in order to "look cool", this sails perilously close to hypocrisy. If Outland had gotten as much right as Destination Moon, I would have cut it a little slack, too.)
By now you might be asking, with all this "science stuff" in Destination Moon, is there any story? Well, yes, some but not all that much, and what there is, is at all times subservient to the film-makers commitment to the practical and the possible. The machinations of the rocket projects enemies on Earth allows for a race against the clock to complete the building of the Luna, and then another race to take off before a threatened court order can be invoked. Once the crew is in space, it is discovered that Sweeney mistakenly greased the ships aerial (time for a lecture, Joe!), which has naturally frozen in place, and must be cleaned before it will extend. This leads to the EVA, and to the first of the films two "suspense" sequences. As Barnes and Sweeney are dealing with the aerial, Cargraves moves down the rocket to inspect the engines and, when he finds it is not long enough, slips his safety line. (In dramatic terms, that Cargraves would do such a thing is easily the least believable part of the story.) Engrossed in his work, Cargraves does not notice that his magnetic boots have lost contact with the surface of the rocket. The next instant he is floating in space, and it takes some very quick thinking on the part of Barnes to resolve the situation. The other dramatic set-piece comes at the climax of the film, when it is discovered that Barnes emergency manoeuvring during landing used up too much fuel. Even when everything that can be unloaded from the ship has been, it is still too heavy meaning that one of the crew must stay behind if the others are to make it back to Earth . (Problems involving a lack of necessary fuel became a popular plot point in many of the films that followed Destination Moon. Here, while the method of calculation is accurate, the notion that rocket fuel is or can be calculated down to the single pound is less so.) What is interesting about these two sequences is the degree of tension that director Irving Pichel managed to generate, given that we know in our hearts that nothing bad is going to happen to anyone. Other films may have been willing to dispose of their space explorers or at best, to allow them to sacrifice themselves but Destination Moon isnt like that: its far too optimistic a work, too certain of mans ability to rise to any challenge. And yet suspense is created. While we know that everything will turn out all right, we dont know how: that is where the interest lies. In its details, as well as in its conception, Destination Moon is an intellectually enjoyable movie.
Science fiction films may claim to be, intend to be, about "the future", but they very often say a great deal more about the time in which they were produced; and Destination Moon is no exception. The film is not only a fascinating snapshot of the political climate of America in 1950, but is often so in wholly unexpected ways. For one thing, the screenplay is amazingly critical of the government so much so, that had the film been made by people of rather more leftish leanings, it is likely that they would have found themselves summoned for a chat with Senator McCarthy and his colleagues. But there is, of course, a profound philosophical difference between criticising a government for being too hawkish, and criticising it for not being hawkish enough; and it is the latter of which Destination Moon is guilty. The opening section of the film constantly bemoans Washingtons "peacetime" attitude, berating it for cutting appropriations, for not seeing the military necessity of continuing the rocket program. Furthermore, the screenplay implies, there is a specific reason for this attitude .one that Tailgunner Joe himself would have heartily applauded. Destination Moon is a Cold War film par excellence, and never more so than in its claim that both the government and the media are deeply infiltrated by enemy agents working to undermine the American Way Of Life in general, and the rocket program in particular. Some of the assumptions that are made, and the way in which they are made, are nothing short of staggering. For instance, in the opening scene, Cargraves first rocket has barely lifted off before it crashes back to earth. Not for a moment does it occur to Cargraves that something could have been wrong in his design or execution; this must be sabotage, he claims, and Thayer instantly agrees. (Later we are told that the Secret Service "knows" that this was the case.) Having recruited industry to their cause, Barnes, Cargraves and Thayer get their rocket built, but learn that taking off will be another matter. Cargraves produces a newspaper headlined by a story about mass protests against the launch. "Thats not public opinion!" says Thayer angrily. "Its a job of propaganda!" "Manufactured and organised!" agrees Barnes. "Somebodys out to get us!" At no time do they give any indication of why they think this; it is so, it must be so, and thats all there is to it. Similarly, when Cargraves must report that their request to test their atomic engine has been denied, Barnes is furious, seeing it as one more orchestrated barrier the inference being, apparently, that no-one could really be concerned about something as trivial as the dispersal of radioactive material. (Given that the time of Destination Moons production was also that during which the U.S. government commenced its program of secret experiments, in which uninformed individuals, both military and civilian, were deliberately exposed to radiation, these scenes are rather chilling. Nor does "the Commission"s suggestion that the crew shift the atomic engine test to "the South Pacific" make things much better, given the radiation exposure suffered both by the indigenous population and by U.S. servicemen during the atomic testing in the Marshall Islands.) It is then that Barnes comes up with his radical suggestion that they lift off as soon as possible. "Theres no law against taking off in a spaceship, because no-ones ever done it!" he points out, further arguing that if the three of them ask permission, "they" will find another way of stopping them. Sure enough, at the last minute a court order is served, forbidding the take-off (and inferring that "they" have infiltrated the court system, as well). The crew-members respond as any good Americans would: by evading the order and making a dash for their rocket, laughing and jeering at the server from the safety of the elevator. (Ive long been fascinated by the ability of Americans to hail their country as the greatest in the world because of its laws and institutions, while simultaneously thumbing their noses at those very laws and institutions, apparently without any sense of contradiction.) What is most intriguing about these scenes is that "they" are never identified: the word "Communist" is never uttered at any point in the film. Then again, in 1950, it was scarcely necessary to utter it. (The closest we get is Barnes complaining about "red tape", which I dont actually think was intended euphemistically.) It is also remarkable, given the overall tenor of the film, that the technological abilities of this unnamed enemy are freely conceded: "they" are not just planning on going to the moon, but capable of getting there; this, a full seven years before the launch of Sputnik shook the United States out of its sense of complacency, and kicked off the space race in earnest.
Destination Moon is unique in the annals of the science fiction film for the clarity and conviction of its vision, and for its refusal to take a single step outside the boundaries of what its makers believed to be the truth. Even 2001, that other great "space travel" film, is not so pure. Indeed, the only films that come close to Destination Moon in this respect are two other George Pal productions: Conquest Of Space, which is in every way an inferior creation, and When Worlds Collide perhaps. (Ah, but whats that on the horizon in the final scene ?) In one sense, Destination Moon was hugely influential "space" films flourished for over a decade, until reality began to supersede fantasy and in another, not influential at all. While other film-makers were quick to jump on the bandwagon, they had little if any interest in imitating their models integrity. Even the very first copycat film, Rocketship X-M (inspired by the media coverage of Destination Moons production, the makers of this knock-off managed to get their film written, shot and into the cinemas a month before Destination Moon was released!), had its astronauts encountering a group of Martians. It is not difficult to see why this would have been the case. Destination Moons authenticity really left other film-makers with nowhere to go except into the realm of exploitation. You can just imagine the kind of conversation that potential copyists just for laughs, lets call them "Roger", "Jim" and "Sam" might have held upon viewing the film:
Roger: Thats a pretty good film. I could make it cheaper, though and it wouldnt take me two years! Hmm .needs something to spice it up a better title, for a start---
Jim: One thatd look good on a poster. Attack Of The---something-or-other. And we need something to get the kids in aliens, or monsters---
Sam: Sexy dames, and plenty of em!
And indeed, this is exactly how the space film would evolve or degenerate over the following years. Destination Moon, meanwhile, continued to be the sole occupant of the tiny niche it had created for itself, until events in the real world made it redundant. Looking at the film today, it is far easier to see its faults than its virtues. The acting is low-key to the point of invisibility (Dick Wessons excepted; if only he were invisible!), and the script so determinedly matter-of-fact that it sails perilously close to being outright dull. Plus, theres no sex, and no violence; no aliens, and no monsters; just pure science, of a kind that today we all take for granted . The 1950s were truly the golden era of the science fiction film, and the importance of Destination Moon in that context cannot be overestimated. If these days it is a struggle to appreciate the film as it deserves to be appreciated, that in itself is a strange kind of compliment. Perhaps the very highest praise offered to Destination Moon comes from those who dismiss it as too real to be entertaining. This is a film that, on a certain day in 1969, effectively ceased to be science fiction at all. And how its makers must have gloried in that!
Read a review of the DVD here.
Want a second opinion? Visit The Bad Movie Report.