Con destino a la Luna

Science fiction gets the deluxe treatment for the first time in history (except for `Things to Come' and `Metropolis'). This is a big-budget, technicolor production from producer George Pal and director Irving Pichel, with Leith Stevens music (`When Worlds Collide', `War of the Worlds' , others), Chesley Bonestell matt paintings, and Oscar-winning special effects supervised by Lee Zavitz. Stop motion animation scenes of the astronauts walking on the hull of the ship were directed by John S. Abbott. The fine script was penned by Rip Van Ronkel, James O'Hanlon, and veteran sci-fi author Robert Heinlein.

The cast includes John Archer as the millionaire industrialist, Warner Anderson as the designer of the rocket, Dick Wessson as the wise-cracking radio operator, and Tom Powers as the visionary general. (Note: this is not the same Tom Powers who stars in `Unidentified Flying Objects' in 1956).

Although many reviewers connect `Destination Moon' with Heinlein's novel `Rocketship Galileo', the film's story has much more in common with Heinlein's novelette `The Man Who Sold the Moon', also published in 1950. The novelette, like the film, spotlights private industry as the sponsor of the Moon trip. John Archer's industrialist is an eerie parallel to Howard Hughes, whose company actually did build the Apollo space crafts!

Heinlein actually published a THIRD Moon-trip story in 1950, a novelette featured in the September issue of `Short Stories Magazine' under the title `Destination Moon'. This version is so similar to the film, it was probably intended as a promotional piece, but it does include one fascinating story element not in the film. The explorers find evidence of previous lunar visitors -- either Russians or aliens, they aren't sure which!

While planning the famous E.V.A . rescue scene (in which an oxygen bottle is used as a makeshift propulsion unit) the film makers considered using a shotgun as the means by which John Archer retrieves Warner Anderson when he drifts away from the rocket in space. Thankfully they changed their minds; a shotgun seems like an inappropriate piece of equipment to take to a lifeless, airless satellite. However, the shotgun concept was used in the final film during Woody Woodpecker's cartoon demonstration of rocket propulsion, which is shown to the millionaire industrialists who finance the Moon trip.

Chesley Bonestell, famed artist of the celestial realm, provided matt paintings and designed the lunar surface (which had not been photographed up close at that time, so the film makers had to make some guesses).

Art director Ernst Fegte added the fractured lava bed feature which resembled a cracked lake bottom. The cracks diminish in scale as they recede from the camera, creating a forced perspective which enhanced the depth of the set.

This blend of technical accuracy and artistic excellence is the key to the success of `Destination Moon'. No wonder it almost single-handedly started the 1950s sci-fi craze of the 1950s. The film has a strong flavor of `The Right Stuff' (brave men doing a tough job). If you appreciated stories which portray heroism and the nobility of the human spirit, `Destination Moon' is your kind of movie.

More historical curiosity than entertaining science fiction film, "Destination Moon" is a must see for those interested in the evolution of the genre and the political climate of the early cold war years. Don't expect any cheap thrills or exploitation elements. There are no aliens, no monsters, and no hot women. Instead it presents a detailed speculation of what they thought it would be like to go to the moon in a rocket-ship. Despite looking like a massive version of a Von Braun rocket from WWII, the speculation about the problems faced by the engineers and crew of such a product are surprisingly accurate and must have been fascinating viewing back in 1950. Both the rocket and the moon are considerably more realistic than the old "Flash Gordon" stuff.

Like another science fiction classic "Them", "Destination Moon" is loaded with political references conveying a not so subtle distrust of the federal government. But the two films convey the same message from polar opposite perspectives. "Them" placed the blame for its giant mutations on reckless atomic bomb testing and portrayed the federal response to the crisis as clueless until assisted by local law enforcement and an eccentric university scientist. "Destination Moon" has a hawkish perspective, with unidentified fifth columnists sabotaging America's early space program. Fortunately, selfless patriotic industrialists come to the rescue and finance a successful private enterprise program to claim the moon for the United States.

The deliberately low-key documentary style is relieved by the last minute addition of space novice Joe Sweeney (Dick Wesson) to the crew. With a Brooklyn accent (his first view of earth from space elicits a desire to know who is pitching for the Dodgers that day) Sweeney provides both comic relief and an excuse for the expect members of the crew to expound in layman's terms about the details of space travel. I couldn't help thinking of "Dark Star's" Sgt. Pinback whenever Sweeney began to whine about not belonging on the mission.

Another concession to the unsophisticated 1950's audience has the project leaders making their pitch for financing through a special Woody Woodpecker space training film. The skeptical fowl and his two audiences receive their indoctrination at the same time. "Destination Moon" must have infused the nation with a sense of wonder and faith in what the free enterprise system could achieve because it is actually listed as an event in NASA's chronology of the history of space travel. It is likely that the producers were more successful with this upbeat message than with their attempt to spread fear and promote a space race. Although considerable effort is made to sell the audience on the military value of the moon nothing very convincing is presented in that regard. Ironically, much of the actual space race a few years later would have a military purpose.

"Destination Moon" has two moments of suspense. The first is when Charles Cargraves (played by Warner Anderson) exits the ship in space and drifts away once his magnetic boots lose contact with the ship. Since Cargraves is the ship's designer, it seems rather implausible that he should forget this but no more so than his constructing the ship out of heavy steel. The second is when they botch the landing and must lighten the ship to have enough fuel to return to earth (of course we 21st century viewers knew the thing was too heavy as soon as we learned about the magnetic boot thing).

Science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein teamed with producer George Pal to put "Destination Moon" into production. They soon learned that Kurt Neumann was working to release "Rocketship X-M" in time to benefit from their publicity campaign. For legal reasons Neumann modified his more sensational film to feature a landing on Mars rather than on the moon. Although Neumann's paid less attention to scientific details, it turned out to be more accurate in the use of a two-stage rocket and not the one-stage monster featured in the Heinlein/Pal version. Both films were subject to staggering naiveté about the complexity of space travel. Although the film's version of the moon surface is hauntingly beautiful (thanks to Chesley Bonestell's backdrop paintings) it looks more like a dried lake-bed than the actual lunar surface.

In retrospect, "Destination Moon's" most unique sci-fi genre feature is the absolute refusal of its producers to show anything that deviated from what they believed at the time to be the truth about space travel. Although today it is a struggle to really appreciate the film, at least as it would have hit viewers in 1950, how many science fiction films have been criticized as being too real to be entertaining.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

Destination Moon stands out as one of the better sci-fi movies from the fifties, mostly because they approach the idea of travelling to the moon in a very specific and realistic way. Unlike other films such as When Worlds Collide (another George Pal film) which sends the rocket down a giant ramp, Destination Moon relies on many of the same procedures that NASA later used in its actual launches. Of course, it still shares some of the fantasy qualities of others in the sci-fi genre as well as some great special effects (for which it earned an Academy Award). The characters are usual sci-fi fare, and that includes the usual "comedic element", in this case Dick Wesson playing a street-wise technician from Brooklyn who talks of "dames and baseball". By the way, this character was humorously parodied in the classic spoof Amazon Women On The Moon. So if you enjoy cigar shaped rockets, great fifties special effects, and cool retro images, you should check out Destination Moon.

Science Fiction master Robert Heinlien had direct influence with only one film during his lifetime. Early in his career, Heinlien made his way to Hollywood, way before he was well known as the author of the 60's cross over best seller, Stranger in a Strange Land. As a former engineer, Heinlien was interested in scientific realism, and he co-wrote the script for this film which was based on one of his early novels. Released in 1950, it wasn't until 1969 that the USA landed men on the Moon, but Heinlien's predictions about how space travel would look like were remarkably accurate. NASA credited this film as being instrumental in the history of the USA space program.

Don't expect a modern day science fiction masterpiece, or even a film on the level of Forbidden Planet. However, this often overlooked film had great special effects for the day and launched a series of (better, perhaps) science fiction films issued in the 1950s and 1960's. The realistic approach makes this film a bit slow for some, but it is a classic and should be viewed as such by any SF film buff or aspiring film maker.

Sure the plot was very straightforward and it was inevitable that the problems that came up would come up but overall, I really liked the film. When you consider that nobody had even put a satellite in orbit yet and everything they attempt to show of what space is like is based entirely on what they thought they knew, it's amazing how accurate they were.

The acting at first seemed bland and I wanted to slap that stupid Brooklyn guy around but as someone stated, the movie needed someone the scientists had to explain everything to. I guess if they wanted the audience to understand any of it they had to do it this way. At that year I highly doubt most people knew what space was like at all. We just take it completely for granted now.

Fifty-one years from its release and here I am watching it in DVD format. It amazes me sometimes. I gave it an 8.