p e n g u i n d e v i l

Having one of those quiet evenings where I wanted to watch movies but nothing that was too overwhelming or thought-invoking, I ended up watching, firstly, Destination Moon. One of the great classics, not only for it’s Heinlein origins and rich technicolor appearance but also because of its historical significance as one of the first major American Science Fiction films, blatant cold war message and being George Pal’s first science fiction film. It is also a “serious” science fiction movie without most of the unreality that comes with science fiction, including all of those outlandish events in most of the big Hollywood Sci-fi films that were to follow. Though the science involved not turn out to be an accurate portrayal of things that were to come, it is done in the hard-science fiction fashion of attempting to realistically theorize the technology of the future. Considering it was made nearly 20 years before anyone went to the moon, its tackling of the issues and manner of getting a ship to the moon is pretty respectable. Though, as seems common for a lot of these movies, there is some corny banter thanks to a young Brooklyn kid who is reluctantly along for the ride, but that aside, it is pretty serious stuff.

After a failed attempt to launch a satellite into orbit, a scientist, a military man and an industrialist band together to get a rocket to the moon within a year to prevent the world from becoming a one world government, as they obviously fear that the unnamed Soviets are sabotaging the U.S. space program in an attempt to beat us to the moon as, we all know, whoever has the ability to launch bombs from the moon will be able to control the world. After a meeting with other leaders of industry, focusing on an explanatory movie with Woody Woodpecker (which my daughter made me watch over and over) they charge ahead, against some last minute opposition from the government.

Destination Moon, is a straight-forward, low-thrill film and is unquestionablly classic, both as a Sci-fi adventure and also as a brave look toward what technology may lay ahead.

After that, I watched another old favorite, The Name of the Rose. As I haven’t read the novel, I can’t attest to its literary accuracy, but the movie is great! Sean Connery is a Franciscan monk (and ex-Inquisitor) who, with his assistant (a young Christian Slater in one of his first film roles) arrives at a monastery on the eve of an important meeting between the Franciscans and representatives of the pope. He arrives, though, at the beginning of a series of murders which brings out his most Sherlock Holmsian tendencies. A fascinating glimpse into medieval cloistered life, the early art of bookmaking, and a visit to the complicated world of religious heresy and medieval politics, all in a wonderful and convoluted monastery set with intriguing murders and all around. Connery is great here, and right at my favorite era of his career, right between Highlander and The Untouchables.

As one might imagine, Connery trying to get to the bottom of things makes a number of folks rather nervous, and the arrival of F Murray Abraham as a rival from his Inquisitor days only serves to bring things to a head. The Name of the Rose is an intriguing, serious, and yet fun, movie of people who are filled with medieval fears: of the devil, of the evils of cavorting with women, of heretical writings… And a story of murder and the accusation of sin being used as an excuse to cover a desperate fear of losing power.