In the Shadow of the Moon--A Review

Although this stirring documentary directed by David Sington has only been released for about a month, all of the reviews I have read seem to take it at face value--the story of the "race to get to the moon" through the Apollo space program in the 1960s in America. Stunning and vivid video footage from 40 years ago, combined with interviews of 10 of the 11 surviving astronauts who made trips to the moon (Neil Armstrong, the one who actually stepped first on the moon, refused to be interviewed for the film), give the impression that Sington is interested in the sense of unity, internationalism and general good will which accompanied the Apollo program and especially the journey of Apollo 11 in July 1969. But I think the message of the film lies elsewhere--in a subtle attempt to promote a soft-sell agenda in 2007--that we all need to cooperate to "save the planet" from the forces that threaten its destruction. Seen in this way (and I will make the case below for this interpretation), it is a "kinder, gentler" version of Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance" and other films that speak rather apocalyptically about global warming and species destruction in our world.

First--A Description of the Action

The film gives no indication at first that issues in 2007 are its concern. Grainy images from 1961, where President John Kennedy issued a challenge to the NASA establishment to put a man on the moon and return him safely by the end of the decade, set the tone for the film. All attention is focused on realizing this aim, though it isn't until the Apollo program in 1966 that the goal appears to be realistic. Yet the January 1967 flash fire erupting on Apollo 1 during a simulated countdown, in which three astronauts (Grissom, White, Chafee) were killed, almost terminated the program. The focus of the film is on the July 1969 mission of Apollo 11 (Armstrong, Aldrin, Collins), in which Armstrong and Aldrin walked the moon's surface for 21 hours while Collins piloted the Command Module around the far side of the moon. Briefer mention is made of the near-tragic course of Apollo 13, and astronaut James Lovell emerges as an eloquent re-teller of that mission.

But it is the "tone" of the film that is most important not to miss. Sington wants to communicate that in the 1960s, through the ambitious program to send a man to the moon, America was honored by the world. We were honored for our desire to advance the interests of mankind and not simply the narrow parochial interests of a nation. And, those who had the privilege of participating in a mission to the moon were uniformally awestruck, amazed, humbled by the stark beauty, immensity and complexity of the world of outer space. But these points are, in the long run, subordinate to what seems to be the major point of the film--the necessity of working hard to "save the earth" today. How does Sington make this subtle shift from 1960s accomplishment to 2007 challenge?

The Appeal to Religious Faith

The interviewed astronauts, to a man, speak of the need to do everything to care for the "fragile" (to use Michael Collins' word) land we call earth. But then, at the end, reference to religion which, at first, seem rather extraneous, fill the screen. First astronaut Gene Cernan speaks of his belief in "spirituality" in general because of his trips to space, but then kind-hearted Charlie Duke talks about how his journeys to space led him to make a confession of faith in Jesus Christ as his Lord. Well, I thought, why does Sington put in these references to religion? Then, it dawned on me. He does so because he is trying to send a signal to two kinds of religious people today.

First he is trying to tell Evangelical people that it is a good thing to hop on the environmental bandwagon. Indeed, this is a theme that Evangelical preachers and thinkers are now proclaiming with great eagerness. But, by having a kindly Evangelical (Charlie Duke) state his faith in Christ, he is allaying fears of liberal Christians or people of general spirituality that the kind of Evangelicals embracing environmentalism in our day aren't out to force religion down your throat. It is a gentle and reasonable Evangelicalism, which breathes fervent and irenic piety.

But there is a second thing he is trying to do. By having Gene Cernan mention that he is "spiritual" or "religious" but not tied to any particular Christian group, Sington is saying that the huge number of "spiritually-oriented" people in our culture ought also to come on board. Environmentalism, which was begun in the 1970s by secular advocates, continued in the 1980s through the efforts of legal scholars and other activists. But now it is essential, if the movement is to have "legs" for another generation, that the religious community be galvanized to "save the world." This, in my judgment, what Sington is trying to do.is

And, I think he acquits himself fairly well in this attempt. We leave the picture filled with awe at the wondrous creation around us. We have heard Michael Collins' heartfelt statement regarding the fragility of the earth, suspended in pitch darkness with its pearly-bright whites and deep azure blues, and we want to do all we can to make sure that this fragil place isn't endangered. Finally, when we understand that at least some of these astronauts, the closest we had to a heroic profession in the 1960s in America, are now convinced that religious imperatives stand behind their desire to save the planet, we too are encouraged to use our religion or spirituality to save the planet.

A powerful story has been told, replete with some unexpected footage--such as the clip of President Richard Nixon rehearsing the speech he would have given had the Apollo 11 moon-landing astronauts--Armstrong and Aldrin not have been able to make it back to Collins' module. The rhetoric was as sad as it was profound. Thus, go to the movie expecting to be educated, amazed, encouraged, and inspired about the Apollo space program. But pay special attention to the connection between religion and one's commitment to saving the earth. For that, in my judgment, is the real message of the film.

2950