When evaluating the genre of science fiction, I think, heavily depends on the context of the time period it was made of. Going from this, we have to see how they depict the future and see how it is different from the time period the film was made in. H.G. Well's review of the German film, Metropolis, was unfavorable due to its 'unoriginality.' I think he has a valid point here, according to Wells, the movie did not depict any changes to the technology of the city supposedly a hundred years from the future. The airplanes appear the same as they were at the time the film was made, showing no advancement. Along with this, Wells finds an issue with the themes used by Metropolis, appearing to be overusing the notion of man vs. machine and doing nothing with it to make it interesting or different. I agree with him on both parts, because if a city is to be set one hundred years in the future, then why are no technological advancements evident? It is strange the airplanes from a hundred years in the future look the same as the ones from the current time period; technology is always improving and moving forward - bound to look different as the years go by, let along one hundred. With the overused themes, I agree with Wells, admittedly, the theme of man vs. machine has been overdone, but makes a sci-fi film with this theme successful is making it interesting. Whether it be introducing a new plot twist to it or taking a new side, the fact that it something new, will have the viewers more invested. The fact that Metropolis did not include any original ideas disinclined Wells from being more interested.
Evaluating Things to Come, I think it was pretty successful. This is considering that the appearances of technology have changed dramatically (transportation in the city, flat-screen tvs, little projectors). The technological advancements in the film have made the futuristic approach more plausible, showing that change has taken place. When it comes to dealing with the context of time period, I think the film did very well in establishing that it was taking place in the future, with new-age technology such as the rockets and appliances.
I know that this comment is kinda lame, but I actually think that this was really well said. I think that taking into account the context of the period is super important and necessary when evaluating science fiction. As for the "original ideas" part, does that include remakes of old movies? And besides, sometimes movies are still successful without completely original ideas. Oftentimes they have similar themes or the idea of the "impartial police thingy" that we've been talking about in class.
ReplyDeleteI agree with maria (I guess, it really depends on the historical context of the time. Thus things to come, and metropolis were to be evaluated to how well they reflected the future perspective at the time they were made.
ReplyDeleteSo, by your logic, is it safe to say that the longer a sci fi film continues to be "futuristic," the better it is?
ReplyDeleteI'm with Daniella on this one, that was very well said. The context and setting of the film is completely something to take into account, but it is not safe to say that the longer a film continues to be "futuristic" the better it is, but the longer it does, the more it becomes true "Sci-Fi."
ReplyDelete