H. G. Wells' review of "Metatropolis" allows us to see how a professional might wish to evaluate s sci fi film. He seems to feel that a good sci fi film is one that proposes new posibilities and ideas, that are relevant and different for the time period. In his opinion the German film failed to come up with any original ideas, and failed to be a successful film because of this. The technology in this film was current with no imaginative inovation, and the systems in which people worked were not only present, but seemingly "on the way out." Using Wells' criteria for evaluating a sci fi film, I would say that "Things to Come" effectivly presents possible futuristic technologies that were creative for the time period. As most everyone has mentioned the TVs and transportation are good examples of this. The movie offers new ideas while posing questions of the future that seem probable, unlike the workings of the world in Metatropolis.
This is the way Wells chooses to analyze a Sci Fi film in terms of is success, but i dont think that is necessarily the proper way. Although I do agree that sci fi needs inovative technologies that seem realistic in a new advanced world, the entertainment factor is important. Sci Fi movies arent successful at all unless they are entertaining, and that obviously comes from personal experience when viewing the film. Personally, and it might just be because I am biased watching this movie decades later, I thought "Things to Come" didnt hold my interest and often dragged on. To touch on "The Day The Earth Stood Still," I thought this film was much better. Although the amount of new technologies was limited to the people of the Alien world that landed I still think that by Wells' standards they were probable for a sci fi film in that time period, 1950s. It was also more entertaining, and I think that sci fi films need to still touch on some aspects of realism to be more relateable to an audience.
So, if I understand you, the technology in the Things to Come was good, the writing of the story was not. It definitely was a too didactic, "You foolish, war mongers. When will you grow up and be peaceful like us?"
ReplyDeleteThe idea of entertainment value is a good one, but a little problematic. If you aim to feed the audience what they want, then don't you risk losing the originality that makes sci fi special? Isn't true that audiences sometimes don't know what they want?
I agree with Wells that scifi is an innovative genre. I feel like if people were to copy the same concept over and over the genre would never evolve and progress. The innovation of scifi filmmakers is also what makes the genre a unique interesting spectacle to watch. Therefore it is admirable when a filmmaker can develop a completely different world, like in Star Wars or Avatar. However, it is important to acknowledge the time period in regards to the evaluation of the film and what it achieves because it plays a pivotal role in the resources the filmmaker had, which in turn can help evaluate how successful they were in their objectives for the film.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lily in that it is important to acknowledge the time period of the film when evaluating it as a true sci fi film or not. Like you, Evan, I found that "Things to Come" did not hold my attention as much as "The Day the Earth Stood Still," but this could be because the filmmakers in 1934 were more concerned with accurately depicting Earth hundreds of years later rather than pleasing audiences seventy years later. Because this was such an early sci fi film, the filmmakers probably were more focused on developing the genre than hiring good writers (who could script a story without so much verbose dialogue). At the time, writing may not have been as important as relaying to audiences what the future could look like, and it is entirely possible that 1934 audiences were so mesmerized by the futuristic visual effects that they paid no attention to the dialogue or incredibly complex plot.
ReplyDelete