1. Is it sci-fi?
2. Is it good?
As we know from the last wave of blog posts, whether or not a film should be considered sci-fi can be as subjective as whether or not a film is good, so this system of evaluation has little concreteness.
I believe that a sci-fi film can be evaluated in another way. Assuming the film is sci-fi, one can ask "is it good sci-fi?" which feels wholly different from "is it good?". So what determines good or bad sci-fi? H.G. Wells' review of Metropolis asserts that good sci-fi takes seriously what is possible and impossible, likely and unlikely, realistic and unrealistic. The plot holes and silly details that the author pointed out are evidence of a much more significant flaw. That being: the producers of Metropolis had no concern for what is realistic and settled for superficial spectacle (I have not seen Metropolis so I don't know if this is true, for the sake of this response let's pretend we are speaking about a film with all of the flaws that Well's mentioned. Such films are out there, even if Metropolis doesn't count). Wells believes that a good sci-fi film has something to say to the people of the present, and since Metropolis is essentially depicting the future, it is flawed in that it has little respect for what the future might actually look like (based on the "present" of 1927). Based on the overwhelmingly positive response to Metropolis that has lasted to this day, it is clear that it's a good movie. But assuming it is flawed in the ways that Wells claims it is, then I would agree with him that it is bad sci-fi.
From my present day perspective, Things To Come is just the opposite. So-so film. Good sci-fi film. Time has not been kind to the 40 or so extended monologues that lie within the uneasy structure of the film, but it predicted modern technology very well. I know so, because I'm here, in the future. This begs the question: should it matter how accurate a sci-fi film that predicts the future ends up being, or should it matter the seriousness and informedness of the prediction at the time it was made? Often the two are related. Serious contemplation and research tend to predict trends quite well. However, it seems unfair to evaluate the quality of sci-fi from the future. A well-researched and sensible author could have predicted that the average American would be 7 feet tall by 2013, but if his prediction missed then isn't it still more valuable than a comedy piece that lightly jests that Americans will all be fat by 2013 (as that is decidedly more true, as we are indeed quite fat). Intent is a loose concept, but it is important to attempt to define the undefinable so that we can at least make out a shape. Considering the fact that I do not know what sci-fi is, I believe that good sci-fi is derived from a genuine concern with what is possible and likely. Now of course not all sci-fi aims to predict the future, but most of it does, and I believe that this is evidence of a core function that sci-fi can serve: to anticipate and speculate for the benefit of the present.
Figure 1 - H.G. Wells
CORRECTION: The man depicted in figure 1 is not H.G. Wells.
ReplyDeleteNot all sci fi aims to predict the future...what makes you say this? Just curious.
ReplyDeleteYour right that it's problematic to evaluate a film based on how much it gets the future right. Often sci fi films warn of a future that is preventable if action is taken in the present. It wouldn't be fair to knock such a film because the dystopic future it suggested didn't come to pass. Have you heard of the film, Soylent Green? Very cool idea there, but it didn't come to pass (at least I don't think it did).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVpN312hYgU
If I implied that all science fiction films predict the future then I apologize. I view "anticipation" as one of many purposes that science-fiction can serve, and considering both Things To Come and Metropolis seem to attempt this, I evaluated them on that scale. Soylent Green, which presents the viewer with a dystopia, stills seems to be assessable in terms of how realistic a portrayal of the future it is, even if it never became reality. Perhaps "anticipate" is the wrong word, but nevertheless, "the future" is an enormous part of sci-fi that seems fundamentally connected to why sci-fi exists, and I believe that's why I put so much emphasis on it in my post. I think the assessment criteria I laid out applies to films that don't predict the future as well. The Day the Earth Stood Still and E.T. don't take place in the future, but they both attempt to deal with what is possible (albeit not necessarily what is likely) and do so in a mature way that highlights the issues surrounding the aspect of the story that warrants the film's classification as "sci-fi". E.T. may be seen as childish compared to more "serious" sci-fi films, but it doesn't seem to be "silly" in the way that Metropolis is to H.G. Wells. E.T. hangs above what is ordinary but below what is realistic, whereas Metropolis, to Wells at least, is all over the place for no discernible reason.
ReplyDelete