H.G. Wells spends a large part of his review criticizing
Metropolis because it, in his opinion, presents a depiction of the future that,
given current trends, is unlikely to happen. I don’t think this criticism is completely
fair. As Cary pointed out to me in a comment on a comment I made during the
last post, every sci-fi film’s depiction of the future is a product of the
time, place, and culture it comes from. This makes it hard to validate
criticism that a sci-fi film is ‘unrealistic’. The future shown in Metropolis
may have seemed unrealistic to H.G. Wells, but it could have been perfectly
realistic in Germany, where it was made.
So if we can’t judge a sci-fi film by its prediction of the
future, we have to find another way. I think what is common to film and art
overall is that the audience gets something out of it. They take away an idea,
a lesson, something. They don’t all necessarily take away the same thing, but I
think a lot of films, like Metropolis and Things to Come, are trying to get the
audience to take something from the film. Because of this, I think we should
evaluate a sci-fi film through how its depiction of the future contributes to
the takeaway and the overall point of the film.
I haven’t seen Metropolis, but I think it’s possible that
the extreme portrayal of the future show there is purposely extreme. The
extreme stratification of the upper and lower classes could be there to
emphasize the film’s message about society, rather than be a plausible future. I think we can look at Things to Come in the same
way, but I don’t know if that helps the film. I really didn’t know what to take
away from the film. It presented depictions of the future in parts, and to me
it seemed a bit disjointed with the separate parts not having too much of an
overlying message. So, even though the film got some things about the future
right, I don’t think that validates the film as a whole because I don’t see how
those elements worked toward the film’s story and message overall.
I agree that how realistic the film is should not be how we evaluate a Sci-Fi film. Popular films in the genre like Star Wars or Star Trek aren't realistic, and don't try to be realistic. It is the story, the characters, setting, special effects, etc. that are the reasons for their popularity and praise.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that certain elements may be exaggerated to portray and emphasize its message. "The Day the Earth Stood Still" warns of a future the fighting on Earth becomes so much that it even endangers creatures from other planets, and are sent an ultimatum. It presents the point of view that if the state in which they were in at the time continues, humans may reach a point where we are not be able to control ourselves and may need an external force to keep Earth at peace. The film presents this message through various seemingly unrealistic ways such as an alien coming to Earth looking exactly like a human and speaking perfect English, a robot that is able to destroy anything and revive people (albeit temporarily). However, these unrealistic and exaggerated details in the film help emphasize the point the film was trying to make.
I don't agree with what you say about science fiction "predicting the future". The purpose is to tell a story and through that story convey a message (you do say that), but it is not the weatherman for the future. It is merely an imaginative vision on what the future could potentially hold. Given that, I don't think it should be taken into account when evaluating a sci fi film seeing as that isn't its purpose.
ReplyDelete