The most eerie of the "possibilities" I think was the prediction of World War II. But that makes me think about how those in 1936 interpreted these "possibilities". There was plenty of tension in Europe possibly indicative of a war but to predict the timing so closely is somewhat unsettling. But did the people living then really think there would be a moon landing? Or flat screen televisions? Or radio watches? I don't think I would've believed those things to be possible had I lived then.
Then there's Wells who thought that the other sci-fi film around the same time as Things to Come, titled Metropolis was a pitiful excuse for a sci-fi film. While I can't comment on the actual film itself Wells's criticism of the film seems to be entirely based on his soreness because some of the ideas seen in the film are also in his book and one of his films. For this Wells called the Germans behind Metropolis unoriginal. While I think there very well be a link between Wells's work and Metropolis's content I don't think it gives Wells the opportunity to bash a film that was merely doing what sci-fi does, predict the future! Wells criticizes the film for being wholly unrealistic in its portrayal of a "vertical city", and while we don't truly have vertical cities today, we certainly have very very tall cities, like Dubai for starters. And so I feel that while some of Wells's criticisms are justified, I think some of his claims of the sci-fi genre are unwarranted and made in an attempt to get back at the Germans for using some of his ideas.
I think Wells' review of the work is funny in a way because it is very obvious he is somewhat biased in his opinion of the movie because he feels it ripped him off personally. Like you mentioned it does make his review somewhat unfair at times because Metropolis does in fact meet a lot of the standards of what people have been saying about predicting the future, although most aspects of the film by Wells' standards don't go far enough. I would be upset to if someone stole my ideas in a genre that is supposed to be so creative.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to invest too much in the idea that Wells' was upset about something he wrote 30 years prior to the film being used. He doesn't seem to think much of his work from that time period anyway. What really seems to bother him is the lack of "originality" and "independent thought" in the film. Doesn't that have to be a part of good science fiction? Will any old projection of the future do? What if I was making a film and projected that socialism would fall and a global economy would arise? Kind of old news, no? Wouldn't it be better to project what will happen to capitalism and the global economy if we ran out of water or land (because the ice caps melted)?
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you say about the believability of the world in the film. I think that its funny to see how people in the past have predicted that will live, when in fact we have not prgressed nearly as much. I don't think that this is that big of deal because it is only a year and is not that jarring, but when films do get it right (such as the prediction of World Warr II and the invention of flat screen TVs) it is pretty amazing.
ReplyDelete