In his review, H.G. Wells criticizes many aspects of the film "Metropolis". He begins by criticizing the lack of creativity in the film, especially when it comes to automobiles or airplanes that are in the film. I think this is a fair argument, especially given his claims that the cars and planes are no different than the one's of 1926. For a science fiction film that is set in 2027, there should be some effort to try to be creative and imagine what cars or planes may look like in 100 years. We wouldn't expect a car released in 2013 to be in a film set in 2113, and it would seem very out of place.
However, Wells goes on to criticize the fact that the vertical cities in the film are "highly improbable". I feel that the point of a fictional film is to be "improbable" or unexpected in some way; otherwise the film wouldn't be fiction. There has to be some element of fiction in order to make it a science fiction film. While I can understand his criticism of the vertical cities being an old idea, criticizing a fictional setting for being unrealistic isn't really fair. People don't go watch a sci-fi movie to see a realistic representation of society.
While sci-fi films should be grounded in reality in some ways (so it doesn't just become fantasy), I feel that a sci-fi film shouldn't be evaluated on how realistic its depiction of the future is. Creativity in the film's depiction, the first point brought up by Wells, should be one area that should be evaluated. The film should try to imagine what kind of technological advancements may happen in the future. The film should also be evaluated on how well it conveys and communicates the message of the film. Movies like Wall-E warn us of what the future could look like if we continue our current habits that hurt the environment.
If you were to evaluate a sci-fi film based on its realistic representation of the future like Wells, then, yes, it would matter if the film is 77 years old. If you evaluate a film based on creativity, how it conveys its message, and most importantly, if it is entertaining to the viewer, how old a film is doesn't matter.
I think you bring up some fair points. A film sticking to a perfectly realistic view of the future really isn't as interesting as one that goes for an improbable or exaggerated. I thought the criticism of the cars and planes in the film was being a little picky on H.G. Well's part, though. I've never heard that said about Blade Runner and it used a lot of 1950's cars, being set in 2019.
ReplyDeleteI see what you are saying, but i do think there is a difference between realistic view of the future and a probable. I think that if a film only goes as far as showing a realistic view of what the future might be like then in fact their film will be boring. But i do think the film has to be probable because if things start getting so make believe then the film loses its strength as a piece that sends a message. If no one can relate to it than no one will accept the message being sent as a relevant one.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point about how sci-fi gone too far in the creative direction may become fantasy. However I think we can judge a sci-fi film based on how possible that the things depicted in it will actually occur. I think that we can judge based on that because if we find something in the film that's just outrageous we'll laugh and lose immersion, but if it's cool rather than ridiculous we're awed at the futuristic item then I think the sci-fi film has succeeded in creating deeper immersion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Ryan and Evan that it is important that there is some level of relatability in sci fi films, but ultimately the audience goes to see the film to become immersed in another world, regardless of how ridiculous it is, as Morgan said. The creative aspect of sci fi films is what draws an audience, because everyone has their own thoughts on what the future holds and we are naturally curious to see what others think the future holds. This aspect of creativity is important regardless of how believable the film is, because a film that accurately depicts the future is almost nothing more than a history text book. Audiences want to be entertained with a story that seems out of the realm of possibility, but it is the filmmakers responsibility to make that story seem just possible enough that it could happen.
ReplyDelete