Evaluating Science
Fiction Films
CARY SPECTOR
First off,
I find H.G. Wells review of Metropolis
quite pretentious. He points out how technologically impossible the vertical
city is, comparing it to modern day cities. To me this is the wrong approach to
evaluating a Science-Fiction film or really any story in general. You don’t go
to a Science-Fiction film for its complete devotion to realism. You go to catch
a glimpse of the future or alternate present to be amazed by the range of
possibilities that could befall or rise from humanity. It will create a better
connection with the audience if the world is more realistic, but either way it
is going to be a sight to behold, assuming the mind behind the world is
innovative enough.
So, how
should we evaluate sci-fi films? Like any other film. Does it have a coherent
story? Are the characters relatable? Is the film paced well, in that it keeps
you interested in what is happening on screen? Sci-Fi tends to have the bonus
of being able to dazzle the audience with special effects and outstanding scenery,
but this would probably fall under mise en scene.
The reason
that the original Star Wars was such
a successful Sci-Fi film is that it simply was a great movie. The characters
are realistic and relatable, the story was engaging, and the antagonist strikes
fear into your heart without even being on screen for more than 20 minutes.
What people at the time raved about was how the special effects were like
nothing they had ever seen. Which is part of the appeal for sci-fi; to see something
you wouldn’t regularly witness. But the effects aren’t what make films good.
Example A for Avatar.
Beautiful
effects built around a dull story with duller characters.
Of course,
there is a flaw in my argument, in that a bad movie can be a good sci-fi film. Things to Come is a great science
fiction film. It shows a possible future and mixes in more advanced technology,
but ultimately keeps it as human as possible. The thing is gets wrong is
everything else, by modern standards at least. The characters can be quite
hokey and the messages are about as obvious as pedophile at Wiggles concert
(see example A for Ambrose).
The pacing of the movie was incredibly slow and I
don’t believe I was the only one that became overwhelmed with exhaustion after
attempting to watch the film for more than 5 minutes.
Ultimately,
evaluating Science-Fiction films requires a two-step process:
1.
Does it work as a film?
2.
Does it work as a science-fiction film?
Story and characters are the most important part of a film,
but science-fiction also has to reach certain criteria of its own, which is
what we talked about with our last post.
I think that H.G. Well's criticism was pretentious, but I think that mainly comes from the fact that they stole his old idea but changed around some stuff. He's really just looking for anything negative to say, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI think that your criteria of 'does it work as a film' would be very hard to judge. Things To Come may seem terribly acted now, but maybe it didn't back then. It was a different time; there were different expectations of cinema. I guess what I'm saying is that it's really hard to evaluate a sci-fi film.
I'm not a pedophile.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assessment that films must be good in their own right before being a good sci-fi film. (characters story etc) But I think that those extra elements you mentioned like special effects are integral in making a film a true sci-fi film, for without them, the audience would just appreciate it as a narritive, and would not be able to as clearly interpret the message conveyed by the film.
I like your point that films should evaluated on whether they are a good film before they are evaluated whether it is a good sci-fi film. Most of the popular sci-fi films have a really good story and characters in addition to the sci-fi elements like seeing a glimpse into the future and the special effects. Evaluating it first based on whether it is a good film or not allows the viewer of an older sci-fi film to evaluate the film without worrying about whether the future it portrays is realistic or silly based on today's standards.
ReplyDeleteI agree that people are drawn to scifi because it is a spectacle. When the genre first came to the forefront of filmmaking it was almost required of the filmmakers to make it somewhat realistic so that the audience could relate to the concept and that the filmmaker could convey his views more easily. However, as we have seen with the progression of the films in class as the genre became more well known and popular, filmmakers were able to go more out on a limb and create these entirely new visions of the future. Due to the time period people were able to grasp the concept of a space station but break that one out in the 40s and next thing people are running around screaming about a rapture. I think that since science fiction is linked so closely with the ideals of the time period it should be evaluated with respect to ORIGIN and PURPOSE. That is all.
ReplyDelete