I think that the most valid way to evaluate a sci-fi film is in terms of whether or not it explores what could possibly be. It does not matter if a film is 77 years old or 3 years old; if the filmmakers attempt to investigate some sort of natural phenomenon that could happen, might happen, or eventually will happen, the film is science fiction.
In Things to Come, the filmmakers explore what they think the future holds, and in 1936 this was an entirely creative endeavor. From a modern point of view, it is almost eerie how correctly they predicted the world from World War II onward, including the technological advances of television, landing on the moon, and bombs flattening cities. I, for one, was impressed with how spot on their exploration into the future was, and it makes me wonder if in another seventy years, will we be saying the same about modern sci-fi films such as I, Robot?
H.G. Wells believes that Metropolis was a horrible waste of time and money because it lacked all sort of originality and was not logical or realistic. I have not seen Metropolis, but from this one review I can tell that the filmmakers did create what they saw as a possible future, regardless of what Wells thinks. The fact that the film is not a realistic depiction of mechanization is irrelevant--almost all science-fiction films include a level of surrealism and play to the audience. Also, it is very likely that when Things to Come was produced, critics slashed it as being nonsensical and entirely impossible of ever happening. Seventy-seven years later, where are we?
Interesting. Are you saying that one person's view of the future is just as valid as anothers? If I make a movie that shows the world is made of ice cream houses and that computers are slow and don't work very well, is that all thats required for it to be good? Isn't Welles larger point that your future projections consider the current trajectory of human development?
ReplyDeleteI think that science fiction has a lot to do with creatively depicting the director's view of the future based off of scientific evidence. What Welles is arguing is that people aren't being creative enough and therefore fall victim to a boring overdone plot that everyone knows the ending to. In a way science fiction is meant to be riveting and make some comment about how the future will be if humans continue on their current trajectory.
ReplyDelete