Monday, February 25, 2013
H.G. Wells review seems to be pessimistic, longing for attention. He keeps stating all the impossibilities within the Sci-Fi film, he points out how technologically impossible situations and things are. But he is totally missing the point of Sci-Fi film in general. Sci-Fi is not meant to show the present, its to think and wonder about the possibilities of the future. Its wondering about other world and other civilizations - not just our present ones. So the question arises, how does one evaluate Sci-Fi films? We could evaluate them on their pure entertainment factor, or we could judge them by how they depict society and/or what kind of message they are willing to put out about society. I believe the biggest evaluator of a film (including Sci-Fi films) are their ability to be believable. If the characters and story are developed enough that one can become entangled in the films world, it is a good film. As for "Things to Come it had some great elements. But the viewer would consistently drop out of the world of the film because it was a slow-paced movie that was a little too dramatic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You say that the biggest evaluator of a film is its believability, but you discredit H.G. Wells for pointing out "impossibilities" within Metropolis. There seems to be a disconnect. While I agree that Wells' article was certainly negative in tone, he seems to be evaluating Metropolis on the same standard that you deem important. Believability. I don't think that Wells is being closed minded when he says that certain elements of Metropolis are unlikely or silly. It is clear from his own work and certain references in the article that he is very well informed, and it appears that his quarrel with Metropolis is that, to him, the film appeared misinformed; a projection of the future based only on previous outdated projections, ignorance, and boyish whim. It's not believable to him, even as a vision of the future. He believes that in 1927 there was sufficient evidence that the future would look different that it does in Metropolis, and he discredits the producers for being uninformed and/or for their lack of desire to be informed. I admit in my own post that I have not seen Metropolis, but if Wells' truly felt this way about the film, then I believe his review is valuable and not meant to be self-serving. As a prominent science fiction writer of the time, isn't it his duty to be a watchdog for science fiction that seemingly disregards science?
ReplyDeleteMatt, I think you agree with Wells more than you think. Read his critique a little more carefully.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, the city in Metropolis contains giant machines that produce...well, it never really says. There are thousands of worker/slaves toiling in these factories, day and night. So this begs the question, who buys the stuff that these things crank out? The upper class is a very small minority in this world, and worker drones are working all day, for penuts, it seems based on where they live and how they dress. So...what's going on? You can't have thriving capitalism without people buying stuff. Economics 101.