In order to figure out a system for evaluating science fiction
films, I returned to my definition of a science fiction film. To be one, a
film’s world, however fantastical and “futuristic”, must be grounded in real
concepts and technologies that could possibly exist; it should be focused on a
large-scale change; and its topic must serve as a framework for a story about a
human crisis, or a rumination on the human condition. But to be a great science
fiction film, it has to be original, and it has to be believable. These were
some of H.G. Well’s main criticisms of Fritz Lang’s science fiction film Metropolis. Though the film featured a
new society built with complex machinery and robots and explored the disadvantages
of severe social stratification, making it a science fiction film, it failed to
treat these ideas in a new way. The supposed “advanced” technology featured in
the film was hardly different from what the film’s audiences were seeing
outside the theater. Also, because the film seemed to ignore the logic of how
such a society would work with aforementioned technology and hierarchy,
(notably, that it would fail because machines cannot make wealth by themselves,
and the efficiency of an industry cannot rely on the unskilled masses). H.G.
Wells calls the entire plot “essential nonsense”. So, Metropolis is not a great science fiction film because it does not plausibly
portray “what could be”, and its attempt lacks originality.
It’s hard to evaluate Things
to Come using the first criterion because our judgment of originality is
skewed. It was made nearly 80 years ago, so we’ve seen most of the film’s major
elements in both newer films and real life. However, we can fairly judge the
logic of the story and the structure of the world the filmmakers created, and I
have to say I found it a little ridiculous.
The reason these two characteristics make a science fiction film great is due to the impact they have on the audience. A truly original film wows the audience and holds their attention throughout, while the creation of a believable world not only ensures that the film will not be forgotten, but also allows the audience to connect on a human level.
The reason these two characteristics make a science fiction film great is due to the impact they have on the audience. A truly original film wows the audience and holds their attention throughout, while the creation of a believable world not only ensures that the film will not be forgotten, but also allows the audience to connect on a human level.
I agree that science fiction must be approachable insofar as audiences can believe the technologies explored in the plot could one day possibly exist, but also incorporate a level of ingenuity. It is the believability of the technologies that ease audiences into a story while the new ideas incorporated keep them watching. Out of curiosity, how do you think we should treat remakes of science fiction movies that have cooler special effects, but arguably no new ideas?
ReplyDeleteWell, if it's a remake, wouldn't it be acknowledged by all audiences as inherently unoriginal?
DeleteNot all the time, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" remake with Keanu Reeves totally changed the alien character.
DeleteI like your point about the necessity of wowing the audience with the new technology. If technology present in the film is extremely advanced and realistic, it doesn't mean that it is fantastic and impressive enough to draw the audience in. They must be captivated with items that are flashy, while at the same time fairly practical. If it's going to be one of the two, it must be the first.
ReplyDeleteGlad to see that you read all of Wells' critque of Metropolis. I sense many stopped after a few paragraphs.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, why is our judgement skewed when dealing with an 80 year old film. We know that WWII happened, the film maker did not. Can't we adjust are evaluation of the film accordingly?
The film did get wrong that war would simply carry on for decades. Were it not for the A-bomb, one wonders how long WW2 would have went on.