Monday, February 25, 2013
The art of new ideas
One thing that H.G. Wells highlights in his review of Metropolis is the lack of new ideas. I agree with Wells that science fiction really should be evaluated at least in part by its ingenuity. What is the point of a science fiction film that does not include, "a single instance of artistic creation or even intelligent anticipation?" In my opinion, Things to Come, strives to do exactly that. Even down to the costumes, Things to Come tried to reinvent the way that we view the world. Things to Come paid special attention to specific details from the uncomfortably short togas in the last scene to the clear communicators characters used. Though, as we have the benefit of looking at this film from the future and know which technological advancements are archaic even now, in 1936, these ideas were brand new. However, I have a question. Wells goes on a long rant about how the, "vertical city of the future," explored in Metropolis is an idea that has already been explored. How is his world in Things to Come different?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In response to the question you end your post with, I was a bit put off by that as well. I suppose what he meant is that, in Metropolis, the city is as tall as a city such as New York (if not taller) and far more expansive, still being consistently tall throughout. Kind of like a maze of buildings. There are glimpses of it in this trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j8Ba9rWhUg
ReplyDeleteWells seem to be correct in his prediction that this vision of a city wouldn't come true (not by now at least). In modern day New York, the sector of tall buildings is only so large, and most of Manhattan is still occupied by relatively short buildings compared to skyscrapers.
In Things to Come, the comparable city seems to be the one last shown in the film, where the people begin rioting against the space gun. Although it looks very similar to the one in Metropolis, the introductory shots show that it is in fact underground. Although it is enormous, the city acts more like one large building than a cluster of buildings. The courtyard where the riot happens appears more like a lobby than a park.
The two cities look very much alike, but they nevertheless appear to be of a different breed. It is the uber-New York of Metropolis that Wells' found improbable in 1927.
One film that takes an entirely fresh approach to the city of the future is Bladerunner. Even now, you look at it and say, "Seems very likely." There are some tall buildings, but not much. There's just a lot of space, so why go upwards?
ReplyDelete