QUESTION 3: THE FUTURE IN THE PAST

Terry Gilliam’s “tech noir” Brazil (1985), is uneasily pitched somewhere between past and future, generally identifiable yet also quite specific:  the opening text reads “8:49 pm:  Somewhere in the 20^th Century.”  This strange future-past setting of the film is unusual for science fiction which, as a genre, tends to look unapologetically forward.   Even the song ‘Brazil,” which gives the film its title, is from the 1930s.  For this post, contemplate Gilliam’s decision not put forth a vision of the future clearly set in the future as we saw in Things to Come (1936).  Perhaps consider another film, The Matrix (1999), which is much more futuristic and also deals with the idea of humans being a cog in the wheel in a world overrun with machines.  Don’t compare the films, but rather contemplate what you get from Gilliam’s approach that you can’t get from the Wachowski brother’s representation of the future.

Evaluating Sci-Fi films

Science fiction should not be evaluated by its likelihood to our world or even it's logic. It should be evaluated on how creative the world the film makers produce is. The more creative, the more interesting the film. By creative I don't mean a crazy world run by giant toasters that enslave the human race, rather originality and if there is a human element. And if there is how does it interact with the world. In 2001 the human element was in the computer which was creative. HG Wells evaluated metropolis on how logical the world it took place in was. He evaluated the film like a student would evaluate a research paper. He criticized it for taking place 100 years in the future but with the social constraints of 30 years prior. Science fiction does not need to be logical or likelihood of happening if it takes place in the future. It just needs to be original and creative.

How to define science fiction

Science fiction is a hard genre to define, as seen by the numerous different definitions gathered in the article. I personally agree most with Larry Niven's definition of Sci-Fi:
"...The short answer is, science fiction stories are given as possible, not necessarily here and now, but somewhere, sometime." — Larry Niven
Science Fiction stories and films have some sort of connection with reality, as opposed to just fiction or fantasy. Sci-Fi films deal with some sort of future innovation in technology, and convey a message using that advancement in science. The films involve something that doesn't exist in our current society, but is in the realm of possibility. The filmmakers use their imagination to see what the future may hold, and what type of issues or conflicts may arise if our society becomes that way, or continues the way it is today. While there are many definitions in the article, they do all seem to surround the idea of  some sort of development in science which humans have not experienced in our current day. While some films do include real science as their basis for scientific development, I don't think that is a necessity for a film to be a Sci-Fi film, and many times it does not. The fact that most Sci-Fi films include some sort of advancement in science that has not happened yet means that it cannot really be based on "real science". I think the biggest differentiation between SF films and other films is that the films are set in the future or in an alternate reality with technology that doesn't currently exist.

I think that we should evaluate sci-fi films in exactly the same way that we evaluate any other film. And we should evaluate old sci-fi films the same way we evaluate any other old film. This is through the story and the visual appeal of the film. In sci-fi (as in other films) it’s important to pay attention to the believability of the story. I think that the most effective sci-fi films are the ones that incorporate aspects of our own modern lives in a fantastical way. This applies to the themes as well as the fictional technology.  Things to Come  is considered a classic because it deals with the topic of war and progressing technology and society. These are things that were relevant when the movie came out in 1936, and they still are today.

 

Evaluating Science Fiction

I would definitely have to disagree with what H.G Wells said in his review of Metropolis, he was being too critical about the likely hood of the city of Metropolis existing in the future based on how the world was shaped at the time. That simply isn’t the way a Science Fiction film should be looked at, we should expect that the boundaries of ‘life as we know it’ are going to be broken. That when watching a Sci-Fi film we are being shown another parallel or dimension of our own reality or something far from it. When people watch Sci-Fi films they need to be prepared to drop any predisposed judgments on what is likely to happen in the near future and instead judge the film on the most basic aspects; characters, plot line, theme, etc. Attacking a film like Metropolis, for being too improbable, pretty much defies the purpose of a science fiction film.        

Things to Come was a great Sci-Fi movie. Not only because of the 1936 interpretation of what the future will look like but also the accuracy of the story line. Even though the characters were a bit silly and the movie lingered on for a few minutes too long, the prediction of a second world war was very chilling, considering the time it was released. That’s also another fun thing to pay attention to when watching old Sci-Fi films, how accurate or inaccurate was the interpretation of the future in the movie? Instead of rejecting a film because the representation of the future doesn't seem feasible we should embrace it and respect it as a possibility, if not anytime soon, centuries from now because it may just happen...  

-Michael Aguilar