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
No comments:
Post a Comment