To help promote Arisia, a Boston area convention held in January, volunteers have launched "Arisia TV." It's a website where they hope to have lots of SF content that will be of interest to fans and which will, not so incidentally, promote the con. As a long-time participant, I was asked to do a series of brief vignettes on SF films focusing on the theme "The Five Essential Science Fiction Movies." In my introduction to the series, I pointed out that such lists are interesting but are more points for discussion rather than definitive judgments.
Of course I couldn't resist the challenge, and my choices were a mix of the obvious and the quirky. I limited myself to no more than one film per decade so that once I picked "Forbidden Planet," all those other great '50s films were out of the running. Fortunately it's only an exercise—
I'd start with the George Melies 1902 short "A Trip to the Moon." It's a film that still delights more than a century later, from the chorus line seeing off the rocket to the Man in the Moon getting it right in the eye. Of course, the most important of all the silent feature-length SF films—
So that leaves the fifth film. The general consensus—
The story, based on the book by H. G. Wells, takes place in "Everytown"—
Future history then veers off from the world we know, as the war continues not for a few years but for a few decades. By the 1960s Everytown is more rubble than city, and the "government" consists of the Boss (Ralph Richardson), a petty tyrant who promises peace while continuing the fight. The "enemy" is no longer a foreign power, but the people in the rubble of the next community. What's fascinating about the sequence is its pre-atomic view of a post-apocalyptic world. There's a struggle with the outbreak of the mysterious "Wandering Sickness," a plague for which there is no cure but death. Finally it subsides and people can start rebuilding. No one is worrying about radiation, yet they are pessimistic about the restoration of civilization. The Boss wants airplanes, but there's no "petrol" for fuel, and young mechanic Richard Gordon (Derek DeMarney) doesn't think the planes they have will ever work. He bleakly tells his girlfriend that humanity will never return to the skies. This is even more frightening than the "Wandering Sickness." It's the notion that society can be so badly damaged in war that we will actually regress to more primitive conditions, unable to repair the destruction.
Of course that's the signal for the arrival of a plane, flown by a much older John Cabal, representative for Wings Over the World. Cabal's arguments with the Boss are fascinating in no small part because we know we're supposed to be on Cabal's side since he represents peace, progress, and technology—
The story jumps forward once more, now to 2036. Cabal's great-grandson Oswald (also Massey) is now a leader of an Eden-like Everytown. Director William Cameron Menzies devotes several shots to how it was constructed and transformed. Civilization has not only come back; it has greatly advanced. For viewers in 1936, this glimpse of a world a hundred years hence must have been truly amazing. Yet all is not well. There is grumbling about plans to send a rocket to the moon. The sculptor Theotocopulos (Cedric Hardwicke) goes on worldwide television to rouse the populace against the "space gun" arguing, "What good is all this progress?"
This last part focuses on whether the mob or the scientists will prevail, with the film's conclusion going to Oswald--who would sound almost cold-blooded if we didn't consider him the story's hero. He allows that people will die as mankind moves into space, but what's important is progress and the advancement of knowledge. When his colleague asks when we get to rest and enjoy ourselves, Oswald sardonically notes that rest—
This is intelligent SF filmmaking that focuses on ideas as much—
"Things to Come" is not some musty relic relying on its past reputation, but an important part of the pantheon of SF cinema. As with any classic or overly literary novel, it may take some time to get in sync with the story, but it is worth the effort. Serious fans should sit down to a showing of "Things to Come" with the same attention with which they consider the issues of "2001," "Blade Runner" or "Gattaca." This isn't cheese. This is filet mignon.

COMMENTS!
Aug 6, 04:46 by IROSF
Article can be found here.
[ Edited: Aug 6, 04:56 ] [ Reply ]
Aug 6, 14:12 by b. lynch black
[ Edited: Nov 30, 00:00 ] [ Reply ]
Aug 6, 14:49 by Nader Elhefnawy
And it really is regrettable that a better, more complete print isn't available.
[ Edited: Aug 6, 14:53 ] [ Reply ]
Aug 6, 17:07 by Nancy Beck
Unfortunately, I've never seen it, but I have a slew of movie books, and one of those books (I believe it's United Artists) had a decent review of it. (At least I think that's the studio that released it in the U.S., since I think one of the Kordas had a seat on UA's board).
It's a shame so many really good films fall into disrepair (I have a DVD of My Man Godfrey, and the print is awful).
~Nancy
[ Edited: Aug 6, 17:08 ] [ Reply ]
Aug 7, 01:34 by Robert Lee
If I were going to throw a mostly-forgotten ringer in my top five pre-1950s SF movies, I think I'd have to go with Just Imagine. Not only is it the first SF feature from a Hollywood studio, but it's full of pre-code gay humor and slights against Henry Ford's anti-semitism. *And* it's full of dance numbers...even though they're all kinda crap and have nothing to do with the movie.
[ Edited: Nov 30, 00:00 ] [ Reply ]
Aug 11, 06:55 by Daniel M. Kimmel
As for the person who prefers "Just Imagine," which I've seen twice, I'll say it's a matter of taste. I find "Just Imagine" a curio that has a few interesting moments but is largely embarrassing to watch today, particularly the supposed comic stylings of the mercifully forgotten "El Brendel."
But opinionated as I am, I believe that anyone who has seen a film is entitled to their own opinion of it. :)
[ Edited: Aug 11, 13:00 ] [ Reply ]
Aug 12, 21:57 by Robert Lee
"And my new book on romantic comedies includes a chapter on "My Man Godfrey," one of my favorites."
I love both versions, although the '36 Powell and Lombard movie is preferable in a pinch. Weirdly enough, I already had I'll Have What She's Having saved in my list of upcoming books to get, and didn't make the connection when I read your piece here. I got my earliest education in movies watching old ones with my mom and sister, and have been left with a great big lifelong love of what are sometimes sniffed at as "chick flicks." How could I not want to read that book?
[ Edited: Nov 30, 00:00 ] [ Reply ]
Aug 13, 01:10 by Jim Belfiore
I've been wrapping up editing on some of the other segments, and I have to say, I need to put you on the spot more often. ;-)
[ Edited: Nov 30, 00:00 ] [ Reply ]
Aug 29, 16:08 by Michael Andre-Driussi
Lately I have been mulling over a comparison of the British "Things to Come" (1936) with the American "Meet John Doe" (1941). The British film seems to say democracy is a luxury that cannot be afforded in the post-apocalyptic world. The American film fears Hitlerism coming in the form of Populism, with secret capitalist backing--this in a country reshaped by FDR for eight years out of an eventual 12 years. The internally directed paranoia is stunning--Trust Government, Question Grass Roots Movements, and Hate the Domestic Enemy. It is like a Red-Scare film, but not directed at communists.
The strange myopia. The British clearly saw the war coming and were right on that, but their fictional solution was disturbingly Hitlerian. The Americans engaged in an exercise in Orwellian thought policing, and yet by year's end they were involved in the real war against Germany and Japan. Bad timing, that.
[ Edited: Nov 30, 00:00 ] [ Reply ]
Want to Post? Evil spammers have forced us to require login:
Sign In