April 28, 2007 Fathers of Sci-fi NIght

April, 2007 at Flying Bear Theatre
Saturday, the 28^th of April 2007
‘Fathers of Sci-fi Night’

Film 1: '20,000 Leagues Under the Sea'

from Wikipedia
Jules Gabriel Verne (February 8, 1828–March 24, 1905) was a French author and a pioneer of the science-fiction genre. Verne was noted for writing about cosmic, atmospheric, and underwater travel before air travel and submarines were commonplace and before practical means of space travel had been devised. He is the third most translated author in the world, according to the Index Translationum statistics. Some of his books have been made into films.

Underwater photography was hardly new in 1954, but never had it been used so extensively nor to such visually beautiful effect, and the art designs--particularly those for the Nautilus--are justly celebrated. But for all its beauty, it is the performances which make the film work. James Mason does not merely play Nemo, he seems to be Nemo; after seeing his performance it is impossible to imagine any other actor in the role. Paul Lukas adds yet another brilliantly understated performance to his memorable career, and while Kirk Douglas and Peter Lorre are hardly the Ned Land and Conseil of the Verne novel they have surprising chemistry and lend the film considerable dash.

At the time of its release, LEAGUES was the single most expensive motion picture ever made (ironically it would loose that dubious distinction later that same year to yet another film featuring James Mason: A STAR IS BORN), and every penny of the money spent shows in the onscreen result. While many of Disney's live-action films are fondly recalled, few have had enduring fame, much less claim to status as art--but LEAGUES is the exception, and although the episodic nature of the story seems a shade languid from time to time it remains both a landmark and one of the most influential films of its decade. Truly enjoyable from start to finish.

Though not a science-fiction novel, radioactive decay plays a small but consequential role in Tono-Bungay. It plays a much larger role in The World Set Free (1914). This book contains what is surely his biggest prophetic "hit." Scientists of the day were well aware that the natural decay of radium releases energy at a slow rate for thousands of years. The rate of release is too slow to have practical utility, but the total amount released is huge. Wells's novel revolves around an (unspecified) invention that accelerates the process of radioactive decay, producing bombs that explode with no more than the force of ordinary high explosive— but which "continue to explode" for days on end. "Nothing could have been more obvious to the people of the earlier twentieth century," he wrote, "than the rapidity with which war was becoming impossible... [but] they did not see it until the atomic bombs burst in their fumbling hands." Leó Szilárd acknowledged that the book inspired him to theorise the nuclear chain reaction.

I sound like an old man when I say that there are movies back in the day that are better than the slickest modern production, even when the movies outdate ME. Maybe because today's filmmakers are so much in love with CGI effects that they feel they can replace little, unimportant things like plot, storyline and character development. That's why I've steadfastly refused to see Spielberg's version of this classic; I don't want anything to tarnish my memory of what I consider, as a kid growing up and today, one of the best sci-fi films ever made.

Folks hold up "Forbidden Planet" as the quintiscencial science fiction film of all time, and while I'd never quibble with other people's opinion, I believe this movie gives that one a serious run for its money. First of all, for its relatively short running time, we are given everything that I mentioned earlier, and it doesn't feel rushed. Purists complain that there were too many changes to the source material, but period films are period films, at least according to the thought of that time, and sci-fi is sci-fi. To stage a '50s film adaptation of H.G. Wells ACTUALLY IN Victorian England would've been a bit much for the audience seeing it in a cinema. The changes, once you get settled into the story, are really minor, and actually help add to the enjoyment of the movie.

And they do add breadth to "War Of The Worlds," for we see glimpses of how the rest of the world is faring with the Martian Invasion. Other countries get their collective butts kicked, and we see it happen live. We see the failure of a purely military solution to a lifeform that has superior technology and not the least bit of concern for the other beings already on their new home. Is it a metaphor for the "Red Menace" mentality of the time? A little bit, but there's also a hint that, for all the power the U.S. Armed Forces has, simple military solutions aren't going to cut it. In its way, this movie is more progressive in "political" tone than others of its time or type.

Finally, we have the special effects, which actually hold up well to the effects of today. Yep, digital transfers, done well, allow us to see the wires and supports holding up spaceships, and somehow that alien arm just seems....cheezy, when compared to what's possible with today's techniques and budgets, but they knew how to use what they had. More importantly, they knew what to show and what not to show. The aliens themselves were troublesome and balky, not to mention they had the habit of falling apart when moved too much, so we were left with mostly our imagination as the filmmakers used shadow, music, and brief glimpses of the Martians' technology, bodies, and hands to create the horror they wanted us to feel. Their techniques worked then, and they still work today.

So, what can be said of a movie that's really "timeless?" Compare some of Hollywood's most lavish productions in recent years to a movie made when special effects REALLY had to be slaved over, and "War Of The Worlds" tops out every single time.