Lo que vendrá

I consider Things To Come (1936) essential viewing for anyone who's at all interested in the history of Science Fiction on celluloid.

Yes - At times Things To Come may be a bit slow and noticeably dated, but all is easily forgiven once the viewer is treated to the spectacle of its impressive "art deco" set designs and the awesome fleet of futuristic aircraft.

Global war takes place in 1940 where the battle is long, dragging on for decades. With nothing being manufactured anymore, society breaks down into primitive, localized communities.

Following a devastating plague in 1966, which almost wipes out everyone on the planet, slowly, but surely an organization called "Wings Over The World" is formed with the sole purpose of rebuilding civilization.

The year is now 2036 and we find the world's population now replenished (to some degree) with everyone living in vast underground cities of tall, gleaming towers and fantastic monorail transportation systems.

For its time, Things To Come is, in many ways, quite impressive. Its screenplay was written by H. G. Wells, which was adapted from his novel called The Shape Of Things To Come.

There are some film classics that we have almost lost. I don't mean the might-have-beens, like Laughton's "I Claudius," but films that were released and quite successful and are now in grave need of rescue. The hallmark of such films is the terrible quality of the available prints because the master negative is lost. "My Man Godfrey" and "Nothing Sacred" come to mind. And, of course, "Things to Come".

If the abstractions of the art deco aesthetic could be reified into a story, "Things to Come" might be the result. If the Chrysler Building really were a rocket ship and could fly past the moon and stars and comets of art deco friezes...if we could look into those naive mindsets, whose visions of man's destiny were being energized by the discoveries of relativity, atomic energy and deep space...we might indeed embrace the images of "Things to Come".

Some of the scenes may strike us a corny - as might those of Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" - but they are no cornier in their context than those in "2001, a Space Odyssey" or, for that matter, "Starship Troopers". Here is an honest attempt to project the world into the future, not some silly cowboys-in-space flick.

"Things to Come" makes only a couple of demands: first, that we ditch our smug sophistication and presentist prejudices; second, that we have the discipline to see past the print quality. It may take repeated viewings, as it did with me, but in the end you will be rewarded by a unique odyssey, not into our future but into the future of history.

Things to Come (1935)

It's tough to make a movie about the future, and it's even tougher when the future overtakes the movie. We saw it literally in "1984" and "2001." And we see it in the tea leaves with movies of the near future like "Minority Report" or "AI" or, just for the fun of it, "Sleeper." Or "Brazil." Or "Twelve Monkeys."

Yes, it can go any number of ways, and a writer and director can look to make things realistic enough to go with the fantasy, or make things fantastic and the hell with realism. I'm not talking the distant future, like "Star Wars" but the kind of future we might live to see, you know, "Planet of the Apes." These kinds of movies are everywhere, and they are a kind of thrill just for their vision of the future.

"Things to Come" was made as Europe was teetering toward war but there was only the Spanish Civil War under way. The way it "foresees" a devastating world war is pretty amazing, even now, as long as you keep the dates straight. When it jumps (after half an hour of some pretty terrific filming) to 1970, it gets more fictional, and we have a primitive future of devastation and a struggling rabble trying to survive, and revive civilization. It's a common way to look at the unknown--to revert to a primitive time--and it's fun and a little overwhelming if you take it seriously. The big theme of war, and of a future society opposed to war, is an old one but who can get tired of it?

The first half hour is a wonder of Soviet Expressionist filming. I know, this is a British movie, very British (except, oddly, the director Menzies), but it looks like Eisenstein both filmed it and edited it, and the effect is amazing. If you only have half an hour, watch just this first part and don't worry too much about the plot. The remainder of the movie settles down, and looks a little like either "Intolerance" (yes, 1916 stuff, with big outdoor sets) or "Caligari" (German Expressionist interiors, tamed down a bit). In a word, this is an old fashioned movie in the best way--it's artsy and exuberant. And it's not forward looking for a movie about the future until it reaches the 21st Century, and then it gets amazingly right the prevalence of imagery, of transparent, electronic images on screens large and small, even if they are wearing Roman togas.

H.G. Wells not only wrote the original novel, but he wrote the screenplay, which makes the movie significant through and through. It is sometimes ponderous and trying too hard to be idealistic amidst human instinct for violence and control. After a fabulous (fabulous) montage sequence to move us ahead another half century, we continue the rather boring discussion (talk) about the future of the world, and the value of civilization. It's amazing to look at, but it's not an exciting thing to hear discussed. In short, it lacks plot. Luckily it has a lot of other stuff to compensate.

Aside from the great movie METROPOLIS, this is about the oldest pure sci-fi movie. While at times the film is a bit preachy and the acting can be a bit broad, it is a great film for two reasons. First, it is extremely original in both style and content. Even in the 21st century, there are no films I can think of that are anything like it. Second, for its time, the special effects were absolutely incredible--using matte paintings, models and huge casts to create amazing scenes of both a post-apocalyptic world and a vast city of tomorrow. Sure, you could sit back and knock the film because, by today's standards, the effects are only so-so. But, you must appreciate that this was state of the art when the film came out in 1936 and it must have really amazed audiences. In many ways, the sets look highly reminiscent of the "modern cities" featured at the 1939 WORLD'S FAIR.

I think the movie is also interesting because it seems torn by the question "are people really THAT stupid or are we destined for greatness?" The end result seems to be a little of both! How true!

A final note: I saw this twice on TV and just a short time ago on video. All three times the sound and print quality stank--particularly the sound. If this is available on a DVD, hopefully it is a lot cleaner and will provide optional captioning. As the sound on the video kept cutting out, I really would have appreciated this!

Powerful, yet creaky science fiction film from the 30's by the Korda clan. H. G. Wells's work is brought to the screen as a vision of what warfare will bring mankind in the century to follow. The film shows the destructive nature of war and how is will catapult us back to a state of barbarism, warlords, and another Black Death-like plague called the "wandering Sickness." However, because man clings to science, man will rise above all this and create a new, modern society free of warfare. The film has a lot of historical inaccuracies to its discredit NOW, yet much of what is preaches is plausible sometime, and much of it has some truth to it in some form. The theme that man can prevail and keep discovering/conquering new vistas is a laudable one. The film shows that progress and science are the things which advance us as a people. I thought of Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged as I heard one of the characters say something to the effect that the scientists/inventors had formed their own civilization, free of corruption and violence. The pace of the film is somewhat tortoise-like at times, yet many scenes are very compelling. The set designs are outstanding in the futuristic world of 2036(where they valiantly try to put a rocket in space to make a preliminary orbit around the moon). Acting is good with Raymond Massey and Cedric Hardwicke giving good performances, but it is Ralph Richardson as a "Boss" who deserves the most praise for giving a powerful performance of a man with inherent human traits that stymie progress. A though-provoking film indeed!