Things to Come

This sci-fi masterpiece has too many flaws after the editors had butchered it after its opening in 1936. Visually it is a wonder to behold, but the script allows too many intellectual speeches about war and progress.This gets very corny when the actors are given to recite a lot of high minded messages at all times.Raymond Massey and Cedric Hardwicke,both great actors,come off as quite a pair of fanatics. Ralph Richardson is very good as the "The Boss" a megalomaniac warlord. The prediction of World War II was very eerie considering that the world was on the brink of the most devastating conflict in human history at the time. I'm sure glad that war didn't turn out as it did in the movie. There are some visually stunning montage sequences bridging the leaps of time between the movie's different episodes. Although its not as entertaining as I hoped it would be,this movie sticks in your mind long after you've seen it.

Things to Come is that rarity of rarities, a film about ideas. Many films present a vision of the future, but few attempt to show us how that future came about. The first part of the film, when war comes to Everytown, is short but powerful. (Ironically, film audiences in its release year laughed at reports that enemy planes were attacking England--appeasement was at its height. Wells' prediction was borne out all too soon.) The montage of endless war that follows, while marred by sub-par model work, is most effective. The explanatory titles are strongly reminiscent of German Expressionist graphic design. The art director was the great William Cameron Menzies, and his sets of the ruins of Everytown are among his best work. Margaretta Scott is very seductive as the Chief's mistress. The Everytown of the 21st century is an equally striking design. The acting in the 21st century story is not compelling--perhaps this was a misfired attempt to contrast the technocratic rationality of this time with the barbarism of 1970. Unfortunately, the model work, representing angry crowds rushing down elevated walkways, is laughably bad and could have been done much better, even with 30s technology. This is particularly galling since the scenes of the giant aircraft are very convincing. This is redeemed by Raymond Massey's magnificent speech that concludes the film--rarely has the ideal of scientific progress been expressed so well. Massey's final question is more relevant now than ever, in an era of severely curtailed manned spaceflight. The scene is aided by the stirring music of Sir Arthur Bliss, whose last name I proudly share.

Unfortunately, the VHS versions of this film are absolutely horrible, with serious technical problems. Most versions have edited out a rather interesting montage of futuristic workers and machines that takes us from 1970 to 2038. I hope a good DVD exists of the entire film.

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.

While a bit preachy on the topic of progress as the saving grace of mankind, this is still a stunning film that presages the science-fiction special effects blockbusters that would take another 40 years to arrive on the silver screen. It predicts the global chaos of WWII, but expands on the premise by having the conflict last 30 years, and then tells the epic tale of man's struggle out from under the rubble and into the wilds of space. The acting seems wooden and strangely sterile, but this is perhaps a result of its contrast with the visuals which must have been utterly breathtaking at the time of the movie's release, and which still impress today. This is a film not to be missed by anyone at all interested in the SF genre.

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!