La vita futura

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!

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.

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.

While this film stands the test of time as a science fiction classic, its importance may not lie in its depiction of future wars, pestilence, and rebuilding. The most telling prediction comes in the latter part of the film -- the worker revolt. I disagree with the premise that workers would revolt out of fear of space travel. But, the idea of revolt out of fear of what technology is (and will) do to their lives is a real fear. Even today.

Sociologists who've read the Unibomber's manifesto have said that, while his methods and mentality were unsound, some of his suppositions on the effects of automation on humanity were plausible. We've evolved from a craft culture (human) to a mechanized culture (where humans used machines to meet the needs of humans) to an automated culture (where humans are expected to adapt themselves to the needs of their machines). Don't believe it? Pull a check out of your checkbook and look on the back. You'll find the words "Do not write below this line." This is NOT a request or suggestion, it's an ORDER to conform to the needs of machines that read checks.

Still, the film clearly illustrates a future that will eventually occur -- one where some people put all their trust and faith in our modern marvels -- while others left powerless and impotent by these modern marvels ask whether this progress was worth the price.

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.