Next month marks the 25th anniversary of Blade Runner, one of the best science fiction movies in the past, well, twenty-five years if not the entire history of the genre. And the history of science fiction in film is practically as old as motion pictures, themselves. In fact, you can see the very first science fiction film, Georges Melies’ 105 year old Le Voyage dans la Lune, here. Okay, so the special effects weren’t so hot, but this is well before Computer Generated Imagery (CGI), after all.
So, in fact, was Blade Runner, but it holds up remarkably well compared to many of the sci-fi films that follow. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey and a handful of films in between, Blade Runner holds up today both because its effects were meticulously crafted and intended to contribute to the overall film rather than being its raison d'être, and because it was a serious film intended for serious, intelligent film and science fiction fans. Then, again, given (1) that the motion picture industry is first and foremost an industry and (2) judging from the fan ratings at the iMDB Top 50 Rated Sci-Fi Films, it would have to be said that serious, intelligent science fiction films have been few and far between.
In fact, in Constant Viewer’s highly biased view, the only movie on that list that gives Blade Runner a run for its money in the last 25 years is The Matrix. The only other great science fiction film of the past 25 years that CV can think of didn't even make the list; namely, Dark City. (That CV’s three top science fiction films of the last quarter-century are all dystopias probably says much about CV’s world view, but there it is.)
Much has been written about Blade Runner and The Matrix; little has been written about Dark City. With strong roots in German Expressionism and also considerable homage to Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, this 1998 movie by Alex Proyas (The Crow; I, Robot) actually preceded The Matrix by a year, though CV has read comments calling it a Matrix knockoff. In fact, the films are similar in some thematic respects. Both also have dazzling special effects, a genuinely interesting story to tell and a strong cast (notwithstanding CV’s general opinion of Kenau Reeves.) Dark City's great cast includes Rufus Sewell, William Hurt, Kiefer Sutherland, Jennifer Connelly, Richard O’Brien and Ian Richardson in a story about a city in perpetual darkness where sinister alien forces manipulate the lives of the city’s denizens. To tell more would be to tell too much; but if you haven’t seen Dark City, and chances are that you haven’t, CV strongly urges you to check it out at the local video store. It isn’t quite up to The Matrix or Blade Runner, but it’s a hell of a lot better than most of the sci-fi films made before or after it.
Science fiction movies have both profited and suffered from the relentless march of both film and real-life technology. It is a commonplace observation that sci-fi says more about whatever present time it is created in than about the future; hence, for example, the endless stream of radiation created monsters in the 50’s and 60’s and the various space alien surrogates for whatever terrestrial menaces we faced or thought we faced back then. Still, it is usually painful to watch even a merely 25 year old vision of the future when the now dated computer consoles and various “futuristic” gizmos and gadgets are trotted out on the screen. (And how was Stanley Kubrick or Arthur C. Clarke supposed to know that Pan Am wouldn’t even make it to 2001, let alone to the moon?)
Like real westerns fifty years ago, space westerns have been both the most popular and the least sustaining sci-fi products of contemporary films. Lucas couldn’t squeeze three decent movies out of his Star Wars franchise because there was barely enough juice in the original movie to justify a single sequel. Special effects aside, it was all white hats and black hats and shoot-em-up at the O.K. Space Corral. So, too, even Spielberg finally had to grow up and give up the sci-fi feel-good pabulum of Close Encounters and that diabetes-inducing sugar-teat for three-year-olds of all ages, E.T.
As for the sequels to the original The Matrix, the less said the better. CV doesn’t blame the Wachowski brothers for cashing in, but he does blame them for pretending that wasn’t what they were doing all along. When Dante wrote his two soporific sequels to the Inferno, at least he had the excuse that he was writing an adaptation.
CGI technology has now extended the movies’ ability to realistically bring to the screen literally anything imaginable. So far, it has largely gone to waste on superheroes and special effects for special effects’ sake. Don’t get CV wrong – he’ll enjoy taking his son to see Spider-Man 3 soon like half a gazillion other fans. But is it too much to ask that the next 25 years yields more than just a few truly great science fiction films?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Blade Runner is my favorite film of any genre, and I would rate The Matrix and Dark City very highly as well.
What about Alien and Aliens? Children of Men? Brazil?
It must be insanely hard to get a serious science fiction film made, with all the pressure to dumb it down and make it easier to sell. That said, the last quarter century has been a big improvement on the previous one for science fiction films.
During the late 60s/early 70s, an artistic peak for Hollywood, we got Planet of the Apes and Logan's Run. And, to be fair, 2001 as well, although I don't think it comes close to the quality of the best recent films both of us mentioned. Before that, Invasion of the Body Snatchers...Them. I'm sure I'm forgetting something better, but I still think the best science fiction films now are far better than those of our childhood.
I'm very fond of the first Alien flick and would rate it highly, too. Less so any of the sequels, though Aliens was the best of that batch. Gilliam's work has never much appealed to me and, for all its sci-fi trappings, I'd call Brazil more of a fantasy than a work of science fiction. Of course, there's no hard and fast line here.
I can't for the life of me understand the generally positive response to Children of Men. Aside from the utter absence of production values (even for an indie budget), I found the shaky handy-cam work annoying and neither the premise nor the acting all that compelling. [shrug]
For its time, 2001 was technically superb. I don't know how old you are, but those shots of the people moving about on the space station right side up or upside down were a damned fine piece of film making. Sure, the ending "light show" looks hokey now but, to tell the truth, it did back then too -- at least if you weren't stoned when you watched it.
Anyway, I don't know how I'd flesh out my "top three" to a top ten list and I have very mixed feelings about CGI and such. We have lost our innocence, as it were, when it comes to what the screen can show us. The technology has the potential to be very liberating creatively, but it also makes it that much harder for audiences to be thrilled by the imagery, and that's sad.
And during the 1980s, we had "Enemy Mine"; which raised awareness among us bigoted Texans that the Russians and Muslims - er, - dracks - indeed Loved Their Children Too. Snore.
Highlight: the protagonist name-checking the Houston Oilers. Bahahah!
Post a Comment