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.
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.