@RUTGERS.ARPA:FIRTH@TL-20B.ARPA (02/19/85)
From: FIRTH@TL-20B.ARPA [ moderator: this is a long post; please edit at your discretion ] We have had some fun discussing the worst SF films, but the challenge still stands, to name the best SF films. I find that a hard challenge, and would like to take a little time to explain why. What is a good film? As a first test, one can apply to a film the objective criteria of criticism, namely what is the author's intention? how reasonable is that intention? how well does the author carry it out? This at least removes from consideration movies like "Dark Star" (where no intention is discernable), "Things to Come" (where the intention, of documenting an entire future history, is clearly absurd), and "Dune" (where the execution is manifestly inadequate). This does not get us very far. For example, it leaves in contention films such as "King Kong" and "The Man who fell to Earth"; both are excellent as films, but I find both unsatisfactory as SF films. And for the same reason: they lack a scientific "what if" premiss. So I shall add the criterion that the movie must contain some extrapolation from an assumption, plausible or implausible. Finally, a personal view. For me, a film is an historical document; it cannot be taken out of its time, place, and culture. If you care, I can say that the film does not seem to me the true art form - the true art form is the animated movie, and "Fantasia" or "Yellow Submarine" transcend the circumstances of place and time that are the essence of "Casablanca" or "A Passport to Pimlico". And so, I looked for SF films that were - technically excellent - in the tradition of mainstream SF - in keeping with the spirit of their time As the last criterion, I looked for films that, whether intentionally or not, were "one of a kind" - not imitating, but imitated. And finally, to keep the list short, I arbitrarily took one movie per decade. The result (according to one biased observer): Fritz Lang : Metropolis (1926) Frank Capra : Lost Horizon (1937) Rudolph Mate' : When Worlds Collide (1951) -- (for the 40's) Fred McLeod Wilcox : Forbidden Planet (1956) Roger Vadim : Barbarella (1967) Here I stop, being able neither to ignore "2001" nor to accept it. Robert Firth -------
rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (02/20/85)
[] You had a good idea, but your execution was poor. Your list is ok, but if you prefer soft core porno to sf, we part company. Your list should drop Barbarella and add the three greatest sf films of all time: Destination Moon 2001 Star Wars Sure Star Wars is more than sf. So is Barbarella. -- "It's the thought, if any, that counts!" Dick Grantges hound!rfg
rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (02/20/85)
[] p.s.: Damn! I forgot Blade Runner. -- "It's the thought, if any, that counts!" Dick Grantges hound!rfg
leeper@ahuta.UUCP (m.leeper) (02/21/85)
REFERENCES: <688@topaz.ARPA> At the risk of boring most people who know me, I would say that the science fiction film that has impressed me the most for its sophisticated ideas and quality of narrative is QUATERMASS AND THE PIT, known in this country by the forgetable title FIVE MILLION YEARS TO EARTH. In this the British start by digging a subway tunnel in London and by the end of the film they have explanations for telekinesis, ghosts, race memories, race prejudice, similar myths in different cultures, and a heck of a lot more. The BBC tv-play, shown at Seacon, was even better than the film and a little less cryptic at times. I cannot remember reading a novel as thought provoking as this film. The story was by Nigel Kneale, one of a series of tv-plays he did revolving around a fictional rocket scientist, Bernard Quatermass. Incidently, while I have your attention, anyone out there know where I can get a VHS copy of a very good and almost unknown science fiction film called UNEARTHLY STRANGER. It is quite a good science fiction tale and done in black and white with no special effects at all. That is probably why it disappeared. Watch for it, though. It is really worth it. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!ahuta!leeper