Nicholas Reid reflects in essay form on general matters and ideas related to literature, history, popular culture and the arts. You are free to agree or disagree with him.
Quite some time ago on
this blog, I wrote a “Something Old” essay called “The Slings and Arrows of
Outrageous Fantasy” (look it up on the index at right). In that, I glanced at
the fact that magic-based Fantasy has, in the last half-century, supplanted
science-and-technology-based Science Fiction as a preferred mode of escapism.
There are some obvious
reasons for this. One of them is the quotidian nature of advanced technology
now. We are so used to modern marvels that they no longer give us an
imaginative buzz. Even if (as I did last night) we see on television a woman
controlling a robot arm by brain power, via a gizmo wired into her brain, we
simply shrug and say it’s just another marvel coming out of the laboratories.
Yawn. This is arrogant of us when we consider rationally how much the ingenuity
of scientists should be respected. But you cannot command the popular
imagination on how to react.
So out with techno-based
Science Fiction and in with “Chronicles
of…” this and “Saga of…” that and
Gandalf throwing magic curses about as our chosen form of mind-rot.
There was still the odd
hard-core Science Fiction writer holding out into the 1970s and 1980s. (I think
of Arthur C.Clarke’s 1972 opus Rendezvous
with Rama as the archetypal hard-core SF. It’s essentially a detailed
description of a huge machine.) But they were fighting a losing battle.
There was also the
argument – more popular in the Cold War than now – that after two world wars
and with the nuclear stand-off, people had come to see the malign side of
technology and were no longer so beguiled by Verne-ian or Wellsian visions of
technology providing an endlessly blissful future. Flawed human nature and
Original Sin had reared their heads, as they always do, even in the age of
advanced technology. So we retreated to hippiedom, the New Age, magic, and fat,
pompously-titled volumes about dragons and wizards.
I don’t resile from any
of these arguments and I also make the obvious point that the genres of SF and
Fantasy are not mutually-exclusive and sometimes interpenetrate. Fantastic
bug-eyed monsters sometimes co-exist with spaceships.
But I would not like to
appear too simplistic in the historical judgement I’m making here. After
reflecting on Jules Verne this week, it occurs to me that a particular line of
Fantasy was in full swing at the movies even in the days – the 1950s and early
1960s – when Science Fiction still seemed to rule the literary roost as it had since
the 1920s.
And it came from a most
paradoxical quarter.
This chap Jules Verne.
He’s often called “the father of science fiction” (despite feminist literary
critics claiming that Mary Shelley really created the genre in Frankenstein). Verne’s best-known work
is based on what was, in his age, deemed the latest technology. In his study of
Science Fiction New Maps of Hell (published
in 1960), Kingsley Amis credited Verne as being SF’s founder, but rightly noted
how unreadable so much of Verne’s interpolated “scientific” information is. In
a later essay on Verne, “Founding Father” (published in his collection What Became of Jane Austen, 1970), Amis
also noted that Verne’s general conceptions were more interesting than his
actual writing. True enough. But none of this alters the fact that Verne’s
adventure stories were generally based on technological and scientific ideas
which (no matter how much detail Verne got wrong) were generally considered to
be realisable. They were Science Fiction rather than Fantasy.
But - to at last get to my point after all this
throat-clearing – once Hollywood got hold of Verne, the passage of time had
turned Verne’s works into Fantasy.
Consider this. While
there had been earlier filmed versions of Verne’s works, the golden heyday of
Hollywood’s encounter with Verne was in the 1950s and early 1960s. In the space
of eight years, the following titles came out:
* The Disney production of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954), with James Mason as Captain
Nemo, Kirk Douglas as Ned Land and Peter Lorre as Obligatory Comic Relief.
* Mike Todd’s Around
the World in Eighty Days (1956), a three-hour-long and (sorry) boring
all-star extravaganza, whose main purpose was to show off as many Hollywood
actors as possible in cameo roles. David Niven as Impeccable English Gentleman
and Cantinflas as Obligatory Comic Relief.
* Journey to the
Centre of the Earth (1959), with James Mason as Sober
Swedish Scientist and
pop-singer Pat Boone as Marquee Name to Attract Teenagers.
* The Disney production In Search of the Castaways (1961) (based on Verne’s novel Captain Grant’s Children) with Maurice
Chevalier as Old Singing Frenchman To Amuse Parents and child-star Hayley Mills
as Person To Amuse The Kids.
* A cheapskate Master
of the World (1961) (a mash-up of Verne’s Robur the Conqueror and its sequel) with Vincent Price as
Outrageous Ham.
* Mysterious Island
(1961), made in Britain but with American and British actors, and entirely within the Hollywood
orbit.
* And finally Five
Weeks in a Balloon (1962) with Cedric Hardwicke as Tediously Expository
Scientist, Peter Lorre once again as Obligatory Comic Relief and pop-singer
Fabian, with anachronistic bouffant hair-style, as Marquee Name to Attract Teenagers.
Thereafter,
Verne-derived films weren’t made as often and the series flickered out with
lame and dull efforts like Captain Nemo
and the Underwater City (1969).
Now as it happens,
nearly all these films were made when I was a child and in the habit of
imbibing them on Saturday afternoons at the local flea-pit (just a few years
before television put it out of business).
I made my own peculiar
Kiwi judgments on them.
Far and away the most
entertaining was Journey to the Centre of
the Earth, though years later, when I showed it to my kids on video, they
refused to be moved and outraged by the sequence when Villain kills Harmless
Supporting Character’s pet goose. Insensitive little brats.
The two that tickled me
most at the time were Mysterious Island
and In Search of the Castaways, but
for reasons their producers never intended. Mysterious
Island has a sequence where its heroes, having been swept in their balloon
(by a mighty wind) across the Pacific, come to land on the strange island,
filled with fantastic volcanoes and oversized vegitation. Before they encounter
the elephant-sized crabs and bees, they speculate on where they might be. “It could be Noo Zealand”, says one
American character. That caused gales of laughter in the bug-house.
Though filmed entirely
in a London studio, In Search of the
Castaways has a sequence which really is supposed to be set in New Zealand
and which features real New Zealanders – Inia Te Wiata and a Maori concert
party, doing a savage war-dance to the consternation of Maurice Chevalier,
Hayley Mills et al. The New Zealand depicted, however (pasteboard backdrops and
endless high Fuji-shaped active volcanoes, spitting fire) had the bug house
howling with mirth.
So much for my kiddie
reaction. The big thing to note here, however, is that when Hollywood was
plundering Verne, his scientific and technological marvels had become old hat
and quaint, as had his speculations on what might lie in undiscovered corners
of the Earth.
When we watched Journey to the Centre of the Earth, we
already knew there wasn’t a colony of dinosaurs down there. Indeed we already
knew there wasn’t any way human beings could withstand the pressure just a few
kilometres below the Earth’s surface, let alone at its core. When we watched 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, we no
longer thought submarines per se were
marvels, even if the places where some of them went were still pretty amazing
to us. (It was just four years after the Disney film that the US sub Nautilus, its name taken from Captain
Nemo’s vessel, was the first to travel under the ice of the North Pole).
Statesmen were threatening one another with weapons far more lethal than the
ones Robur persuades warring states to lay aside in Master of the World. As for balloons, they were funny old things in
the same category as buggies and whale-bone corsets.
Verne had always
appealed most to the little boy in everyone, but now he was a source of
harmless, beguiling family entertainment, without any sense of real speculation
(or the real – if ham-fisted – social criticism that Verne sometimes plonked
into his books). Note how some of these movies were Disney productions – and
how most of the ones that weren’t aspired to be. Note the use of child-stars
and pop-singers to get the family audience. Note the recurrence of certain
actors (James Mason, Peter Lorre), creating the impression of a cosy, reliable
family.
So here is the curious
fate of the creator of Science Fiction. He had become the retailer of harmless
Fantasy.
Verne was not the only
one to suffer this fate. Updated movie versions of H.G.Wells’ The War of the Worlds and The
Time Machine still managed to be authentic – and horrific – science
fiction. But the delightful 1964 British production of Wells’ First Men in the Moon was exactly like
the Verne films, revelling in the quaintness of its Victorian technology and
playing up the quirky humour, especially in the scene where Lionel Jeffries
tries to explain to the “Selenites” (moon people) why human beings are stupid
enough to wage war.
Perhaps this fate was
inevitable. What is quainter than yesterday’s conception of tomorrow, once time
has moved on? And what more rapidly becomes a back number than the latest
technology?
Bah
Humbug to your memory stick carrying 30,000 movies. I will continue to watch my
DVD discs until you can give me a memory stick that carries 1,000,000 movies. I
am confident in the knowledge that in less than a century, your memory stick
will be one with the quill pen.
There's a great book from the late 70's called The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which explores what by then was a rich heritage of science fiction writing, and bases the wealth of stories around recurring themes - such as cities and cultures, biologies and environments, future and alternative histories, Utopias and Dystopias, time and nth dimensions, computers, space exploration, robots, etc.
ReplyDeleteThat whole era was remarkably free of fat 'magic-fantasy' volumes, and is instead full of genuinely speculative writing, at a time when science was promising so much over such a wide range.
Of course Jules Verne is mentioned. In his From the Earth to the Moon, the comment is made that his space capsule was the first to be scientifically conceived, but the padded walls and hydraulic shock absorbers would hardly have saved his crew from a violent death in the take-off explosion of 400,000 tons of gun-cotton.
Quite so, Hugh. This point was made by Kingsley Amis among other commentators on Verne. If Verne's primitive astronauts were fired at the speed of a bullet, there is no way that they would survive being pushed back, and squished against, a wall of steel travelling at many thousand ks. p.h. However, Verne was scornful when H.G.Wells' "The First Men in the Moon" was published, as Wells had to imagine an anti-gravity substance to get his travellers to the moon - and Verne said that that was even less scientific than his (Verne's) version. What really interests me here is that many years later, when a film version was made of Wells' "Things to Come" (in 1936 - with the script approved by Wells), Wells had moved bacvk to Verne's concept of a "space gun" to get his astronauts going. [I have seen the film many times.]Ther fact is, neither Verne nor Wells really got it right, and neither of them thought of the liquid fuel solution that Tsiolkovsky and others had already realised was the only practicable form of space locomotion.
ReplyDelete