betsarms | September 20, 2004 01:00 PM

I completely agree on the quality of 30/40 comedic films versus the modern day. Aaah, "The Philadelphia Story" - My husband would argue this point with me, but I think it's a better love story than Casablanca. I guess I'm a sucker for a happy ending.

Speaking of my husband and movies, he's attempting to revive his high school film class next year. The last time he taught the class his kids fell in love with "All About Eve" especially the girls. And the immigrant students (mostly Ukrainian and Hmong) adored all the Chaplin films he showed them - although I think that was a CLAD class (bi-lingual english class). He says it's great fun getting these kids to appreciate GREAT films from the past.

Vardibidian | September 20, 2004 01:43 PM

I wonder why the acting and the writing is bad in the best of the pre-Star Wars science fiction films. I suspect it's because sf was considered inherently bad, and good writers and good actors wouldn't have considered it. Or if they considered it, they considered it to be career suicide. Since Star Wars, the box office appeal has been clear, and since Close Encounters, the career suicide thing has been pretty much out.

I suppose the question is this: can you imagine any top screenwriter who wouldn't consider doing sf? Any top actor who wouldn't? Any top director? But it's hard to imagine Cukor doing R.U.R. or Hitchcock adapting 1984 or Montgomery Clift playing Elijah Bailey.

        ,-V.

Jill Smith | September 20, 2004 01:52 PM

Best wishes to the poster's husband who is trying to revive a high school film class - I took my first film class in high school and it still affects the way I see movies to this day (in a good way!).

I will especially always remember how much we loved Buster Keaton (Charlie Chaplin - yeah, we liked him, but we LOVED Buster). Later in the semester, we screened "Sunset Boulevard," and during the card-playing scene, we all delightedly exclaimed, "BUSTER!" when he briefly graced the set. It was as if the man himself had unexpectedly walked into the room.

Dawn B. | September 20, 2004 01:53 PM

So... did you see Sky Captain yet? What is your take on that?

John Scalzi | September 20, 2004 02:01 PM

Vardibidian wrote:

"But it's hard to imagine Cukor doing R.U.R. or Hitchcock adapting 1984 or Montgomery Clift playing Elijah Bailey."

Basically correct, though there were exceptions -- Robert Wise did "The Day the Earth Stood Still," the screenplay of which was written by Edmund North. Both of these two would go on to win Oscars: Wise for West Side Story and Sound of Music, North for Patton, which was directed by Franklin Schaffner -- who had directed Planet of the Apes. Schaffner also picked up an Oscar for Patton. It's also worth noting that the PoA script was co-written by two-time Oscar-winner Michael Wilson (A Place in the Sun and Bridge on the River Kwai -- although it wasn't until much later that he was acknowledged for Kwai because he was blacklisted at the time). And then there's Kubrick.

But certainly the number of top-line writers/directors who will happily do sf/fantasy is *far* greater now than prior to Star Wars.

Bob Sassone | September 20, 2004 02:03 PM

I thought "Sky Captain" was fantastic. I admit I'm a bit of a geek when it comes to that era, 30s and 40s style and design and architecture. But this film works in many ways that other special effects-laden films don't.

I was amazed at how SUBTLE the special effects are. Because every single thing in the film (except the actors) is a special effect, it doesn't overwhelm you like other movies where the special effects seem out of place or cheesy or devour the story. For a movie that was almost all special effects, this subtlety was surprising. It plops you into the world and assumes that you believe that world, and then gets on with the story.

Some will say that the plot isn't that "original" or the story is "lacking." I don't know about that. It's a genre flick so the plot is going to head in a certain direction. Personally, I think that plot is one of the least important parts of any film (or novel). It's the characters and the writing and the direction and the ideas. And this is a really fun movie: great cast, never boring, some funny one-liners, tons of references (especially "King Kong"), and kick-ass visuals. Hey, that's all I ask for. I'm gonna see it again.

jason | September 20, 2004 02:04 PM

I would say that we're already beyond the Golden Age of SF films, actually. For me the Golden Age starts with Star Wars in '77 (or maybe 2001: A Space Odyssey/Planet of the Apes in '68, depending on how you feel about early '70s SF) and pretty much peters out by the early '90s or so.

It seems to me that most of what's called SF these days is either action or horror set against a science-fiction backdrop.

And Dawn, for whatever it's worth, I saw Sky Captain yesterday and loved it, but then I enjoy stuff like Flash Gordon. Sky Cap is every cliffhanger serial I saw as a kid and every pulp adventure I ever read, all condensed into one convenient package -- it's nonsense, but it's fun.

Dawn B. | September 20, 2004 04:55 PM

I actually saw Sky Captain too this weekend. I enjoyed it. It was funny, upbeat and pretty. I pretty much turned off my brain to the plot out of self-defense. I *like* plots in my movies, but recognize that it isn't always *necessary*.

I agree with John, the subtley of the special effects was just beyond cool! I kept thinking they were on real sets, but I knew they weren't.

Justin H | September 20, 2004 05:00 PM

I'm trying to figfure out where the NEW Star Wars trilogy fits in; on the one hand, they obviously have some damn good special effects (balloon cows notwithstanding). But the plotting is sketchy at best and most of the acting is wooden as an oak desk.

Bob Sassone | September 20, 2004 05:12 PM

Dawn: Actually, it was me who made the special effects comment. Heh...

Mitch Wagner | September 20, 2004 07:21 PM

I watched "Soylent Green" on TV a year or two ago.

I went into it prepared to mock, perhaps to write a high-larious play-by-play of the movie for my blog.

But instead I found it was a damn fine movie.

Adela | September 20, 2004 07:48 PM

Gonna take a dig at you John.
" science fiction is the only genre where you have to handicap. "
Nonsense. There are many comedy and dramas that do not age gracefully and are now dated. What you give as examples are classics wich like literature are the best of the crop and do become timeless. The problem is Sci-fi is the youngest of the genres. The baby of the family. It's childhood is riddled with just as much mistakes as its older siblings; it just they are fresher in our memories and archives. Much of the early bad comedy and dramas are fortunatly "lost" They did not have obsesive packrats going out of their way to preserve them all. Sci-fi is not about the special effects, its about the story. Close your eyes and listen to the story.(well that won't work with Solaris) When enough time passes the best sci-fi will live and the dreck will die(If we kill enough obsesive packrats in archives first). This is not the golen age of sci-fi, yet. I peg it at just finished high scool now in college years.

Dawn B. | September 20, 2004 10:24 PM

*doh* Sorry Bob. Thanks for the correction.

Guy Matthews | September 21, 2004 06:44 AM

"Wizard of Oz has only recently been supplanted by the Lord of the Rings"

Must say I find it very hard to see these two as being in the same category to begin with. Surely films such as Krull or Willow stand in closer competition to LOTR theme and style-wise?

John Scalzi | September 21, 2004 07:17 AM

Guy Matthews says:

"Must say I find it very hard to see these two as being in the same category to begin with. Surely films such as Krull or Willow stand in closer competition to LOTR theme and style-wise?"

Well, sure, they're closer. But "Oz" is indisputably a fantasy, as are the "Ring" films. It's the same species, different breed. Sort of like how a chihuahua and a St. Bernard are the same species, although you wouldn't know it from looking at them.

Brian Ledford | September 21, 2004 07:58 AM

"Sort of like how a chihuahua and a St. Bernard are the same species, although you wouldn't know it from looking at them. "

Are you sure they're the same species? The producing fertile offspring part would be a bit
of a trick.

Vardibidian | September 21, 2004 10:29 AM

Robert Wise and The Day the Earth Stood Still may be the exception that proves, well, doesn't prove much of anything that I can think of. I wonder how it was received (not at the B.O., I mean, but among critics and agents and so on).

As for PotA, well, it may well be that modern SF filmdom starts in 1968, or at least that after 1968 a totally different paradigm applies. Two obvious questions come up, I guess: (a) how did actors' and their agents' experience with the Twilight Zone affect their willingness to do sf movies, and (2) how come the best sf movie between 2001 and Star Wars was directed by Woody Allen? I hope your guide will include a Best SF Flick of each year, by the way.

Oh, and in response to Adela, is science fiction as a written genre any younger than the mystery novel? And you certainly don't have to handicap those; by 1950 there are more all-time great mystery films than there are great sf films by 1980. The distance between the start of the pulps and The 39 Steps is something like thirty years. The distance between the start of the 'Western' story and Stagecoach is less than that, right?

           
-V.

Bill | September 21, 2004 03:56 PM

Ummm, as much as I agree with the rest of the post, I have to take strong exception to the slap at community theater! One rarely finds the heart and soul of performing in most professional theater companies. Example: the professional touring company production of "Children of Eden" that was here in Washington, DC this last spring was nowhere near as well reviewed as the community theater production of it which took place about 30 miles southwest of the city. (Full disclosure: I was in that production, but the reviews do speak for themselves.)

Simon | September 21, 2004 04:42 PM

"Are you sure they're the same species? The producing fertile offspring part would be a bit of a trick."

Don't you remember the Great Wawa from "The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers"?

"My mother was a Great Dane and my father was a Chihuahua. I know what you're thinking: he stood on a chair."

KenL | September 21, 2004 06:21 PM

Um. Don't action movies age rather poorly, too?

Rash | September 22, 2004 01:41 AM

But is "Star Wars" actually Science Fiction?

Methinks John W. Campbell would dismiss it as Space Opera. Certainly there's not much scientific about those dogfights, replete with the sound effects we so enjoy. In that aspect, "2001"s one of the few films to get it right.

'Course nowadays, anything with rockets gets categorized as Sci-Fi, even "Apollo 13."

John Scalzi | September 22, 2004 08:29 AM

Rash says:

"But is 'Star Wars' actually Science Fiction?"

You bet. The ships and laser guns and whatnot are assumed to have come from practical invention -- from mortal minds as opposed to gifts from the gods. The science is implicit (even if it's wrong). Lucas has even rationalized the Force with those damned midichlorians of his.

"Space Opera," which I would also agree SW is, is a category of science fiction.

Mitch Wagner | September 22, 2004 02:25 PM

I tend to define sf vs. fantasy by looking at the furniture. If it gots spaceships, blasters and Galactic Empires, it's science fiction. If it gots dragons, elves and wizards, its fantasy.

That's true even if the science in the science fiction, like "Star Wars," is purest bolonium, or the fantasy, like "Lord of the Rings," is grounded in meticulous research into linguistics, history and folklore.

mark | September 23, 2004 05:37 PM

KenL: no way! Re-watch /Dr No/ some day.

(Okay, most of them do...)