"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nObviously, I didn't care for Things to Come (aka \"The Shape of Things to Come\") as much as most viewers. That means that there is a good chance that you'll enjoy it more than I did. At any rate, you might find it useful to hear the film described from another point of view.
Directed by William Cameron Menzies, who had as much experience as a production designer and even more as an art director, this is a film adaptation by H.G. Wells of his own novel by the same name. In my eyes, it helps demonstrate why a great novelist may not necessarily turn out to be a great screenwriter.
The film opens in 1940 in a London-like \"Everytown\". War is brewing and the citizens of Everytown are worried that it might reach them. It does. And it turns into a decades-long affair that basically destroys civilization. Wells and Menzies keep jumping forward in time to show us different scenes related to the war and its aftermath. We see two pilots, one downed, coming to terms with the consequences of their fighting. We meet a post-apocalyptic community ruled over by a would-be warlord. We meet a man from a burgeoning futuristic society. We see the way that technology is changing. And finally, we're taken to the full realization of that futuristic society circa 2036, where the leaders are debating the merits of sending man to the moon.
That might all sound potentially very exciting, but it just does not work as a film. Structurally, the film is far too episodic, with little to dramatically tie it together. By the third segment, I completely lost interest in trying to keep track of the characters. I had barely been able to sort them out in the first couple segments. There's a constant parade of new faces. We don't get to learn anything about any of them.
It doesn't help that the individual segments, with a couple exceptions, tend to be awkwardly directed and edited. They are also occasionally manipulative--it can almost begin to feel like a propaganda film. But maybe contradictorily, the segments are also a bit cold and dry emotionally.
In fact, one overlong section is more like a music video/industrial promotional video. If features shots of building the futuristic city, with lots of large machinery, lots of welding, and so on. At one point, a guy who looks like an astronaut waves at the camera through some kind of futuristic glass. The music for this section is somewhere between militaristic and an overblown horror score. I can't say that Things to Come consists of engaging material in terms of drama.
But the common cry in support of Things to Come is that it is \"a film about ideas\". That may be true, but there are a couple problems with it if looked at that way. One, it still doesn't make it work _as a film_, that is, as a visual and aural dramatic artwork, and two, there are far too many ideas presented here.
The principle idea is that of war and what it does to civilizations. That's a fine thing to make a film about. It's also remarkably prescient of World War II, as the Things To Come was scripted and filmed in 1935 (released in 1936). Wells has some interesting things to say about war, some of which go against the usual interpretation of the film. For example, the ending seems to suggest that another war is breaking out, or will at any moment. The overall message seems a trifle pessimistic. Wells seems to be showing that war is simply a part of human nature that cannot be excised, although it doesn't preclude \"progress\"--in fact, maybe it fuels progress, at least indirectly.
That would certainly be enough for one film. However, there are many more ideas here. The scene between the two pilots is one of the more poignant scenes of the film. It deals with a complex dilemma. One pilot has shot the other down, but is now coming to assist him. But the pilot who was shot down was carrying a poisonous gas that is now billowing across the field. They can't both breathe the gas without harm. A girl comes along. They only have two functioning gas-masks between them. The pilot who was shot down offers his mask, as he says he's dying anyway. What to do? It's not that this scene itself could be stretched out to feature length, but the ideas--the bizarre complex of both helping and trying to hurt each other in the midst of a war--are enough to build a film on.
Another example. During the scenes featuring the would-be warlord, in the post-apocalyptic environment, there is a nasty contagious disease called the \"wandering sickness\" going around. It turns victims into something like drunken zombies. The usual procedure is to shoot victims on site in an attempt to stave off the disease. This material is dealt with as if it were an afterthought. It's a great idea and deserved its own film.
Similarly, Wells presents the future society as having controversial socialist ideas. That was enough for its own film, too. It's just impossible to effectively deal with so much stuff in 100 minutes, especially when it's supposed to be the crux of the film in lieu of dramatic attraction.
Still, there are reasons to give Things to Come at least one viewing. If you're at all a sci-fi buff, this is a historically important film. Given Menzies' background, the production and set designs are interesting, even if the cinematography seems extremely dated. It's also interesting to see how Wells was either prescient or retrospectively humorous in his \"predictions\". I particularly enjoyed the means of propulsion to the moon, which was strongly reminiscent of George Méliès' 1902 A Trip to the Moon (aka Le Voyage dans la lune). Just don't expect too much from Things to Come.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"