Skip to main content

We're the last trustees of civilisation when everything else has failed.

Things to Come
(1936)

(SPOILERS) Turgid, lifeless and inert. That’s the future for you. Apparently, HG Wells’ influence over the production of Things to Come has been overstated, although it seems he did manage to ensure the magnificent Ernest Thesiger was replaced by Cedric Hardwicke; more’s the pity for any hopes the picture had of any spark of wit or humour. Whether or not Wells was kept at arm’s length, Things to Come carries intact a wearying surfeit of pompous speechifying and dry staging. Yes, there’s impressive spectacle here – some of it still impressive – but there’s nary a nudge of narrative tension. What there is, is an abundantly alarming approval of benevolent dictatorship, one that opportunistically reaps the benefits of the twin scourges of war and disease. That, and an unswerving faith in the triumph of scientific materialism as equated with progress.

These elements are sketched in broad strokes, more rudimentary and less detailed than in the writer’s 1933 tract The Shape of Things to Come; Wells wanted to direct his adaptation too, but common sense, or a degree of it, won out. Art director William Cameron Menzies took the reins instead, but directing was never his strongest suit. The refuge of the apologist is to profess that Things to Come was impressive at the time and still deserves respect on that basis. However, it didn’t exactly wow audiences then, barely scraping into the year’s Top 20 films in Britain.

And today, it stands as, at best, a curio. No one touts the source material’s prescience the way they do Wells’ fellow eugenicist and inside man Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World of a few years’ earlier, or the film’s resonance in the manner of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, of which Wells was highly critical (“quite the silliest film” as quoted by Time Out critic Chris Wicking). Indeed, it’s easy to believe the assertion that any window of relevance the picture held had vanished by the time the war it did manage to predict took place – or was it an early instance of predictive programming? – since it only went to emphasise all the things it failed to get remotely right: everything else. Albeit, I think such accuracy is actually neither here nor there – 2001: A Space Odyssey didn’t fall through the cracks because it failed to reflect where we were at. Rather, Things to Come falters because it offers nothing else besides its slightly facile predictions. Crucially, interesting characterisations and dramatic scenarios are starkly absent.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the written original’s anti-religious scouring is soft pedalled, so as to avoid ruffling audiences’ feathers. And there’s no mention of English – naturally – becoming the standard language for all. Wells’ “Wings Across the World” New World Order arises from the ashes of a thirty-year war beginning in 1940, and about the closest the film comes to explicit religious referencing is an opening that desecrates the cosy nostalgia of Crimbo, with its “World on the Brink of War” headlines heralding the dropping bombs. “If we don’t end war, war will end us” warns Raymond Massey’s heroic visionary John Cabal, almost Randian in his quest and just as rigid, the occasional snappy soundbite aside. I suppose one might charitably suggest Wells’ thirty years of combat takes in WWII, Korea and Vietnam, but something is seriously askew if things are envisaged to start coming together in the 1970s.

There’s little in the way of punch to the depiction of the societal degeneration that leads to rise of feudal warlords as personified by Ralph Richardson Richardson’s Rudolf, aka the Boss. Richardson was apparently aping Mussolini, but a natty sheepskin aside, he’s a bit of a bore (the actor’s just too refined for the part, and can’t disguise it). I think I even prefer the stolid Massey. Before we’re introduced to the Boss, though, we’ve seen Cabal unconvincingly soliloquising over shooting down the enemy ("Why does it have to come to this? God, why do we have to murder each other?") and the rolling by of the years (1945, 1955, 1960). Then there’s the announcement of a biowarfare agent, personified by the Wandering Sickness; it’s a “fever of mind and body” – don’t drink the water – that leaves its victims as less flesh-prone zombies. Presumably, it’s contagious – Wells is fully pasteurised – as those with it are swiftly shot. That, and it’s likened to Black Death in the Middle Ages (“It killed more than half the human race”).

John, meanwhile has disappeared, forming his own, er, cabal of like minds. He re-emerges with a shock of white hair, clad symbolically in black – he’s a grim reaper announcing the end life as the proles know it – and sporting a pre-Prometheus space helmet. Cabal has no sooner landed his aircraft – planes are a BIG deal in this future, bafflingly – and instantly begins dictating terms, despite being held at gun point. Which would be impressive if his presumption wasn’t so obnoxious.

With such queasy phrasing as “the brotherhood of efficiency, the freemasonry of science” he decrees that war “has to vanish. Like the tyrannosaurus and the sabre-toothed tiger”. As such, anyone planning to act under their own recognises can jolly well forget it: “Our new order has an objection to private planes” he informs the Boss. And, just to make it crystal clear, “We don’t approve of sovereign states”. Like all those bent on realising their big idea, John is chillingly pragmatic, accusing the Boss of being a traitor to civilisation and showing no emotion when he winds up dead. For their own good, to save them from themselves, everyone else has been gassed into unconsciousness – that’s all, allegedly, although things didn’t turn out very well for the Boss, now did they? – doubtless to awake chipped and vaccinated in a gleaming white future that doesn’t so much beckon as strongarm its way into existence: “Now for the rule of the airmen and a new life for mankind”. Certainly, the way things have unfolded, there’s scant need for a massive cull to arrive at a manageably-sized population for Cabal’s future vision. Events couldn’t have worked out better if they had followed the Georgia Guidestones.

In its own rather feeble way, this middle section at least offers some parrying of ideas, as undernourished as they are. The final 2036 sequence is the one that delivers on all the utopian dreams, which means it’s unsurprisingly dull. Well, it would have to be. They got rid of Thesiger, didn’t they? Theotocopulos, Hardwicke’s character, is a dissatisfied sculptor who doesn’t believe things have really got any better, despite all the white surfaces and the living longer. Hence his suggestion “Suppose someone shouted to the world ‘Make an end to this progress!’?” As political tracts go, it isn’t exactly nuanced. His stance lacks even the allure of even Luddism. It’s just someone being reactionary because his art isn’t all that. In fairness, while it would have been nice if there had been a little more substance to his position, it’s about as deep as the idea that there won’t be any war again, “Not if progress goes on”. Which is tantamount to Alec Baldwin’s “Always be closing” mantra in Glengarry Glenn Ross.

Besides, who could fail to see the allure of this future? There are widescreen TVs, disease is banished, and good diet is a requisite (“Colds we had, and indigestion too”). Plus, Roman togas are back in. Micro togas. No more pesky windows either (“The age of windows lasted four centuries” – which can’t be a Bill Gates reference; Windows only seems like it has lasted four centuries). There’s also the prospect of reaching the Moon via a giant space gun, so some things will be just as out of reach as they are now, come 2036 (“Why do you let your daughter dream of going on this mad Moon mission?”). And, just as now, Wells presents no choice with regards to embracing the technocratic future: “All the universe or nothing. Which shall it be?” We’ll all be glorious communitarians together.

Apparently, Terry-Thomas is somewhere there in 2036, but I didn’t spot him. Edward Chapman, fresh from Hitchcock and prior to hounding John Gielgud, is visible too, edging closer to his Mr Grimsdale in stoutness and persona (several of the players appears as several generations of their family lines).

Like Huxley, Wells was a member of the Fabian Society, and it might be argued Things to Come was his Agenda 36, having laid the groundwork in his Tavistock Institute-influencing Open Conspiracy. Certainly, he wasn’t being fanciful when it came to NWOs. Wells fell out with Lenin because the former favoured the elite families creating the very such global behemoth through business and technology, rather like Cabal bringing salvation through “order and trade” (instead, it will be the caring, sharing World Health Organisation, brought to you by Windows). 

On a surface, aesthetic level, there isn’t much in Things to Come to connect Wells’ “utopia” to today, but the themes of conformity and rigid elite control of a powerlessly complicit populace are evident even here; you’ll be free to do as you wish, as long as it allies itself with the ordained message. And as long as you haven’t been gassed by that point. It is curious that Wells the artist casts as an artist as the villain of the future, threatening all that noble achievement. But then, he’d long since stopped delivering creative inspiration by the time he wrote The Shape of Things to Come. How else do you explain a line like "To the Space Gun!"?


Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.