Were old SF movies better?

Since getting Roku, I’m getting the opportunity to see some old sci-fi movies. Most are pretty bad but one stands out as so good, firing on all cylinders, that I encourage you to check it out. It is The Day the Earth Caught Fire. What’s so striking about this film is how many parallels there are to our response to disasters generally and climate change in particular. As a writer of apocalyptic epics, I’m addicted to sci-fi about the end of the world. This is not one to miss.

The movie starts with a slow burn (no pun intended) in which a failed journalist walks through London. The city is ravaged by drought. The dry ground is cracked and the sun beats down on the city in a way we have never seen. Then we fade back 19 days to find out how things went so bad so quickly.

Released in 1961, this is SF with a conscience. The nuclear arms race is front of mind. Eventually, it comes out that simultaneous testing of atomic bombs has screwed up the planet. The Earth tilts eleven degrees and the equator has moved. Earthquakes, typhoons, fires and meteorological chaos ensues. First comes denial and things seem fairly okay for a while as the population is assured that all they have to do is cope and wait out the disaster. The initial mild reaction to things falling apart reminds me of On the Beach (1959). As things get worse, water shortages spread. The bloom of black markets and typhus follows. Then comes the civil unrest.

It’s a fascinating study in societal decay as seen through the eyes of journalists trying to report on the end of the world. To avoid panic, the world’s governments attempt to downplay the destruction of civilization as long as they can. Watching this movie I was disturbed by several of the bits of propaganda that felt eerily familiar in contemporary times. Though the science is a bit off and it feels a bit dated here and there, much of the dialogue is snappy. That helps the story move along quite well. I have a theory that old movies have better dialogue because they can’t rely on CGI as much as today’s movies do. Scripts were longer and the exchange of words was generally sharper then. Many of today’s movies seem to be made for an Instagram audience. (There’s only one Aaron Sorkin. People make fun of Sorkin’s affection for the “walk and talk” but the dialogue always sizzles with urgency.)

Finally, I can’t write about this movie without mentioning the accomplished English actress Janet Munro. She is a stunner who steals every scene she’s in. As the low-level whistleblower, it’s easy to imagine this is how the awful truth seeps out. I have an odd hobby when I watch old movies. I always look up the actors to see how they died. Janet Munro passed away at the age of only 38 of heart failure. I don’t mean to be morbid but to see how people so fit and fabulous knock off is a grim memento mori so, hey, carpe diem. Sad and true.

Check The Day the Earth Caught Fire* if you get the chance. Do not confuse it with The Day the Sky Exploded (1958) because WOW! That sucked. Also, if you haven’t already seen The Day the Earth Stood Still, stop reading this and go check it out immediately. (I mean the genre’s classic from 1951, not the 2008 remake with Keanu Reeves.) Add Logan’s Run (1976) and Silent Running (1972) while you’re at it.

I love old sci-fi. The special effects might seem quaint but there were many fun (and sometimes great) science fiction films that were made before CGI could do all the images justice.

*There sure were a lot of The Day the Blah Blah Did Something movies, weren’t there?

2 Replies to “Were old SF movies better?”

While I do love the old science fiction, I think there is a compression effect going on. We think of things Roman as lasting forever, but the truth is quite the opposite. We only see the things that lasted forever. What we see are the great public works where Rome built things to last. The old science fiction we remember and quote was of course great stuff. Rich, deep and thoughtful.

As I child I watched every science fiction movie available when it replayed on TV. This was the era when when the grand masters of science fiction still roamed the earth. Science fiction deserved respect but it never got it. There was a good reason for that lack of respect. The stuff played over and over on TV was mostly lame, and as often as not had painted monkeys with antennas on their heads. Even then, special effects brought people to the movies. Lizards with fins glued to their back to make them look like dinosaurs and animated clay figures brought more people to the theater than the promise of deep thoughts. The special effects of the day helped lower the respect of the genre while making quite a few really bad movies popular.

These things come and go. In the decade Before Star Wars, science fiction was nearly dead and the stuff being made deserved to be dead. Star Wars was a game changer, but even a new beginning can be over played.

Our cultures have revisited and remembered quite a few episodes of the Twilight Zone, but we have mostly forgotten the Outer Limits.

Rob says:

January 27, 2019 at 11:07 pm

That’s interesting because I was just saying to someone how incredibly consistent Twilight Zone was! It’s true there was a lot of low-budget crap back in the day and we do tend to focus on the cream. Could be my nostalgia. I remember sitting in my basement watching Silent Running and being blown away. I’ve never been a Star Wars guy. I love Star Trek because of its optimistic message (and general coherence). Maybe part of it is I’m getting more cynical and less patient with movies as I age. I liked Gravity despite its technical flaws. Her and Ex Machina were effective. For every good SF movie, there’s crap like Skyline 2. Skyline 1 was at least watchable.

I think you’re right, Bob. I am focusing more on what I liked than what I didn’t. I’m sure I liked more movies then because I was less discerning. I loved ABC Saturday Night at the movies, firing up the popcorn and watching Future Cop. And who could forget the half man/half dog in Invasion of the Body Snatchers? (Leonard Nimoy’s character seems to love being a dick in that film.) I also notice a lot of SF today goes for the dystopian future because running around in the woods with guns requires a much lower budget than, say, Minority Report’s vision of the future.

I surely do want to see more SF that’s good and solid. Perusing Amazon Prime’s offerings, most of it is crap but I guess most of everything has a pretty low standard. I’ll try to be more openminded about more recent SF films. I wish they came at us at a faster pace. Thanks for commenting!

Reply

Bob Strawn says:

January 27, 2019 at 8:16 pm

While I do love the old science fiction, I think there is a compression effect going on. We think of things Roman as lasting forever, but the truth is quite the opposite. We only see the things that lasted forever. What we see are the great public works where Rome built things to last. The old science fiction we remember and quote was of course great stuff. Rich, deep and thoughtful.

As I child I watched every science fiction movie available when it replayed on TV. This was the era when when the grand masters of science fiction still roamed the earth. Science fiction deserved respect but it never got it. There was a good reason for that lack of respect. The stuff played over and over on TV was mostly lame, and as often as not had painted monkeys with antennas on their heads. Even then, special effects brought people to the movies. Lizards with fins glued to their back to make them look like dinosaurs and animated clay figures brought more people to the theater than the promise of deep thoughts. The special effects of the day helped lower the respect of the genre while making quite a few really bad movies popular.

These things come and go. In the decade Before Star Wars, science fiction was nearly dead and the stuff being made deserved to be dead. Star Wars was a game changer, but even a new beginning can be over played.

Our cultures have revisited and remembered quite a few episodes of the Twilight Zone, but we have mostly forgotten the Outer Limits.

1. Rob says:
  
  January 27, 2019 at 11:07 pm
  
  That’s interesting because I was just saying to someone how incredibly consistent Twilight Zone was! It’s true there was a lot of low-budget crap back in the day and we do tend to focus on the cream. Could be my nostalgia. I remember sitting in my basement watching Silent Running and being blown away. I’ve never been a Star Wars guy. I love Star Trek because of its optimistic message (and general coherence). Maybe part of it is I’m getting more cynical and less patient with movies as I age. I liked Gravity despite its technical flaws. Her and Ex Machina were effective. For every good SF movie, there’s crap like Skyline 2. Skyline 1 was at least watchable.
  
  I think you’re right, Bob. I am focusing more on what I liked than what I didn’t. I’m sure I liked more movies then because I was less discerning. I loved ABC Saturday Night at the movies, firing up the popcorn and watching Future Cop. And who could forget the half man/half dog in Invasion of the Body Snatchers? (Leonard Nimoy’s character seems to love being a dick in that film.) I also notice a lot of SF today goes for the dystopian future because running around in the woods with guns requires a much lower budget than, say, Minority Report’s vision of the future.
  
  I surely do want to see more SF that’s good and solid. Perusing Amazon Prime’s offerings, most of it is crap but I guess most of everything has a pretty low standard. I’ll try to be more openminded about more recent SF films. I wish they came at us at a faster pace. Thanks for commenting!