Science Fiction

This is written in response to a special on Science Fiction that was on Turner Classic Movies, with George Lucas, a couple of weeks ago. When I saw this special I was somewhat disappointed - not that anything George Lucas said was false, but rather because I didn't think it went far enough. Therefore, I have decided to write my own special on Science Fiction.

The first thing that needs to be noted is that Science Fiction is not always the same thing. That is, to use the term "Science Fiction" means different things to different people, and to different times. The easiest example of this is the meaning in in the last 1960's versus the meaning today. I was very much impressed with the fact in the late 1960's "Science Fiction" meant erotica. That is, the Science Fiction was used to put people into very different situations so that weird sexual exploits could take place. The most widely distributed example I could point to is the movie Logan's Run. This movie is very erotic. George Lucas, a few years later, wrote and directed the movie Star Wars, which redefined "Science Fiction" such that today people expect science fiction to be some sort of adventure movie.

Science Fiction is also literature. Therefore, with all literature, it shares the fact that it must be about today. Here, when I use the term "about today" I don't mean to be arrogant about 2007, but rather I mean that anything that is considered good literature at any time must reflect the time when it is considered good literature.

Consider Shakespeare, and his play Romeo and Juliet. This play is, at its heart about love amidst conflict. There has always been love, and (hopefully) there will always be love. And there is always conflict, and yet, the fact of the conflict does not prevent two people from loving one another. That is, Romeo's family and Juliet's family are enemies, yet they find each other. In that case, the play ends tragically when they both die, and in their death they, presumably, end the conflict.

The theme of Romeo and Juliet can be seen all over. Of course, it can be seen in the remakes of the play, such as West Side Story, but I see the theme in other movies as well. For example, my collection includes the movie Speechless. This has the same theme. There is conflict - in this case it is represented by a political campaign. There are two lovers, who are on opposite sides, on Republican, and one Democrat. The have to deal with the conflict (in this case, in a humorous fashion). Also, this is not a tragedy. In the end, the conflict is seen to end in that both the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate are shown to be equal demons.

The point of this discussion of literature is that the same thing is true of Science Fiction, possibly only more so.

Consider the book 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. The science in this book is no longer fiction - it is not an error that the first atomic submarine was called the "Nautilus," after the submarine in Jules Vern's novel. For the most part, if this novel were simply about science, it would no longer be significant.

But it is not. In reality, the movie is about a maniac who is obsessed with battling what he sees as evil (and I don't mean to say it is not an evil) that he becomes a monster. That is, captain Nemo is fighting war, but in fighting the war, and the implements of war, he becomes a monster himself. It is a matter of opinion as to whether he becomes as big a monster as the ones he's fighting. This theme is always with us, and for this reason his novel continues to be read.

I could point out that this is similar to the Hillary Fae subplot of the Movie Saved. That is, Hillary Fae is fighting what she thinks is evil in the form of Cassandra, a Jew. However, eventually she becomes the monster when she defaces the school building to to frame Cassandra, and Mary, who sees as being a traitor. This movie differs from 20,000 Leagues in that I don't think anyone, other than the most bigoted Fundamentalist, would say that Cassandra was that much of a demon to begin with. Also, this movie covers the period of time when the monster is being generated, rather than starting after the monster already exists, as it the case in 20,000 Leagues. Finally, once the monster is revealed, even Hillary Fae is taken aback by what she has become, so, in all likelihood, the monster dies.

An example of a science fiction movie that reflected the time in which it was written, but probably doesn't any more, is the movie The Day the Earth Stood Still. This movie was made in the very early 1950's. At that time, the United States and the World were still reeling because of the Second World War. Therefore, the movie depicts the problems with "aggression," and what to the people of the time seemed to obvious solution. That is, have a force which can always operate against aggression in whatever form it might take,

I suspect that to the people who went through the Second World War, that force was what they want to make the United States into.

The problem with this approach is seen in Viet Nam, and has been repeated in Iraq. That is, who is the aggressor, and who is the victim. It is not always that easy to tell.

However, in any event, this movie depicts the era in which it was written.

Similarly, the movie Forbidden Planet, which is the forerunner of Star Trek, and Star Wars, is placed in the same era. (I should point out that I've seen this movie depicted, correctly, as a rewrite of the Greek Legend of Belariphon.) That is, there is a man who sets himself up as so important that he is to decide for the human race what portions of the knowledge of the Krell they are to get. But, like 20,000 Leagues, he has become the monster, in this case, much more of a monster than the evil he is attempting to defend against.

That era tended to put a lot of trust in the military, therefore, the movie depicts the military as being the savior, saving mankind from a monster, just as the Second World War saved mankind from the monster named Hitler.

Later stories were not as forgiving for the military. Both Logan's Run, and Star Wars (but not Star Trek) depict the status quo as the enemy. That is, in Logan's Run, it is the government that is the enemy. Similarly, in Star Wars, the enemy is the empire, which has ruled in peace of thousands of years. Logan's Run depicts the era it was written in, the turbulent 1960's, when Viet Nam was on the minds of the people, and for many people, the government had become the enemy. Star Wars came at the end of that era, and, therefore, depicts the rebels as the good guys. This expresses the hope that was needed in that age of disillusionment, when the United States government was see as the bad guy - I think one must not forget that Watergate took place about this same time. That is, the government was strong, with the irresistible weapon, the Death Star. But the rebellion could still defeat it, but only because of religion, as a mater of fact, the religion of the Jedi Knights.

In that case, the government could no longer be called the savior, so a new savior was found in the rebellion, and in the Jedi. With Logan's Run, the message is that there is no magic bullet to save us from the evil, the government. We have to be our own savior. In Star Wars, the savior is either the religion, or the rebellion, but it is out there.

(I suppose in part this might account for the initial popularity of Star Wars. It came at a time when the government was viewed as the enemy by many people [including the religious right, I might add]. And it offered a solution. Since the rebellion is depicted as the savior, it could appeal to people who just wanted to throw the bums out, by force if needed. Yet, since it also depicted the Jedi as being the savior, it could appeal to people who had a religious bend.)

Another science fiction story that deserves attention is Planet of the Apes. This story was originally cast by Pierre Boulle in the early 1960's as a diatribe against what the he saw as the intellectual laziness of the time. Therefore, according to the novel, people started using apes to perform the tasks they didn't want to perform. Eventually, the art of game playing, talking, etc. were lost due to disuse. At the same time, all the function of men were taken over by apes, eventually, the distinction about who was master, and who was servant became lost.

In 1968, Rod Serling recast this story to be a diatribe against war, reflecting the anti-war sentiments of the time. That is, from the first scene ("Does man still keep his brother's children hungry?") to the last scene ("I've been here all along.") this movie depicts war as being the big evil. In the end, particularly nuclear war.

In 2001, this movie was remade, and a new message was cast. It is an irony that the new message was very pro-war. That is, the heroism of war is shown, and the entire movie comes down to a final battle between good and evil. (In a bow to the former two version, there is a "surprise ending," but in my opinion, the movie would have been better without it.) This comes just as the United States has chosen a new enemy to vilify, and, therefore, once again some circles are depicting war and fighting as being honorable.

So, what conclusions can be drawn? First, science fiction is a constantly changing field of literature. What was true twenty years ago may, or may not, be true today. The successful story will be the one that speaks to today. The great story will be one one that speaks to themes that are always with us.