Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!columbia!topaz!@RUTGERS.ARPA:FIRTH@TL-20B.ARPA
From: @RUTGERS.ARPA:FIRTH@TL-20B.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Best SF Films
Message-ID: <688@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 18-Feb-85 22:20:18 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.688
Posted: Mon Feb 18 22:20:18 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Feb-85 04:59:57 EST
Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 64

From: FIRTH@TL-20B.ARPA


[ moderator: this is a long post; please edit at your discretion ]

We have had some fun discussing the worst SF films, but the
challenge still stands, to name the best SF films. I find
that a hard challenge, and would like to take a little time
to explain why.

What is a good film?  As a first test, one can apply to a film
the objective criteria of criticism, namely

	what is the author's intention?
	how reasonable is that intention?
	how well does the author carry it out?

This at least removes from consideration movies like "Dark Star"
(where no intention is discernable), "Things to Come" (where
the intention, of documenting an entire future history, is clearly
absurd), and "Dune" (where the execution is manifestly inadequate).

This does not get us very far.  For example, it leaves in contention
films such as "King Kong" and "The Man who fell to Earth"; both are
excellent as films, but I find both unsatisfactory as SF films.  And
for the same reason: they lack a scientific "what if" premiss.  So I
shall add the criterion that the movie must contain some extrapolation
from an assumption, plausible or implausible.

Finally, a personal view.  For me, a film is an historical document;
it cannot be taken out of its time, place, and culture.  If you care,
I can say that the film does not seem to me the true art form - the
true art form is the animated movie, and "Fantasia" or "Yellow Submarine"
transcend the circumstances of place and time that are the essence of
"Casablanca" or "A Passport to Pimlico".

And so, I looked for SF films that were

  - technically excellent
  - in the tradition of mainstream SF
  - in keeping with the spirit of their time

As the last criterion, I looked for films that, whether intentionally
or not, were "one of a kind" - not imitating, but imitated.  And
finally, to keep the list short, I arbitrarily took one movie per
decade.

The result (according to one biased observer):

	Fritz Lang : Metropolis (1926)

	Frank Capra : Lost Horizon (1937)

	Rudolph Mate' : When Worlds Collide (1951)  -- (for the 40's)

	Fred McLeod Wilcox : Forbidden Planet (1956)

	Roger Vadim : Barbarella (1967)

Here I stop, being able neither to ignore "2001"
nor to accept it.

Robert Firth
-------