Subscribe to our The Things to Come Page Part 2 (for Fans of Science Fiction Movies)
|
The Things to Come Page, a Place for Fans of Science Fiction Movies, Technology, and Speculative Ideas
|
|
Note: The first electronic/digital computers and their universal binary language (and thus the idea of digitally programmed androids) were developed in 1940-1945 and conceptually aided by Alan Turing's work in 1936 or so. But research on analog-mechanical computers (aka, differential analyzers) began around 1836, with the first working versions coming in 1876.
Technovelgy: see Computers in SF, Robotics in SF, and A.I. in SF for related tech in literature and news. |
|
Related Documentaries or TV Shows:
Here are excellent movies with pseudo SF elements, little SF, or related geeky-artsy stuff. Many of them concentrate on the human condition and psychological reactions to strange situations (but not all of them of course):
|
|
I. Popular Scientists Doing Science Fiction: The Basis of Science Fiction The basis of science fiction (SF) is rarely actual science anymore, but there is some pure science fiction still left. Some of the first modern SF stories (in the 1600s) were Johannes Kepler’s unreadable book Somnium and Savinien Cyrano de Bergerac’s classic Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon and Sun. It is not far from the truth to claim that Kepler was the first science fiction writer and, therefore, that science fiction began in the hands of a natural philosopher/scientist/mathematician. Part 12 of the fantastic HBO TV series From the Earth to the Moon (1998) nicely demonstrates the connection between speculative fiction and real science that began with Kepler: it features a humorous depiction of the first SF movie, Le Voyage Dans La Lune (1902, directed by Georges Méliès), alongside a dramatization of the final NASA Apollo mission. This artistically shows how science fiction captured the imagination of astronauts, scientists, engineers, etc., in coming together to turn some of the more pragmatic visions of SF into reality. Science fiction continues to capture the imagination of popular scientists, including the late Carl Sagan (official website), Stephen Hawking (official website), and Michio Kaku (official site), to name a few. Michio Kaku's Visions is an excellent book about future revolutions in computers, biomolecular research, and quantum research. It also looks at the past development of these three major fields of scientific study, so it provides an interesting history of computers and a look at more recent possibilities, such as quantum machines. His book presents an argument for the dependence of certain types of scientific research on computer technology (a good example is genetics), and one of his central predictions is that future scientific research will probably emphasize progress and the ability to use scientific laws to master nature (such as adding complexity to our DNA) rather than the discovery of new basic laws. If he is correct about this, then science fiction fans will like the implication that there will be nearly an infinite number of new possible types of computing and technological improvements to portray on film. And then it's easier for science fiction movies to successfully reflect future science since it's wouldn't require being flawless to reality, just imaginative in the ways we could advance in science/technology and master nature through precise or naturalistic methods. Another physicist who makes the same type of argument is Stephen Hawking, who has even performed as an actor in a Star Trek episode (along with Einstein and Newton – all as holograms). He echoes Kaku’s sentiment in his popular physics book, The Universe in a Nutshell, but he goes so far as to argue “it doesn’t seem that we will ever reach a steady state in the uses we make of these [scientific] laws or in the complexity of the systems that can produce them” (The Illustrated: The Universe in a Nutshell, p. 161). Kaku also notes that future science increasingly requires the tools of technology to advance, but technology would not advance past a critical point (see Moore's Law) without continued advances in science. But the same sort of scientists often argue that advancement in science and technology doesn't necessarily imply any increase in our knowledge of reality. In the 1972 version of Solaris the movie seems to argue that scientific knowledge is limited by human distortion. It portrays characters who anthropomorphize nature and merely want mirrors of themselves more so than reality or truth. But that only matters as a criticism if the goal of science is to discover new laws. If the goal becomes to discover the extent of the universe and eventually become a Type I or II civilization, then science will produce measurable results that lead to our advancement, not necessarily to knowledge based on irrefutable truth. So my interpretation of Kaku makes Solaris' criticism of scientific knowledge mostly irrelevant to the advancement of science since positivist scientists like Kaku and Hawking now emphasize progress and mastery of nature (as the probable future of science) and not new metaphysically fundamental discoveries (like in the days of Newton and Einstein). But neither of the first two "SF" movies (of great significance) were "hard SF," which refers to movies with pure SF or SF supportive of strong scientific, engineering, or mathematical elements. Georges Méliès' Le Voyage Dans La Lune (1902) was more impressed with the possibilities of science and going to the moon of the two, even though it does so through magic. Whereas, Metropolis (1927) is more interested in social harmony and machines. One of the earliest movies in the genre, Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1927), envisioned a future industrial-city complex in which underground workers rebel (under the direction of a female humanoid and a mad-scientist) against a tycoon tyrant; but Lang didn’t believe in its message – he just liked machines (source from DVD commentary). Of course, husbands often have different points of view than their wives (his wife wrote the novel that the movie was based on). Destination Moon (1950) probably takes the victory for the purest early SF film. It uses a cartoon to discuss space travel and it demonstrates Einstein's theory of relativity by having astronauts go outside their shuttle for repairs. It certainly isn't 2001 but it values the great developments and possibilities of science. The first moon landing, by the way, didn't take place until July of 1969 (though the first person went into space in April of 1961). II. Theatrical Science Fiction: The Hope for Future SF Against the Rising Hatred of Reason Throughout the history of SF in pop culture, most filmmakers sacrifice science for commercial, theatrical, and humanistic reasons. Yet the best writers and filmmakers manage to strike a balance between theatrics and SF: good prototypical examples for this article are H. G. Wells’ Things to Come, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Blade Runner. These movies draw not only from SF literature but also sometimes from the naturalistic tone of scientists: the objective outlook that, when unnecessary and outside scientific methodology, avoids crediting the validity of the superstitious and supernatural. SF filmmakers wishing to make pure science fiction (or at least semi-pure SF) must seemingly overcome an impossible conflict between the will to entertain audiences and the need to create or borrow some bit of speculative "science" or some gem of science fiction literature. Sometimes, alternatively, they try to bypass this inherent conflict by humanizing their visions, or by focusing on far-fetched philosophical or mythological speculations. However, if all one wants to see is cool computers/technologies, then these techies have nothing to worry about since technology is rarely sacrificed in big budget movies, with the exception that technology is often humanized (science fiction movies often anthropomorphize robots and computers). And as I watch all the new remakes (and they seem to keep coming) to see if they decided to come over to the modern world, I usually find that they decided to use a lot of expensive technology whilst pretending science doesn't exist ... as if they made movies for techie loving audiences of the dark ages. Oh, the dark ages ... here we come! Many modern movies are therefore influenced heavily by postmodernism and tend to dislike the necessity of continued scientific research to reach the sort of technological visions in popular movies. These postmodern movies tend to paint dark visions, distrust rationality, abhor any radical changes that break our norms, and destroy everything in the movie that violates our values! I know instantly that if anything creative in the movie exists, such as an exciting new plan to kill all citizens over the age of 30, then the creative engine of the SF concept must today be tarnished, destroyed, devalued. Sometimes movies ignore reason/probabilities by having an action hero overcome improbable odds to increase tension, but sometimes SF movies intentionally ridicule human reason and rational enterprises without any dramatic benefits. Dark City (1998) defines our humanity by our heart and not by our minds near the end of the movie without any hope of increasing tension or serving any dramatic purpose. Even Roger Ebert started to recite a silly theory that films are for our emotions and not for our minds while pondering the scene in his commentary track, which shows exactly what Ebert thought of the moral of the story in Dark City (the script writers would probably want him to analyze whether humans are defined by their hearts, not to sigh in disgust and start rationalizing that films are just for our emotions anyways. Stop helping so much Ebert!). Metropolis doesn't go so far and merely wanted balance and harmony between our head, heart, and hand (a shallow distinction anyways). I, Robot spends a considerable amount of time trying to argue against an excessive use of probabilities (sometimes to serve the cause of dramatic tension though). The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008) is excruciating in its emotionalism. The Andromeda Strain (Dir. Mikael Salomon, 2008 miniseries), in addition, focuses on the extinction of an essential and unappreciated organism that suddenly becomes essential to human survival (as in Star Trek IV - The Voyage Home). But if this sort of idea is taken to its logical extreme, it seems to argue for the preservation of all varieties of life and the suspension of science until we're able to predict any negative side-effects. Why not argue that we may need to speed up scientific progress and our mastery over nature since science may engineer life (or otherwise save us) at a higher percentage of probability? Oh, I forgot, postmodern movies don't like reason and probabilities! Star Trek (2009) adds to its flashiness and tension by having Kirk rush off against extremely low odds. But it ends the culturally tolerant attitude of classic Star Trek (R.I.P.) that often had Spock defending his love of logic rather vigorously. Spock and the Vulcans are humanized to the extent that I wondered whether it wanted to capture the essence of the Vulcans (or any non human point of view) at all, except for a nice comment from Spock's father that quickly summarizes the grand history of Vulcan stoicism. In general it mocks anything rational, turns anything foreign to Disney style anthropomorphisms, and tries to humanize the viewing perspective with close-ups and minimal chances to see any technology in the background. But not a single one of these movies replaces excessive rationalism and extreme uses of logic/probabilities (that they spend so much time criticizing) with a hopeful human substitute. For example, many significant discoveries in science often come about by luck and only get rationalized and painstakingly proved after their initial discovery. Reason alone is not a sufficient base for progress, but none of these visions offers a mature, intelligent, practical substitute for excessive probability-making of often chaotic and complex situations. I think a better way to balance rationalism is with the love of science and the way it's actually practiced (along with supportive culture elements) as the height of human intelligence since it implies both love of discovery and a feeling of intellectual pleasure, as well as the necessary rational, experimental, and sometimes lucky tools of the scientific method. This balanced view would assert that a know-it-all-genius can often be dead wrong, but if many smart people work on a problem then the wrong answers will fail to become dogma and fail to halt our overall progress (which doesn't require knowledge based on irrefutable truth). Though this would require the freedom to engage in science, which many SF films, perhaps the vast majority, advocate against. Some films are so harshly against cloning, for example, it borders on superstition, dogma, and nutty naturalism (for lack of a better word), such as groups in Applessed (2004) and especially in Æon Flux (2005), and even Carl Sagan (Cosmos) comes surprisingly close to this stance in his science documentary. But sometimes the high potential of a concept outweighs our inhibitions. Woody Allen’s SF comedy Sleeper (1973) treats cloning as common knowledge and convenience in the future. Also, George Lucas’ Star Wars - Episode II, Attack of the Clones (2002) doesn’t portray the lanky Cloners as unethical. I have yet to see a single film portray cloning in a highly positive light, so SF movies tend to limit them selves to the values of their culture. (The exception is Michio Kaku, who seems to applaud the possibilities of cloning in his SF book Visions and in the three part documentary that goes along with it.) Does it seem like I would be the sort of fan to root for the bad guy? No, I just root for the sort of creativity and speculative SF that gets us to flex our minds and not just look into the mirror. Advanced technology in the real world doesn't always lead to wastelands and inhuman destruction; it doesn't always mindlessly destroy everything without leaving behind other values to embrace. Kaku notes, for example, that the development of the Internet has actually increased our freedoms in many ways, instead of decreasing them as the specters of Orwell's 1984 would have us think. But our postmodern world did make Primer recently so perhaps there is hope! Though, that took a guy doing his first film with his mommy cooking lunch for the crew (and I'm not just joking, she is credited as a caterer). However, sometimes it seems quite rational to question the survival value of human intelligence. Nuclear destruction movies (Dr. Strangelove, Fail-Safe, WarGames, Day One, Jericho, etc.) and radiated monster movies (Godzilla movies, Them!, etc., but to a lesser extent of plausibility) seem equally compelling in the cold war era and the terrorist environment of today. And now we have contemporary, rational concerns over threats from superior machines or androids (The Matrix series and The Terminator series), from genetics (Jurassic Park, Gattaca, and evident in the new wave of natural-health fanaticism), and from nanotechnology (Agent Cody Banks, G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, and Crichton's novel Prey). But calculating the odds (given our typical information) rarely makes it plausible to warn about dangerous alien invasions since the vast majority of biology is simple and harmless (lifeforms that didn't co-evolve with us, such as alien organisms, would be in greater danger probably). Usually these anti-reason films miss the most difficult part of reason: it takes us in too many defensible directions! For example, if we stop our progress, we greatly increase the likelihood of our extinction or total dehumanization (to an Orwellian government possibly) in the long term. So sometimes it's difficult to see any necessary direction dictated by reason alone (it's rational to avoid nuclear war and rational to use nuclear power to better our long term progress). Reason alone usually points in many possible and plausible directions; just look at science before its emphasis on experimentation, and look at non-scientific fields that use studies and reason in every which way but into obvious contradiction, which itself is difficult to prove beyond counterargument (how many times has someone tried to argue that utilitarianism leads to contradictions just to be knocked aside by a fervent defender of utilitarianism?). Most of all, I find it small minded to argue against reason, science, or technology as a whole since they so rarely lead to one necessary goal and allow so much freedom to choose our own way rather than get stuck in our traditions or our instincts. III. Is Science Fiction in Film Possible? Seeing that reason and science is so rarely at focus in SF movies, some contend that true science fiction is impossible in film since movies are primarily for our emotions. I disagree, one may counter that movies sometimes convey analogical reasoning even better than other mediums, e.g., The Matrix has a more vivid analogy of the same sort of skeptical arguments that Rene Descartes presents in written form (Meditation I). Analogies are important and some argue that they have been critical to the advancement of knowledge: for example, I saw an argument that roughly asserted that no one fully understood the mechanisms of the heart until we likened it to a pump and other more advanced technology (see Miller’s book The Body in Question). Second, traditional film critics harshly review some of the best SF movies on emotional and artsy standards: for example, science fiction lists consistently rank Blade Runner as one of the top SF movies ever made, but it often gets negative-reviews by film critics (such as the original review by Roger Ebert, but he has since taken it back and written a positive review). Third, some views of science seem to admit of SF in movies such as Kaku's view that future science will require more integration between computers, biomolecular research, and quantum research to continue to increasingly control and manipulate nature. SF merely needs to portray the permutations of speculative possibilities (and sometimes into the world of impossibilities) with a scientific, modern, naturalistic vision. Therefore, some SF ideas probably do exist in movies, at least in some reduced and less pure form, and these SF ideas can sometimes improve a film's perceived quality for SF fans. Now we can just use Kaku's and Hawking's description of science to create a strong definition of SF as essentially about speculative possibilities and permutations of ways humans can manipulate nature, use science, and lead to progress. This coheres with examples of prototypical SF movies and it certainly excludes Harry Potter. If you want an academic definition of it to capture the wide range of movies that tend to fall within the genre of "SF," then here is an interesting though impure and monstrous attempt: "The SF film is a film genre which emphasizes actual, extrapolative, or speculative science and the empirical method, interacting in a social context with the lesser emphasized, but still present, transcendentalism of magic and religion, in an attempt to reconcile man with the unknown" (Vivian Sobchack's Screening Space). Of course, my favorite silly definition is more pragmatic: SF movie history is 1% Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, H. G. Wells, Jules Verne, Robert Heinlein, and the like, but 99% geeky morons with implausible imaginations intent on humanizing their visions with unfulfilling emotion and objectivized imagery! No wonder it got its start in fantasy and horror movies to some extent. Some movies are problematic for their emphasis on futuristic visions, utopia, dystopia, and side effects. Some people don't think the social sciences, such as sociology, economics, anthropology, psychology are sciences at all, and others think that those areas of study have an objective base that is similar to the hard core natural sciences. If they count, then it's easier to see Orwell's 1984 as SF, but then we could make a case that Plato's Republic was one of the first SF books! So in these cases it helps to point to more than one element in the book or movie; 1984 has many technological themes (despite their old age) underlying its social-political themes, whereas Plato's writings lack advanced technology and any deep understanding of science (the closest he gets is mathematics). I think it's problematic to consider a story or work of art as SF until the advent of modern science in Kepler's time. But there are two words in "science fiction," one could counter argue. Why not think about science fiction as primarily fiction that merely uses scientific/technological themes as background to advance its plot and entertain the audience? The word "science fiction" is actually fairly close to a contradiction since fiction is not an accepted scientific method. So even SF literature has a loose use of "science" to meet its entertainment or "fiction" requirement. But if we let the word "science" slip away too much, then there is no significant distinction between it and the definition of a romance novel. But most people I know of who like romance novels hate science fiction. There is a major difference in practice. I think the best definition of SF is to be inspired by science and its ability to elevate humans and support our modernity. The main defining characteristic for me is "progress" -- the use of science and technology to manipulate nature and improve ourselves. The second major term "fiction" mainly influences by making SF more speculative and imaginative. I like to think of SF as basically speculating about the possibilities for progress. For me a good example of SF needs to emphasize science in the spirit of the way scientists use technology and conduct experiments, not according to the way creative writing instructors inspire students by having them make stuff up. V. Are Techy Movies Necessarily Science Fiction? There doesn't seem to be any necessary connection between technology and science fiction. Some SF movies have minimal technology, special effects, space gear, spaceships, or alien races, such as Primer or The Prestige, but they can still make excellent contributions to SF film history with many SF gems. And some science doesn't need much use of technology, such as theoretical physics during certain periods of time. So it's very possible for a film to lack technology and still emphasize speculative ideas in science, actual science, or themes supportive of science. Some would argue that Star Wars is an example of a film series with lots of technology and very little (if any) pure SF. It is interesting to note that George Lucas himself doesn't consider Star Wars to be SF (Lucas commentary for Star Wars [IV]: A New Hope). But the more I thought about it the more I tend to disagree with Lucas. Indeed, Star Wars speculates about new possibilities that could in principle be falsified, even if they were designed to be largely mythological. I think Star Wars has more SF in it than George Lucas realizes; it makes use of scientific-like explanations (the organisms that make-up the force) that could be proved or disproved. It has other minor SF elements such as technology -- including spaceships, weaponry, probes, etc. -- and alien races and futuristic civilizations. So some things in the movies we can envision as a natural consequence of advancement and gaining power to manipulate nature (as Kaku suggests, but not in relation to Star Wars). In any case, Star Wars is a good borderline example. It's filled with technology that sometimes seems to lack significant SF elements but that presents imaginative visions that could exist in some possible world. But more clear examples abound, such as films like Live Free or Die Hard (aka Die Hard 4, 2007) or The Dark Knight (2008) that have lots of computers and technology and rarely get classified as SF. I think the problem with defining SF and its relation to technology comes from the problem in defining science. Some even believe that a few areas of study that are heavily reliant on certain types of technology are extremely unscientific. Fodor, for example, claims that research in cognitive science is based on the sort of theory and computational models that don't admit of the normal prediction, measurement and control mechanisms that laboratory scientists use to eliminate flaws and narrow theories down to the one right answer. Neural networks are an example of the sort of technology that Fodor targets as "black boxed," meaning that it does not on his analysis submit to scientific experimentation (since experimenters adjust weights until they get the results they want and have an insufficient explanation for the end results to his satisfaction). But now science is becoming ever more integrated and ever more reliant on computers to do complex calculations, as with genetics. So there is controversy over whether certain areas of study are able to meet stringent standards even when they use super-computers to model their theories. And many would not consider computer scientists, hackers, information processors to be scientific in the least. Computer programming is more like a tool that one uses to make work easier. I think it is important to look at the purpose of the technology -- if the technology is used to conduct science, then it is truly science fiction, but if it is used as a tool (to get somewhere, to fly somewhere and steal goods, to extract information) then it is not science primarily. The problem with defining SF in movies like Aeon Flux (2005) is that the technology is not used for the purpose of advancement, progress, or discovery; it is used to fight off bad guys, go on a quest, fight for naturalism or fantastic nature-technology, etc. In addition, What the Bleep Do We Know? has many scientists give interviews, but then it makes wild claims more like the world of Harry Potter than like 2001. What the Bleep Do We Know? tries to make use of science, but it uses science for the purpose of mysticism, spirituality, and morality rather than scientific advancement, progress, or discovery. Therefore, it is very important to distinguish, to some extent, the practice of science and the mere discussion of computers, science, and other technologies to accomplish an unrelated goal. That's what I like so much about H. G. Wells' Things to Come, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Destination Moon, Colossus: The Forbin Project, The Andromeda Strain, Primer, Contact, and Blade Runner -- they are the best examples I think of in which the film vision is mostly about science fiction in as helpful and supportive a sense of "science" as we find in movies. Could technology actually incline people away from science and progress? The very best example of our recognition of the co-evolution between science and technology is the strict incompatibility of modern technology with the world of magic in the Harry Potter novels/movies – that is the way it ought to be since technology does not work by magic and magic does not work by science and computations. But it will be a struggle, as Kaku jokingly points out, because the advancement of technology may bring back some forms of mysticism and belief in magic when people grow up around all kinds of machines that act on their own accord (they may be more apt to take magic seriously). However, it would be difficult if we still had great 1950s style science fiction movies and books that often emphasized and expressed love for science, for one of the effects of old fashioned science fiction was to acclimate people to science and technology.
|
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Please rate this article
Post new comment