Forums

Welcome Guest 

Show/Hide Header

Welcome Guest, posting in this forum requires registration.





Pages: First << 60 61 62 [63] 64 65 66 >> Last
Author Topic: FilmStruck
Timothy-
Lane
Moderator
Posts: 1349
Permalink
Post Re: FilmStruck
on: November 4, 2018, 10:02
Quote

When I discussed this elsewhere (I think on my TCM thread), I pointed out that the nuclear bombing scene (with its air raid warning) would be significant later on. But the Eloi are not slaves of the Morlocks, because they do no work. It's even worse; they're livestock, kept and tended to provide food (and maybe other things as well). Note that Wells saw the Morlocks as descendants of the working class and Eloi as descendants of the upper class. And they certainly would fit in well with modern leftist elites. But they did learn self-interest in the end, and even how to work together (though you have to wonder if they could really have learned the lesson quickly enough).

As I recall, they hadn't yet reached a million years AD. It was in the upper hundreds of thousands. Plenty of time for the books to turn to dust when Wells opened them -- and realized that those books did tell him what he need to know about the Eloi.

What 5 books (from before 1900) do you think Wells might have decided to bring? And how likely is it that any of the Eloi could read them? Maybe he wants to read them to Weena. If so, he might pick some romances to give her some good ideas. Who knew that someone might still be reading Jane Eyre nearly a million years from now?

Brad-
Nelson
Administrator
Posts: 1504
Permalink
Brad Nelson
Post Re: FilmStruck
on: November 4, 2018, 11:11
Quote

But the Eloi are not slaves of the Morlocks, because they do no work. It's even worse; they're livestock, kept and tended to provide food

I think that is an apt distinction. In the movie it said that some went into the earth and some stayed above. I don’t recall if the movie mentioned any class differences. I don’t think it did.

But I would see the Morlocks as more the descendants of the elites (without their masks…we see their ugly self through no veil). They are but a parasitic class, producing nothing. And the Elois are the descendants of Progressives — having finally settled into a near perfect relationship with their masters. They live a complete (if short) life of leisure and have no idea of the nature of their masters, nor are they aware of the game they are playing in.

Yes, it was several hundred thousand years in the future or something. But a long time, whatever it was.

In the movie it was three books taken from Wells’ bookcase. One could assume the selection was something like the Bible, the complete works of Shakespeare, and maybe the Oxford Dictionary. Or maybe they were more technical books.

I’ve never ready Jane Eyre. I’m not sure I ever will. Sounds depressing.

And although this is the FilmStruck thread (which will soon end), after “The Time Machine” I watched “Saturn 3” on Amazon Prime. I probably had seen most of this before, but only on TV where it surely would have been severely edited.

This is a rotten movie, and it doesn’t please me to say so because Kirk Douglas is one of my favorites. You could watch this with friends and have great fun with some at-home Mystery Science Theatre 3000 mocking.

Only three actors are ever shown on screen: Farrah Fawcett, Kirk Douglas, and Harvey Keitel (although not his voice which was dubbed by someone else). Douglas and Fawcett are the only two workers on a hydroponics research station (and seemingly quite a big one) on some moon orbiting around Saturn. And you know this movie is going to suck big-time when the opening scene (or very near the start) shows a ship on its way to the station. And, of course, it first goes through the rings of Saturn to get there. Boulders are packed shoulder-to-shoulder and somehow the ship makes it through. Going around the rings would have lost a moment for some (in this case) bad special effects.

Keitel murders (why? we never find out) the captain whose mission is to join Douglas and Fawcett and help them out by bringing them a disassembled robot packed in three crates. The reason Keitel kills the captain and takes his place is so that he can smuggle a brain with him….which is incased in a fairly huge metal cylinder, but nobody questions him while he’s walking to the ship. Yes, this is a bad movie and you quickly learn not to ask such questions. You’d never be able to stop.

None of us are getting any younger. And Kirk Douglas (rightly so) is known for his vigor and vitality. Well, you can see the only reason Douglas signed onto to this project was to cheat Father Time. He plays a Jack Lalanne kind of eternal-youth character who has, of course, the most beautiful woman of the time draped over him like a throw pillow. There are calisthenics and exercises galore. At one point we even see Kirk Douglas in his birthday suit, everything but full frontal.

We should all be in that kind of shape when we’re 63. He even does a couple minor stunts that are impressive. But it all comes across as trying too hard. And the horrible clothing that hangs off him simply makes him look fragile, not vigorous. Another thing that Star Trek got right. It makes a difference. The only thing I’ll say is that they’re not as bad as the uniforms worn on Space 1999.

We get a boob shot of Farrah at one point, brief though it is. And other than Kirk Douglas’ butt and Farrah Fawcett’s breasts, those are the highlights. And maybe that ridiculous dubbed voice coming out of Harvey Keitel. At first, I thought he was a human-looking robot sort of like Bishop in Aliens.

It’s interesting that what starts as more of an Outland type of psychological thriller turns into a low-brow monster film about a robot gone rogue. Douglas could have played a heroic O’Neil-type of character (as did Sean Connery in the role), a man out on the rim, barely significant, wondering what it’s all about and if his time will ever come.

Nope. That would be too much thinking. So cue the robot and let it go bonkers. They couldn’t even play up the obvious shtick they had built up which was the robot being infused by Harvey Keitel’s lust for Farrah. There’s no moment of “Gee, Mr. Robot. If you love me, you’ll let us go.” Maybe she then hikes her blouse. Whatever.

But the film started going down a ramp early and there was just no way to lose that momentum down the circling drain. Fawcett, who would later do much better work (and was certainly plausible as a bimbo-ish Angel), is terrible. But you can’t blame the actors for this mess (unless Douglas asserted influence so that he could play Jack Lalanne…and it certainly looks like he did). This is just an awful script with awful direction. But some of the sets are cool, although there might be a bit too much reliance on large tubing.

Timothy-
Lane
Moderator
Posts: 1349
Permalink
Post Re: FilmStruck
on: November 4, 2018, 11:59
Quote

Wells gave his view -- Morlocks the descendants of the working class, Eloi the descendants of the leisure class -- in the book. I remember that from when I first read it about 55 years ago. Apparently this reflects Wells's own experience at the time -- the workers largely living and working underground, the leisure class above ground. In the book, the narrator discovers in the Morlock caves the machinery that supports the Eloi.

An interesting nude shot occurs at one point in Colossus: The Forbin Project. Forbin sees Cleo Markham in the nude through the glass he's been drinking from. I saw the movie at an SF convention once, and that's when I finally saw the scene; it never showed up on TV.

Brad-
Nelson
Administrator
Posts: 1504
Permalink
Brad Nelson
Post Re: FilmStruck
on: November 4, 2018, 15:24
Quote

Maybe those class distinctions make more sense in the book. It makes more sense to me for the elites to be underground.

Remember at end of Dr. Strangelove when they were talking about a bomb shelter gap? Dr. Strangelove noted that they could use existing government bomb shelters and take the cream of the crop (including themselves, of course). Naturally, in order to repopulate the earth as quickly as possible, there would have to be an abundance of females in the shelters. And they’d have to be particularly beautiful ones because the males would have a lot of work to do.

Topside is dangerous. Bottom side (in any kind of nuclear war) is where the elites will be.

All I can say is that Farrah has a nice set of Fawcetts.

Timothy-
Lane
Moderator
Posts: 1349
Permalink
Post Re: FilmStruck
on: November 4, 2018, 15:39
Quote

Of course, the book didn't have a nuclear attack, having been written well before either fission or fusion was known. Judging from the Morlocks' continued use of the air raid warning in the movie, it was still preferable to live above ground and go to shelters only in an emergency. Basically, the Eloi represented the leisure class, doing none of the work, becoming increasingly degraded intellectually and emotionally. The fact that they did nothing to earn their keep would indicate that they weren't the descendants of the working class. Note, too, that when the fires wreck the Morlock hold, it's clearly indicated that the Eloi are going to have to get used to foraging for their own food. Would you rather live above ground amid sunlight and natural beauty, or down below in the caves, coming out at night to hunt?

According to Leon Stover's analysis of the book, the point was that the upper class failed to maintain control of the lower class. (Given Wells's socialism, this might seem odd. Perhaps he was an admirer of something like what would later be Bolshevism, at least at the time he wrote the book.)

Brad-
Nelson
Administrator
Posts: 1504
Permalink
Brad Nelson
Post Re: FilmStruck
on: November 4, 2018, 16:14
Quote

Whatever Wells intended, what he got was the brainy people (smart enough to keep the machines going, anyway) being in charge of the sheeple. Perhaps this reflects Wells’ naiveté regarding his political philosophy and what reality actually produces. Socialism produces sheeple with the wolves on top.

Mixing up matters (not only that the Eloi are physically on the top side of the world) is that the Morlocks are ugly and monstrous while the Eloi are The Beautiful People. Normally the “working class” would contain the uglier sorts (visually) while the Masters would dress nice and look nice (but be monsters underneath the skin).

Timothy-
Lane
Moderator
Posts: 1349
Permalink
Post Re: FilmStruck
on: November 4, 2018, 16:29
Quote

Basically, the idea is that the Morlocks toiled to maintain the Eloi. But the latter failed to maintain control, and at some point the Morlocks began to prey on the Eloi. Think of them as descendants of revolutionary socialists. At any rate, Wells clearly saw it this way. Of course, one can also note that this is the Time Traveler's opinion, based on what he has observed. If you want to believe he got it wrong, you can -- he didn't actually witness the devolution of society. But it makes sense. The Eloi have much more pleasant (and leisurely) lives than the Morlocks -- until they get hunted down some night. Pajama Boy would fit in perfectly as an Eloi, but certainly not as a Morlock.

I would consider both groups as descendants of leftists. Presumably at some point they finally had enough power to purge the conservatives. This is already arguably happening in Britain, even if some call themselves Conservatives. Think of Antifa and Pajama Boy as the progenitors of the dystopia. Perhaps there are some real workers hidden away somewhere who do actual work, no doubt as Morlock slaves, without being either Morlocks or Eloi. Or maybe they eventually merged with Morlocks, who would thus combine the workers and the hunters.

Brad-
Nelson
Administrator
Posts: 1504
Permalink
Brad Nelson
Post Re: FilmStruck
on: November 8, 2018, 09:03
Quote

As presented in the movie, there’s are no large or small political connotations regarding the Eloi and Morlock. The Eloi went soft The Morlocks went mean. No reason is given for either in the movie (although one suspects the Morlock are descendants of anti-Trumpists). These two groups are just noted down as some of the bizarre stuff you might find if you moved forward into the future by a few hundred thousand years.

Wiki notes that Eloi is the Hebrew plural of Elohim, or lesser gods. Wiki is less sure about the source of Morlocks. It could have to do with the Canaanite god, Moloch, who is associated with child sacrifice (and with the Democrat Party as well).

Apparently in the book, Wells jumps forward as far as 30 million years where he gets a glimpse of a Democrat House majority:

There he sees some of the last living things on a dying Earth: Menacing reddish crab-like creatures slowly wandering the blood-red beaches chasing enormous butterflies, in a world covered in simple lichenous vegetation.

I can’t find an exact time for the Eloi/Molock era, but the 2002 movie mentions it was 800,000 years into the future.

Moving now back in time a little . . .

The other night I watched The African Queen on FilmStruck. I’ve come to learn that in 2009 it was restored. It looked good but I don’t know if this is the first time I’ve seen the restored version.

I have no major thoughts or revelations from watching it again. It’s still a good movie. I think it’s a hoot that the trivia section at IMDB says:

Berlin's film trade union requested that The African Queen (1951) be withdrawn from the Berlin Film Festival because of its "anti-German tendencies”.

With WWII just in their rearview mirror, I’m surprised anyone would have the nads to object to what, we can assume, is a fairly accurate portrayal of the nasty Germans in Africa.

This is a film that I think could have gone on a little longer. Its runtime is 105 minutes. I suppose one should always leave with the crowd wanting more. I would love to see someone try making this into a 6-part mini-series though.

I guess that’s because we get a fairly quick transformation of Rose Sayer to the “Rosie” who falls in love with Charlie Allnutt. There’s nothing unusual about time compression regarding movies. But perhaps that all happens a little fast.

Timothy-
Lane
Moderator
Posts: 1349
Permalink
Post Re: FilmStruck
on: November 8, 2018, 10:11
Quote

Well, World War I Germany in East Africa was nothing like Nazi Germany. I gather the Nazis were none too thrilled about Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, the commander there, mainly because of his disdain for them. He was a good friend of Karen Blixen, whom he met on the trip to his new command there. (He was also the last to surrender, not learning the war was over until he was informed November 14 on a raid in Northern Rhodesia.) So they may well have been unfair to German command in East Africa during the Great War. Of course, the movie came out shortly after World War II, which no doubt is what they were thinking of in terms of portraying them.

Brad-
Nelson
Administrator
Posts: 1504
Permalink
Brad Nelson
Post Re: FilmStruck
on: November 8, 2018, 21:05
Quote

The Germans came into the village in which Rosie’s brother was the minister. They burnt all the huts and impressed the men as soldiers. Then they beat up the minister for objecting. He died shortly after.

Then they fired upon our heroes, Charlie and Rosie, as they sailed past a Kraut fort. Then the Krauts in the big boat on the lake tried to hang them.

All in all, the Germans were not the heroes in this film.

Pages: First << 60 61 62 [63] 64 65 66 >> Last
Mingle Forum by cartpauj
Version: 1.0.34 ; Page loaded in: 0.32 seconds.