I like your point about art movies turning the conventions of hard SF into metaphors -- I immediately thought of Godard's "Alphaville," though the metaphor there is interstellar travel, not time travel.

"Back to the Future" and "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" series are examples of *lowbrow* movies using hard SF conventions as metaphors. Because obviously what those movies are really about is the angst of being a white suburban-Californian teen in Reagan's America. Unable to realize that post-punk music is superior to rock'n'roll (which they worship; and that's a big part of their problem), the protagonists of these films slip into psychotic fantasies about time travel.

Seriously, though, you're helping me think historically about pre-Golden Age SF, whose pioneering metaphors will eventually become the Golden Age's hard SF conventions. Now you've *really* got me wishing I could afford a copy of E.V. Odle's 1923 novel "Clockwork Man," in which madness and time travel are also intimately connected. (In the far future, we'll all be cyborgs who can travel through time at will... unless the clockwork in your head goes awry, at which point you pop up at random times past and future, like it or not... plus you're already very confused.)

Not an art movie by any means, but "Somewhere in Time" leaves you wondering if Christopher Reeve has gone crazy. "A Christmas Carol" and "Connecticut Yankee" are stories (adapted more than once into movies) about time travelers who are probably only dreaming. "Time Bandits" also ends with the protagonist waking up in his bedroom -- but then there's that final twist, too. "Groundhog Day" is closer in spirit to "Somewhere in Time" (sentimental, earnest) than "Time Bandits" (ironic) I guess. But where does that leave "Demolition Man"?

 Reply

I liked the ideas behind Primer. I wasn't entertained by it, and it wasn't memorable. I did appreciate the highly-detailed dissection of its timelines.

 Reply

Saw Timecrimes last night and enjoyed it. Not a cinematic tour de force but quite good. The time travel dillyo is never explained, just some weird contraption with a milky fluid--a plot device if you will. Annalee is right on the money describing it as more of an exploration of morality and the good ol' human condition rather than Hard Science Fiction. The charming lady I watched it with was less than impressed, "too deterministic!" she railed. And indeed the whole plot was completely dependent on a "one world" hypothesis of time travel--once $hit happened (will havem happened? Aargh! Transchronogrammar is such a bitch.) our protagonist, Hector, is compelled to follow through without free will. Whether he decides to conform to the narrative he has already seen or attempts to change the time stream it always follows what will have always been happened(?!?).

I choose to think of this film as more of a locked room mystery than a Sci Fi flick. Horrible events occur and we have to figure out how, why, and when. Frankly, I saw the Big Twist Ending about 20 minutes before the credits and confirmed it when the ladder comes out for the "first" time. Still, I gasped and squirmed as the resolution played out.

It ain't Citizen Kane or even Momento but might be a well spent evening for my fellow io9ers.

If anything we can learn from this movie is that while the clandestine surveillance of firm young norks through binoculars (binorkulars?) may seem like innocent fun, there can be horrible consequences. Also, when running from maniacs/police/criminals in rural settings and seeking shelter in a mysterious and sophisticated laboratory, when the weird guy (possibly in a lab coat) gestures to an odd Device and says, "Quick hide in here!", politely refuse his offer. But all of us genre fans should already know this can only lead to transmorgrification/heartbreak. Stupid mad scientists.

P.S. The "Mumia Rosa" could be the next cool Halloween costume. Just need a peacoat, scissors, food dye, and bandages.

 Reply