Viewing the 1960 version of H.G. Wells "Time Machine" it is evident how much technology has changed just by the fact that the credits for the film appear at the beginning. This is not only a stylistic reality of the era, but also speaks to the few people that needed to be credited for creating the finished product. The end credits for the 2002 version of the film come at the end and undoubtedly list hundreds of people. Yet it is apparent that the story telling in 2002 version is more human. The story immediately ties itself in its narrative to to the human condition, thus it becomes more universally literate. The film could easily play to a multicultural, mutiethnic audience and key elements of the narrative could be easily understood across cultures even without benefit of subtitles. The 1960 version on the other hand would play to primarily and english speaking audience, mainly becomes it is dialogue driven - which is ironic being the film is about a futuristic technology. The audience for the 2002 film needs to be more visually literate than language literate. This is an important distinction in what it means to be literate in the twenty-first century and is a crucial component of bringing a technologically driven story to its audience. In the the 1960 version there is a line where one of the characters asks the inventor of the time machine if he has thought at all about the commercial potential of his invention. What is interesting is the 2002 filmmakers, unlike the 1960's filmmakers of this same story, did consider the commercial potential and so constructed their technologically driven film for a vissually literate audience which is a far larger audience than the purely language driven version from 1960's which is more or less a glorified stage play. The technology of filmmaking in 2002 serves very well the product of a 2002 movie about time travel - the future truly meets the future here. Where as carpentry and matte paintings were clearly employed in the 1960's version, digital technologies, perhaps some of them invented themselves for the production (something which is not uncommon, i.e. Lucas Film), were employed to give the film an actual futuristic flavor. The 1960's version needs to tell most of the story through narrative - characters pontificating back and forth. The 2002 film usesa visual language which compliments the sparse dialogue and furthers the story through kinetic devices: action vs. inaction, visual vs. narrative, mobile vs. static. Technology not only compliments literacy in the 2002 production of the time machine but opens up opportunities for the technology to appear less overwhelming. The audience is given a humanizing scene where he inventor loses his bride-to-be and this narrative device works as a universal theme to pull the audience into the story. With this accomplished through this narrative device, the audience is free to go along on the technological ride that follows. Suspension of disbelief for the technology of time travel has been achieved, so all the technical wizadry that follows can be accepted and further the narrative.
I really enjoyed reading this description of the two films. It is obvious you have a well versed background in film studies or know a lot about the inner workings of films. I too noticed that the 1960 version of the film was very much like a stage production. The characters do not move about out of the two room set. In the second film, I noticed a lot more freedom to move between set changes and more background characters. Not only is this a sign of our times, but it is a sign of more money being funneled into the the movie industry. It is obvious that 2002 had a lot more revenue to work with.
ReplyDeleteExcellent post, James. Very interesting. The lecturing in 1960 versus showing in 2002 is quite evident. I like your highlihgting this as a visual literacy vs. an oral or language literate audience. Of course we also might wonder how much audiences have lost their ability to follow detailed discussions. There is a lecturing element to the 1960 film. While the 2002 version is easier to follow, is it also that a contemporary audience has lost its patience for the lecture?
ReplyDeleteMore interesting, though is the shift from a goal of science for the greater good vs. science for commercialism, the challenge in the 1960 film. And by 2002 the entire goal of building the time machine is for the personal--the iGoal if you will!
I like your discussion on the commercial purpose of technology in the first and second films -- and the importance for filmmakers today to be able to sell films, particularly blockbustery-type films as this, to an audience beyond the borders of the US. Visual literacy and composition is key to working with texts today.
ReplyDeleteAlso, interesting observation about how technologies are invented solely for use in particular films. I'm thinking about how much films like Avatar cost to make. That makes connecting with a broad audience all the more important -- and film makers can't rely on stiff human actors telling a story in what looks more like stage-play format to get a return on their investment.
I like your comment about the 2002 version being more human. It seems that as we are bombarded with more and more technology maybe we are finally coming to a tipping point where technology is not, or will not be, the motivation for its own sake. (This is coming from a technie!)
ReplyDeleteHey James
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of global language that today's movies offer is great. How would you understand a film based on long monologues in Chinese if you don't speak the language. However, if so much of the message is in outside of the actors and acting, you turn in your 4 senses and understand the whole thing.
I think your comment that the 2002 version was more human and more visual is very insightful. As a culture, we are much more visual than a 1960 audience would be, mostly due to our exposure to technological change. I think the main character's focus on his lost love made this a more human-centered film as well and made this version much more engaging.
ReplyDelete