I do like my sci-fi and I've never seen these two films before so watching clips in class was quite fun for me.
Both George (1960) and Alex (2002) had their personal motivations for the time machine technology. We didn't see enough to quite get what George was after, but though Alex already appeared interested in the subject he was definitely motivated by a lost love he was trying to save. Observers saw the situation differently. Those around George could appreciate the commercial value of such an invention. Those in Alex's situation echoed that as well, referring to "valuable research". Ideas like "concoction" and "gadget" were thrown around in both versions implying that technology was something small to be used to solve a problem or make it easier. It is apparent that for Alex it was much more. It was a form of salvation. The 2002 version also seems to express the idea that technology can't solve everything. Alex says, "It's only a machine," when referring to the car. He's past this view that technology can be the solution to all of the world's problems - a belief not well articulated in the 1960 clip.
In terms of viewing, the 1960 version progressed at a much slower pace, focusing on interpersonal interaction and less on the technology itself. It spent so much time almost painfully reinforcing the concept of time including phrases like "waste of time" and"all the time in the world". The 2002 version, on the other hand, quickly got through much more of the backstory or maybe I was distracted by the effects. It laid out the groundwork and focused on Alex's personal motivation. I think present day movie goers need to understand the main character's motivation. There are so many choices and things to do in this world that something must be motivating us towards one choice or another.
How technology was demonstrated was also different. The 1960 version shows the machine disappearing, but doesn't focus on specific parts. The latter version shows all the bells and whistles, spending significant time on the intricacies of the machine and what it can do. It shows Alex in the machine and visually demonstrated what was happening in the time travel. The first version just talked about it.
I noticed a change from the community to the individual in the two versions. George (1960) felt it necessary to show his ideas to his peers. He needed or wanted their "seeing". He even says to his friends that they are "not here to listen, but to see". Alex in comparison was working on his own. His friend Filby tried to make contact with him, which he refused. He was alone in his head and heart and he wanted it that way. The portrayal of the maid changes as well - the 1960 maid taking on a much more passive role while the 2002 maid seemed to be actively keeping Alex together.
It seems we have developed into a much more visual society, relying on ourselves to accomplish our goals. We don't do anything without motivation and are coming to the point where technology isn't the end all be all.
I noticed the difference in the maids, too. She even had a couple of funny lines.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your observation about the professor being beyond thinking of technology as the solution to all problems. And, in fact, in the second film, it is technology that causes both deaths of his lady love. I sometimes forget to consider cars and guns as technology. Technology=ipad in my brain sometimes.
So you're asserting that even though technology is initially posed as a possible means of salvation--or at least relief--for Alex, because his hopes are dashed when Emma gets killed again in Round II (how video-gamey does that sound?!), we are to see the 2002 version as positing that technology should NOT be assumed to be the solution to all problems? Interesting, if so, because I noticed something similar, as I explained in my own post about the disparity between the initial comments offered by George/Alex's companion (the thing about the future-oriented versus the past-oriented response).
ReplyDeleteYes...that technology should NOT be assumed to be the solution. I think Alex thought it could be, but quickly realized the futility of it. The more I think about it, the more I see the versions as presenting quite different takes on technology. I didn't catch the future/past-orientated thing, but that's a great observation.
DeleteI think it is the humanizing of the character - by the death of his fiance - that enables the technology to continue to tell the story without and emphasis on narrative drive - and which also opens up the possibility of an audience with mutliple types of literacy. The film is in no way tied to a native English-speaking audience - even without subtitles.
ReplyDelete