Academic Plan
Francisco Sierra
N00157327
When I composed my intellectual autobiography back in September, I said that I hoped to use my time at the New School to combine three of my passions; film, semiotics and horror to create films that can affect viewers signified interpretation of a subject. I also cited King Kong as an example of how powerful the medium of film can be in reference to my own life, and how King Kong ignited a proactive nature and passion that I hope to direct towards my own work. In the past couple months, I can’t say that my goals have changed, yet I feel that the path I will take through the program has been altered.
Since September I have reaffirmed my passion for creating and composing film, yet my goals of the program have been somewhat redirected. Yes, combining film, semiotics, and horror is truly one of my long term goals, yet my short term goals for immediately finishing the program are to get a job within visual production. I feel focusing on these short term goals is more of a practical idea for me. And hopefully, with my educational base and a facilitating job, I can eventually complete my long term goal. I believe that I have a natural flair for post-production and editing so I hope I can use this program to effectively prepare myself for the eventual job search through experience and the preparation of a demo reel. At the same time, based upon these shorter term goals, I think I should include some practicalities in my education as well. Let’s be honest, it’s somewhat of a lofty idea to think that I will immediately get a job in production simply with production experience and no knowledge of the business side of things. To counter my creative, artistic, and technical development I hope to ground myself with completion of the Media Management certificate to familiarize myself with the business side of the production industry. In all honesty, another reason why I’ve decided to change this, is because of the requirements of the programs. If it were up to me I would take all production courses; yet since we are required to take four seminar courses, why not get a pertinent certificate in the process? Therefore I hope to balance my courses to develop myself creatively and technically and at the same time prepare myself for a production job by studying the industry and the business side through the Media Management certificate.
My strategy and navigation of the program is much more of a difficult decision as some aspects of this are uncontrollable. Most of my navigation through the course is decided by me, yet like it is in many aspects of life, you cannot control every detail. Things such as credits and class availability will surely affect the route I will take in class selection. In my short time here at the New School, this has already been exemplified. My initial strategy for the program was to take the Film Form intro class next semester, Time Based, and the Media Leadership class. I feel that Time Based is necessary as it is a prerequisite to many of the editing and production classes and I also feel Film Form is necessary as I hope to use it as a barometer in my decision to focus on Film Form. The issue occurred when I registered for classes. I was not allowed to choose both, as the labs for Film Form and Time Based overlapped each other by forty minutes. Therefore, based on the fact that Time Based opened up more classes with the completion of the prerequisite I chose that. So, as of now my classes for next semester will be Time Based, Media Leadership, and The Music Industry.
After next semester I will need to complete two Media Management Courses, a Methods course, and 4 other courses that will effectively prepare me for my post graduate job search. I already have a pretty good idea of what I will take, please see below. . . . .
Spring 2010
- Media Management and Leadership
- Music Business in Media
- Media Practices: Time Based
Fall 2010
-Media Practices: Film Form
-Market Research for Media Managers
-Projects In Digital Video Editing
Spring 2011
-Film Distribution and New Media or Media Economics or Digital Media: Strategy and Implementation
-Cinematography: Art and Technique
-The Producers Craft or Semiotics for Producers or Sound and Image or Directing Documentary
Please note that I do not plan on pursuing the thesis option during my time here. The only aspect of the above chart I can’t guarantee is the Cinematography class and my other production class for Spring 2011. I want to utilize the Film Form focus to balance visual aesthetics with composition. My thoughts are, that if I feel the first Film Form class is a success I will take Cinematography in Spring 2011 and then if it’s possible, take the Film Form Production and Post Production classes in the following two semesters(Fall 11, Spring 12) on a solely part time basis. Obviously after Spring 2011 I will have completed the necessary credits to graduate, yet if the program allows me to I would like to add the final Film Form classes for my own personal education and development to create a project that would become the summation of everything I have learned and would also provide a chance for me to pursue my long term goals of including semiotics, film and horror in a composition. As of now, I cannot foresee myself utilizing courses from other programs within the university.
My timeline is also influenced by financial concerns as well. Due to my agreement with my student loans and financial aid, I must take this program full time. I am very appreciative for the fact that the classes are at night, because as much as I do need to attend the courses full time I also need to sustain an income in this very expensive city. I have found an excellent job that provides great pay with flexible hours that is perfect for balancing school. With this said I also feel that finding an internship that is relatable to my field of study is just as important as the classes. Not only would this provide me with real world experience, but it would also give me the chance to network and develop contacts in the field. The one thing I do not want to do with my internship is use it for credits as I feel those credits are too precious. Instead I want to use it solely as an experience and resume builder. From a far it may seem that attending school fulltime, working a part time job, and having an internship is too much. However, in the past semester I have been able to juggle school, my job, a part time job helping a friend out a few hours a week, and an internship with an independent record label.
On top of the academic path and internship, I feel that developing connections within the program is also an extremely important aspect of this program and my eventual transition towards a production career. Firstly finding the right professor can help you with career advice, references, and help within and outside the program. Conveniently my advisor Rafael Parra is an expert in editing and the post production field, and I have already begun establishing a relationship with him. I also hope to take the Producers Craft with Paul Hardart as I found his lecture in Understanding Media Studies to be very pertinent towards my path. Secondly, the importance of networking amongst the fellow students cannot be overstated. I hope to develop networking relationships that can symbiotically offer me and the other student something. I feel the best way to go about doing this is to help fellow students with their projects. Not only will helping them give me additional production experience in whatever project they are working on, but if everything goes well a relationship will be forged that may either be personal or develop into something professional.
There are definitely ways that the Media Studies program can assist me and future students in facilitating our goals and navigation through the program. Firstly, as I mentioned before credits are precious. The fact that we have to take 3 prerequisites which equals out to one fourth of the program is too much. I think it would be more facilitating if Ideas, Understanding Media Studies, and Media Practices: Concepts were combined into one or two courses. Some aspects of these classes I feel are beneficial such as learning how to write a literary review, analyzing key media theory works, and learning important tools for creating media. Yet others are not, such as repeatedly restating your statement of purpose, inconsistent levels of interaction and discussion with professors and classmates, and disjointed lectures. Secondly, I think the program in itself should be more facilitating towards students selecting classes. For example, I really wanted to take both Film Form and Time Based media next semester, but I cannot because the labs overlap. If the program became a little more aware of these overlapping classes or general scheduling issues it would definitely be more beneficial for me and the rest of the students. Thirdly, I mentioned that developing connections is another goal of mine. It would be very helpful if the program created more opportunities to communicate with my classmates. I do not refer to this on a social level but more for learning who needs help with what projects and how we can learn more by helping each other and working together.
In conclusion, I certainly feel that the program and my path through the program will be very important in establishing both my long term and short term goals. I believe to fully take advantage to this program I will not only need to stick to my semester by semester plan, but I will also need to develop relationships with the right professors and assist other students with their projects. I also feel that an internship in the field will provide me with the appropriate work experience that I may utilize towards a post graduate job search. At the same time, I also feel that the university could facilitate certain aspects of the program in a more beneficial way. Regardless, I am extremely excited, proud, and anxious to continue my development here at the New School and in New York City.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Literary Review
Literary Review
For my literary review topic I decided to analyze the science fiction films of the 1950s and how they are constructed in relevance to the historical concerns, fears, and events of that time. I will begin the review by analyzing the definition of science fiction through texts, followed by the analysis of the fine line that is science fiction and horror of the 1950s. Finally, I will discuss texts that analyze the historical context of the genre through characteristics of 1950s science fiction cinema and specific films.
Defining Science Fiction
It is important to establish a working definition of science fiction as a genre. According to Christine Cornea, the debate over the proper definition and basic components of science fiction work has gone on for years, particularly in relation to science fiction literature. She arrives at her definition of science fiction primarily through consideration of the work of two literary theorists, Tzvetan Todorov and Rosemary Jackson. Cornea finds Todorov’s literary genre of ‘the fantastic’ helpful in its ability to account for the irrational and unrealistic aspects of science fiction. In his theory, Todorov places ‘the fantastic’ in the middle of two otherwise unrelated narrative forms: the ‘marvelous’ and the ‘uncanny’; the marvelous narrative focuses on events that arise from otherworldly or supernatural causes while the uncanny narrative deals with those brought on by the “inner workings of the unconscious mind” (Cornea 3). Therefore, for Todorov, “the reader of science fiction is caught between that which exists outside of the laws of the known world and that which might be read as a logical extension of the known world” (4).
Rosemary Jackson modified Todorov’s work, viewing the fantastic as a writing mode –not a genre- in between the marvelous and what she terms the “mimetic”. While the marvelous still describes the otherworldly, Jackson replaces Todorov’s uncanny with her mimetic to describe “narratives which claim to imitate an external reality” (Jackson qtd. in Cornea 4). According to Jackson, “fantastic narratives confound elements of both the marvelous and the mimetic. They assert that what they are telling is real...then they proceed to break that assumption of realism by introducing what…is manifestly unreal” (34). The fantastic, for Jackson, replicates the known world while simultaneously challenging it.
Taking Jackson and Todorov’s models in combination, Cornea defines science fiction as “a genre that relies on the fantastic…that is demonstrably located in between fantasy and reality” (4). It is important to note that for Cornea, the term fantasy does not necessarily indicate that which is in opposition with reality, but that which is alternative to it. Moreover, she does not refer to “reality” in Jackson’s mimetic sense. For Cornea, “reality” refers to “the perceived model of the known world as constructed through narratives and through media” (4). This qualification is useful to our discussion of science fiction as a genre that cannot be understood without consideration of the historical, social, and political context that its texts are created in.
Another reason for confusion over the best definition of science fiction as a genre is its debatable and often unclear relationship with the horror genre. Mark Jancovich notes the tendency of film critics to define genres independently of others as particularly problematic when it comes to the invasion stories of the 1950s, which clearly combine aspects of both horror and science fiction. At the time of their release, these movies were often simply referred to as “monster movies”. Supporters of science fiction viewed these films as embarrassments, claiming their negative portrayals of science were actually anti-scientific. However, defining the science fiction genre as pro-science is questionable and limiting (10-11). According to Jancovich, these “distinctions fail to recognize that the 1950s invasion narratives represent a distinctive transformation not only in the horror genre, but also in science fiction” (13). Joseph Maddrey attributes this change in the horror genre to the invention of the atomic bomb and the fears it engendered in the American consciousness.
The Hollywood horror films produced in the 1950s preyed on this fear of atomic war, which Maddrey refers to as “the ultimate collective nightmare” (30). Realizing that the American public’s fear of technology was far greater than its fear of “old superstitions,” Hollywood modified its monsters, making them the unfortunate results of atomic testing or of otherworldly origins. For example, the monster in The Thing from Another World is an alien vampire that survives on human blood (30-31). The outdated vampire becomes an alien vampire and voila!- the element of the unknown adds new terror to a familiar character. Even though he notes the addition of scientific elements to horror stories in the ‘50s, Maddrey still classifies such films as strictly horror. I disagree with this contention due to the fact that these monsters come from outer space or result from scientific “advancements,” which clearly moves them towards the category of science fiction. This is not to say that these films are strictly science fiction, either.
Like Jancovich, I believe it is a mistake to treat horror and science fiction as separate, uniquely defined genres, particularly when discussing the films that emerged in the 1950s. When viewing these films in their historical, political, and social contexts, they are best described as science fiction films inspired by fear- fear of the unknown, fear of scientific advancement, fear of the unforeseen consequences of progress. Existing literature implies that the events surrounding the science fiction boom of the ‘50s made it impossible for people to think about science without some measure of fear. In this sense, the science fiction films of the 1950s are a reaction to and a product of the fears that characterize that time period. Horror is therefore an inherent aspect of the 1950s science fiction films and the attempt to distinguish between the two is counterproductive.
The Historical Context of 1950s Science Fiction Films
Film critics often lament over the state of the horror movie at the end of WWII. Rick Worland describes 40s B-movie horror and how the films of the war era leaked over and effected the immediate postwar films of the late 1940s in his essay OWI Meets the Monsters: Hollywood Horror Films Meets War Propaganda. Although most of his essay describes the formation of the Office of War Information during the war and how they filtered and controlled horror film propaganda (as well as that produced in other film genres), he does allude to how this affected the immediate postwar horror films. During and immediately following the war there were a barrage of “tired sequels of respected originals”(47) such as Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein, Zombies on Broadway and Return of the Vampire. Worland argued that the real horrors of the war were inescapable, therefore the American public needed films that provided entertainment and not fear. Therefore, these films that are often seen as B-movies actually served their purpose at the time. He also argues that although these films aren’t critically acclaimed they do provide an important historical subtext. This article is relevant because I believe that the lack of fear inducing films that had clear and timely commentary of the 40s led to the explosion of postwar science-fiction commentary films of the 1950s. The 1950s found the world in turmoil: the end of WWII and the start of the Cold War brought about drastic changes that caused people all over the world to question their most basic beliefs. Melvin E. Matthews, Jr. best summarizes the world events leading up to the 1950s science fiction boom, which he states:
owed its existence to several reasons: World War II and the advent of the atomic bomb, a change in the public’s attitude toward scientists…the Cold War between East and West, and Soviet and American competition in rocket technology; anxiety over nuclear war and paranoia over community subversion; and the “flying saucer” scare. (8).
Even though the atomic bomb played a significant role in America’s victory over evil in WWII, it was impossible to ignore the looming threat that accompanied its mere existence. The existence of the atomic bomb meant that atomic warfare was a real and ever-present possibility, as were the effects of the radiation released upon its detonation.
The atomic bomb forced a hard fact down the throats of those who celebrated the technological advancements of science. According to sociologist Charles Lemert, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 signaled a definitive change in the world’s power systems. Lemert poignantly states:
Only the United States was able to invent, produce, and deploy the ultimate weapon. Scientific knowledge, inventive genius, productive capacity, and moral force…possessed all at once and demonstrated…the United States was the perfect fulfillment of the modern world” (271).
This perspective demonstrates the extent to which the bomb symbolized progress and modernity and, since the bomb played such a decisive role in WWII, the defeat of evil. If scientific advancements brought about the bomb and the bomb defeated evil, it followed that there must be a moral force behind the creations of science. However, as time passed, the destructive aspects of progress did not disappear as expeted. Images of Hiroshima victims, accounts of the negative effects of radiation, and the fact that the nations of the world kept building their atomic arsenals proved science to be a double-edged sword. Anxiety over the irreversible steps the modern scientific world had taken was inevitable, whether one tried to deny these facts or not.
At such a point in history, it should come as no surprise that the science-related films produced during this time reflected this fear of science, of the scientist, and of the scientist’s creations. The “mad scientist” films of the 1950s clearly represent an incorporation of these fears. In his book Screams of Reason, David J.Skals’ describes mad scientist films and illustrates how the notion of the mad scientist character 1950s science fiction films reflect specific national fears. Skals’ constructs a classical definition the mad scientist film genre as “a lightning rod for unbearable anxieties about the meaning of scientific thinking and the consequences of modern technology.”(18). He elaborates on this definition, focusing on how the mad scientist genre pertains specifically to fears generated by the events at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Skals then constructs a timeline of monster films that exemplified the fears of post-WWII America. Specific films inlcude Dr. Cyclops, Them!, A Thing From Another World, and various classical monster concepts that involve notions of science-run-amok (166-194). An interesting observation that Skals makes here is that the American obsession with science as a means of horror was so prominent at this time that it overflowed into classical horror stories, such as Dracula. In The House of Dracula (1945), Dr. Franz Edelman goes insane as the result of “vampiric blood contamination” (175). This informs our discussion of science fiction as a genre inherently based on fear, especially since Skals seems to imply that science itself serves as the horrific in certain monster films. While he does organize his discussion of films around the constructs of the “mad science” genre, Skals fails to elaborate on the social implications of the genre and its significance in relation to postwar sentiments. In general, this book reads more like a historical timeline.
The monster films of the 1950s also play on the fears of a world in the aftermath of an atomic war. In Nightmares in Red White and Blue, Maddrey discusses the ways in which these films blur the lines between man and monster. He argues that this “blurring” is an important reflection of how America viewed itself after dropping the bomb- as monsters. Maddrey explains two reasons as to how and why man becomes monster after WWII: First, man becomes a monster because he is seen wielding weapons of destruction while at war. Second, man becomes monster because of the unspeakable evils he performs in war (34). If we consider the characteristics of the 1950s monsters of film, we recognize that they have exaggerated features and/or super powers. For example, Godzilla is a gigantic mutant lizard as a result of atomic radiation and The Blob possesses the power of super-consumption. The super-features and super-powers that the monsters possess represent the ways in which modern weapons magnify man’s ability to destroy. James Iaccino presents another way to analyze the monster films of this era in his application of Jungian archetypical analysis to horror films.
Iaccino begins by illustrating the ideas of Jungian theory, specifically that the "conscious mind grows out of the unconscious psyche which is much older than it and which goes on functioning together with it, or even in spite of it"(3). For example Iaccino uses the ideas of the "shadow archetype" to express the side of our human psyche that contains destructive instincts and that remains hidden in our subconscious. Iaccino argues that the "shadow abominations" from not only the postwar but of recent decades (1980s) represent the high amount of negative energy and psyche present after the War. For example, in films such as the Blob and 20 Million Miles to Earth, the creatures have an unprecedented growth rate that exemplifies the proportion of energy used to repress the darker side of post-war affairs. Overall I found the notions in this book to be somewhat abstract and hinging on generic archetypical descriptions created by Jung. It would be more applicable to this discussion if he chose to elaborate more on the relationships between Jung and horror than on descriptions of specific horror films. In terms of analyzing monster films, I prefer Maddrey’s explanations for the traits of the monsters over Iaccino’s.
While reading Maddrey, it occurred to me that the blurring of man with monster serves as commentary on the fact that the enemy in modern warfare is faceless. Instead of hand to hand combat, the potential of your enemy is based on their advancement in or use of technologically-produced weapons. These weapons allow for attack from a distance, with a certain level of anonymity. Since the modern enemy has no face, the enemy could just as easily be our friends and neighbors as it could be aliens from a galaxy far, far away. However, when the science fiction film enemy is alien, the Cold War –not the atomic bomb- becomes the most significant historical inspiration.
The Cold War in particular had a marked affect on science fiction films of the 50s. Katovich and Kinkade even define science fiction in relation to the Cold War, claiming that “[science fiction] stories emerged within the context of the cold war ideology which crystallized during the 1950s” (621). Central to this American cold war ideology was the fear of loosing the freedom won in the defeat of the Nazis at the end of WWII. The end of the war and the invention of the television meant dwindling audiences for film makers. In order to bring people back to the movies, producers created science fiction films that reinforced American anxiety over their perceived security. The alien-invasion films of the ‘50s most clearly preyed upon American’s Cold War fears. According to Janovich, many critics of these alien invasion stories view them solely in their historical context, thus viewing them as representative of Cold War ideology. The threat of alien invasion is symbolic of the threat posed by the Soviets, or any other group in opposition to the establishments of American society, for that matter (15). One of the first, defining alien-invasion films to come out of the 50s is Don Siegel’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956). Critics often consider the movie’s challenge to conventional beliefs about race, sex, and gender as indicative of the American-Cold-War-fears of conformity and loss of autonomy as evident in Community Russia.
In her essay “’You’re Next!’: Postwar Hegemony Besieged in Invasion of the Bodysnatchers”, Katrina Mann looks at the concept of invasion displayed in Invasion of the Bodysnatchers to analyze the disenfranchisement of the white patriarchy as a threat in post-WWII America. The sum of Mann’s argument is that the film exemplifies postwar issues surrounding American attitudes towards issues of immigration, mass society, racial migration, brainwashing, gender roles, sexuality, and more (51). The means of doing this, she argues, is by creating a threat that symbolized postwar concerns in a collectively allied manner; the alien invaders come down to earth in pods and transform their victims, turning them all into equal and emotionless beings with no distinctions of sex or race. In its disregard for sex or race, Bodysnatchers appeals to the fears of its ideal audience member -a white male- who Mann contends is in risk of losing the power afforded him by the hegemonic constructs of pre-war American society. I found Mann’s essay to be extremely effective in illustrating an interesting point of view on the content of Body Snatchers that is predominantly agreed upon. I also consider her balance of plot summary with historical/cultural relevance as well as theoretical notions to be all encompassing, as I had wished more of these sources would be.
Patrick Lucanio’s deconstructs the sub-genre of alien invasion films and applies myth criticism and analytical psychology to the visual components, plot, and thematic of invasion films. It should be noted that Lucanio tends to avoid the typical historical relevance of these films and focuses on other aspects such as comparing the invasion genre to the detective genre (22-24) or the confrontation of or Id in Forbidden Planet (94), which is not useful for the purposes of this paper. However, Lucanio’s contention that “in no other film genre is communal solidarity so richly displayed [as] in the alien invasion film” is an important consideration for this discussion (42). Lucanio explains that in alien-invasion films, populations and the military team together to fight against the incoming attack. Lucanio continues by noting the obvious connotations of standing up to communism but also suggests that this simultaneously infers a separate Utopian vision of social unity (42). The themes of community solidarity and the importance of cooperation with the military evident in invasion films are indicative of the national sentiments of Americans after the war. The American victory in WWII certainly created a huge confidence in and appreciation of a united America, and the fact that this aspect is present in alien invasion films that came out of that era should not come as a surprise.
In conclusion I feel that further research would include a further probing into the sociological perspectives of 1950s American sentiments, as well as a more in depth analysis of specific films of the time. One thing that was difficult to find in my research, and would be interested to learn more about are the representations of the other non-American perspectives in foreign Science Fiction films, specifically those of Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Works Cited
Cornea, Christine. Science Fiction Cinema: Between Fantasy and Reality. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 2007.
Iaccino, James. Psychological Reflections on Cinematic Terror: Jungian Archetypes in Horror Films. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1994.
Jackson, Rosemary. Fantasy: The Literature of Subversion. New York: Methuen, 1981.
Jancovich, Mark. Rational Fears: American Horror in the 1950s. New York: Manchester University Press, 1996.
Katovich, Michael A., and Patrick T. Kinkade. “The Stories Told in Science Fiction and Social Science: Reading The Thing and Other Remakes from Two Eras.”
The Sociological Quarterly 34 (1993): 619-651.
Lemert, Charles. “The Golden Moment: 1945-1963.” Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings. 3rd ed. Ed. Charles Lemert. Boulder: Westview Press, 2004. 271-282.
Lucanio, Patrick. Them or Us: Archetypal Interpretations of Fifties Alien Invasion Films. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1987.
Maddrey, Joseph. Nightmares in Red, White and Blue: The Evolution of the American Horror Film. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc, 2004.
Mann, Katrina. “‘You’re Next!’: Postwar Hegemony Besieged in Invasion of the Bodysnatchers.” Cinema Journal 44.1 (2004): 49-68.
Matthews, Melvin E. Jr. Hostile Aliens, Hollywood and Today’s News: 1950’s Science Fiction Films and 9/11. New York: Algora, 2007.
Skal, David J. Screams of Reason: Mad Science and Modern Culture. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998.
Worland, Rick. “OWI Meets the Monsters: Hollywood Horror Films and War Propaganda, 1942 to 1945.” Cinema Journal 37.1 (1997): 47-62.
For my literary review topic I decided to analyze the science fiction films of the 1950s and how they are constructed in relevance to the historical concerns, fears, and events of that time. I will begin the review by analyzing the definition of science fiction through texts, followed by the analysis of the fine line that is science fiction and horror of the 1950s. Finally, I will discuss texts that analyze the historical context of the genre through characteristics of 1950s science fiction cinema and specific films.
Defining Science Fiction
It is important to establish a working definition of science fiction as a genre. According to Christine Cornea, the debate over the proper definition and basic components of science fiction work has gone on for years, particularly in relation to science fiction literature. She arrives at her definition of science fiction primarily through consideration of the work of two literary theorists, Tzvetan Todorov and Rosemary Jackson. Cornea finds Todorov’s literary genre of ‘the fantastic’ helpful in its ability to account for the irrational and unrealistic aspects of science fiction. In his theory, Todorov places ‘the fantastic’ in the middle of two otherwise unrelated narrative forms: the ‘marvelous’ and the ‘uncanny’; the marvelous narrative focuses on events that arise from otherworldly or supernatural causes while the uncanny narrative deals with those brought on by the “inner workings of the unconscious mind” (Cornea 3). Therefore, for Todorov, “the reader of science fiction is caught between that which exists outside of the laws of the known world and that which might be read as a logical extension of the known world” (4).
Rosemary Jackson modified Todorov’s work, viewing the fantastic as a writing mode –not a genre- in between the marvelous and what she terms the “mimetic”. While the marvelous still describes the otherworldly, Jackson replaces Todorov’s uncanny with her mimetic to describe “narratives which claim to imitate an external reality” (Jackson qtd. in Cornea 4). According to Jackson, “fantastic narratives confound elements of both the marvelous and the mimetic. They assert that what they are telling is real...then they proceed to break that assumption of realism by introducing what…is manifestly unreal” (34). The fantastic, for Jackson, replicates the known world while simultaneously challenging it.
Taking Jackson and Todorov’s models in combination, Cornea defines science fiction as “a genre that relies on the fantastic…that is demonstrably located in between fantasy and reality” (4). It is important to note that for Cornea, the term fantasy does not necessarily indicate that which is in opposition with reality, but that which is alternative to it. Moreover, she does not refer to “reality” in Jackson’s mimetic sense. For Cornea, “reality” refers to “the perceived model of the known world as constructed through narratives and through media” (4). This qualification is useful to our discussion of science fiction as a genre that cannot be understood without consideration of the historical, social, and political context that its texts are created in.
Another reason for confusion over the best definition of science fiction as a genre is its debatable and often unclear relationship with the horror genre. Mark Jancovich notes the tendency of film critics to define genres independently of others as particularly problematic when it comes to the invasion stories of the 1950s, which clearly combine aspects of both horror and science fiction. At the time of their release, these movies were often simply referred to as “monster movies”. Supporters of science fiction viewed these films as embarrassments, claiming their negative portrayals of science were actually anti-scientific. However, defining the science fiction genre as pro-science is questionable and limiting (10-11). According to Jancovich, these “distinctions fail to recognize that the 1950s invasion narratives represent a distinctive transformation not only in the horror genre, but also in science fiction” (13). Joseph Maddrey attributes this change in the horror genre to the invention of the atomic bomb and the fears it engendered in the American consciousness.
The Hollywood horror films produced in the 1950s preyed on this fear of atomic war, which Maddrey refers to as “the ultimate collective nightmare” (30). Realizing that the American public’s fear of technology was far greater than its fear of “old superstitions,” Hollywood modified its monsters, making them the unfortunate results of atomic testing or of otherworldly origins. For example, the monster in The Thing from Another World is an alien vampire that survives on human blood (30-31). The outdated vampire becomes an alien vampire and voila!- the element of the unknown adds new terror to a familiar character. Even though he notes the addition of scientific elements to horror stories in the ‘50s, Maddrey still classifies such films as strictly horror. I disagree with this contention due to the fact that these monsters come from outer space or result from scientific “advancements,” which clearly moves them towards the category of science fiction. This is not to say that these films are strictly science fiction, either.
Like Jancovich, I believe it is a mistake to treat horror and science fiction as separate, uniquely defined genres, particularly when discussing the films that emerged in the 1950s. When viewing these films in their historical, political, and social contexts, they are best described as science fiction films inspired by fear- fear of the unknown, fear of scientific advancement, fear of the unforeseen consequences of progress. Existing literature implies that the events surrounding the science fiction boom of the ‘50s made it impossible for people to think about science without some measure of fear. In this sense, the science fiction films of the 1950s are a reaction to and a product of the fears that characterize that time period. Horror is therefore an inherent aspect of the 1950s science fiction films and the attempt to distinguish between the two is counterproductive.
The Historical Context of 1950s Science Fiction Films
Film critics often lament over the state of the horror movie at the end of WWII. Rick Worland describes 40s B-movie horror and how the films of the war era leaked over and effected the immediate postwar films of the late 1940s in his essay OWI Meets the Monsters: Hollywood Horror Films Meets War Propaganda. Although most of his essay describes the formation of the Office of War Information during the war and how they filtered and controlled horror film propaganda (as well as that produced in other film genres), he does allude to how this affected the immediate postwar horror films. During and immediately following the war there were a barrage of “tired sequels of respected originals”(47) such as Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein, Zombies on Broadway and Return of the Vampire. Worland argued that the real horrors of the war were inescapable, therefore the American public needed films that provided entertainment and not fear. Therefore, these films that are often seen as B-movies actually served their purpose at the time. He also argues that although these films aren’t critically acclaimed they do provide an important historical subtext. This article is relevant because I believe that the lack of fear inducing films that had clear and timely commentary of the 40s led to the explosion of postwar science-fiction commentary films of the 1950s. The 1950s found the world in turmoil: the end of WWII and the start of the Cold War brought about drastic changes that caused people all over the world to question their most basic beliefs. Melvin E. Matthews, Jr. best summarizes the world events leading up to the 1950s science fiction boom, which he states:
owed its existence to several reasons: World War II and the advent of the atomic bomb, a change in the public’s attitude toward scientists…the Cold War between East and West, and Soviet and American competition in rocket technology; anxiety over nuclear war and paranoia over community subversion; and the “flying saucer” scare. (8).
Even though the atomic bomb played a significant role in America’s victory over evil in WWII, it was impossible to ignore the looming threat that accompanied its mere existence. The existence of the atomic bomb meant that atomic warfare was a real and ever-present possibility, as were the effects of the radiation released upon its detonation.
The atomic bomb forced a hard fact down the throats of those who celebrated the technological advancements of science. According to sociologist Charles Lemert, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 signaled a definitive change in the world’s power systems. Lemert poignantly states:
Only the United States was able to invent, produce, and deploy the ultimate weapon. Scientific knowledge, inventive genius, productive capacity, and moral force…possessed all at once and demonstrated…the United States was the perfect fulfillment of the modern world” (271).
This perspective demonstrates the extent to which the bomb symbolized progress and modernity and, since the bomb played such a decisive role in WWII, the defeat of evil. If scientific advancements brought about the bomb and the bomb defeated evil, it followed that there must be a moral force behind the creations of science. However, as time passed, the destructive aspects of progress did not disappear as expeted. Images of Hiroshima victims, accounts of the negative effects of radiation, and the fact that the nations of the world kept building their atomic arsenals proved science to be a double-edged sword. Anxiety over the irreversible steps the modern scientific world had taken was inevitable, whether one tried to deny these facts or not.
At such a point in history, it should come as no surprise that the science-related films produced during this time reflected this fear of science, of the scientist, and of the scientist’s creations. The “mad scientist” films of the 1950s clearly represent an incorporation of these fears. In his book Screams of Reason, David J.Skals’ describes mad scientist films and illustrates how the notion of the mad scientist character 1950s science fiction films reflect specific national fears. Skals’ constructs a classical definition the mad scientist film genre as “a lightning rod for unbearable anxieties about the meaning of scientific thinking and the consequences of modern technology.”(18). He elaborates on this definition, focusing on how the mad scientist genre pertains specifically to fears generated by the events at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Skals then constructs a timeline of monster films that exemplified the fears of post-WWII America. Specific films inlcude Dr. Cyclops, Them!, A Thing From Another World, and various classical monster concepts that involve notions of science-run-amok (166-194). An interesting observation that Skals makes here is that the American obsession with science as a means of horror was so prominent at this time that it overflowed into classical horror stories, such as Dracula. In The House of Dracula (1945), Dr. Franz Edelman goes insane as the result of “vampiric blood contamination” (175). This informs our discussion of science fiction as a genre inherently based on fear, especially since Skals seems to imply that science itself serves as the horrific in certain monster films. While he does organize his discussion of films around the constructs of the “mad science” genre, Skals fails to elaborate on the social implications of the genre and its significance in relation to postwar sentiments. In general, this book reads more like a historical timeline.
The monster films of the 1950s also play on the fears of a world in the aftermath of an atomic war. In Nightmares in Red White and Blue, Maddrey discusses the ways in which these films blur the lines between man and monster. He argues that this “blurring” is an important reflection of how America viewed itself after dropping the bomb- as monsters. Maddrey explains two reasons as to how and why man becomes monster after WWII: First, man becomes a monster because he is seen wielding weapons of destruction while at war. Second, man becomes monster because of the unspeakable evils he performs in war (34). If we consider the characteristics of the 1950s monsters of film, we recognize that they have exaggerated features and/or super powers. For example, Godzilla is a gigantic mutant lizard as a result of atomic radiation and The Blob possesses the power of super-consumption. The super-features and super-powers that the monsters possess represent the ways in which modern weapons magnify man’s ability to destroy. James Iaccino presents another way to analyze the monster films of this era in his application of Jungian archetypical analysis to horror films.
Iaccino begins by illustrating the ideas of Jungian theory, specifically that the "conscious mind grows out of the unconscious psyche which is much older than it and which goes on functioning together with it, or even in spite of it"(3). For example Iaccino uses the ideas of the "shadow archetype" to express the side of our human psyche that contains destructive instincts and that remains hidden in our subconscious. Iaccino argues that the "shadow abominations" from not only the postwar but of recent decades (1980s) represent the high amount of negative energy and psyche present after the War. For example, in films such as the Blob and 20 Million Miles to Earth, the creatures have an unprecedented growth rate that exemplifies the proportion of energy used to repress the darker side of post-war affairs. Overall I found the notions in this book to be somewhat abstract and hinging on generic archetypical descriptions created by Jung. It would be more applicable to this discussion if he chose to elaborate more on the relationships between Jung and horror than on descriptions of specific horror films. In terms of analyzing monster films, I prefer Maddrey’s explanations for the traits of the monsters over Iaccino’s.
While reading Maddrey, it occurred to me that the blurring of man with monster serves as commentary on the fact that the enemy in modern warfare is faceless. Instead of hand to hand combat, the potential of your enemy is based on their advancement in or use of technologically-produced weapons. These weapons allow for attack from a distance, with a certain level of anonymity. Since the modern enemy has no face, the enemy could just as easily be our friends and neighbors as it could be aliens from a galaxy far, far away. However, when the science fiction film enemy is alien, the Cold War –not the atomic bomb- becomes the most significant historical inspiration.
The Cold War in particular had a marked affect on science fiction films of the 50s. Katovich and Kinkade even define science fiction in relation to the Cold War, claiming that “[science fiction] stories emerged within the context of the cold war ideology which crystallized during the 1950s” (621). Central to this American cold war ideology was the fear of loosing the freedom won in the defeat of the Nazis at the end of WWII. The end of the war and the invention of the television meant dwindling audiences for film makers. In order to bring people back to the movies, producers created science fiction films that reinforced American anxiety over their perceived security. The alien-invasion films of the ‘50s most clearly preyed upon American’s Cold War fears. According to Janovich, many critics of these alien invasion stories view them solely in their historical context, thus viewing them as representative of Cold War ideology. The threat of alien invasion is symbolic of the threat posed by the Soviets, or any other group in opposition to the establishments of American society, for that matter (15). One of the first, defining alien-invasion films to come out of the 50s is Don Siegel’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956). Critics often consider the movie’s challenge to conventional beliefs about race, sex, and gender as indicative of the American-Cold-War-fears of conformity and loss of autonomy as evident in Community Russia.
In her essay “’You’re Next!’: Postwar Hegemony Besieged in Invasion of the Bodysnatchers”, Katrina Mann looks at the concept of invasion displayed in Invasion of the Bodysnatchers to analyze the disenfranchisement of the white patriarchy as a threat in post-WWII America. The sum of Mann’s argument is that the film exemplifies postwar issues surrounding American attitudes towards issues of immigration, mass society, racial migration, brainwashing, gender roles, sexuality, and more (51). The means of doing this, she argues, is by creating a threat that symbolized postwar concerns in a collectively allied manner; the alien invaders come down to earth in pods and transform their victims, turning them all into equal and emotionless beings with no distinctions of sex or race. In its disregard for sex or race, Bodysnatchers appeals to the fears of its ideal audience member -a white male- who Mann contends is in risk of losing the power afforded him by the hegemonic constructs of pre-war American society. I found Mann’s essay to be extremely effective in illustrating an interesting point of view on the content of Body Snatchers that is predominantly agreed upon. I also consider her balance of plot summary with historical/cultural relevance as well as theoretical notions to be all encompassing, as I had wished more of these sources would be.
Patrick Lucanio’s deconstructs the sub-genre of alien invasion films and applies myth criticism and analytical psychology to the visual components, plot, and thematic of invasion films. It should be noted that Lucanio tends to avoid the typical historical relevance of these films and focuses on other aspects such as comparing the invasion genre to the detective genre (22-24) or the confrontation of or Id in Forbidden Planet (94), which is not useful for the purposes of this paper. However, Lucanio’s contention that “in no other film genre is communal solidarity so richly displayed [as] in the alien invasion film” is an important consideration for this discussion (42). Lucanio explains that in alien-invasion films, populations and the military team together to fight against the incoming attack. Lucanio continues by noting the obvious connotations of standing up to communism but also suggests that this simultaneously infers a separate Utopian vision of social unity (42). The themes of community solidarity and the importance of cooperation with the military evident in invasion films are indicative of the national sentiments of Americans after the war. The American victory in WWII certainly created a huge confidence in and appreciation of a united America, and the fact that this aspect is present in alien invasion films that came out of that era should not come as a surprise.
In conclusion I feel that further research would include a further probing into the sociological perspectives of 1950s American sentiments, as well as a more in depth analysis of specific films of the time. One thing that was difficult to find in my research, and would be interested to learn more about are the representations of the other non-American perspectives in foreign Science Fiction films, specifically those of Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Works Cited
Cornea, Christine. Science Fiction Cinema: Between Fantasy and Reality. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 2007.
Iaccino, James. Psychological Reflections on Cinematic Terror: Jungian Archetypes in Horror Films. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1994.
Jackson, Rosemary. Fantasy: The Literature of Subversion. New York: Methuen, 1981.
Jancovich, Mark. Rational Fears: American Horror in the 1950s. New York: Manchester University Press, 1996.
Katovich, Michael A., and Patrick T. Kinkade. “The Stories Told in Science Fiction and Social Science: Reading The Thing and Other Remakes from Two Eras.”
The Sociological Quarterly 34 (1993): 619-651.
Lemert, Charles. “The Golden Moment: 1945-1963.” Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings. 3rd ed. Ed. Charles Lemert. Boulder: Westview Press, 2004. 271-282.
Lucanio, Patrick. Them or Us: Archetypal Interpretations of Fifties Alien Invasion Films. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1987.
Maddrey, Joseph. Nightmares in Red, White and Blue: The Evolution of the American Horror Film. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc, 2004.
Mann, Katrina. “‘You’re Next!’: Postwar Hegemony Besieged in Invasion of the Bodysnatchers.” Cinema Journal 44.1 (2004): 49-68.
Matthews, Melvin E. Jr. Hostile Aliens, Hollywood and Today’s News: 1950’s Science Fiction Films and 9/11. New York: Algora, 2007.
Skal, David J. Screams of Reason: Mad Science and Modern Culture. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998.
Worland, Rick. “OWI Meets the Monsters: Hollywood Horror Films and War Propaganda, 1942 to 1945.” Cinema Journal 37.1 (1997): 47-62.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)