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.