BONUS BLOG -- 1956: EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS

What’s it about?

A husband and wife working on a rocket project encounter a flying saucer while driving on a desert highway. Though they first assume it was merely an isolated fluke incident, they soon begin to realize that something is shooting down each of the satellites as quickly as they are put in orbit. Then, during their latest rocket launch, another flying saucer appears. Deciding to shoot first and ask questions later, security personnel at the launch site precipitate a conflict that leaves the facility in ruins with the husband and wife apparently the only survivors of the catastrophe.

In the aftermath of the destruction, an unlikely coincidence allows the survivors to decode a message from the outer space visitors demanding a meeting to discuss terms of peace. Although the government seems inclined to take the idea of flying saucers seriously, the bureaucracy moves too slowly to suit the two survivors. They contact the invaders on their own and are taken up in one of the flying saucers where they witness a display of destructive power. The visitors then issue an ultimatum -- the Earth must surrender within 56 days or else. (The “else” is not clearly explicated, but it seems to involve beams of energy that make things explode.) When the flying saucers return at the end of the period, they expect the Earth to give up without a fight. But the scientists have used the 56 day reprieve to build a new weapon which will level the playing field between man and invader.




Is it any good?

This is the second sci-fi collaboration between producer Charles Schneer and stop-motion special effects master Ray Harryhausen. The first was 1955's IT CAME FROM BENEATH THE SEA, which is a pretty ho-hum giant monster movie about a radioactive octopus that gets a craving for the citizens of San Francisco. EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS is a big step up in terms of originality and excitement -- though it still doesn’t compare with the good times of the best Schneer/Harryhausen collaborations from the sixties.

One of the most admirable things about this movie is that it doesn’t avoid showing the spectacle of an all-out alien invasion -- something that’s more rare in sci-fi flicks than I would have suspected at the start of this project. With the obvious exception of THE WAR OF THE WORLDS, most 1950s alien invasions involve aliens that either look almost exactly like humans or who assume human form to infiltrate and conquer from the inside. But here we get plenty of flying saucers, disintegrator rays, inhuman aliens, and a climactic full-scale attack on Washington, D.C. The best parts of the movie take place on the flying saucers, where the aliens and their human guests have a long conversation about the reasons for the invasion and the fate of the Earth. At times, the aliens are almost sympathetic -- but then they demonstrate a casual brutality that proves it’s really us or them.




The flying saucers are also some of the best looking ones I’ve ever seen. Ray Harryhausen’s living monsters have so much personality that I wasn’t really sure what he’d be able to do with a mechanical object that doesn’t have facial expressions or body language. But the effects of the saucers in flight are pretty great, even if the crumbling buildings look like they’re falling apart in slow motion. It’s disappointing that the aliens are people in suits (rather than Harryhausen effects), but they at least look fairly respectable. But as with so many sci-fi flicks from the time, the script is once again the weak point. It’s certainly not terrible and it stays pretty exciting almost entirely throughout, but there are some parts of it (such as the inexplicable 56-day window the invaders give Earth to prepare their defenses) that make no sense at all. The climactic battle is also a bit of a let-down, save for a few nice shots of flying saucers destroying famous Washington landmarks. To be honest, there is plenty you could laugh at here if that’s your kind of thing, but this one definitely delivers enough of the good stuff (like nifty special effects, weirdo alien technology, and overall excitement) to be better than your average 1950s B-movie.

1955: TARANTULA

What’s it about?

A doctor is called to examine the body of a horribly deformed man found in the desert of the southwestern U.S. The man appears to have suffered from a rare disorder that causes deformities over several years, but he is identified as a scientist who had last been seen apparently healthy and unblemished just a month before. Trying to find out how this could be, the doctor investigates at the remote laboratory where the scientist had been working. It appears to have been recently damaged in a fire, and the surviving scientist only reveals that he and his late partner had been working on a new synthetic nutrient to help ease world hunger.

Meanwhile, a new assistant at the laboratory strikes up a friendship with the investigating doctor. Through her, the doctor learns that the nutrient is unstable and unpredictable -- and that it has caused astounding gigantism among the laboratory animals it’s used on. Eventually, it becomes clear that a tarantula that had received injections escaped during the fire, and is now preying on cattle (and the occasional human) in the area. The tarantula continues to grow at an alarming rate, and ultimately terrorizes the town.


Illustration copyright 2009 Dennis J. Reinmueller


Is it any good?

It’s good enough to have made a believer out of me where the special effects are concerned. I have never much liked the use of close-up photography of real animals as “monsters” in these kinds of movies. I’ve always felt that the creatures inevitably look too ordinary and that the inability to have monsters interacting with actors is a fatal shortcoming. But TARANTULA makes that tactic work probably as well as it ever could -- and no doubt my dislike of such things is a result of having only ever seen cheap, unimaginative knock-offs of this very movie. For one thing, close-up pictures of a real tarantula are pretty darn creepy and alien looking. (This, however, is not necessarily true of lizards, to name another oft-enlarged movie monster.) And shots of the tarantula and the environment aren’t just flatly superimposed -- great care was obviously taken to make it look like the spider is actually interacting with the rest of the things in the frame. It crawls down hills, clambers atop buildings, and so on. There are obviously limits to this, but for the most part it’s done very well.

The story has a lot of the same silliness that other 1950s sci-fi movies do. The science is laughable, and the dialogue is often stilted and unnatural. TARANTULA, however, is far from the worst offender of the decade (or even of the year) in either of those areas, and the main characters at least have some personality. The catalyst for the creation of the giant spider -- the search for a synthetic nutrient -- is also a nice break from the usual stories about atomic fallout spawning mutations, man’s encroachment dislodging previously hidden monsters, or (worst of all) the mad scientist breeding an unstoppable weapon.

But obviously the main attraction is the tarantula itself. Because of how the effects are generated, it can’t usually do much more than stalk into view and look menacing. It’s a limited bag of tricks, but the movie makes the most of them. Especially effective are some shots of the spider peering through the second storey windows of the house where the laboratory is housed. And since the nutrient has a different effect on humans -- causing horrific deformities instead of gigantic growth -- there are other creepy things to fill in some of the gaps where the spider can’t go. I wouldn’t exactly say that TARANTULA is required viewing for anybody, but it’s also not likely to disappoint if you like giant monsters. It can stand with THEM! (1954), GOJIRA (1954), 20 MILLION MILES TO EARTH (1957), and THE BLOB (1958) as one of the best examples of the 1950s.

What else happened this year?

-- THIS ISLAND EARTH mixes an utterly absurd script with top-of-the-line special effects to produce a ridiculous movie with serious third-act problems that looks fantastic. It was later mocked (with some justification) in MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER 3000: THE MOVIE (1996).
-- Hammer released the first of its Professor Quatermass sci-fi adventures, THE QUATERMASS XPERIMENT. I’ve unfortunately never been able to find this one, but all the Quatermass movies have an excellent reputation.

If you watch only one sci-fi movie from 1955...

Make it TARANTULA, unless you can find THE QUATERMASS XPERIMENT. If you can, let me know if it’s as great as I imagine it to be.

BONUS BLOG -- 1954: GOJIRA

What’s it about?

In case there’s anybody who doesn’t know the story of Godzilla, here it is. Underwater tests of atomic bombs disturb a prehistoric monster known in Japanese legends as Gojira and cause him to come to the surface in a seriously bad mood. After trashing the island of Odo, the monster moves towards the mainland and destroys much of Tokyo in a couple of midnight raids.

Meanwhile, a scientist has developed an oxygen destroying substance that could be used to make a weapon even more powerful than the atomic bomb. The substance is seemingly the only thing that might stop Gojira, but the scientist is unwilling to share his discovery until he has converted it into a form that cannot be used as a military weapon. As the destruction and death toll mounts, the scientist finds himself faced with a moral dilemma -- let Gojira continue on his rampage, or stop him and give the world a new deadly weapon in the process.


Illustration copyright 2009 Dennis J. Reinmueller


Is it any good?

The ending is really terrific, though there are parts in the middle that are fairly dull. The first third of the movie mostly follows the arrival of Gojira -- from the mysterious sinking of ships to the destruction of Odo to the first appearances of the monster himself. The second third is mostly concerned with Gojira’s attacks on Tokyo and the attempts to stop him with conventional weapons. Finally, the end of the movie -- where things really come alive -- deal with the devastating aftermath of the monster attacks and the scientist’s moral dilemma.

It seems strange to say, but the weakest part of the movie are really the attacks on Tokyo. Gojira was reportedly the first movie to use a suited actor so extensively in monster attack sequences -- previous movies like THE LOST WORLD (1925), KING KONG (1933), MIGHTY JOE YOUNG (1949), and THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS (1953) had all used stop-motion animation. Any novelty that may have attached to the man-in-a-suit approach in 1954 has been erased by fifty years of sequels and knock-offs with the same kind of miniatures being destroyed in much the same way. Some of the miniatures are pretty neat (the boats especially look very good), and several shots of Gojira are quite striking -- when he rises suddenly from underwater or from behind a hill, or is framed by fire as he stalks through Tokyo. But overall, both Gojira himself and the attack sequences feel too familiar to be truly exciting anymore.

But it’s worth sitting through those Tokyo attacks to get the final third of the movie. There’s an appropriately dramatic demonstration of the oxygen destroyer in the laboratory. (Though the true effects of the discovery are unnecessarily withheld from the audience until late in the movie.) The invention itself makes absolutely no sense as explained -- but the important thing is the chilling effect it has on living matter. The scenes after Gojira’s final attack on Tokyo are also very effective. It’s no secret that the movie is a parable about atomic weapons -- and in fact the movie lays this on a bit thick -- but knowing that Japan had suffered two nuclear attacks less than ten years before GOJIRA was released really does give the aftermath of the radioactive rampage an extra layer of emotional depth.

As a final note, I ought to say that it’s been at least fifteen years since I’ve seen the American re-cutting of GODZILLA from 1956 (with Raymond Burr inserted to appease American audiences), so I can’t really say how it compares to the Japanese original.

For the rest of my thoughts on 1954 in sci-fi movies, see the entry on THEM!