What’s it about?
The U.S. military launches the first rocket expedition to Mars after veiling its preparations in strict secrecy until the last minute. The five-person crew consists of the workaholic ace engineer who designed the rocket, his “girl scientist” fiancee, a pessimistic professor who believes the mission is doomed, a reporter sent to cover “the human angle”, and a fifth guy who is not even one-dimensional enough to have a single memorable characteristic. A meteor storm encountered during the flight destroys the landing gear and the crew is forced to crash land on the red planet, damaging the rocket in the process.
Once on Mars, the crew are greeted by several Martians wearing brightly colored spacesuits (and looking consequently like a delegation of Teletubbies). They are taken to an underground city of generic sci-fi wonders, which the “girl scientist” declares a “woman’s paradise” after finding out that all dishes and silverware are washed automatically. The thrilling action then moves to the meeting room of Mars’s ruling council, where the seemingly straightforward task of repairing the rocket somehow results in a tangle of double- and triple-crosses as political factions vie for control of the Earth technology.
Is it any good?
Not really. Practically nothing of any interest whatsoever happens during the pre-launch preparations (which drag on for an interminable 12 minutes) or most of the flight to Mars (despite attempts to make the adjustment of a “gravitation dial” seem exciting). The interior of the rocket itself is kind of neat, if only to see what people in 1951 imagined that kind of thing would look like. But there’s nothing especially unusual about it except a tube that launches torpedoes full of written observations back towards Earth once the rocket is beyond radio range. Otherwise there don’t seem to have been many advances in rocket technology or interior design since Fritz Lang’s 1929 movie WOMAN IN THE MOON.
Even worse, there’s no attempt to show what life on a rocket might be like. I don’t expect scientific accuracy from a movie like this, but the crew lounge around in khakis and skirts, drink out of Styrofoam cups, smoke pipes, and behave more or less like they are flying first class from New York to Los Angeles. Even laughably ridiculous space gadgets would be better than none at all. Things improve a bit when they land on Mars. The crew changes into shimmery Martian outfits with insignia on the tunics -- that’s some solid sci-fi stuff there. The little bit we can see of the city looks like any generic city of tomorrow. It’s certainly nothing groundbreaking, but at least they tried to make it look futuristic.
But the main problem with the movie is that it’s just not ever exciting. The dialogue is dull and repetitive, and it’s hard to really care about the plot. Supposedly a faction of Martians want to steal the rocket technology and invade Earth (because their planet is dying, natch) but all that threat amounts to is one guy arguing in favor of invasion in the council chamber. We never see the Martian armies -- or even so much as a single weapon, since the little fighting in the movie is all done with fists -- so the invasion remains utterly abstract. There are also two insultingly boneheaded love stories going on in the background, but the less said about those the better.
What else happened this year?
-- The big sci-fi movie event of 1951 is definitely THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, which I would recommend to anybody in a heartbeat.
-- Howard Hawks’s THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD is quite good as well, and was eventually remade into an even better movie by John Carpenter in 1982.
-- THE MAN IN THE WHITE SUIT is a decent Ealing comedy starring Alec Guinness as a scientist who invents an indestructible fabric and finds himself pursued by interests in the textile industry who will stop at nothing to suppress his discovery.
If you only watch one sci-fi movie from 1951...
Stick with THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL like everybody tells you. In fact, you can skip FLIGHT TO MARS altogether since there’s nothing here you can’t get from better movies.
Monday, January 26, 2009
1951: FLIGHT TO MARS
Labels:
1950s,
alien encounter,
alien invasion,
color,
other planets,
space travel,
U.S. production
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why is it that explorers who stumble across lost kingdoms or distant realms always end-up caught in the midst of lame rivalry between factions. It's either bickering, a revolt or an evil vizier.
ReplyDeleteAs for 1951 films in general, I really like The Thing but the way they handle the scientist bothers me no end. Another film from 1951 that bothers me is When Worlds Collide, but that's mostly just because it's really awful.
I think I like the fact that of all the things the "girl scientist" sees, the one that interests her the most is the fact that the dishes get done automatically. The implication being that even though she's a scientist she's still expected to do the standard womanly duties at home.
ReplyDeleteI don't remember anything particularly offensive about the scientists in THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD. Were you referring to something in particular?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I intentionally left WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE off my list (even though it's pretty famous) precisely because it's so awful.
And this really is one of the most sexist 1950s sci-fi movies I've ever seen -- not exactly the most enlightened genre to begin with. They insist on repeatedly calling the woman "girl scientist" as though she's some kind of circus performer. "Step right up and see the amazing GIRL SCIENTIST who has learned EQUATIONS and CHEMISTRY! The brain of MAN in the body of a WOMAN!"
I want to see THE MAN IN THE WHITE SUIT now.
ReplyDeleteit's been years, but i remember man in the white suit leaving a positive impression.
ReplyDeleteIt's a minor complaint, but Dr. Carrington is basically a step-by-step guide on why you should never, ever, ever listen to scientists because they're all leftist weirdos who'll get you killed through their crazy high-brow ways.
ReplyDeleteIt's a really fun film, though, and as a consequence I don't really mind that much about what is ultimately only a small part of it. I do think it's a bit funny that so many vintage science-fiction films have a pronounced anti-intellectual bent, though.
THE MAN IN THE WHITE SUIT is less exciting than it sounds, but is pretty good nonetheless. It's not as funny as KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS or THE LADYKILLERS, but if you like dry British comedies then there is plenty to enjoy. I would have written about that one instead, but it's not really very science-fiction-y and most of what I had to say was just about how great Alec Guinness is.
ReplyDeleteSo out of curiosity I watched this movie. I suppose one good thing to say about it is that it's far better than anything from Monogram has a right to be. I think I actually liked it more than you did - the main problems seemed to be that it's really cheap, and quite blandly directed. One thing I found interesting is how the Earthling lady scientist is kind of a sexist representation, but then the Martian lady scientist looks like she was beamed-in from a glorious egalitarian utopia (albeit, one where all the women wear undie-revealing mini-skirts).
ReplyDeleteWell my biggest complaint was really that so much of it was just so very boring.
ReplyDeleteThe first time I watched it I fell asleep, but then the second time it wasn't three in the morning and I stayed awake. It really is pretty dull but I have an alarming ability to find joy in tedious things.
ReplyDeleteI looked up Monogram Pictures to see if I'd seen any of their other movies. Turns out I've seen a few of the ones they did with Bela Lugosi (INVISIBLE GHOST, THE CORPSE VANISHES) or Boris Karloff (THE APE) in the 1940s, as well as KING OF THE ZOMBIES. I think I would describe all of those movies as "just good enough to not be a waste of time". Which is a lot like how I felt about FLIGHT TO MARS.
ReplyDeleteBut heck considering Monogram put out 30 movies a year from 1931 to 1951, it's surprising they're even that good.
That is three in about a month.
ReplyDeleteWe analyse these tragic incidences in an effort to find the fault, be it human or technology related.
However we never question the unknowns such as destiny.
Do you believe in destiny?
GodYesOrNo.com