BONUS BLOG -- 1968: THE LOST CONTINENT

What’s it about?

A motley group of westerners fleeing Sierra Leone aboard a rickety boat (each for their own reasons) get a rude wake-up call when they discover that the ship is carrying a cargo of chemical explosives that react badly to moisture. As foul weather moves in, the hull starts to flood with water. Fearing an explosion, the captain orders the ship abandoned -- but not before mutinous activity by some crew members results in violence.

After weathering the typhoon (and losing a couple passengers to sharks) the lifeboat is blown into a massive patch of apparently carnivorous seaweed. Also caught in the seaweed is the ship they had all just abandoned -- apparently not in such danger of sinking as they had imagined. But the ship is not much of a refuge itself. Not only has the seaweed clogged its propellers, but soon they start to see strange creatures moving around out in the mist around them. When they are suddenly attacked by a raiding party of Spanish conquistadors, it’s clear that they are not trapped in your usual run-of-the-mill patch of carnivorous seaweed.




Is it any good?

I could fill another two paragraphs with additional plot -- the conquistador attack is only the beginning of the crazy hijinks to come -- but I suspect that it would all start to sound too much like I’m describing a dream I had once. And anyway, before I get into any of that, I feel like I should maybe explain why I am even writing about this movie. Most of the other ones I picked for this year are pretty widely recognized as “classics”, but what’s so great about THE LOST CONTINENT?

The short, unsatisfying answer is that there is nothing particularly great about it. I’ve never heard of the director or anybody in the cast, and I’d never heard of the movie itself before I stumbled across it on Netflix. It does have an interesting premise, and most of it is pretty well done. But it’s no better than half a dozen other movies I’ve watched that I enjoyed well enough, but didn’t think were compelling enough to write about. It’s a list that includes SPACEWAYS (1953), THE MONOLITH MONSTERS (1957), THE ALLIGATOR PEOPLE (1959), THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND (1961), X: THE MAN WITH X-RAY EYES (1963), SECONDS (1966), and a few others.

For whatever reason, these are movies that just didn’t grab me strongly enough to write seven hundred words about them. Which is fine -- except that not wanting to write an essay about movie doesn’t mean that it’s not enjoyable. THE LOST CONTINENT could have very easily ended up in this category too, so I’m writing about it partly to atone for all the enjoyable movies I’ve skipped over simply because they weren’t notable or surprising or artful enough. But it’s nice to know that there are still a few layers of worthwhile sci-fi movies underneath the well-known classics. When I started this project, I was afraid that I had already seen most of the good sci-fi flicks in the world -- but now I am sure that there will always be a layer of solid and entertaining movies that just never get talked about because nobody ever bothered to call them classics.




The second, possibly slightly more satisfying reason to write about THE LOST CONTINENT is that it’s the last Hammer sci-fi movie I plan to watch. There are a few more Frankenstein movies that I could do, but Hammer in the 1970s increasingly specialized in horror and horror-tinged thrillers. I’m no film historian, but the consensus seems to be that changing standards and the emergence of more film makers willing to take sci-fi and horror seriously helped squeeze Hammer out of the market. Hammer was out-gored and out-sexed on one side, and out-classed and out-arted on the other, and by 1979 they were out of business altogether.

So in some ways, THE LOST CONTINENT is the last gasp of Hammer’s sci-fi productions. Even at the end, the studio stayed true to a lot of the conventions that I wrote about in my entry for THE ABOMINABLE SNOWMAN (1957). The movie starts out like an ordinary thriller, building tension out of character relationships and the dangers of the natural world. In this case, the conflict is between the captain and passengers on one side (all of them criminals, fugitives, or exiles who will not return to port under any conditions) and the increasingly nervous crew on the other side (who grow outright mutinous as the captain insists they sail a leaky boat with explosive cargo straight into a hurricane). This particular story is one of the better ones they came up with -- there are maybe a few too many loose cannonballs rolling about, but the general situation is very exciting, tense, and mostly believable.

After the crew abandons ship, they disappear and never return again. And, in fact, very little of the first part of the movie is important again after the hurricane is over. The survivors discover that the ship somehow managed to weather the storm without sinking or blowing up, so they transfer from the lifeboat back onboard -- and then promptly get stuck in the carnivorous seaweed. One of the strangest things about the movie is that nobody really talks much about that seaweed -- after a couple of dramatic demonstrations of its killing power, they all just take it as a fact of life. And since they can’t unclog the propellers without being eaten by the plants, they have to find some other way out of the mess.




I think I’m on record somewhere already as saying that plant monsters are not very scary. I still stand by that statement, but THE LOST CONTINENT does a pretty good job at least making the giant patch of seaweed creepy. The actual tentacles and gullets look pretty silly -- there’s no doubt about that -- but the seaweed has trapped dozens of ships in its mass, and the glimpses of their rotting hulls through the misty air is pretty effective. It’s from one of these ships that the conquistadors (or, more accurately, the descendants of the original conquistadors) come. It’s not totally clear what they’re after -- it seems that they just attack any new ship and try to raid it for supplies and possibly female prisoners.

The real pay-off with the conquistadors is their social system, however. They are ruled by a boy monarch who takes his orders from a corrupted version of the medieval Catholic Church led by a Klan-hooded inquisitor. This leads to a little bit of myopic protesting by one of the more Protestant newcomers, but his theological objections are made moot when the conquistadors start doing things everybody can object to -- like throwing people down a hatch and feeding them to the seaweed monster.

In any event, I’m not really sure where else to take this. I could keep describing the events of the movie, but I’d hope that anybody could figure out from what I’ve said so far whether they’d be interested in seeing it or not. Everything -- the acting, the special effects, the sets, the story, the monsters -- are either pretty good or at least serviceable enough. It doesn’t add up to anything except an entertaining movie. And honestly, in a lot of ways I preferred the ordinary thrills at the beginning to the sci-fi ones at the end -- at least partly because the characters become pretty flat and dull as soon as they start getting picked off one by one. It would be nice if I had some insightful observation to close this out with, but like I said at the beginning -- it’s not that kind of movie.

1967: FRANKENSTEIN CREATED WOMAN

What’s it about?

Presumably tired of animating monsters, Dr Frankenstein (played by Peter Cushing) and his two assistants instead work on experiments intended to preserve life after death. Frankenstein’s plan to achieve this consists of trapping a departing soul as it takes flight after death, repairing or replacing any bodily damage, and returning the soul to bring the patient back to life. But while celebrating the partial success of one experiment in the local village, Frankenstein’s younger assistant gets into a brawl with three insolent dandies. Later, the dandies accidentally kill a man, and the assistant is convicted of the crime and sentenced to death.

Frankenstein sets his sights on using the boy for his first true attempt at bringing a corpse back to life. And when the boy’s sweetheart (a barmaid with some physical disabilities) drowns herself in grief after the execution, Frankenstein decides to transfer the boy’s soul to her body instead of repairing the mess the guillotine made. But the success of the experiment only results in complications as the revived girl seems to have two personalities -- and not necessarily nice ones.




Is it any good?

I haven’t seen as many Frankenstein movies as I probably should have, but the usual formula seems to consist of the doctor using spare body parts to construct a monster that then goes on to terrorize people and/or be terrorized by people until it is destroyed. Variations in the story are for the most part confined to adjustments in Frankenstein’s motivations (anywhere from “scientifically obsessed” to “demonically possessed”) and similar adjustments in the monster’s personality (“misunderstood and persecuted” to “homicidally evil”). But FRANKENSTEIN CREATED WOMAN throws out about 95% of this formula, and I think it’s all the better for it.

Not only is the story in FRANKENSTEIN CREATED WOMAN less familiar than that in the usual Frankenstein movie, but I think it may actually be a better one. The big elephant in the room with Frankenstein has always been why anybody should go to all that trouble just to make a human being. After all, there already exists a pretty reliable method for making new humans -- and it doesn’t require grave robbery, hacksaws, electric shocks, or hunchbacks. So at some level it’s usually necessary to take Frankenstein as an allegory or a psychological case study -- why he wants to build monsters is ultimately less important than what happens when he tries. But FRANKENSTEIN CREATED WOMAN doesn’t really need any of this hand-waving since the doctor’s goal -- restoring the recently deceased to life -- is one that has obvious medical benefits.




In fact, the Frankenstein that Peter Cushing plays here hardly even seems to be the same character who shows up in other movies. There is no mention of any monsters at all, neither in his past nor his future. Some of the villagers do suspect that the doctor may be a witch, but the law treats him as a perfectly law abiding citizen -- more eccentric than dangerous or frightening. Probably the best scene with Frankenstein is one where he appears as a character witness at his assistant’s trial. He seems genuinely concerned and gives a sympathetic testimony, but always remains intellectual and detached. When asked whether it would be “impossible” for the boy to have committed the crime, instead of insisting on his belief in the boy’s innocence, Frankenstein pauses and then says he can’t definitely rule out the possibility. There’s no suggestion that this piece of testimony is what sends the boy to the guillotine, but it’s certainly the kind of precise answer that scientific mind would give and that the villagers might misconstrue.

I wrote last week in my entry about THE FACE OF ANOTHER that I am starting to think it’s often better when movies simply hint at deeper themes instead of completely exploring them. It was while watching FRANKENSTEIN CREATED WOMAN that this idea hit me most clearly. There is, after all, a potentially rich and bizarre occurrence at the heart of this movie: a boy dies and is then brought back to life in the body of his girlfriend. Besides the gender switch, one would also expect a certain amount of distress to come from inhabiting the body of your old flame. Those questions are all natural enough, given the premise of the movie, but they remain for the most part completely unaddressed. Yet, I decided that I was okay with that. For once, I was watching an interesting Frankenstein movie with a fairly unique story, and mostly I just wanted to find out how it was going to end. It also didn’t seem likely that this particular movie could have really gone anywhere really satisfying with those deep, difficult questions. There’s something to be said for not biting off more than you can chew.




In any event, the way the story does end isn’t exactly a revelation. The revived girl doesn’t remember much of her past life, and mostly just wants to know who she is and where she came from. The boy’s soul seems to be mingled in with her own, and he only really asserts himself to exact murderous revenge on the dandies who got him killed. This is as close as the movie ever gets to a monster, and interestingly enough it means at the end that Frankenstein comes off looking pretty good. He never has to pay for his crimes against nature, and frankly it’s not clear that he actually committed any. In the usual Frankenstein story, it’s the doctor himself who gets blamed for the behavior of the monster since it is his creation. In this case, however, the murderous “monster” is really the soul of another human being which Frankenstein merely transferred to a new body, so there’s not much of a feeling that the doctor could be directly responsible for what follows. The ending is a bit run-of-the-mill, but all in all this is a refreshingly unusual take on a story that is often just way too familiar.



What else happened this year?

-- Professor Quatermass makes a horrific discovery in the London Underground that casts new light on the course of human evolution in the last of Hammer's original Quatermass trilogy, QUATERMASS AND THE PIT.
-- And the Czechs put together one of the best sci-fi movies from anywhere in the Soviet bloc with THE END OF AUGUST AT THE HOTEL OZONE. It follows a group of young, wild women wandering a post-apocalyptic world where there are practically no male survivors.
-- George Lucas filmed his student short ELECTRONIC LABYRINTH: THX-1138 4EB, which would be the basis for his first feature film in 1971.
-- Don Knotts and Leslie Nielsen starred in THE RELUCTANT ASTRONAUT, which I only just realized moments ago is available online or I would have definitely watched it already.

If you only watch one sci-fi movie from 1967...

Go for QUATERMASS AND THE PIT if you can find it, or THE END OF AUGUST AT THE HOTEL OZONE if you can't.

BONUS BLOG -- 1957: THE ABOMINABLE SNOWMAN

What’s it about?

Botanist Peter Cushing disregards the objections of his wife and mysterious warnings from a local wise man to join an expedition scaling the Himalayas in search of the fabled Yeti. Tempers soon flare on the five-man expedition when it becomes clear that not everyone is there for the same reason. Nerves fray even further when one man is injured by the carelessness of another, and vital equipment is destroyed in an angry scuffle. By the time a Yeti appears (only to be promptly shot at by a trigger-happy trapper), the men in the party are already practically at each other’s throats.

Meanwhile, Peter Cushing’s wife becomes concerned when the expedition’s native guide returns to the base camp in a panic. Though the locals try to hide the truth, she insists on mounting her own rescue party to seek out her husband. But things go from bad to worse on the mountain as foul weather moves in and the Yeti begin literally playing mind games with the survivors of the first party.


Illustration copyright 2009 Dennis J. Reinmueller


Is it any good?

Peter Cushing would eventually go on to play Victor Frankenstein, Sherlock Holmes, the vampire hunter Van Helsing, and many other roles in Hammer movies, but this is one of his first for the studio. I haven’t seen many of Peter Cushing’s other movies, but he is certainly one of the very best things about THE ABOMINABLE SNOWMAN. And in a movie where the focus is heavily on interpersonal interactions rather than scary monsters, appealing actors are pretty darn important.

It took me a while to identify the pattern, but there’s a coyness about Hammer’s sci-fi flicks that sits in stark contrast to most American movies of the period. Whereas American movies usually start developing right away whatever fantastic mystery or conflict they have for their centerpiece, Hammer flicks instead reserve the sci-fi elements until almost the last possible moment and spend most of their early running time on character interactions. (This is not necessarily true of every single Hammer movie -- but it’s true of many of them, and none more so than THE ABOMINABLE SNOWMAN.) Consequently, the Hammer movies often seem more naturalistic since we see many of the characters dealing with perfectly ordinary conflicts at home or in their jobs. “More naturalistic” doesn’t necessarily mean “better”, of course, since it’s perfectly possible to make a very boring movie about domestic discord and work stress. But it certainly gives the pictures a different mood than most of those from other studios, and often they come off feeling as though the scripts were written for a more adult audience. The fact that it’s a different approach makes it feel a bit like a breath of fresh air for that reason alone. But anybody who approaches this movie with the quite reasonable expectation that they will see a lot of exaciting abominable snowman action is going to be sorely disappointed.




In fact, I will admit that I find Hammer’s skewed focus frustrating at times -- breath of fresh air or not. The abominable snowmen do eventually show up, but they are kept entirely off-screen (except for a single hairy arm) until the final minutes of the movie. I’m not sure if that was done for budgetary reasons or if it’s the manifestation of some perverse British desire to deny the audience, but the refusal to show a clear shot of the title creature pretty quickly became both annoying and absurd. Fortunately, much of the picture would work just as well if there weren’t any Yeti at all, and the story is really quite good. Peter Cushing is a scientific man who comes to realize that the expedition he’s joined has commercial objectives that he strongly disagrees with. But by the time he learns the truth, the party is already high up among the peaks of the Himalayas, and there’s nothing he can do about it without endangering himself and the others. There are also some interesting theories put forth about who the Yeti are -- rather than evolutionary throwbacks, it’s suggested that they could be the inheritors of the Earth who are simply waiting for man to annihilate himself. So despite the disappointing dearth of actual live Yeti action, there are still quite a few things to recommend THE ABOMINABLE SNOWMAN -- but primarily to those already disposed to like Peter Cushing or Hammer movies.

1953: FOUR SIDED TRIANGLE

What’s it about?

Two young friends work together on a scientific project under the encouragement of a benevolent and fatherly doctor. The arrival of an old childhood friend -- a girl they were both once in love with -- gives them fresh inspiration to overcome the technical obstacles in their way. At last, they complete a working prototype of a machine capable of replicating any object. As they begin the much less interesting work of marketing their invention, one of the scientists announces he and the girl are now engaged.

The other scientist is heartbroken by this turn of events, but keeps his pain to himself. He works night and day to find a way to modify the replicator to work on living creatures. Ultimately successful, he begs the woman to let him duplicate her so that both of the men can have their own copy and be happy.

Is it any good?

Not surprisingly for a movie about lone scientists pushing the boundaries of knowledge, FOUR SIDED TRIANGLE has a lot in common with FRANKENSTEIN or THE FLY -- but is better in many ways than either of those. I don’t recognize any of the actors, but the two male leads make a fantastic irrepressible scientist tag team. The laboratory is appropriately full of wonderful scientific machinery -- a lot of dynamos and big electronic things with switches and oscilloscopes. It’s never really clear what all the machinery is for, but it does make the replication trick fun to watch even the third or fourth time they do it.

A lot of the movie -- probably too much, in fact -- follows the development of the various iterations of the replicator. As a result, it does feel like they shortchange the existential and emotional ramifications of duplicating a human being in favor of showing more of the experiments. Things obviously don’t go exactly as planned, and though the ending is not as riveting as it might be, it’s not a total let-down either. What is disappointing, however, is that the woman who gets duplicated never really gets to say anything about how she feels about it, even though the choice is ostensibly hers. She seemingly goes through with the process out of pity for the unmarried scientist, but it’s frustrating that she’s sidelined so much both before and after the duplication.

But in general this is a really juicy sci-fi flick about a pretty unusual situation. The high-tech 1950s lab is very neat, the actors are fun, and it mostly moves along at an exciting rate. I would actually have liked it to be a bit more melodramatic about the implications of everything -- most of the characters seem to take the idea of duplicating a human far too much in stride. And I would definitely have liked to have seen the female lead have more of a say in things. But all in all it’s an enjoyable and fairly unique 1950s sci-fi movie. It’s also worth noting that this is one of the earliest Hammer science fiction movies, which means that everybody in it is as British as is humanly possible.

What else happened this year?

-- THE WAR OF THE WORLDS is one of the greatest sci-fi movies ever made in any year, and is absolutely something you should go check out right away if you have any interest in this kind of thing.
-- I’m also very fond of IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, which I would say deserves to be a minor classic of 1950s sci-fi.
-- INVADERS FROM MARS is not nearly as good as either of those movies, but has a lot of imagination and a pretty wild ending that makes for a fun midnight movie experience.

If you only watch one sci-fi movie from 1953...

There’s no question that it should be THE WAR OF THE WORLDS.