The fall of the sci-fi genre in film

Kristin Thompson, of the Bordwell-Thompson duo that studies and writes on various topics related to the art of film, recently wrote an interesting article, titled “Swords vs. lightsabers”, regarding the recent fall of the science fiction genre in film and its replacement by that of fantasy. Audiences have apparently become so turned off by science fiction that producers, directors, and Hollywood studio executives persistently avoid labeling their films as sci-fi, either explicitly denying their film’s relation to the genre, or using terms like “post-apocalyptic” instead.

Thompson points out how the success of the most recent sci-fi films that were box-office hits, such as Minority Report (2002), I, Robot (2004), and War of the Worlds (2005), can likely be attributed to the superstar status of those involved, including Tom Cruise, Will Smith, and Steven Spielberg. Most others, she says, have been part of an established franchise. Of course, a great deal of today’s biggest fantasy hits, too, have been but one portion of a franchise — Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and Pirates of the Caribbean to name a few — but the point is that fantasy blockbusters like these have risen up while science fiction has fallen under in the great cycle of genres that has determined Hollywood’s agenda for decades.

The most interesting point in Thompson’s article arrives when she speculates the reason for the public’s dwindling interest in science fiction:

When we casually refer to robots as “bots,” have mechanical dogs in our homes, and watch rovers photographing Mars, are films about robots quite as interesting as they used to be? Unless they star Will Smith, of course. When companies are actually planning to offer space tourism to paying customers within some of our lifetimes, are fictional rocket ships as intriguing?

It seems to me that Thompson may have hit the nail on the head. Science fiction used to be so fascinating because it offered a scientifically-founded glimpse into our exciting future, with dreams of computers that can be controlled with our fingertips and voices, cell phones that let us see our friends while we talk to them, and cars that can drive themselves.

Today, however, many of these dreams have been answered. Apple’s iPhone is out in June with a touch screen that allows gestures we (the general public) might not have thought possible just a few years ago; a video called “Minority Report becomes reality” has circulated on YouTube in which touch screen technologies very similar to those depicted in 2002’s Minority Report are shown to be available to us today; cell phones in Asia already have video-chat capabilities, and while they have not hit the U.S. market quite yet, we do have webcams that are becoming increasingly relevant (read: built in to all Apple computers); and, regarding cars that can drive themselves, anyone heard of the Advanced Parking Guidance System featured in the new Lexus LS?

The point is, science reality is at a point in which it seems fairly capable of keeping up with the imaginations of science fiction writers. Therefore, science, at least for the moment, is no longer capable of carrying a film to success. Perhaps directors, producers, and executives alike are right in emphasizing the “post-apocalyptic” or “dystopic” themes of their films instead, for topics like these present far more intriguing questions regarding our future than simply: “Wow, I wonder if I’ll ever own a robot that does the chores around the house?!” (Actually, that answer is already on its way to being answered. Look no further than the cleaning robots sold by none other than the iRobot Corporation.)

Immediately, what comes to mind then, are films like Blade Runner (1982) and the more recent Children of Men (2006). Both films present a dystopic future, and neither places any emphasis whatsoever on technology. Instead, Blade Runner ponders the nature of technology, bringing up some very intriguing questions regarding artificial intelligence, and Children of Men uses technology to subtly enhance the mise en scene, allowing the audience to better believe the story of a future deprived of hope. It’s not that the films do not include a great deal of special effects to depict future technologies — they both do, and they do so extremely well. It’s that they don’t employ these portrayals of technology to distract us, to draw attention to themselves — they use them to enhance the film’s greater themes.

Of course, the genre cycle is just that — a cycle — meaning that one day, science fiction will rule again. However, I do not see this happening until two things happen: (1) we discover something in the scientific world, or experience a breakthrough, that renews our imaginations and interest in technology’s potential, and (2) the world we live in settles back down to a state where we actually have time to think about what good the future will bring, because at the moment all that’s on most of our minds (or perhaps just drilled into them) is the “war on terror” and the terrible state of this country (The United States), as well as global warming and the potential inexorable destruction of planet Earth.

There is, of course, more on our minds than terrorism and global warming, however in discussing Hollywood cinema, one can’t ignore the impact that both have on the industry. The state of the union has always affected what Hollywood puts out, such as during World War II when the films being released took on significantly different stories and themes, an effect that eventually changed Hollywood forever. And now that not only the country is in trouble, but the planet as well, it could be a while before science fiction has the ability to present us with something to get excited about, for at the moment, science tells us we have far more about which to worry.