Ooh I'll bite! I think people have taken sci-fi seriously for a while, but I think the framing of allegories as to what the future means for each generation has changed. Sci-fi is about the future insomuch as it is a cursory, transient container for moral utopian (or dystopian, post-modern non-topias, pick your continental poison) tales based upon incarnations of technology and man's interaction with them. I like this, but even further, I think there's commentary upon the relationship we have developed with them. All of our tools, from a hammer that fits neatly into your palm, to an AI that speaks English at a tempo your brain can accommodate, are all in our image. Or some simulation of. I think more so it calls upon the essential difference between the motivations of our creations and of us, what happens when a hammer simply hammers without a human hand to guide it? We use them to achieve things, make progress, etc., but a hammer is always quintessentially a hammer, and an AI goes forth with the solemn commandment of "carry out orders". (which, of course, the humans in the film never sway from, either) technology is constantly failing in Kubrick's universe, whether the gun used in the duel in Barry Lyndon or damn near everything in Dr. Strangelove, and we march forward, trusting our creations, regardless. The subtlety of this question and it's answer is found in the few times when Kubrick allows the frayed threads of humanity stretch out. This non-uniformity, even though it is encapsulated by arrogance and founded on violence, is it's saving grace. Saved for what? Where forward is? who the hell knows, we don't have such a convenient plot device for a civilization as the monolith to steer us, but we worship a silent, overbearing "progress" anyway. We've transformed clay into pots, steel into weapons, so need to take an active place in guiding the sculpting of our future selves, now. I think the only thing we can find Kubrick prodding us with is simply, take a look at what and how we worship, what have we built civilization upon? Where should we go, if those things have brought us here?
ain't my first rodeo, can you help me convince everyone we should watch Barry Lyndon?It makes you take science fiction seriously.
If I were to put it into a question form "Why are humans (apes) the only animal we know of that has adapted to their environment through the use of tools?
I want to know if this was your first Kubrick film, would you watch another?
I'll agree with your assessment about the framing of allegory (which kleinbl00 happily connected to the modern day fable). I'm quite surprised that you chose Metropolis as a movie where people started taking science fiction seriously. What I mean by that is that pre-2001 we had a couple of so called "serious" sci-fi films and a multitude of "This Island Earth" type of films. Post-2001 filmmakers seemed to take the genre much more seriously. I'll give Metropolis a lot of credit anyway because it still holds up and has all of the aforementioned "fable" elements. I've now seen it with several different scores, including an (electronic music score which was my favorite) and it still gives me chills. So maybe I'm not giving sci-fi enough credit, but intuitively, it does seem like there is a bit of a change in tone post 2001! I've often thought that Voltaire was the first sci fi writer with Micromegas. Yes! and also get out of my brain! Even our computer languages are designed in a way that WE can relate to (which of course is because it makes them easier to use). The whole thing seems like a great argument for "Man created god, then god created man" type ideas. Seriously I need to get some tin foil. I think we can convince everyone they should watch Barry Lyndon just as soon as soon as Gilliam finishes Napoleon! But seriously, Lyndon should be on the movie list as it is a great example of how you can use the opposite of an idea (I'm thinking of the Hero's Journey) and still have compelling characters.All of our tools, from a hammer that fits neatly into your palm, to an AI that speaks English at a tempo your brain can accommodate, are all in our image.
Where should we go, if those things have brought us here?
You know, most armchair scholars of science fiction point to Star Wars in 1976 as the point where people stopped paying attention to science fiction, not 1968 as the point where it started. I mean, Logan's Run and Star Wars are separated by 18 months - and while Logan's Run is corny and dated, it's also an allegorical exploration of big ideas. Star Wars is a samurai film with bitchin' special effects. I tried to draw up a timeline, but you're right - there were some shite '60s sci fi. There were some great ones, though - Time Machine, Alphaville, Fahrenheit 451. If you take a look at '68, yeah, you've got 2001... but you've also got Charly. And, well, Barbarella. So I think it's more fair to say it's the start of a trend. Speaking of Logan's Run - you know the head nun in Call the Midwife? rawrrrr
Could be worse. I dated a girl who made me watch this piece of shit every week.