In another thread spartacus-15(http://www.imdb.com/user/ur16254585/boards/profile/) said:
As for the film, it reflects one of major british concerns of the time, that of progress for its own sake, with no regard for the consequences...the new atomic age foe instanceI'm not so sure that is the intent of the story. I think it could be seen as commentary on how progress is impeded by petty special interests. share
"I think it could be seen as commentary on how progress is impeded by petty special interests."
In part, yes but it's also a commentary on the dangers of progress without ethical consideration, as illustrated in the comments of the impoverished washerwoman, who despite her poverty let Stan stay in her rooms rent free and stands to lose her main source of income from Stan's discovery (the domestic washing machine finished her trade for good one assumes).
Knowing this Stan still intends to continue.
The parallels with nuclear research science are obvious but it can also be extended to other fields like genetics and nano-technology.
I don't think it's on anyone's side. It's not a movie that tells you what to think. It's a movie that makes YOU think.
In addition to being vastly entertaining of course.
It made you think enough to need to post a comment about it. That's pretty good for a movie that's almost sixty years old.
inventors
but drutsala is right, it the movie itself does not take any sides, it is just impossible to side with the mob here
That would be telling...
shareI was left scratching my head; "What was the point of this movie?"
It's not funny, it's not exciting, it's not romantic and it's not especially thought provoking. No real likable or hateable characters in it.
Slow paced, dull and rather talky...
6 out of 10
That explains a lot about you. Watching movies just to rate them.
shareDon't think I've ever seen a movie that sides with the "bad guys" before. Here it is. The funny thing is how they kept paying for his experiments and were ecstatic when it ended the way it did, not having realised earlier the direct consequences of his invention. The movie sides with the working class.
shareI'm surprised that anyone would consider this film dull. A witty and ironic film that isn't as much about taking sides as it is about how invention and "progress" always has some negative consequences for some people. I found it to be a very relevant film despite its age. The invention of film devestated the live theater/vaudeville industry. The invention of television changed the film industry. The invention of the internet has far-reaching affects on the newspaper and magazine industries. And so on and on. New jobs are created and other jobs become obsolete. Some people love change and other people are hurt by it. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. To me, that is what the movie is about.
I don't find the film dull at all. It is both funny, and not-so-funny.
Hi crushtv,
You started this thread more than four years ago, but I just watched MITWS again, and found your excellent question. I think you overlooked the the role of technology, however, in your answer.
Technological progress is not always social progress; indeed, the story of nuclear weapons somewhat parallels that of Sid's new fiber. At first both technologies seemed like a good idea. Only six years before film's release, the A-bomb seemed to have ended World War II. And what's not to like about wearable, indestructible, and easily cleaned fabric? Later, however, the mass production of A-bombs and hydrogen bombs placed world civilization at great peril. Similarly, Sid's fiber, like the H-bomb, was made from heavy hydrogen, and it threatened to wipe out an industry that provided hundreds of thousands (I'm estimating here) of working-class jobs. That's hardly a "petty" interest.
The film takes a number of jabs at greedy capitalists and hypocritical communists, too, but the poor washerwoman wonderfully articulated the main point of the movie with two simple questions. "Why can't you scientists leave things alone?," she says. "What about my bit of washing when there's no washing to do?" In other words, "bollocks on your careless idealism; You're about to deprive me of a livelihood."
So, to answer your question, the movie is on the side of human beings, and opposes unchecked technological progress, even if that progress is well intentioned.
That's bollocks though because technology never makes an industry unemployed all at once. It's gradual as the old industry downsizes. Technological progress should always be unchecked. The poor washerwoman is an acknowledge of the pressure technology can put on certain people, but who reasonably thinks that "Why can't you scientists leave things alone?" is a good rhetorical question?
There are relevant points on both sides. For the industries, it would have resulted in a monopoly for Birnley's isolating everyone else and for certain workers their jobs would have become obsolete. Certainly a complex situation if the plot became a reality.
"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".
"There are relevant points on both sides. For the industries, it would have resulted in a monopoly for Birnley's isolating everyone else and for certain workers their jobs would have become obsolete."
IMO the film works and has developed its long lasting relevance because it doesn't take sides. It pokes fun at both labour and capital for their responses to the technological break through.
Wonder if they.ever had a screening of the film followed by a debate?
share
agree - hundreds, if not thousands, of occupations have been made obsolete through technology, however, many more have also been created. Who wants to go back to a time where women and children work down mines, boys are sent up chimneys and little girls are slowly poisoned from making matchsticks etc etc etc? Back in the 'good old days' practically all of my ancestors were doing jobs that are no longer relevant and I'm very thankful that I have never had to work as a laundress or see my boys work down mines.