The superiority complex of the American characters(we conrolled 60% of the world's economy in 1952) is a sight to behold! The Soviet Union instantly dissolving and the head of the Russian Othodox Church becoming leader of the nation is really wild! A radio transmission supposedly from a Christian Mars is a fact in this movie! Just three of many, many exclamation marks of this really odd film. Unbelievable unless experienced!
Exactly. This is one particular Sci-Fi movie from the fifties that, despite all it social commentary and historical context, just cannot be taken seriously ever, except by REALLY fundamentalist Christians perhaps.
I like this movie, always have, for its eclectic mix of politics, science fiction, economics, physics, religion, espionage, Nazis, Communists and just about everything and everyone else. Actually, I find its plot lines quite intriguing, certainly unique. For example, the chaos the film envisions gripping the capitalist world when the messages from Mars are decoded seems a very likely by-product of such an event. The fact that Mars and the Martians remain an off-screen presence is also refreshingly different. To me, this film is barely true science-fiction at all, in the usual sense of the term.
One also has to take this film (like every film) in its context - in this case, at the depths of the cold war with Stalinist Russia (as opposed to the depth -- or if you prefer, height -- of the cold war at other points). Although set in a post-Stalin USSR of the near future, it offers a pretty good representation of the police-state terror Stalin routinely invoked to control his own people. Of course, in reality most Russians loved Stalin, even as they feared his wrath, much like the stern father figure he was always portrayed in Soviet propaganda as being. Most Russians of the time were not, alas, anti-Communist, as depicted in this film. Anyway, its simplistic Free World/Communist World approach may not have reflected reality, as history shows, but it did reflect popular (mis)conceptions of the time. Any true liberal (of which I count myself one) should be strongly anti-Communist, as Communism is antithetical to any concept of genuine political and social liberalism...the mindless attacks of propagandists of the left and right notwithstanding.
As for the film's relgious aspects, these are a bit too Christian-centric for my taste, but remember that it was in part the religious faith of many Eastern Europeans, particularly the Poles, inflamed by the election of a Polish Pope in 1978, that ultimately helped undermine Communist rule in Europe in the 1980s...certainly not the sole or most important cause, but it did provide a focal point for protest, so Red Planet Mars might not have been too far off the mark in its vision here. And cinematically, dragging religion into a sci-fi film was hardly unique -- look at most of George Pal's films, for instance, where God or religion were often a crucial plot point (When Worlds Collide, The War of the Worlds, Conquest of Space), among several others' sci-fi films. Even Forbidden Planet and This Island Earth reference God, as a sign of man's ultimate superiority.
Anyway, RPM is different, and decidely one-of-a-kind. Hilarious? No, I don't agree. Bizarre? Sure, somewhat. But principally I think it's an offbeat, interesting, in a few ways even prophetic, bit of propaganda that deals with some adult issues (economics) as well as more sensational ones (Nazis and Commies) in an entertaining way, and poses an odd story (based on little if anything of scientific merit) in an acceptably ironic, if not terribly realistic, fashion. Its message about religion is simplistic and western-oriented, its good-guys-vs.-bad-guys world order very simplistic, but its depictions of a Communist police state and the pitfalls of capitalism are pretty good. Dramatically, it's solid, considering. Herbet Berghof overacts as the Nazi, Andrea King is too loud and holier-than-thou to be entirely sympathetic, but overall the cast does well.
Sorry for the long comment, but I think this is a fairly decent movie, flaws and all, certainly an entertaining one. It was also one of the earliest I recall seeing on TV in the early 60s, so I suppose fond childhood memories are at play here.
Oh, and the Russians (mostly) speak (pretty good) Russian, not Boris-Badenov-style, comic-strip, Russian-accented English. That's also a plus.
Here was a title I had always missed. After finally catching it, almost 60 years after it was released, it turned out to be a very well made flick. Daring and imaginative, well acted and mounted. Better -- Dare I say it? -- than many films today.
Well, I liked it better than The King's Speech, but then, I'm more sophisticated than most folks, especially people who use the word "folks".
On the other hand, the real George VI died in 1952, the same year Red Planet Mars came out. Coincidence? Hmmph! I hardly think it even needs going into.
But the next time you see 1953's Invaders From Mars, take a close look at the face of the Supreme Intelligence in the portable fishbowl, then look at the face on a 1951 British postage stamp. And only one year later, mind you!
What interplanetary psychic vibe made me traipse over to this site just now, I wonder? Oh, yeah, the movie was on the other day. Whatever, it turned out to be only to see the same accusation of wooden-headedness as was dragged into a perfectly innocent Dragnet thread.
C'mon, TDF. A little originality, please. Brain cells getting a bit petrified out there in the wilds?
Meanwhile, I already passed on similar greetings to esc, per the Dragnet dregs, coincidentally enough. Great minds, balsa or otherwise, think, or at least react to electronic stimuli, alike.
It took me a few minutes to figure out you're apparently referring to my 5/3/11 post up above. It seems to be the only place I used the word "sophisticated".
As to that, to quote Charlie Brown: "Don't you know sarcasm when you hear it?"
Besides, The Dying Flutchman and I are good pals. All this is just our usual repartee...to use another "sophisticated" word, I guess.
Dooesn't sound any stupider than the usual leftist agitprop coming out of Hollywood these days. - Bilwick1
Actually, Red Planet Mars arose from the play Red Planet, written 20 years before the movie came out by John Hoare and John L. Balderston, with Balderston collaborating with Anthony Veiller for the film's screenplay.
During the First World War, Balderston worked for the Committee for Public Information, also known as the Creel Committee, which was formed to drum up public support for America's entry into the war. The Committee clearly stated that it would use propaganda to influence opinion, and indeed committee chairman Creel, who was a journalist, was proud to say that he was openly partisan in his outlook toward just about everything. By the way, "propaganda" is a loaded term in the United States, which largely labors under the illusion of impartiality and objectivity ("fair and balanced"), but much of the world understands that propaganda is simply information shaped to promote or discredit a position and is regarded as such.
So, the propagandistic thrust of Red Planet Mars should not be a surprise given Balderston's background. However, in 1952 it would have been very warmly received by those such as J. Parnell Thomas, who as chairman of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was busy rounding up those agitprop leftists in Hollywood as being communists or at least fellow travelers. Ironically, Thomas was convicted of fraud charges and pleaded the Fifth Amendment, for which he excoriated those called before HUAC to answer the infamous question "are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" Thomas was imprisoned and, in a further irony, he encountered two members of the "Hollywood Ten," the first ones imprisoned for refusing to answer that question. One of the two was screenwriter Ring Lardner, Jr., who later won an Oscar for M*A*S*H (the 1970 film), although he distanced himself from it because he claimed that director Robert Altman substantially altered his script during filming. ------------------ If I were a comedian, I'd incorporate myself so I could become a laughingstock.
reply share
I'm just watching it now, from a recording off TCM [April '12] [and a surprisingly crisp, clean, almost HD-quality transmission]. Bizarre, hilarious, stupid and fascinating it certainly is!
I wonder why leftists always DO this stuff when confronted with a movie that mentions God and takes on their commie forefathers.
The movie isn't "odd." It's not "hysterical." The real arrogance is judging a 1952 movie by allegedly superior 2010 (in this dope's case) standards, to wit, that any movie that deals with the Sermon on the Mount has to be a laugh riot.
Yeah, "love good and hate evil," that's a real knee slapper.