Of the conversation you're commenting on, what always struck me as odd was 1st Eloi's response to George's question: "Government? We have no government."
In the absence of government, how would he know what government was, to be able to say that they have none?
A point worth pondering. I'd say a few of things:
#1) He doesn't say "Government?" He simply says, "We have no 'government.'" In other words, he doesn't seem completely unfamiliar with the concept, either because he's not completely ignorant of history or other societies beyond the Eloi, or he picked up on some things within George's line of questioning, which brings me to my next point.
#2) He might have based his answer on the context of George's question: "What kind of government rules your world?" By the question alone, it can be deciphered even by a simpleton what a government is/does. (I would tend to go with this possibility more than my possibility outlined above in #1.)
#3) As is clear and has often been discussed, of course, the film often isn't too concerned about particulars (how the time machine works, how people would be speaking essentially the same English after 800,000 years, etc.) but rather poses broader philosophical questions about human nature, future, destiny, and time itself. That the response is likely for someone who lives in a place where there is no government, ultimately, is immaterial in the larger scope of the film.
reply
share
brucedgo
10 years ago
#1) He doesn't say "Government?" He simply says, "We have no 'government.'" In other words, he doesn't seem completely unfamiliar with the concept, either because he's not completely ignorant of history or other societies beyond the Eloi, or he picked up on some things within George's line of questioning, which brings me to my next point.
#2) He might have based his answer on the context of George's question: "What kind of government rules your world?" By the question alone, it can be deciphered even by a simpleton what a government is/does. (I would tend to go with this possibility more than my possibility outlined above in #1.)
#3) As is clear and has often been discussed, of course, the film often isn't too concerned about particulars (how the time machine works, how people would be speaking essentially the same English after 800,000 years, etc.) but rather poses broader philosophical questions about human nature, future, destiny, and time itself. That the response is likely for someone who lives in a place where there is no government, ultimately, is immaterial in the larger scope of the film.
#4) Sloppy script writing. Lack of attention to common sense and logic. Another one of the many problems with this film. Of course this kind of thing is prevalent in movies -- especially science fiction it seems. Show the audience a pretty face, some action, etc. but don't spend money on intelligent writing.
I think that most serious published science fiction would have had dialog more like...
"What kind of government do you have?"
"Government? What's Government?"
By the way, I'm pretty sure that question was not in the original story. Partly because the Eloi didn't speak English like in the movie.
conveys the meaning much more directly and clearly and believably that saying they don't have any.
... and the rocks it pummels. - James Berardinelli
reply
share
donofthedial
10 years ago
Sloppy script writing.
I don't think that the film was intended for a detail oriented and discerning audience of adults. George Pal was just trying to weave a story for younger audiences and that is why the film still retains much of it's charm.
If people can enjoy the idiocy of "ET", surely they might warm to THE TIME MACHINE w/o using a critical eye all through the film.
reply
share
brucedgo
10 years ago
I don't think that the film was intended for a detail oriented and discerning audience of adults. pal was just trying to weave a story for younger audiences and that is why the film still retains much of it's charm.
I'm sure you're right.
By the way, I didn't like E.T. either. Love Blade Runner.
Cheers
Ps. I may be overly critical because I had read the H.G. Wells story before seeing the film. I've spoiled a lot of movies that way.
... and the rocks it pummels. - James Berardinelli
reply
share
donofthedial
10 years ago
I'm sure you're right.
Thanks! I liked Blade Runner, too.
Although people are asking some good questions on here, the amount of 'problems' people have with the film distresses me.
I do not think I have read the book. I'll look on line.
fwiw - I saw George Pal in person once at a film festival back in the late 70's. He appeared and they ran THE WAR OF THE WORLDS and some of his early animated shorts. He was very amused when the Los Angeles audience that night applauded and cheered as the Martians destroyed the LA City Hall! He said that that was a first for him. Haha!
reply
share
brucedgo
10 years ago
It's a good story -- a classic actually. Though it's a bit preachy for me in places. And of course it was written in 1895, so that's a factor. Hope you like it. It's not long at all as "books" go.
... and the rocks it pummels. - James Berardinelli
reply
share