I was watching one of my favorite low budget sci fi films today when it struck me, the future used to look so much, well, cooler than it does now:



Granted, the science is absurd, and the uniforms are remarkably impractical, and everything looks so dated today that people chuckle upon seeing it, but so what? Don't you think in 40 years today's science fiction will look dated? The science will seem absurd (if it doesn't already)?

But at least these old films had a sense of wonder and a bit of style. All we get today is grim, depressing "grittiness". Grittiness was fine as an antidote to too much wonder and optimism, I suppose. But when grim and depressing is all you get, it is just as unrealistic as relentlessly upbeat messages. In fact, probably more so, as, in my experience, life is generally more positive than negative (though Siddhartha would obviously disagree... as would Koheleth).

And in any case, even if life is more bad than good, who is to say entertainment needs to exactly mirror life. I know dark and grim and gritty is supposed to be more "mature" and "serious", but if I want to be entertained, want a moment of distraction from the mundane world, can't I have something that eases my burdens a bit, instead of grinding them into my back?

POSTSCRIPT

No, I am not proposing all art or entertainment needs to be upbeat or inspirational, far from it. I am just arguing that the bizarre view that depressing, grim and morbid equals "serious" is just as absurd as the opposite. I enjoy all manner of entertainment, depressing and cheery, "gritty" and light fluff, "slice of life" or "kitchen sink" to heroic and even some "anti-heroic" (though too often that becomes just a pompous conceit and excuse for bad writing) and I would not dare to put one above the other, as all have their merits.

My argument is that our current fixation on "serious" art being depressing is not a sign of maturity, but rather the continuation of the teenager's discovery that not all entertainment is the cheery stuff of his childhood. Teens react to this discovery by imagining depressing art is "serious" and "adult", and, apparently, many never get over this discovery, contrasting their morbid "serious" art with everything else (especially the dreaded "popular entertainment") that they dismiss as "Disney" and "cartoonish", showing clearly where their objections originate.

What is odd is that so many consider these arrested adolescent opinions worth following.

POSTSCRIPT II

I realize there is something ironic in dismissing juvenile opinions while talking about how "cool" the future once was. I suppose I should have been a bit more clear. I have no problem with juvenalia per se, and in fact part of what I love about old science fiction is the child-like excitement and wonder and enthusiasm. What troubles me is how the "mature" interpretation in vogue today, which sees the somber and grim as "serious", is itself equally juvenile. And that is why the irony is not enough to invalidate my argument. I am saying "I am staring at space in childish wonder, asking to be either impressed with a flashy show, or scared with a good spooky tale, and I am doing so without apology", while the other side is just as juvenile but putting on airs of greater maturity and wisdom while dismissing those of us who disagree as "immature".

Thus my own, somewhat immature attitude in no way harms the argument I made.

Not that it matters. After all, no one is going to change their beliefs about art because of one of my little asides. But it does once more point out how often we manage to mistake childish beliefs with maturity ("I Blame the Romantics", "Graphic Novels, Comic Books and Cultural Barometers", "An Interesting Article"). And that is somewhat troubling.

POSTSCRIPT III

For those who can't place the film, it is Planet of the Vampires, which puts it in the "good spooky tale" category, rather than the "flashy show" side. Though Mario Bava's play with light, colors and fog tends to provide a bit of both. (And definitely inspired a big part of the movie Alien many years later.)

UPDATE: To be fair, some science fiction does still retain the older "sense of wonder" style, mostly in serial television. For example, shows such as "Stargate SG-1" and "Firefly", among a handful of others, managed to get some of that feeling of adventure. So does the new "Doctor Who", at least some of the time (though I have to confess I am not as fond of it as of the original - see "Musings About A Television Series"). And, as if to make my point, a lot of these shows are dismissed as "mindless fluff" by "serious critics", precisely because they capture that sense of wonder without being either grim or preachy (well, except "Doctor Who", which is preachy enough for a few hundred tent revivals).So, in reality, these exceptions help to make my point as well, since the reason they are exceptions is also why they are often criticized, or at least viewed as much less worthy of serious attention. (By the way, not saying any of them are particularly good, just that their perspective is unusual in an era of "gritty" and "serious" television and films.)