WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE
US, 1951, 83 minutes, Colour.
Richard Derr, Barbara Rush, Peter Hansen, John Hoyt, Larry Keating, Rachel Ames.
Directed by Rudolph Mate.
When Worlds Collide was filmed in 1950, the year of such science fiction films as Destination Moon and The Day the Earth Stood Still. This film combines something of both – the imagination of science fiction as well as some thought about the implications and repercussions of the world outside Earth.
The film belongs to the early 1950s, especially with its small budget. However, despite the limitations of the technology of the time, it won an Oscar for best special effects.
More sophisticated audiences (after such 1990s films as Independence Day, Armageddon, Deep Impact) may find the film very basic. However, what it lacks in technology, it makes up for in dialogue and characterisation as well as explorations of space issues.
The film was directed by Rudolph Mate, a cinematographer who had begun to direct films at this period including DOA and The Black Shield of Falworth. Barbara Rush was at the beginning of her successful career during the 1950s.
1. How enjoyable a science-fiction film was this? How exciting in its themes and plot? How didactic in its message?
2. How much intelligence went into the making of this film? Was this evident? The skill of the technique and the effects? The style of the colour editing realism, fantasy?
3. Why do audiences like science-fiction? The fantasy aspects? The scientific know-how, the fears of disaster the warning aspects, the insight into human behaviour in crisis? How well were these illustrated here?
4. This film was made in 1950. In the prescientific trends was it evident that this was early science-fiction? How?
5. How effective was the biblical parallel with Noah and its portrayal in detail? The portrayal of an evil world, the good? the Noah figure of the scientist, preparing an ark for safety? The new creation?
6. Was the message subtly done or too heavily done especially by the biblical quotation at the start and the biblical warnings? The film was optimistic in its ending.
7. How credible were the events and the people in this film? The credibility of world collisions at the end of the world? The portrayal of facts as facts, the risk of hoax, the nature of the decisions to be made, people’s reactions, newspaper reaction of scientists, the disasters impending and the understanding of facts?
8. How well-drawn was the plot? The development from South Africa the messengers, America, the effect on people, the particular group, their effort and squabbles the human interest, mission, the crisis, the fulfilment? How
well integrated were these various aspects of these plots?
9. How interesting a character was Dave? The ordinary man, love of money, of life, affection and love for Joyce, gradual heroism, self-sacrifice the saviour-figure for the group? How conventional a hero? How much more than conventional?
10. How attractive a heroine was Joyce? How conventional? As a scientist, her love for Dave, her father, her role in the mission?
11. Joyce's fiance, how conventional? As love for her, jealousy, thoughts of killing Dave, his contriving his being on the spaceship?
12. How impressive was the portrayal of the professor? His convictions? His relentless following his enterprise? His justice, his self-sacrifice in staying? A twist to the Noah figure?
13. Stanton as a conventional villain? The evil of money and greed and self preservation? His ruthlessness? The inevitability of his not going?
14. The portrayal of the ordinary workers, especially the couple in love and their final going? Did these balance the portrayal of the central characters?
15. The details of the spaceship, the preparation, the Noah aspects of this? The human and emotional crises?
16. How well explored were the thernes of the end of the world, disaster, courage, fear and greed?
17. How successful was this modest scientific film?
