THE HELLSTROM CHRONICLE
US, 1971, 93 minutes, Colour.
Lawrence Pressman.
Directed by Walon Green.
The Hellstrom Chronicle is science-fiction designed as documentary or 'science-fact'. Its thesis is that insects have survived the process of evolution best of all creatures so far and that they will out-survive man. In fact, they are well on the way to doing so unless man realises how much he is affected by them - disease, irritation, crop destruction and so on. But, of course, man doesn't and so the film suggests that he is marked for destruction. The points are made less convincingly by Dr. Hellstrom, who turns out to be a fictional character (played by Lawrence Pressman).
They are made most convincingly by some of the most beautiful and frightening colour photography and micro-photography ever shown on the screen. Insect life is shown as cruel and beautiful and as a power for survival.
The film ought to be discussed. It won an Oscar for the Best Full-length Documentary of 1971.
1. Did you expect this film to be a documentary or a science fiction film? What did the title suggest?
2. Were you convinced by the opening credits and by the appearance of Nils Hellstrom that Hellstrom was a genuine person? Were you surprised to find at the end that he was a fictional character? Did this change your outlook on the film? Change the impact? Lessen the credibility?
3. What kind of personality did Hellstrom have? Why did he stress the fact that people had called him a fanatic? How did he use the fact that people did not believe him and he had lost important positions to make his message more authentic and convincing?
4. Were the interview scenes well thought out - e.g. Dr. Hellstrom watching an old science-fiction film to point out man's popular imagination as regards insects; the drive-in, etc?
5. How did the colour photography of insect life impress you? Why?
6. Did you understand the point about insects' adaptability and capacity for survival? Why could they outsurvive man?
7. How dangerous are insects to man? Did you find the film convincing about these dangers or were they exaggerated?
8. What impression did the close-ups of the insects and their devouring of one another make? Were they meant to frighten the audience as to what could happen to man?
9. Did the film show insects to be beautiful at all - e.g. butterflies? Did such sequences take some of the terror out of looking at devouring insects?
10. How important were the locust sequences for the film? Is this plague a thing of the past? What point was made about DDT and other poisons? Does this mean that plagues of locusts are ultimately uncontrollable?
11. After thinking about the previous questions, why, would you now say, the film was made at all? What was its message? How serious were the film makers? How much of the film do you think was merely to show the photographer's skill at micro-photography?
12. How seriously did you take this film? How seriously do you think most audiences would take it? How much influence on public opinion would a film like this have? Why?
