MovieChat Forums > The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) Discussion > An observation...

An observation...

posted 11 years ago by ben-thayer
23 replies | jump to latest

Long time fan of this film here, I've seen it countless times. This weekend I watched it with my daughter. I'm not bashing the film, but rather I'd like to get some other opinions. And I hope everyone is cognizant of the fact that I have tongue firmly implanted in cheek while posting!

I've always wondered about something.

I mean, I do understand that in 1951 folks would be paranoid about the bomb as well as the threat of invasion. But these people are so dense in terms of one critical concern that it boggles the mind. Why doesn't *anyone*....ANYONE, mention the fact that killing Klaatu simply may not be a very good idea?

The film depicts the entire military and law enforcement contingent as having one mind: KILL IT.

OK, the spacecraft is obviously not of terrestrial origin...the one general says it to the sergeant that's trying to cut into it with a blowtorch....which is also more than a little humorous. "Hey, let's try to drill into it!" So it's pretty obvious that this vessel is far more advanced than anything on earth.

It's also pretty obvious that our weaponry is no match for Gort from early on. The military surrounds the saucer with every weapon they can muster, but once Klaatu is wounded Gort emerges and - in front of MANY witnesses - destroys the weapons of the entire military contingent with little to no effort. So a *lot* of people, civilians and soldiers, saw this happen.

However, this never seems to register with the military types. They never get the idea that they're facing technology far superior to ours. When Klaatu picks up the broken viewing device, the soldier next to him frantically reaches for his sidearm, only to find his holster empty. Nope, no lesson learned there.

Also, every single radio commentator says the same thing. KILL IT. WE HAVE A MONSTER IN OUR MIDST. IT MUST BE HUNTED DOWN AND DESTROYED. Not one single radio announcer says anything different.

It's also interesting that they show a group of military brass at a round table discussion deciding what to do, and they also have only one solution: KILL IT. Not one single officer states the obvious: "This may not be the best idea! Shouldn't we consider the very real possibility of reprisal if we kill the alien? We've seen what the robot can do...we are facing technology we can't even begin to understand! Doesn't ANYONE think that after we kill this alien it's entirely feasible that we won't be here next week? We could be facing the end of the human race!"

It never comes up.

Even if they don't know Klaatu's mission, it would seem logical that at least *one* high level military officer would play the devil's advocate and suggest the idea that we talk to him rather than kill him, especially since the robot has demonstrated it's power most effectively. Although I don't think any of the higher brass would've listened...they seemed to have utter and complete faith in our primitive weapons, despite concrete evidence to the contrary.

Patricia Neal does seem to be a bit more balanced in her opinion of "the spaceman" during one discussion early on, but it's one small voice in a cacophony of malicious paranoia. I suppose one answer would be that there *were* more reasonable people, they just weren't shown...Professor Barnhardt does seem to fit this. Just don't expect this attitude from anyone in uniform.

"But sir, none of our weapons can stop the robot!"
"Doesn't matter...kill the alien."
"But sir, what happens if his people decide to destroy us in retaliation?"
"Doesn't matter...kill the alien."

OK...I'm guilty of having a chuckle at this films's expense, no offense to anyone I hope. I'll say once more that I do love this film! Just having a bit of fun here....!

[–] kbarada 11 years ago

I liked your post Ben-Thayer. I'm a long time fan of this movie ever since I first saw it at the Saturday matinee sometime in 1957 or 58. I would never pass up a chance to see it again and again on television after that first viewing.

Well just to take the other side from what you have presented, let me say this:

First, the alien craft landed on our soil uninvited and without warning. In the first few years after WWII, we did not take kindly to anybody or anything setting foot on our soil uninvited. So it was somewhat natural to shoot first and ask questions later.

Secondly, the army generals, most of whom had seen action in WWII, were bored silly with the postwar humdrum and saw this as an opportunity to use the weapons at their disposal against a perceived threat, using live ammunition. Yeah, they liked to blow sh!t up. Remember, the Korean conflict had not yet started, so army life was dull.

Lastly, it was common practice in all alien movies to kill that which we do not understand. The generals were just continuing on in this vein. After all, how would we know just how powerful the alien invading force was unless we threw our best weapons at them to no effect?

That's all I have to say about that. I really do like this movie and there are many ways to interpret what happened. I like yours, just that it is so frustrating when you think about how many alternatives that could have been.

[–] WhoToTrust 11 years ago

by ben-thayer - ...And I hope everyone is cognizant of the fact that I have tongue firmly implanted in cheek while posting!

I've always wondered about something...

In my opinion, the answer to your question is to view the movie cognizant of the fact that while directing the movie, Robert Wise also had tongue planted firmly in cheek while deciding how to portray the country's military at the time.

The following excerpt, from an interview of Wise by Andrew J. Rausch, provides further insight into his decision.

Rausch - "I recall reading that you had problems with the War Department regarding the film's theme of peace. Is that correct?"

Wise - "Yeah. For some reason or another, we needed some tanks for the film. When we sent the script over to the War Department, they didn't like it! [Laughs.] They didn't like the peace message in it, and they refused to let us use the tanks. Luckily, someone suggested that we request the tanks from the National Guard in Virginia. We went over and spoke with them about it, and they had no problems with it. So all the tanks which appear in the picture were from the National Guard in Virginia."

[–] leader-7 11 years ago

Weighing in here as a lifelong lover of this film (HobNob, you around?) and while your observations are true enough (tongueincheek, as well) what KBarada says is certainly true. And the back up quotations presented by WhoToTrust are equally as important.

I remember as a child practicing for air raids in elementary school. And needless to say, the military mentality was at it's most forceful at the time.

Witness some of the vocabulary/diagloue in the film... "Our Military Men..." Not, "The Army" or the armed forces, or 'troops.' That's one. Then when Bobby explains to Klaatu "My mom's a secretary -- a real one. That guy who says he's a secretary, he's not really."

So, you have to consider the script and the story line fully in the context of the time. NO PHOTOS of Klaatu in the paper, right? Yet he was in the hospital for long enough for someone, a Jimmy Olsen type == to have snapped a photo of him. Or how about right after he was injured by one of our MILITARY MEN at the ship? Not a single photo appears in the newspaper -- only the artist's rendition of the "alien" which was neither Gort nor Klaatu.

We can analyze this for days. weeks. months. and still never uncover all the shortcomings. Yet, to me, it's the perfect antiwar film.

Anyone ever draw the connection between the initials on the dry cleaning receipt and ... well, I'll let you draw your own conclusion.

just sayin'

e.

[–] ben-thayer 11 years ago

Good posts all around. I've seen the film maybe 25 times or more, and I wanted to introduce it to my 9yr old daughter as one of the seminal science fiction films of all time...one that still holds up today with ease. I've been trying to show her a lot of the classic movies and TV shows, and she has no issues watching something in B&W as many youngsters do these days. Some examples are Fireball XL5, ST:TOS, Andy Griffith, The 3 Stooges, Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein, and on and on and on. She really grooved on TDTESS.

Taking the era into consideration, it was still a bit puzzling to me that the military brass never seemed to plan for any other possible contingencies, which is in truth a big part of their job. "If we move our Bishop, what will the opponent do?"

As to no photos, I wondered why they didn't send any sketch artists to the hospital to render Klaatu's actual appearance. Certainly enough people saw him that they could've produced a sketch of his face with little effort.

I've long been aware of the military refusing to allow Robert Wise to use any of their equipment, but personally I don't see that issue being rebutted in any way in the story. I feel Wise accomplished perfectly what he wanted to say...which ties in with what leader-7 said. Man, you are spot-on correct about the allegorical content of this film. Lots and lots of references to it throughout the film...as you said, the initials on the case, not to mention the last name: Carpenter!

I recall Frazier Crane saying this on an episode of Cheers.

[–] kbarada 11 years ago

Hello again ben-Thayer. Yes, this is a good discussion. Nice to find intelligent folks here to have it with.

BTW, The Thing from another world 1951 is on TCM tonight (1-10-14)at 11:30 pm Eastern Time in case you want to DVR it.

This was released the same year as TDTESS and shows how different people felt/reacted about alien life when actually confronted with it. This movie may be a little frightening for your 9 year old daughter maybe not. I saw it in the movie theater when I was around that age.

Let know what you think.

[–] irvberg2002 9 years ago

The Thing is the ideological opposite of TDTESS. Its alien is a real danger and its main scientist is shockingly naive about that danger. The alien in TDTESS is a mouthpiece for the leftist "moral equivalence" crew who maintained that our resistance to Communist tyranny was merely, as Klaatu put it, "your petty squabbles" and "your childish jealousies and suspicions." Henry Wallace's running mate, Glen Taylor, in their Communist-controlled Progressive Party run in 1948, said that all he knew about Comunists was that they were in favor of three meals a day, and so was he.

[–] WhoToTrust 11 years ago

by ben-thayer - ...I've long been aware of the military refusing to allow Robert Wise to use any of their equipment, but personally I don't see that issue being rebutted in any way in the story...

In my own defense, I wasn't suggesting that the way Wise portrayed the military in the movie had been meant to rebut that issue.

If anything, I thought Wise's directing choices were his way of personally commenting WITH the story on the then current militarys' lack of common sense (including everything from not planning for other possible contingencies to such an obvious oversight as not making use of the witnesses they had for a more accurate sketch composite in the story), and their overall attitude which included an apparent lack of a sense of humor about themselves.

After all, the military DID come off in the movie as looking relatively incompetent, over-reactionary, and far too prone to shoot first and ask questions later...to the detriment of everyone. And to be fair, that was exactly how they deserved to be portrayed for coming across in real life as not necessarily being interested in helping to promote a message of peace by refusing to loan some of their equipment to help in the making of a movie about the dangers of war.

Basically, the War Department didn't plan ahead in real life either to consider how their refusal to help with such a movie might have a detrimental effect in how they were eventually portrayed in said movie.

[–] orbit56 11 years ago

I think Drew Pearson shows the only photo taken at the landing site, but Klaatu is still wearing his helmet, and the image is useless for a man hunt.

The allegory: Klaatu is loved by children (Bobby), aided by a Magdalene-of-sorts (Helen), upstages the wise man in his own temple (Prof. Barnhart), betrayed by a jealous and doubting Tom (standing in for Judas), is executed and is resurrected. Boiled down to the bones, his final message is simple: Do unto others...

[–] masonjud-834-705224 11 years ago

Actually, one media commentator does say, (paraphrase), While this visitor may be our bitter enemy, he may also be a new found friend."

[–] Urquharts 11 years ago

Well, I have been away from this board for a while, it is nice to see that new posts are still being added here. I first saw this film when I was in my early teens, and it has remained a favorite of mine my entire life.

Nice post, ben-thayer.

I recently loaned my DVD of the film to an ill friend, a person that has absolutely no use for science fiction films, and had never seen it. This person absolutely loved the film, and heaped it with praise.

I mean, I do understand that in 1951 folks would be paranoid about the bomb as well as the threat of invasion. But these people are so dense in terms of one critical concern that it boggles the mind. Why doesn't *anyone*....ANYONE, mention the fact that killing Klaatu simply may not be a very good idea?

Although difficult at such a remove, one must try to remember the circumstances of that time period. The film was released in 1951; likely production started sometime in 1950.

Thus, the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor had happened just a few short years (1941) prior to the release of this film. The atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in 1945 - only five years prior to when the film was in production.

Likely the military at the time would have considered the implications of a strike, but for the audiences of the time, just a few years past WW2 and Pearl Harbor, the shoot-first-ask-questions-later scenario would have been acceptable, if not fully embraced.

It's also pretty obvious that our weaponry is no match for Gort from early on. The military surrounds the saucer with every weapon they can muster, but once Klaatu is wounded Gort emerges and - in front of MANY witnesses - destroys the weapons of the entire military contingent with little to no effort. So a *lot* of people, civilians and soldiers, saw this happen.

It has been a while since I have seen the film, but how I remember it is that the part where Gort "rays" the weapons happens at the beginning of the film, not after Klaatu is injured. When Klaatu is shot, Gort has been encased in plexiglas (?), and melts his way out of it and strides away before anyone notices. Except for Bobby, of course.

Yes, there a many witnesses to the landing and the melted weapons scene in the beginning of the film - but, again, put in the context of the time this might have not carried much weight. Witnesses would be disbelieved, and the puddled remains of the weapons would have to be proven, perhaps with difficulty, and alternative explanations would have been presented - humans tend to see what they expect to see. No one would have expected to see a saucer land in a park on a sunny afternoon, with the end result being a bunch of melted military weapons splatted on the ground.

When unexpected events happen, it is often easier to believe in a lie than it is to believe in the truth.

Remember that in 1951 a good film camera was a large, boxy heavy object that one carried around with great difficulty. People did not commonly carry film cameras around in their pockets. Video recorders, cell phone cameras, digital cameras and the like were not yet even a fever dream. At that time they really were [ahem] the stuff of science fiction.

Even television in those days was in it's infancy (hard to believe a world without television!). A television camera of that era weighed hundreds of pounds and were very difficult to move around, more difficult still to transport; indeed very few people had a television set in their homes in 1951. Videotape was not invented until 1957, so up until that time most television broadcasts were live.

So for any footage (and thus "proof") to exist, a television camera (recording video tape - which did not then exist) or a still camera would have been needed to have been on site right there, right now, as the event unfolded.

Extremely unlikely for the time.

Urquharts

[–] ben-thayer 11 years ago

Sorry for not returning sooner....glad to see there is still some discussion about this great film
Urquharts

It has been a while since I have seen the film, but how I remember it is that the part where Gort "rays" the weapons happens at the beginning of the film, not after Klaatu is injured. When Klaatu is shot, Gort has been encased in plexiglas (?), and melts his way out of it and strides away before anyone notices.

Not quite, Gort displays his prowess immediately following Klaatu's wounding.

1- The door opens on the saucer and a ramp appears
2- Klaatu emerges and descends and holds his hand up in a gesture of peace (no one perceives it that way however, everyone is terrified)
3- All the soldiers draw their weapons and prepare to open fire
4- Klaatu pulls out the viewing device, and clicks a control on it. The device expands and opens
5- One soldier fires and wounds Klaatu
6- Gort emerges from the saucer, and begins to zap weapons, including a Howitzer and a tank
7- Klaatu issues a command to Gort, who then stands down
8- Soldiers crowd around Klaatu, who stands up and holds up the broken viewing device
9- One of the soldiers grasps frantically for his sidearm, only to find an empty holster.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ironman54 10 years ago

3- All the soldiers draw their weapons and prepare to open fire
4- Klaatu pulls out the viewing device, and clicks a control on it. The device expands and opens
5- One soldier fires and wounds Klaatu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't help think of the 'Kent State Massacre' whenever I watch this scene. The 'aliens' of the time where the
long haired college student. One scared reservist accidentally (?) opens fire and ... well, ya know the rest.

Back in those days (50s) people didn't envision movies being watched over again and again - the movie going experience was more like a one time roller coaster ride. Minor plot holes or inconsistencies didn't matter much as the average movie goer didn't/couldn't just stop paying attention to what was happening on the screen in the present to ponder these errors that had already passed by (irretrievably) because, if you did, you risked becoming hopelessly 'lost'/confused and the person sitting next to you certainly didn't want to risk getting 'lost' themselves just to bring you up to speed. Talking or even whispering during the movie was considered bad manners. By the time the movie was over and you were on the way out to the street, you were the rare person to even remember what it was that first caught your attention and made you wonder about if the movies maker screwed up or it was just you who had missed something. As I recall most people were afraid to
to say they didn't 'get' some part of the film for fear of being thought a 'dumby' if you were wrong.
Books/novels on the other hand, then just as now, had to get it right. One can/could always re-read a passage as many times as you wanted and there was the library to check out the parts you thought were factual errors.
And no risk of exposing yourself as a 'dumby' either should you be wrong ! Remember the old saying 'The only stupid question is the one thats never asked ?" Yeah right LOL !!
I suspect that now, just as then, people are just as reluctant to ask a question about the plot point of a movie they didn't get for fear of being thought a dumby ... except now, like with the book, one can re-wind a movie to re-watch that troubling scene and Google for the answer for themselves - no need to further swell the head of that know-it-all friend, bro/sis in law or spouse !
They could get away with a lot in movies back then - just as long as the overall plot made sense... wait, scratch that ... thinking about 'The Big Sleep' now. OK, the plot could even be a mess as long as the movie going experience was a good one ie., included the biggest stars of the day (or your favorite), plenty of action
etc.. etc. Different times, different times ...

Another quick thought: The UN came into being a mere 5 years prior to this movies release. The talk of the times was how to spare this world a repeat of the 1st and 2nd World Wars. I've always loved this movies imaginative "Either you get it together or we will get it together for you ..." alternative. For an hour or so we see how we collectively look like a house full of unruly kids who need a strong father figure to restore order.
Read into that one as you like...
:-)

[–] Ironman54 10 years ago

3- All the soldiers draw their weapons and prepare to open fire
4- Klaatu pulls out the viewing device, and clicks a control on it. The device expands and opens
5- One soldier fires and wounds Klaatu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't help think of the 'Kent State Massacre' whenever I watch this scene. The 'aliens' of the time where the
long haired college student. One scared reservist accidentally (?) opens fire and ... well, ya know the rest.

As to the OPs points (I know you're just havin' a little fun - me too):

Back in those days (50s) people didn't envision movies being watched over again and again - the movie going experience was more like a one time roller coaster ride. Minor plot holes or inconsistencies didn't matter much as the average movie goer didn't/couldn't just stop paying attention to what was happening on the screen in the present to ponder these errors that had already passed by (irretrievably). If you did, you risked becoming hopelessly 'lost'/confused and the person sitting next to you certainly didn't want to risk getting 'lost' themselves just to bring you up to speed and talking or even whispering during a movie was considered bad manners.
By the time the movie was over and you were on the way out to the street, you were the rare person to even remember what it was that first caught your attention and made you wonder about if the movies maker screwed up or was it just you who had missed something ? As I recall most people were afraid to
to say they didn't 'get' some part of the film for fear of being thought a 'dumby'.
Books/novels on the other hand, then just as now, had to get it right. One can/could always re-read a passage as many times as you wanted and there was the library to check out the parts you suspected contained factual errors ... and no risk of exposing yourself as a 'dumby' either should you be wrong ! Remember the old saying 'The only dumb question is the one not asked ?" Yeah right LOL !!
I suspect that now, just as then, people are just as reluctant to ask a question about the plot point of a movie they didn't get for fear of being thought a dumby ... except now, like with the book, one can re-wind a movie to re-watch that troubling scene and Google for the answer for themselves - no need to further swell the head of that know-it-all friend, bro/sis in law or spouse !
They could get away with a lot in movies back then - just as long as the overall plot made sense... wait, scratch that ... just remembered 'The Big Sleep'. OK, the plot could even be a mess as long as the movie going experience was a good one ie., included the biggest stars of the day (or your favorite), plenty of action
etc.. etc. Different times, different times ...

Another quick thought: The UN came into being a mere 5 years prior to this movies release. The talk of the times was how to spare this world a repeat of the 1st and 2nd World Wars. I've always loved this movies imaginative "Either you get it together or we will get it together for you ..." alternative. For an hour or so we see how we collectively look like a house full of unruly kids who need a strong father figure to restore order.
Read into that one as you like...
:-)

[–] klaatoo999 10 years ago

Even television in those days was in it's infancy (hard to believe a world without television!). A television camera of that era weighed hundreds of pounds and were very difficult to move around, more difficult still to transport; indeed very few people had a television set in their homes in 1951. Videotape was not invented until 1957, so up until that time most television broadcasts were live.

So for any footage (and thus "proof") to exist, a television camera (recording video tape - which did not then exist) or a still camera would have been needed to have been on site right there, right now, as the event unfolded.

Yes, but for taking a photograph you only needed a camera. And at that time they could carry cameras around. The journalists had cameras. Nevertheless, even if there had been a way for a camera to be used, I would assume that journalists would probably not be allowed into the hospital where the "alien" was; they wouldn't be allowed to go there and take pictures. He'd be under tight security and not be exposed to the public. Maybe he would, at a later point, after his recovery, but we don't get to see that since Klaatu diappears from the hospital soon after. Therefore his appearance remains unkown to the public--the only picture they had was the one taken by cameras when he was in his spacesuit.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ben-thayer 10 years ago

So no, your argument is not valid and I'm really wondering how it is that you cannot see this?

Friend, please chill out. Why all the hostility? It was stated UP FRONT that this thread was just having a bit of fun at the film's expense. Since the discussion relates to America in the early 50's there is no intended political agenda whatsoever...unless you want to interject one. It was merely a humorous observation.

And another thing...lay off on the ad hominem cracks. No need to rip someone a *new* one here. You're not helping make your case in any way by calling people names.

[–] ben-thayer 10 years ago

Yes, but for taking a photograph you only needed a camera. And at that time they could carry cameras around. The journalists had cameras. Nevertheless, even if there had been a way for a camera to be used, I would assume that journalists would probably not be allowed into the hospital where the "alien" was; they wouldn't be allowed to go there and take pictures. He'd be under tight security and not be exposed to the public. Maybe he would, at a later point, after his recovery, but we don't get to see that since Klaatu diappears from the hospital soon after. Therefore his appearance remains unkown to the public--the only picture they had was the one taken by cameras when he was in his spacesuit.

I never understood why they didn't bring in a police sketch artist to work with the doctors who attended Klaatu to come up with an image of him without his helmet, since they saw his face when they treated him.

[–] leader-7 10 years ago

They had no reason to believe he'd be able to (or try to) escape since he was in a "locked" hospital room.

remember the glint in his eye after the meeting w/ the secretary ? when he hears the door 'lock' he smiles at it, and we all know he's thinking, "fools. I came here from 23 million miles away, I have a salve that healed my injury. I can get out of this room in 2 seconds."

[–] orbit56 11 years ago

I believe the only newsman who actually condones hunting down Klaatu like an animal and killing him is Gabriel Heatter, whose voice is heard over the radio. The TV reporter Drew Pearson, I believe, said something like that while the alien could be a bitter enemy, he could also be a new-found friend. Elmer Davis reported that not much was known about the alien. I don't recall any newsman but Heatter promoting lynch-mob mentality.

I think that because the shot from the panicked soldier did not trigger a volley of fire from every weapon surrounding the ship might imply that the order to kill was not an initial response. That seems to come after Klaatu pulls his power grid shutdown stunt, something seen by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as an act of aggression. (It didn't seem to impress them that no one was hurt and hospitals and planes in flight were not affected by the power outage.)

In fact, the order to apprehend Klaatu mentioned it would be preferable to take him alive, but killing him might be necessary.

I'll have to watch the DVD again to be sure, but I think I'm fairly accurate with my comments.

[–] klaatoo999 10 years ago

An interesting observation. I think it's what WhoToTrust said; Wise wanted to portray the military that way, namely as having a lack of common sense and wanting at all costs to secure the advantage over "the enemy". The fact that the real life military refused to provide their tanks to the filmmakers just because of the "peace message" of the movie is perhaps also indicative of that way of thinking.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]