MovieChat Forums > Forbidden Planet (1958) Discussion > When the fence shorts out...(SPOILERS)

When the fence shorts out...(SPOILERS)

posted 9 years ago by hobnob53
4 replies | jump to latest

AGAIN...SPOILERS

This has to do with the scene where the Chief (Richard Anderson) is killed by the Id monster:

The sequence begins with the crew standing guard inside the electrified fence, when it suddenly "shorts out" -- actually the Id monster attempting to pass through it. (You can even briefly see the outline of the monster's face, which we later see in much greater detail during its attack on the compound.)

Anyway, after the fence "shorts out", the men examine it, then decide to run a full check in the morning. Meanwhile, unseen by any of them, we see the Id monster's footprints appear inside the compound and head for the ship, where it kills the Chief.

My question is: how did it get inside the compound after all? They never turned off the power. The only ways I can think of are (1) it leaped over the fence, or (2) Morbius re-imagined it inside the camp. But if either of those happened, why didn't it happen again during the full-scale attack?

I think if this isn't a goof it's at least a plot hole.

AND ONE OTHER THING....

Robby takes the cook's bottle of Genuine Rocket Bourbon, pours it down his aperture and after analyzing it offers to make 60 gallons for him. When Cookie goes to get it a couple of nights later, Robby has it stacked up in neat bottles for him. So here's the question: we know Robby can duplicate any substance he ingests. But he never ingests the bottle, only the bourbon. Now, presumably from past experience he doesn't need to sample the bottle to make glass, but how does he re-create the labels?

[–] Harold_of_Whoa 9 years ago

Here's the way I see it: the Id Monster interacts with the fence in some way that we can't fully describe (because neither the fence tech nor the Krell machine manifestation really exist), but the reason it passes on through unimpeded is that it is not bound by constraints of physical objects. This is the idea postulated by Doc after the full battle.

If you really think about it, the whole idea that the Id Monster has to move into the enclosure is an affect (read AF-ect, not uh-FECT) - it is a conceit of the mind which creates it. There is no need for such a creation to pop out of a hatch in the ground somewhere and then take a hike up the arroyo to do battle with the interlopers. It could simply come into 'existence' right there where its work needs to be done and then disapparate when finished. Much like the bizarre counter-evolutionary taxonomy exhibited in the footprint, the trudging around like an ordinary physical being is just some nonsense churned up by the unconscious mind and its inherently limited and primitive capacities.

So, whatever happens at the interaction between the fence and the monster, the Krell machine just dutifully recreates the thing on the other side, much like it recreates the beast "microsecond to microsecond" in the blaster beams.

This theory of mine would also cover why the Id Monster has to melt its way through the Krell metal lab doors, in that it doesn't have to, it's just the machine again dutifully rendering the expectations of its primitive master rather than doing what is logical to higher order thinking.

The land dreams in a false peace, and for a while all evil is withdrawn.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Well, I partially agree with you. In my OP, I postulated that the Id monster may have simply been "withdrawn" from the fence and shortly afterward re-created inside the camp to go in and kill the Chief. So that makes sense.

But I don't think the Krell machine regulates its user's logic, or effects (with an "e") its creations' movements accordingly. The machine simply projects matter in the way the user imagines it. It doesn't correct for illogic or physical impediments unless the user (who presumably understands at some level what's going on) changes his own thoughts or imagining of the situation. You basically said this yourself: "it is a conceit of the mind which creates it." The user's mind directs the Id's movements, not the Krell machine. It just brings the user's vision into reality, in whatever form and regardless of its logic.

In this case, Morbius's Id could redirect the monster to reappear inside the fence once it couldn't get through. This is really the only thing that makes sense, assuming there isn't a plot hole present. You're correct that there is really no need for all this -- the machine could simply project the monster right into the ship where it could kill the Chief. But it could only do this if the user (here, Morbius) imagined it that way. The machine creates what Morbius imagines. As a human being, it's natural for him to think in coporeal or literal terms -- the monster may be invisible, but it's real enough when brought to life by the Krell machine, which is why it leaves footprints and behaves like an actual creature, having to cross through barriers or up stairs and the rest. It doesn't have to do this, but it does so if that's the way Morbius imagines it...which, given the literal nature of the human mind, is entirely understandable.

Of course, apart from the internal logic of the plot, the other reason we see all this happening is because it's a movie, and the audience needs to be shown something literal to get excited or frightened by.

[–] Harold_of_Whoa 9 years ago

I feel like we are giving pretty similar interpretations. Bear in mind that it has been a while since I have watched.

One question I have: are you saying in your OP that the footprints inside the perimeter start at some point significantly far inward so as to indicate something other than 'walking' from the fence contact to the first footprint? I always just assumed some sort of contiguous mogation (that's a word from my late father) across the scene. That brings up another question: do the footprints begin and end inside the perimeter, or did the crew track them back to somewhere else? All just speculative, of course, since it isn't mentioned and we don't know what kind of terrain is nearby (i.e. too rocky for prints).

As a human being, it's natural for him to think in coporeal or literal terms -- the monster may be invisible, but it's real enough when brought to life by the Krell machine, which is why it leaves footprints and behaves like an actual creature, having to cross through barriers or up stairs and the rest. It doesn't have to do this, but it does so if that's the way Morbius imagines it...which, given the literal nature of the human mind, is entirely understandable.

On this point I feel like making a distinction between the conscious and unconscious (subconscious per the film) minds. If you and I, with our mere Twentieth Century unboosted human brains, can imagine the Krell machine's capabilities, unbounded by simple physical barriers, then obviously Morbius has sufficient imagination to conceive of the same things - in conscious thought. But the evidence suggests that the mind that creates the Id Monster, trudging along and pounding it's way through obstacles, lacks the full capacity of Morbius' mind. The 'user' of the Krell machine in this case seems to be only "the mindless primitive" self of Morbius that can't transcend the normal understanding of the physical world of beasts. Assuming that Morbius' subconscious generates the monster, that subconscious seems to be cut off from the higher order thinking that might allow activities beyond that of some invisible golem, super-powerful but bound much like a corporeal being to physical restraints.

I suppose another angle to consider is the possibility that since the monster's rampages are manifestations of Morbius' rage and frustration, maybe it acts as much for show as for results. It might simply be less satisfying to just efficiently crush the klystron whatever or stop the chief's heart. The beast has to act beastly or it doesn't satisfy the need for vengeance and control. Just a thought.

The land dreams in a false peace, and for a while all evil is withdrawn.

[–] bruce-129 8 years ago

Damn well explained! I would have said the same thing, but you said it better.