MovieChat Forums > It! The Terror from Beyond Space (1958) Discussion > 'We can build up the air supply for ours...

'We can build up the air supply for ourselves later': Huh?

posted 17 years ago by hobnob53
18 replies | jump to latest

I've always loved IT! since I was a kid, and in general it's better than a lot of similarly low-budget sci-fi from that period. Still....

Okay, they decide to kill It! by the simple expediency of letting all the air out of the ship. And after Marshall Thompson comes up with this brainstorm, any questions about how that would affect the crew -- who, one presumes, would find air a useful commodity during the remainder of their four-month trip back to Earth -- are waved away by Dabbs Greer with the offhand comment, "We can build up the air supply for ourselves later." "Right!" shouts Marshall.

"RIGHT!"??? Umm, just how do they plan to "build up" an air supply? Stand around exhaling? (Yes, I know, that's not "air" anyway.) Their spacesuit air would last a few hours at best, covering the entire ship. The whole thing is ridiculous.

Of course, deciding to kill themselves to save the Earth from It! might have been one way to eliminate this plot hole, but totally unacceptable to the audience. A better way would simply have been to trap the creature on one deck, let the air out there, and either suffocate him or let the sudden depressurization shoot him out into space (a la IT's semi-rip-off, ALIEN). But as it stands, this ending makes no sense at all. Even as a kid, this annoyed me!

[–] jlimpert 17 years ago

Since it's a mission to Mars, they must have some way of continually replenishing the atmosphere inside the ship. They could use electrolysis to get oxygen from water. That would allow them to create a low-pressure 100% oxygen atmosphere like NASA used for the Apollo missions. They would probably be carrying large tanks of water, or be relying on fuel cells to produce a steady supply of water. So that part of the plot isn't ridiculous. You should be asking where they get their gravity.

[–] hobnob53 17 years ago

Maybe...maybe...although I guarantee the writers weren't thinking of anything like that in 1958. Normally, they wouldn't have to "replenish" the oxygen supply, in the sense of making more; their problem would be in air purification, recycling the same old air to convert it from CO2 and make it breathable again. But if you let it all out of the ship, there's nothing to recycle. Your solution is plausible, but they still seem awfully cavalier about it all.

Some other things that occurred to me: when they go below to get blood, and It breaks out of the nuclear reactor chamber, they not only go back to the next level but immediately abandon it altogether and move on up to the top. Why cede It so much extra space, especially when they're running out of room?

Next: when they go for the blood they try unsuccessfully to retrieve Calder (with the broken leg and faceplate). Later, when they hit upon their idea of letting all the air out of the ship, they tell him to get in the air lock and stay there. Okay -- presumably he'll be all right in there because that air won't be evacuated. But it's a finite amount, and they'll have to get him out of there pretty soon, and even if they can "build up their supply" for later, poor Calder might find himself running short before that happens. (Okay, they might get him on an oxygen cylinder beforehand, if they have enough and he doesn't die beforehand).

More seriously, Col. Van Heusen opened the reactor to destroy It with the words, "It's enough to kill a hundred men!" So when It breaks out of the chamber and Carruthers flees, Calder goes back to his hiding place and Bob is killed, the reactor is still open and the chamber door ripped out, completely exposing Calder to lethal radiation. Even if they closed the reactor door later (which we never see them do), enough radiation would have been emitted to guarantee Calder's agonizing death. Of course, that would solve his oxygen problem.

Oh, where'd they get the aritifical gravity, you ask? Why, from the artificial gravity switch, of course. You remember one of them over dinner tells Ann that every time Van sees her he floats around the room, "even though the ship is equipped with artificial gravity." It's located right next to the oxygen rebuild-up supply button.

[–] obit1 17 years ago

Well, ya gotta remember that the film was written in a matter of days by a science fiction writer who quickly knocked it out for producer Bob Kent over at United Artist. And when you think that it was directed by Eddie Cahn, well, you're lucky the damn thing is in focus! Nobody took it seriously. If they did, how do you account for flying to mars, landing, then taking off and returning to earth in a single stage rocket?

The film was more of a murder mystery than science fiction...heavy on the fiction....

Still, a drunken, fat Ray "Crash" Corrigan wearing one of Paul Blaisdell's best monster suits scared the turds out of me when I saw this in the theater as a itty-bitty kid....all back in 1958.

http://www.woodywelch.com

[–] hobnob53 17 years ago

Oh, sure, it scared me too. I actually think it's a pretty well-done picture. I just wish they hadn't left so many plot holes. (Or portholes-- where are all those? You see them on the outside of the single-stage Mars II or whatever it's called, but nobody ever sees a window from the inside.) Actually I'm pretty sure it's the WORLD WITHOUT END/QUEEN OF OUTER SPACE (same shots) spaceship, except in black & white.

Ah, yes, Edward L. Cahn. Do you realize IT! is probably his GONE WITH THE WIND? He did a better job here than almost anything else he stuck his hand over the camera lens on, which is alarming enough in itself. Did you ever check out Eddie's credits? He did six films including IT! in 1958, another 6 in 1959, 9 in 1960, and peaked with 12 in 1961, including OPERATION BOTTLENECK, THE BOY WHO CAUGHT A CROOK, and of course THE POLICE DOG STORY. I mean, even Fellini and John Ford managed only one film apiece in '61. Such talent. But then he had a big fall-off and made only one each himself in 1962 and 1963, the year he was called to that big Cannes in the sky. I suppose he's being forced to re-watch all his films through eternity, and it might take that long to get through them, at least wide awake.

(Coincidentally, I just replied to a post I'd put up on another of Ed's stunners, ZOMBIES OF MORA TAU, wherein his direction gets a couple of citations, which he never answered in the court of public opinion.)

[–] bstephens21 13 years ago

Ed Cahn is actually quite talented when, you know, he wasn't just cranking them out to get rid of them. Even then, that he made as many good films as he did during that late 50s-early 60s poverty row period is a testament to his talent. It! is the most famous, but I'm also partial to Girls in Prison and Guns, Girls & Gangsters. And, of course, his early films include some kind of masterpieces.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

I don't agree that Cahn was "quite talented" at all, and in fact he was cranking them out just to get rid of them. That was his (deserved) reputation in Hollywood. After all, how can you direct 12 movies in a single year other than by cranking them out?

As for any "masterpieces" you claim he directed, I can only say: name one. About the only significant film Cahn ever made was Law and Order (1932), but otherwise he always worked in Bs. That in itself doesn't mean he was a poor director, but a look at almost any of his films shows little in the way of directorial ability or interest. By contrast, a B-director like Edgar Ulmer usually managed to invest his films with some thought and inventiveness (in camera angles, scene blocking, directing his actors) to make the most of his meager budgets, which were usually much smaller than Cahn's. Cahn seldom showed the slightest inventiveness or visual resourcefulness in his films; he simply shot his movies, straight-out and listlessly. So unless your definition of "masterpiece" is so corrupted into meaninglessness by including such Cahn films as Laughter in Hell, Born to Speed or Gas House Kids in Hollywood, nothing in this man's work ever even approached that level. Cahn was fortunate if one of his films was deemed simply "good".

None of this means that he didn't do movies people might enjoy. Besides It!, I like things like Two-Dollar Bettor, Creature With the Atom Brain, Curse of the Faceless Man, Invisible Invaders, Inside the Mafia and a few others. But under no circumstances could any of these sanely be called "masterpieces", and Cahn's uninspired, inept and uncaring direction plays no part in my liking of these films. They're enjoyable in spite, not because, of his direction.

[–] bstephens21 13 years ago

Law and Order is one of the top 5 Westerns of the thirties; forget John Ford, this film already looks forward towards the likes of Anthony Mann and Sam Peckinpah. Afraid to Talk is one of the most powerful and certainly the bleakest of all the 30s gangster films. Radio Patrol is a crackerjack police procedural that doesn't pull any punches and anticipates the likes of The Naked City and Sam Fuller. Laughter in Hell is tragically lost, but everything I've read about it makes me assume is was probably just as great as the other three... all of which are masterpieces.

As for "visual inventiveness"... those three films more than show a great level of craft. The interrogation scene in Afraid to Talk is the sort of expressionist nightmare you'd expect from an Orson Welles or Robert Siodmak film noir. The final ten minutes of Law and Order are amazing, stark and austere, looking nothing like the other Westerns of the decade, more along the lines of what you'd find in Man of the West or Day of the Outlaw. And Radio Patrol is filled with striking images that grab you by the throat, right down to an opening shot that puts of right square in the middle of a battle field.

All three were made in the span of a year. No one in the 1930s had a year like that! Not Hawks, not Ford, not Curtiz, not Dieterle. Maybe William Wellman... but he was already a prestigious, accomplished filmmaker; those four films were made by a first-timer, making B-films for a B-studio.

I don't know what happened to Cahn - according to archive press releases, he's the one who asked out of his contract at Universal! - but those early films show someone who could have been a true great. Those films had guts! Unfortunately, I think he was one of those directors who couldn't function well once the Code was in place. But those early films show someone who was a genuine auteur and had true talent. Yes, he spent the next few decades on poverty row and schlock, but that doesn't mean there aren't films and moments when that talent managed to crack through the surface. Yes, he made some terrible films, but no one can keep up with that sort of pace at the end without making mostly awful stuff, not even a Miike or a Fassbinder. That films like It! and Guns, Girls & Gangsters ended up as good as they were, surrounded as they were by rushed incompetent schlock, proves to me that Cahn, under different circumstances, could still have made great films.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Well, I don't agree that these films constitute masterpieces, but then perhaps I just use the term more sparingly.

As I said before, many of Cahn's films may be interesting or fun to watch, or be good at some level. But there is nothing in his career that would put him on a level with Ford, Hawks, Curtiz or Dieterle...all of whom were also, in fact, already established filmmakers by the early 30s.

Cahn's early films may be better in general than those he made after the mid-30s, which may also indicate that he lost his energy or zest when he moved to making lesser films. But there is little in the bulk of his career to suggest that he was doing anything more than grinding them out with a minimum of care. Of course, the quality of the script and actors also play crucial parts in how good or bad a film is -- it isn't all up to the director -- but that works both ways. A good director can make more out of a bad script with some care and imagination. Conversely, a weak director can still turn out a decent film if it had a fairly good script to start with -- which is what I believe to be the case with It!. Or perhaps that illustrates my point that Cahn only showed real interest in his films when presented with a script of better-than-usual quality. Maybe Cahn would have been a better director had he continued to work in better films, but I don't think it would have mattered much. He was a technician, someone reliable enough to get the job done, but with little in the way of inspiration or imagination, and I think this is proved by looking at most of his output. That he made some good or entertaining films is undeniable but they don't make him an unappreciated auteur.

[–] bstephens21 13 years ago

Well, I don't agree that these films constitute masterpieces, but then perhaps I just use the term more sparingly.

Perhaps. To me, it's a great film that exhibits a talent working at the height of his powers. Those early three films are, to me, amongst the most exciting of the post-sound, pre-code period, and I would love to have seen what Cahn could have done was he allowed to continue working on major studio features. But alas, it was not to be.

But there is nothing in his career that would put him on a level with Ford, Hawks, Curtiz or Dieterle...all of whom were also, in fact, already established filmmakers by the early 30s.

Which makes that run of films all the more impressive. None of those directors had a year like that. But look where all of them were by the end of the decade!

Cahn's early films may be better in general than those he made after the mid-30s, which may also indicate that he lost his energy or zest when he moved to making lesser films. But there is little in the bulk of his career to suggest that he was doing anything more than grinding them out with a minimum of care.

I think you're putting way too strong of an emphasis on his AIP period. Like I said: no one, no matter how talented, would have been able to keep up with that pace. Any director would have made schlock, because that's exactly what they'd be hired to do. Perhaps I'm putting too much emphasis on his first films, trying to create a "great potential loss" narrative. But we're forgetting, that starting in the late forties, and prior to meeting Nicholson and Arkoff in the mid-fifties, he did a run of b-movies that, while made with low-budgets, were at least made in an agreeable amount of time. This period, while showing no masterpieces (although I've only seen a small chunk of them) shows someone who was able to make compelling films on poverty row. Dangerous Partners, Destination Murder, Experiment Alcatraz, Two-Dollar Bettor... these are solid poverty-row programmers done right! If they don't quite exhibit the individuality of an Edgar Ulmer, they at least lead me to believe his filmography is worth further inquiry.

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

Besides better production values, I fail to see what It! has got that Plan 9 From Outer Space hasn´t. It´s less sloppy & reckless, but not much smarter or more sophisticated in any way; if this is supposed to be one of that Cahn dude´s best films, I can´t really imagine what the worst ones might look like.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jimmy_Stopsign 16 years ago

Electrolysis? Are you suggesting they tried to kill the monster by removing all his hair?

I wanna buy your carbon offsets.

[–] nsp1963 17 years ago

Details,Details,Detail-- So what if they let out all of the oxygen--Did that detail bother you when you first saw it(either in the theatres or like I did on TV)?.
As for gravity,maybe they switched on the antigraviton gizmo doohickey.
Folks these movies weren't made for NASA scientists, or quantum physic professers- they were made for the 10 year old kid who went to see them.
And honestly considering that the space program was ten years from reaching the moon was it really that bad?
These movies were made to entertain you , not for you to analyze fifty years later.
I, for one enjoy this movie(and others of the fifties and early sixties)for what they were/are entertainment---

[–] hobnob53 17 years ago

Hey, we ALL love IT!, as we all made plain in these posts. But part of the fun nowadays does in fact come from analyzing (or whatever you want to call it) the film, fifty years later. In fact, such things make the movie all the more entertaining, and make it fun to share with others. It doesn't diminish its entertainment value or the enjoyment we get from it.

[–] Jimmy_Stopsign 17 years ago

Helloooo? How do you think they got the air out of the ship in the first place? They did it based on the "inflatable mattress theory". There's this vacuum cleaner like thing mounted on the side of the spacecraft which sucks the air out and, once the monster or whatever it is you want to kill is dead, you flick the reverse switch and shoot the air back in. The space shuttle has something similar.

I wanna buy your carbon offsets.

[–] hobnob53 17 years ago

Good thinking.

[–] mikelcat 16 years ago

Yes I noticed this brain cramp too ! I figured they'd quickly grow some plants and have rhe girls water them in between serving coffee !

''You just found yourself into somethin' you ain't never gettin' out of !''

[–] dobberx 14 years ago

Easy to build up the air supply.

Just play "I'm all out of love. I'm so lost without you"

by

AIR SUPPLY