Let's begin by establishing that the Criterion Collection pedigree of Robinson Crusoe on Mars is well nigh impeccable. Though it currently bears the spine number 404, a 2007 release, nearly a full decade into the company's DVD phase, it was originally released as #184 way back in 1994, in that golden age of the laserdisc era, long before most anyone reading this post even had much awareness of what "Criterion" would eventually come to signify in the community of cinephiles and assorted movie fanatics who find themselves almost instinctively attracted to whatever these arbiters of taste and style choose to endorse. In 2010, they chose to honor it with a blu-ray upgrade. That makes three substantial promotional efforts on behalf of a film that otherwise would almost certainly dwell in perpetual obscurity - a box office failure that did eventually manage to develop its own cult following, and an occupant of a strange interstitial niche in the history of popular science fiction on film that fell outside the gloriously cheesy heyday of 1950s paranoid drive-in classics and the subsequent evolution of the genre that was kicked off by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey and furthered by other pre-Star Wars milestones like Planet of the Apes, Marooned, Dark Star, Silent Running, Zardoz, Westworld and Logan's Run. (Each of which exerted a formative influence on me - I really don't care at the moment what you might think of any of those particular movies.)
Clearly, Robinson Crusoe on Mars has a firm grip on the hearts and minds of Criterion's influential decision makers. But let's try to be objective here. Besides nostalgia and a quaint affection for semi-independent efforts like this one to incorporate some level of scientifically intelligent speculation into futuristic entertainment, is there anything to commend this movie to those who have yet to view it as just one of so many options offered up for our cultural enrichment? Isn't RCOM (as I'll refer to it going forward) more or less a corny artifact of a time when humanity toiled in relative ignorance about the solar system we inhabit? I suppose it's easy enough to dismiss it that way... and yet... I do believe there is more than that for us to enjoy and admire. So I've enlisted my friend Keith Enright, a loyal reader of this site, insightful social media pal and fellow Criterion Completist, to help me make the case. Here's a digest of the email dialogue we had over the past few days about this film. My comments are in standard font, his are in italics.
OK, let's begin. Start by telling me what it is about Robinson Crusoe on Mars that compelled you to participate this dialogue. It seems like it must be an important movie to you.
I don't think it is so much an important movie in any big sense of the word, just a movie that struck all the right cords for me when I first saw it. And that was just in 2007! I've seen this a half dozen times including showing it to others. My sons seemed to truly enjoy it, others did not.
For people who deign to listen to my curmudgeonly opinions, it is well known that I have no love for Sci-Fi or Men in Tights movies. So a space movie with Adam West should not even get my attention in the first place. I think my entrance into this movie is the survival aspect. As a kid, I loved Robinson Crusoe, Swiss Family Robinson, and a dozen others just like it. These stories just fascinated me and this movie is a fantastic representation of all of that for me. I was also a huge fan of Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles, so there is that connection as well.
Also, this movie is just pretty damn well done. It seems to fall in this vague area between an A-picture and a B-picture. Too competent for a real B and falling somewhat short of an A. The special effects are true eye candy to me. Matte paintings and practical devices trump cold CGI for me any day.
That's interesting. I had almost assumed that the film was a longtime favorite of yours, based on the fact that most of the RCOM enthusiasts I've read mention that they've enjoyed it "since they were kids." But like you, I hadn't seen it until I got the DVD soon after it was first released. I've watched it several times since. The hypothetical scenario ("what would you do if you were stuck on this version of Mars?") is a big part of the attraction for me as well, setting aside the obvious mistakes and outdated science that informs the project. As you also mention, the craftsmanship, the creative imagination, the quality of the sets, the special effects and the obvious dedication of the self-identified geeks who made the film, or embraced it as an expression of their culture, all stand out as well.
There are a few shortcomings - the cheapness that resulted in flimsy and second-hand costume design (Friday's lame pseudo-Egyptian headdress and kilt, the dwarfs in recycled space suits, the obvious War of the Worlds spaceship models) is, at times, distracting and in some respects unfortunate in that it probably hampered the film from being taken seriously. But overall, we're introduced to a well-developed cinematic world that is both inviting and enjoyable to explore. I'm a lot more comfortable and receptive to sci-fi than you are, and I truly respect the artists who created these elaborate illusions of life on another planet, based on the most informed hypotheses and speculation available at that time. Like a lot of other geek culture, it was probably a bit too brainy and self-referential for popular general audiences at the time, so the film didn't do as well at the box office as more vulgar sci-fi/horror exploitation features of that era (or later years) but I think it's that hint of rejection and incomprehension by the masses, as well as the artistic dedication and obsessive attention to detail, that endeared the film to the Criterion Collection (who first released it on LD back in 1994) and also made it affordable/available for their eventual licensing, unlike some of the more successful sci-fi pictures of the 1950s and early 60s (The Day the Earth Stood Still, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The War of the Worlds, Forbidden Planet, etc.) that CC will most likely never get their hands on.
One of my continuous requirements in movie watching is always keeping a keen eye on seeing it through the lens of the time it was made. It bothers me not that the science is outdated. As with all "future" movies, the ideas present more about the time that the movie was made than any idea of the future or ideas being conveyed. So, when I see an omnicorder, I am not awed by the potential future in which this could exist, I am awed at how people in 1964 viewed these ideas. I also get quite the kick out of the War of the Worlds spaceships. Not because they make any sense, but rather in a meta way of Haskin tipping his hat to his own previous movie! Even to my own surprise, I don't think that I have ever seen the original War of the Worlds, but another Haskin movie: The Naked Jungle was a strong favorite as a kid. At least to my memory, Heston in the jungle dealing with those ants was every bit as enveloping and surreally surreal as this little tale on Mars. Sometimes a person just makes a decision to go with a movie wherever it goes, and that is how I view RCOM.
That's interesting. I had almost assumed that the film was a longtime favorite of yours, based on the fact that most of the RCOM enthusiasts I've read mention that they've enjoyed it "since they were kids." But like you, I hadn't seen it until I got the DVD soon after it was first released. I've watched it several times since. The hypothetical scenario ("what would you do if you were stuck on this version of Mars?") is a big part of the attraction for me as well, setting aside the obvious mistakes and outdated science that informs the project. As you also mention, the craftsmanship, the creative imagination, the quality of the sets, the special effects and the obvious dedication of the self-identified geeks who made the film, or embraced it as an expression of their culture, all stand out as well.
There are a few shortcomings - the cheapness that resulted in flimsy and second-hand costume design (Friday's lame pseudo-Egyptian headdress and kilt, the dwarfs in recycled space suits, the obvious War of the Worlds spaceship models) is, at times, distracting and in some respects unfortunate in that it probably hampered the film from being taken seriously. But overall, we're introduced to a well-developed cinematic world that is both inviting and enjoyable to explore. I'm a lot more comfortable and receptive to sci-fi than you are, and I truly respect the artists who created these elaborate illusions of life on another planet, based on the most informed hypotheses and speculation available at that time. Like a lot of other geek culture, it was probably a bit too brainy and self-referential for popular general audiences at the time, so the film didn't do as well at the box office as more vulgar sci-fi/horror exploitation features of that era (or later years) but I think it's that hint of rejection and incomprehension by the masses, as well as the artistic dedication and obsessive attention to detail, that endeared the film to the Criterion Collection (who first released it on LD back in 1994) and also made it affordable/available for their eventual licensing, unlike some of the more successful sci-fi pictures of the 1950s and early 60s (The Day the Earth Stood Still, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The War of the Worlds, Forbidden Planet, etc.) that CC will most likely never get their hands on.
One of my continuous requirements in movie watching is always keeping a keen eye on seeing it through the lens of the time it was made. It bothers me not that the science is outdated. As with all "future" movies, the ideas present more about the time that the movie was made than any idea of the future or ideas being conveyed. So, when I see an omnicorder, I am not awed by the potential future in which this could exist, I am awed at how people in 1964 viewed these ideas. I also get quite the kick out of the War of the Worlds spaceships. Not because they make any sense, but rather in a meta way of Haskin tipping his hat to his own previous movie! Even to my own surprise, I don't think that I have ever seen the original War of the Worlds, but another Haskin movie: The Naked Jungle was a strong favorite as a kid. At least to my memory, Heston in the jungle dealing with those ants was every bit as enveloping and surreally surreal as this little tale on Mars. Sometimes a person just makes a decision to go with a movie wherever it goes, and that is how I view RCOM.
I completely agree with you that the presentation of Vic Lundin as Friday is pretty much a miss from the get go. I complain not of his performance (which I find quite OK), but just in the way he was presented. Loin cloth and brown M&Ms indeed! The way Kit treats him at first is probably the worst part of the movie (of which Mantee agrees on the commentary track), and while it may make sense to the story, it makes no sense to the characters. I'm glad that imperialistic attitude is quashed fairly quickly as they become friends. I also found it somewhat disheartening that the slaves would be portrayed with brown skin and black hair, but I think the relationship between them grew quite naturalistically after those unfortunate first encounters. I was also pleased to see that the "brown man" did not have to valiantly sacrifice his life for the "white man" as a generic denouement. This may speak more to the original Defoe story than any breaking of movie tropes of the time.
I also puzzled over that colonialistic, "great white hunter" digression that takes place shortly after Kit and Friday set up their new household. Was it based on some kind of unconscious gravitation toward the assumptions that an American explorer would automatically presume to put a newly discovered "native" into a subordinate role, or was there some element of lampooning the popular arrogance of Cold War-era "Americanism"? It's really hard to say. I'm glad that they quickly abandoned that trope, and perhaps the best we can conclude is that it's just a fairly troublesome indicator of the cultural blindspots that the dominant white culture in early 60s USA still had to work through (and is still so sadly stuck in, in various ways, a good half-century later.)
As to the existence of the movie in the Criterion Canon, I believe I have read in the past that it was a favorite of the Senior Turrell or Becker. At any rate, I agree that it warrants inclusion for all the reasons you state. It is a fine example of the best of the lot for the time period, and rises to the level of importance by it's pedigree, history, and excellent execution. I am thrilled that it has been blu-graded already, but not being anamorphically-filmed, we may not get the resolution we desire. The commentary is fantastic and of the old-school style of editing together the highlights of many disparate voices. No time for silence and ummms in this conversation.
The commentary track is, of course, ported over from the 1994 laser disc, back when such a thing represented a full scale production on its own, with contributions from various stakeholders meticulously matched with the scenes most relevant to what they're saying. I bet it's been a looooong time since Criterion bothered to assemble one of these group efforts to shed some light on one of its releases.
What is your take on the title? While it certainly evokes a clear expectation, it also allows the movie to be over before it even starts. A bit too on the nose for me and doesn't allow much in the way of surprise as the story unfolds.
I think the title is pretty terrible actually, showing a lack of imagination and an obtuse condescension toward the audience, who presumably need a hint i in order to get it. I figure it probably hampered the film's box office returns because it sounds like Saturday matinee schlock. The producers (or whoever came up with that title) were still stuck in the 50s mindset even though this was a true space age production. "Stranded on Mars" or "Spacewrecked" would have been better, IMO.
You hit the nail right on the head. The title is condescending. That's why I dislike it so much.
The thought that comes to my mind at the moment regarding RCOM is that it's clearly the first example of a true "geek" movie in the collection. Yes, they do have other examples of shlocky b-movie sci fi and horror (the Monsters and Madmenbox and Fiend Without a Face in particular, also Carnival of Souls) but what I mean by geek movie is one in which the obsession over back story and trivial details rises to the forefront in a way that eventually would come to overshadow the film itself as a simple story and theatrical experience. The films I just mentioned are plenty weird enough but they don't seek to create a whole world on both the macro- and micro-scale that we see in RCOM, even without listening to the commentary or delving into the supplements.
Geekery has over the past few decades run rampant in the Star Wars, Matrix, Lord of the Rings and assorted sci-fi/comic book franchises, quite to the detriment of pure cinema imo, so that most of the big productions are designed to serve as pitches for franchises that studios eventually beat to death. The fan-kids may mutter and curse and howl in protest, but they still keep spending their money more predictably and reliably than any other segment of the movie-going audience, so we'll be stuck in that cycle for the foreseeable future, I'm sure. Indeed, RCOM's creators had a sequel in mind, "Columbus of the Stars" which was never made because RCOM basically flopped.
But regardless of that, I think at this stage of evolution, the geek film was still rather innocent and charming. A bunch of creative eggheads, we'd call them nerds nowadays, getting together to imagine this alternate reality based on the best science available at the time, with the intention of immersing themselves and their audience in as much of the minutiae of cleverly adaptive technology and speculation as their budget and time constraints can allow. The commentary sheds some sad light on just how grandiose the original concepts behind the film were, and how they had to systematically scale back when the reality of limited funds and accelerated deadlines interrupted their fantasies. And of course there's the melancholy reminiscence of Paul Mantee and Victor Lundin who both seemed to think there were bigger and better things right around the corner after this big breakthrough hit made major stars of them both. Mantee in particular seems to have been wounded by the disappointment of RCOM's poor reception and the subsequent scaling back of his ambitions.
I like your thoughts on nascent geekery! I agree that it was just more wide-eyed and innocent at this stage. I like the open wonder on display as opposed to "hard" science and brutal CGI of today. I truly loved stuff like this as a kid, which made my indifference to Star Wars at the same age actually kind of baffling.
I'm glad you picked up on the melancholia on the commentary track. It actually increased my enjoyment of this movie experience, perhaps at their expense. I enjoyed it because it solidified for me that there were people behind this little gem who knew what they had, even if the public didn't appreciate it. I don't think that Mantee or Lundin had the chops for much more than a movie like this, but better box office probably would have sweetened the path for them a little more.
Mantee, especially, seems to give his all for this role. As an actor, I don't think he had much more to give. His IMDB page is about what I would expect, and I'm glad he made a reasonable living. However, a leading man he would never really be. He had the perfect early 60s look and certainly could have had Shatner's early career in another life.
He was fit, good looking, commanded a reasonable presence, and could read a line well. But that s probably about it. He's the type of guy that could show up in every Quinn Martin Production, and probably did! Honestly, I think better box office for RCOM would have raised his profile a little but I don't see in changing the trajectory that led him to Cagney and Lacey. Generically-solid and likable. That's it. The commentary seemed to say more to me about his entire career as opposed to just this one slightly missed opportunity. It made me like him that much more as a person, but not as an actor.
So what are my final thoughts?
A fantastic film that reaches its potential, even if scaled back from its first lofty goals. A great example of early space age wonder, and definitely of a caliber that makes me not question it's place in the CC Canon. A solid take on a canonical story as well. Great disc. Strong commentary, and pretty interesting supplements.
I also puzzled over that colonialistic, "great white hunter" digression that takes place shortly after Kit and Friday set up their new household. Was it based on some kind of unconscious gravitation toward the assumptions that an American explorer would automatically presume to put a newly discovered "native" into a subordinate role, or was there some element of lampooning the popular arrogance of Cold War-era "Americanism"? It's really hard to say. I'm glad that they quickly abandoned that trope, and perhaps the best we can conclude is that it's just a fairly troublesome indicator of the cultural blindspots that the dominant white culture in early 60s USA still had to work through (and is still so sadly stuck in, in various ways, a good half-century later.)
As to the existence of the movie in the Criterion Canon, I believe I have read in the past that it was a favorite of the Senior Turrell or Becker. At any rate, I agree that it warrants inclusion for all the reasons you state. It is a fine example of the best of the lot for the time period, and rises to the level of importance by it's pedigree, history, and excellent execution. I am thrilled that it has been blu-graded already, but not being anamorphically-filmed, we may not get the resolution we desire. The commentary is fantastic and of the old-school style of editing together the highlights of many disparate voices. No time for silence and ummms in this conversation.
The commentary track is, of course, ported over from the 1994 laser disc, back when such a thing represented a full scale production on its own, with contributions from various stakeholders meticulously matched with the scenes most relevant to what they're saying. I bet it's been a looooong time since Criterion bothered to assemble one of these group efforts to shed some light on one of its releases.
What is your take on the title? While it certainly evokes a clear expectation, it also allows the movie to be over before it even starts. A bit too on the nose for me and doesn't allow much in the way of surprise as the story unfolds.
I think the title is pretty terrible actually, showing a lack of imagination and an obtuse condescension toward the audience, who presumably need a hint i in order to get it. I figure it probably hampered the film's box office returns because it sounds like Saturday matinee schlock. The producers (or whoever came up with that title) were still stuck in the 50s mindset even though this was a true space age production. "Stranded on Mars" or "Spacewrecked" would have been better, IMO.
You hit the nail right on the head. The title is condescending. That's why I dislike it so much.
The thought that comes to my mind at the moment regarding RCOM is that it's clearly the first example of a true "geek" movie in the collection. Yes, they do have other examples of shlocky b-movie sci fi and horror (the Monsters and Madmenbox and Fiend Without a Face in particular, also Carnival of Souls) but what I mean by geek movie is one in which the obsession over back story and trivial details rises to the forefront in a way that eventually would come to overshadow the film itself as a simple story and theatrical experience. The films I just mentioned are plenty weird enough but they don't seek to create a whole world on both the macro- and micro-scale that we see in RCOM, even without listening to the commentary or delving into the supplements.
Geekery has over the past few decades run rampant in the Star Wars, Matrix, Lord of the Rings and assorted sci-fi/comic book franchises, quite to the detriment of pure cinema imo, so that most of the big productions are designed to serve as pitches for franchises that studios eventually beat to death. The fan-kids may mutter and curse and howl in protest, but they still keep spending their money more predictably and reliably than any other segment of the movie-going audience, so we'll be stuck in that cycle for the foreseeable future, I'm sure. Indeed, RCOM's creators had a sequel in mind, "Columbus of the Stars" which was never made because RCOM basically flopped.
But regardless of that, I think at this stage of evolution, the geek film was still rather innocent and charming. A bunch of creative eggheads, we'd call them nerds nowadays, getting together to imagine this alternate reality based on the best science available at the time, with the intention of immersing themselves and their audience in as much of the minutiae of cleverly adaptive technology and speculation as their budget and time constraints can allow. The commentary sheds some sad light on just how grandiose the original concepts behind the film were, and how they had to systematically scale back when the reality of limited funds and accelerated deadlines interrupted their fantasies. And of course there's the melancholy reminiscence of Paul Mantee and Victor Lundin who both seemed to think there were bigger and better things right around the corner after this big breakthrough hit made major stars of them both. Mantee in particular seems to have been wounded by the disappointment of RCOM's poor reception and the subsequent scaling back of his ambitions.
I like your thoughts on nascent geekery! I agree that it was just more wide-eyed and innocent at this stage. I like the open wonder on display as opposed to "hard" science and brutal CGI of today. I truly loved stuff like this as a kid, which made my indifference to Star Wars at the same age actually kind of baffling.
I'm glad you picked up on the melancholia on the commentary track. It actually increased my enjoyment of this movie experience, perhaps at their expense. I enjoyed it because it solidified for me that there were people behind this little gem who knew what they had, even if the public didn't appreciate it. I don't think that Mantee or Lundin had the chops for much more than a movie like this, but better box office probably would have sweetened the path for them a little more.
Mantee, especially, seems to give his all for this role. As an actor, I don't think he had much more to give. His IMDB page is about what I would expect, and I'm glad he made a reasonable living. However, a leading man he would never really be. He had the perfect early 60s look and certainly could have had Shatner's early career in another life.
He was fit, good looking, commanded a reasonable presence, and could read a line well. But that s probably about it. He's the type of guy that could show up in every Quinn Martin Production, and probably did! Honestly, I think better box office for RCOM would have raised his profile a little but I don't see in changing the trajectory that led him to Cagney and Lacey. Generically-solid and likable. That's it. The commentary seemed to say more to me about his entire career as opposed to just this one slightly missed opportunity. It made me like him that much more as a person, but not as an actor.
So what are my final thoughts?
A fantastic film that reaches its potential, even if scaled back from its first lofty goals. A great example of early space age wonder, and definitely of a caliber that makes me not question it's place in the CC Canon. A solid take on a canonical story as well. Great disc. Strong commentary, and pretty interesting supplements.
The only Criterion I may have seen more times is The Red Shoes. And that is my favorite movie in the collection. RCOM doesn't even come close. But there are many little reasons why I keep coming back for its pleasures. Thanks for the opportunity for this latest visit!
I've enjoyed this exchange of impressions, for sure, along with the assistance in cranking out another post here. Robinson Crusoe on Mars stands out as an anomaly in its blend of blockbuster aspirations and unapologetic nerdiness, a couple of decades or more ahead of its time as far as studio budgets and mass acceptance were concerned. The bravura presentation of special effects, dramatic musical score and would-be epic sensibility is charmingly lacking in self-consciousness, taking big risks in telling an unconventional story while remaining blissfully unaware of just how dweebish and klutzy the effort came across in its earnest grandiosity. Its reception probably wasn't helped by the general sense of shock that its American audience was still feeling in the aftermath of JFK's assassination, and by the summer of 1964 when it was released, all the cool kids were starting to get into The Beatles and other British Invasion bands of that era. Indirectly, it turns out, RCOM served as a gateway into an alternate future that was, like all slightly informed projections forward into time, partly prophetic but also tantalizingly off-kilter with the real world that was soon to follow.
I've enjoyed this exchange of impressions, for sure, along with the assistance in cranking out another post here. Robinson Crusoe on Mars stands out as an anomaly in its blend of blockbuster aspirations and unapologetic nerdiness, a couple of decades or more ahead of its time as far as studio budgets and mass acceptance were concerned. The bravura presentation of special effects, dramatic musical score and would-be epic sensibility is charmingly lacking in self-consciousness, taking big risks in telling an unconventional story while remaining blissfully unaware of just how dweebish and klutzy the effort came across in its earnest grandiosity. Its reception probably wasn't helped by the general sense of shock that its American audience was still feeling in the aftermath of JFK's assassination, and by the summer of 1964 when it was released, all the cool kids were starting to get into The Beatles and other British Invasion bands of that era. Indirectly, it turns out, RCOM served as a gateway into an alternate future that was, like all slightly informed projections forward into time, partly prophetic but also tantalizingly off-kilter with the real world that was soon to follow.
Next: Intentions of Murder
For reasons I won't go into, many already covered here, this is my all time favorite movie. I bought the laserdisc when it first came out, my very first Criterion purchase! The commentary track was the very first I ever heard, and to this day it remains one of the very best ever done for a movie. They had every aspect of the movie covered, even Al Nozaki! The early days of laserdisc, the internet etc in the 1990s were a truly special time, and included a club of us people that were sort of an exclusive club
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing this memory with us, Neutron! I do wish I had the means and the foresight to get into laserdisc & Criterion collecting much earlier than I did, but I guess I made up for lost time all right. :) Even though I have still never actually held or even seen a Criterion Collection LD myself (only pictures)! It's pretty impressive to see the fervent loyalty that RCOM has generated over the decades.
ReplyDeletei enjoy coming across anything regarding this fun and as you say nerdy movie. its actually two movies in one, a solo survival drama that abruptly turns into a pulp sci fi adventure. one correction, the planned sequel was to be called robinson crusoe in the invisible galaxy, but it was never made because this one bombed. also, intriguingly:
ReplyDeleteAfter this film was released, screenwriter Ib Melchior and Victor Lundin collaborated on a script called "Columbus of the Stars". which they presented to Paramount. It was similar to Star Trek: The Original Series (1966), complete with illustrations similar to the Enterprise. Some time later, "Star Trek" went into production. Lundin does not claim that his ideas were borrowed by Paramount.