Cinema Retro is happy to welcome London film
journalist Steve Saragossi to the ranks of our contributors. Steve's
first column covers the cult classic Crack in the World.
As a 46 year old Londoner, writing in these
pages, you can appreciate that I have extremely fond memories of the films that
helped form the foundation for such affectionate nostalgia for the movies of
the sixties and seventies.
The last thirty years have seen seismic (ahem) changes in the way we enjoy our
leisure time, and a 13 year old in 1974 and one in 2006 would probably not
recognise each other as coming from the same planet. Back then, it was simple,
you played outside or you watched what BBC’s 1, 2 and ITV had to offer. Looking
back in hindsight, there’s something reassuring about that lack of choice. For
instance, it made you see films you normally wouldn’t have bothered with, it engendered
patience, as you couldn’t fast forward or pause. There was there was the
excitement of looking forward to something - no instant gratification here! Also,
there was an almost subconscious reassurance, something now known as a
water-cooler moment, in that when I sat down to watch, say, “Batmanâ€, I knew
that all my mates were glued to their Rediffusions at the same time, perhaps
more a water-fountain moment.
Also, our viewing habits have fundamentally
changed. Prior to the seventies, we watched a wide array of programming,
because there wasn’t a plethora of channels to entice you away, hell there
wasn’t even a remote control. You could (because there was no choice) sit down
and watch a variety programme, a documentary about WWII, a film you’d never
heard of, a comedy sketch show, and a new drama. All this would unfurl before
you, and you’d just soak it up, some good, some bad, some revelatory. But because
of the available technology attentions spans were trained to give things a
chance.
Added to this, during school holidays,
programmers took a little extra care in to what they broadcast to us, and
usually, especially during the Easter and summer break, they would schedule
seasons of films that became cultural touchstones for years to come. You could count
on BBC2 to show a season of Tarzan movies, stretching from Johnny Weissmuller,
right along to the swingin’ Mike Henry years. ITV could normally be relied upon
to trot out the U.N.C.L.E movies, which I found were always best looked forward
to rather than actually seen. I remember seeing virtually all the Abbott and
Costello movies in these slots too, how often to they get an airing nowadays?
And then there were a handful of films that
always got shown, that became a part of the cultural fabric of the time,
familiar, and fondly remembered.. “The Seven Faces of Dr Lao†(1964) was once
such. The superb “A High Wind in Jamaica†(1965). The Leslie
Martinson “Batman†(1966) was a rare treat. Others including “The Time Machineâ€
(1960), “First Men in the Moon†(1964), films that were shown so often, and
only in these slots, that they felt like secret old friends, in whose presence
adults were not privy.
And one that has stuck with me for years
was seen in this slot, an almost forgotten, and seldom shown little gem called
“Crack in the Worldâ€.Directed by Andrew Marton in 1965, this is
a surprisingly plausible sci-fi thriller/ disaster movie, with well-above
average special effects, and a thoughtful, serious-minded script. It’s very odd
that this movie has been largely forgotten, and was mostly seen, when it was in circulation, as a kid’s film.
There were a fair few doomsday sci-fi’s
around at this time, and they have been largely forgotten by mainstream
audiences, whereas their cold war paranoid-era cousins of the fifties are still
widely shown even now. Films such as “Crack in the Worldâ€, “The Satan Bugâ€
(1963), even “Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea†(1961) are not widely seen
today, and that’s a pity, because these films tell us much about the time they
were made, and were highly entertaining as well.
“Crack in the World†opens with fiery,
ominous credits and John Douglas’ superbly relentless and doom laden score. Arriving
at Project Inner Space, a geological research station situated in east Africa,
Sir Charles Eggerston (Alexander Knox) looks worriedly at an atomic missile
positioned hanging upside down on a drill tower. Dr Maggie Sorenson (Janette
Scott) points out that the missile isn’t armed. Maggie takes the team down into
the Central Operations area of the project, built deep in the earth. The
project’s head, Dr Stephen Sorenson (Dana Andrews), is having radiotherapy on
his hand when the message that the commissioners have arrived reaches him.
Sorenson’s doctor tells him that he will have to cut back his treatments.
Addressing the commission, Sorenson explains that the project’s aim is to find
a way of using the earth’s magma core as a source of clean, unlimited power.
However, having drilled almost to the core, the team is unable to go any
further, and wants permission to use a thermonuclear device to blast through
the final section. Sir Charles is concerned about the danger, but Sorenson,
while agreeing that there is some risk, feels that it is minimal. Sorenson
admits that the project’s chief geologist, Dr Ted Rampion (Kieron Moore), has
severe reservations, but adds that no-one else connected with the project
agrees with him. That night, Sorenson and Maggie set up camp beds in their lab,
having given their sleeping quarters to Sir Charles. Sorenson gives Maggie a
letter from Rampion, but she puts it aside, saying that she will read it
tomorrow. When Sorenson looks concerned, Maggie reassures him that she loves
him, that Rampion no longer means anything to her. Approaching her husband,
Maggie tells him that she has made a decision: she wants to have a baby.
Sorenson, weighed down by the consciousness of his illness, rejects her. Hurt,
Maggie returns to her own bed and, with deliberation, begins reading Rampion’s
letter. A few days later, Ted Rampion returns from his fieldwork to find the
missile being armed. Hearing that the commissioners have been and gone, Rampion
confronts Sorenson, accusing him of having gotten him out of the way. Sorenson
admits it, but argues that they could not afford to have the project delayed.
Rampion announces that he is going to London
to present his own case, and resigns from the project. As the team prepares for
the missile launch, Sorenson learns that his illness is terminal. In London, Rampion explains
his theory to Sir Charles, arguing that the earth has already been damaged by
underground nuclear testing, and that an explosion of the depth and magnitude
planned by Sorenson could shatter a section of the planet. Impressed by
Rampion’s data, Sir Charles tries to postpone the launch. However, Sorenson
refuses to take his call. The missile is fired. There is a huge explosion,
followed by an eruption of magma. The scientists celebrate their success.
Sorenson takes Sir Charles’ call, telling him that he is too late, but that the
missile shot was an unqualified success. He also invites Rampion to return.
Conceding that he was wrong, Rampion agrees. Arriving back at the project,
Rampion finds Sorenson explaining his work to a group of reporters. In the
distance, Maggie sees an unexplained animal stampede. Checking their
seismographs, the scientists find that a series of earthquakes has occurred.
News comes that the city of Port
Victoria has been completely destroyed. Sorenson
argues that the city had a history of earthquakes. However, reports of more
destructive quakes follow. Rampion points out that they are following the line
of the Masado fault. Rampion takes a mini-sub to explore the region of
disturbance, and finds to his horror that a fissure is opening up all along the
fault line, with enormous quantities of magma pouring into the ocean. Reporting
his findings, Rampion concludes that if some way cannot be found of stopping
the fissure, the world as they know it may be destroyed….
Made today, this would be major
blockbuster, with huge stars and state of the art effects. It would probably be
the major summer movie. Yet back in ’65 this was little more than a “B†movie,
and when it was shown barely ten years after its theatrical release it was a in
a slot for kids! It’s hard to underestimate just how much moviegoing habits and
tastes have changed in just 40 years.
Obviously “2001†and “Planet of the Apesâ€
helped “legitimise†science-fiction, and “Star Wars†made sci-fi “hotâ€. And
with “Jaws†opening Hollywood’s eyes to the idea of the summer blockbuster, the
whole notion of what would play in our cinemas for years to come had been
drastically altered.
What impresses about “Crack in the Worldâ€
is its’ measured pace. It doesn’t rush us headlong into money shots. It takes
time in setting up character, sense of place, motivation etc, so that when the
fireworks do begin, they carry much more emotional weight, then say an
“Armageddon†or “Volcano†can muster. In fact, although the film is very much
in essence a Boy’s Own adventure, it plays its cards very straight, very adult,
and in retrospect I think that is what made it so popular at the time – here
was a film, playing in a slot for kids, that didn’t patronise, didn’t have any
cute moppets for us to “identify†with, and didn’t treat us like, well, kids.
Just to go off on a small tangent – children’s TV back then was laudable for
its lack of patronage, and being mostly filled with adults for kids to identify
with – “Sexton Blakeâ€, “Captain Scarletâ€, “Thunderbirds†“Batmanâ€, “The Time Tunnelâ€,
and many others were successful children’s shows populated with adult
characters.
So we have here an end of the world,
doomsday plot, with easy to understand physics to propel the plot, a literate
script (how many Jerry Bruckheimer films namecheck Kurt Weill’s “September
Song†in their scripts?), and highly realistic effects to flesh out the
concepts.
The love triangle is well played out. Dana
Andrews, a rather stiff actor, plays to his strengths and plausibly essays a
scientist venturing further and further down the street named Megalomania, whilst the lovely
Janette Scott plays his wife, torn between devotion to her husband and that of
old flame and rival scientist Kieron Moore.
Having set up this believable triangle, and
we are now emotionally invested in these flawed characters the special effects
team wade in and we’re off on a ride for the last 45 minutes culminating in the
most audacious ending this side of, well, the premise of Space:1999.
As you can tell, I really like this film. It's largely deserves a re-evaluation. Most of all I like
it because when I watch it now, suddenly I’m 12 or 13 again, and all is well in
the world.