Conference noted::sf

 Although this is not an obscure film, the British version of "1984"
was excellent.  It had as much impact as the book--and more in some
areas, because of skillful directing, set design, and acting.  I
believe the movie was made in '58 or '59, and it is still current
and well worth seeing.  Can't remember who starred in it...

I remembered after finishing my note that Eliot Gould starred in Who? as the 
CIA agent in charge of the case. That could identify another common point 
amongst the films I mentioned. All had big name stars. This doesn't seem to 
have saved any from obscurity, although it may have contributed to the quality. 

JimB

Here's another obscure,low-effect sf movie, "The Groundstar Conspiracy".  The
main star was George Peppard, playing the head of some kind of intelligence
agency.  A saboteur is caught in an explosion while trying to infiltrate some
installation.  Peppard's agency puts him back together and tries to find out
who he works for.  Is he the real agent, though, or a brain-wiped double?
I saw it twelve years ago, and it may have been only a made-for-TV movie, bit
it was reasonable good.
/jlr

"A Boy and his Dog" did a good job without much in the way of effects.  Eg
the robots patrolling the streets of underground Topeka are just large guys
with fixed grins and clown makeup.
/jlr

re:.2	When I read your basenote, Jim, I wasn't able to recall ever
hearing of any film version of WHO?, but once you mentioned Elliot Gould
--- click! --- on went the light. I still haven't seen it, but at least
I can now remember having heard of it.

re:.4	Well, A BOY AND HIS DOG *almost* fits, since it features Jason
Robards, but it certainly wasn't *that* obscure.

Oh, re: SECONDS. Maybe I missed something, but back about 12-15 years
ago when I saw that film for the first (and so far only) time, I wondered
why anyone considered it science fiction. Perhaps you could enlighten me,
Jim.

I'd try to think of some more films that fit this category, but my brain
hurts right now.

--- jerry

PS Perhaps a new note could be started with people listing what movies they
think are *real* science fiction, and not just sfnal adventure. I can think
of three relatively recent films (ALTERED STATES, BRAINSTORM, and BLADE
RUNNER). Of course, any nominators would have to give reasons why they think
their choices are *real* sf.

    Another obscure, low-budget, non-space-opera movie was "Creation
    of the Humanoids."  The setting was the Earth after a nuclear
    holocaust.  THey've pieced things back together, but the human
    population is slowly declining because of the lingering radiation.
    So they supplement the work force with robots, played by men in
    gray uniforms, white-face and bald-cap, with silvery contact lenses
    covering the whole eye.  Our "hero" is a member of a Ku-Klux-Klan-like
    organization that wants to "keep robots in their place."  It really
    bothers him that his sister married one.  The robots, however, are
    perfectly Asimovian in their psychology.
    
    Unfortunately, the acting was pretty poor and the dialogue was only
    so-so, but the conception was interestingly non-conventional.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

Another non-space sf/big-name star/obscure movie was "Pentacle" (Pentagon?
Pente?  The exact name escapes me).  This was directed by Robert 
Altman, of "Nashville" fame, but went nowhere.  Another ice age has 
come and wiped out civilization.  A nomad (Paul Newman) comes hiking 
through the snow to a ruined city whose inhabitants spend all their 
time in the game of the title, one involving intrigue and murder.  It 
was a bit too heavily existential, but interesting.

/jlr

    re .7 - I remember the movie, but that's not its name.  Unfortunately
    I can't remember the name either.

    len.
    

    re:.7
    
    It's QUINTET. I, unfortunately, have yet to see it.
    
    --- jerry

Yet another obscure non-space sf movie is "La Jettee'" (The Pier).  
It's French, only thirty minutes long, and is made in a curious style, so 
it's usually only seen at art film shows.  The entire movie is done 
with still photographs and a narrator, except for one magical 
sequence when a sleeping woman awakens and smiles.  It tells the 
story of a time-travel experiment.   After the Bomb is 
dropped, people are reduced to a miserable existence in underground tunnels.
The few remaining scientists work on mental time travel in a 
desperate attempt to get help from somewhen outside.  They use drugs 
and electrodes to send their subjects' consciousness backwards or 
forwards in time.  The narrator is chosen as a subject because of a 
powerful experience he had as a child on the observation pier of the 
Paris airport.  He succeeds in returning to that time, the time 
before the war, falls in love, and learns a terrible secret.

It's a striking and powerful film, especially visually.  You know how sometimes 
when you read Shakespeare you find yourself speaking in iambic cadences.
The same thing happens with certain movies - when I came out of the theater
the darkened streets of Boston looked like the post-holocaust tunnels.
Lights gleamed here and there on the concrete, and a few furtive 
figures moved about.  I was glad to get back to the lights and warmth 
of home.

/jlr

    Right, I knew there was a five in there somewhere.  Got my Latin
    and Greek mixed up.
    
    len.