By Robbie Graham Silver Screen Saucers
 |
| Invaders from Mars: UFO acclimation effort? |
In 1953, director William Cameron Menzies gave the world Invaders from Mars – a fascinating if typically clunky addition to what was then the burgeoning UFO subgenre. The movie did what it said on the tin: there were invaders, and they were from Mars, and – aside from the film’s none-too-subtle communist invasion allegory (then obligatory for movies of its ilk) – that was pretty much it. Yet Invaders from Mars bears closer scrutiny from a UFOlogical perspective, with one scene in particular screaming out for analysis.
The scene in question sees the film’s hero – an implausibly square-jawed astronomer – declare the Martians’ arrival as no surprise. He explains that the government has been studying the saucers for a number of years and is well aware that they are extraterrestrial in origin.
In the fashion of a public service announcement, the astronomer goes on to describe various real-life cases catalogued by the Air Force’s “Project Saucer” (officially named Project Sign), including the UFO-related death of Captain Thomas Mantell in 1948 and the “Lubbock Lights” of 1951. The astronomer illustrates his eight-minute lecture with genuine news-clippings and UFO photographs: “Life can, and does, exist on other planets,” he intones, before displaying scale models of the multiple saucer types he says are known to exist by the Air Force.
This lengthy scene clearly was devoid of narrative function and it did not appear in the US theatrical cut of the film. That it was scripted and shot at all raises questions about the possibility of subversive government involvement in the filmmaking process – a notion that cannot easily be dismissed in light of the US government's documented historical efforts to manipulate the content of Hollywood's UFO movies. Such efforts typically were geared towards debunking the UFO phenomenon; in a few select cases, however, the objective apparently was to acclimate the public to the notion of UFO reality (with the Robert Emenegger case of the early 1970s standing as perhaps the best example of this approach).
Watch the Invaders from Mars scene (as well as the rest of the movie) and see if you're not intrigued...
NOTE: This article was originally posted on Silver Screen Saucers in March 2011.
I don't know. My first impression is that this might have been a very early attempt to 'break the 4th wall' and add a layer of credibility to the movie plot by mentioning real-life UFO reports. Maybe some producer thought the scene lasted too long and lowered the audience's interest... or maybe someone got nervous about planting in the American public the doubt that their government was hiding things from them concerning flying saucers.
ReplyDeleteThere are another interesting things brought by the clip:
* A brief glimpse of what seems to be the telescope at Mt Palomar. Not only it was already an iconic monument to man's ingenuity, but it links with the early history of Contactism —George Adamsky administered (though many people thought he owned) a burger restaurant at the foot of Palomar.
* The idea of showing the planetary systems in our galactic neighborhood as a possible source for flying saucers; an idea that's still being championed by one of the most notorious Ufologists today: Stanton Friedman.
* The brief mention of Wolf 359 as a possible candidate for a star with an habitable planet. This reminded me immediately about the UMMO affair, which caused a lot of controversy in Europe. In France and Spain several people claimed to receive type-written letters from nordic-type Ets that hailed from the planet UMMO, which circled the star Wolf 424 —even though many researchers consider UMMO a hoax, there's a lot of speculation that the CIA was involved in a disinfo experiment intended to study the impact of intelligent life in society; UMMO deserves further study IMO.
* The idea that alien bases could be hiding in the far side of the Moon; something that's still very prominent in the Ufology mythos thanks to George Leonard's book 'Somebody else is on the Moon', as well as Ingo Swann's book 'Penetration'. Don Ecker is a very active researcher of TLPs (Transient Lunar Phenomena) and in his website Dark Matters Radio one can find a very interesting interview with Vito Sacchery, an oil industry engineer who claims to have seen classified NASA photographs showing in great detail artificial constructions on the lunar surface.
* The idea that extraterrestrials might be alarmed by our rocket tests. Once again, Stanton Friedman likes to use this argument to explain UFO visitation.
* The idea about Mars showing vegetation. Even the late Arthur C Clarke believed that strange seasonal spots observed in the Martian surface could be explained as vegetation.
* A brief consideration of Venus as a possible origin for saucers, which brings us again to Adamsky and his BFF Orthon.
So what does this all mean? Beats me! ;)
Excellent observations, Miguel! There's definitely a lot that one can read into this scene UFOlogically. As you point out, though, it's very possible that it was written and shot for entirely innocuous reasons and that shadowy government powers had no hand in it. I'm inclined to suspect otherwise however.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, it's even possible that the scene in question was intended not to actualise UFOs, but to fictionalise and debunk them by injecting largely factual UFO information into an otherwise outrageous and fantastical sci-fi movie.
The movie was produced in 1953 - the same year that the CIA Robertson Panel made its recommendations to the government to 'strip UFOs of their aura of mystery' through mass media, including 'motion pictures and television'. It was during the early 1950s also that the CIA really started to get serious about media infiltration more generally: the Agency covertly influenced a number of productions beginning in 1953, including The Caddy (1953), Arrowhead (1953), Sangaree (1953), Animal Farm (1954), 1984 (1956), and The Quiet American (1958), to name but a few. It is unimaginable that the CIA would not have extended its covert actions in Hollywood during this period to movies dealing with flying saucers. Indeed, the Robertson Panel report served as an almost direct justification for it to do so.
I agree with you, though - it's very hard to know quite what to make of this scene, but it's certainly very interesting... and hilarious!
By the way, can Stan Friedman really be considered "notorious"??
>"By the way, can Stan Friedman really be considered "notorious"??"
ReplyDeleteLOL touché amigo ;)
Well, in any case his is the face most Americans might connect with the UFO phenomenon, based on his numerous appearances in Larry King's :P
PPS: One of the oddest things about the scene, is this very concrete date establishing UFO visitations since the last 200 years —"since the days of George Washington". Now that's a weird statement to make! based on what?
Yes, it's really a very odd scene. And again, kudos on your impressive observations - great stuff!
ReplyDeleteA couple notes:
ReplyDeleteThis scene was filmed later for the UK version (the kid is noticeably older here than in the rest of the movie).
At 7:15 we see a model space craft, David says, "That's it!" But the model is flatbottomed, unlike how it was shown at the beginning of the movie.
> can Stan Friedman really be considered "notorious"
Yes.
Several writers have noted that Friedman is immune to facts that contradict his findings.
http://www.roswellfiles.com/Witnesses/anderson.htm
http://www.martiansgohome.com/smear/v43/ss960425.htm
http://www.martiansgohome.com/smear/v43/ss960910.htm
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2011/08/absense-of-evidence.html
http://badufos.blogspot.com/2011/03/global-competitiveness-through-ufology.html
http://badufos.blogspot.com/2011/08/skeptic-does-mufon-symposium-part-5-of.html
Thanks, yes, I forgot to point out that the scene was shot some time after principal photography had wrapped. It was too late for the scene to feature in the US theatrical version, but someone, somewhere, for some reason, decided that the scene should be scripted, shot and inserted into the European version of the movie (it was not just for UK audiences, but for audiences across Europe). Again, the significance of that is debatable.
ReplyDeleteAl Capone was notorious. Friedman is at worst stubborn and cantankerous.
In Captured!, his book on the Hill case, Friedman breaks all four of his rules of debunkery, despite writing only two of the chapters.
ReplyDeleteHe has been challenged repeatedly withing ufology for blatently ignoring disconfirming evidence, but he doesn't even deem to answer, resorting to smear or silence.
The man is simply not interested in the truth. That is different than being stubborn -- that is, by definition, dishonesty.
Based on my experience and personal observation, I believe Stan Friedman to be an extremely honest and ethical researcher.
ReplyDeleteIs Stan "notorious"? Well, that depends on the definition. There are basically two:
no·to·ri·ous adjective
1. widely and unfavorably known: a notorious gambler. Synonyms: infamous, egregious, outrageous, arrant, flagrant, disreputable.
2. publicly or generally known, as for a particular trait: a newspaper that is notorious for its sensationalism. Synonyms: notable, renowned, celebrated, prominent, conspicuous, famous, widely known.
Stan is hardly notorious by the first definition. Despite the couple of comments here, most people in and out of ufology regard him favorably. As I said, I certainly do.
As for the second definition, he is notorious to the external world by being well-known as a ufologist. He is in fact, prominent, conspicuous, famous and widely known.
Few people, if any, working ufology have it right across the board. That's why we're working the problem. But Stan is quite honest about what he knows and what he doesn't know. Therefore, his famous, overflowing "gray basket" of unknowns.
To call this man dishonest, as the previous writer has done, is just plain wrong. By being such a public man, Stan knows that such accusations will be flung his way as part of the business. But he hardly deserves that characterization.
Stan is a character is a film script I have just completed, Majic Men. I feel know the man and his character very well. To me he is flawed, as we all are, but he is also a true American hero.
That's how I see him.
Sheesh! leave it to the Mexican —meaning ME— to make a poor choice for an adjective, and a whole can of worms opens up @_@
ReplyDeletePersonally I don't have any beef with Stan. I appreciate that he tries to bring more —dare I say it?— notoriety to the UFO subject in mainstream media. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he says.
But, whether we like it or not, he is arguably the most famous Ufologist today. My favorite Ufologist is Jacques Vallee, but he does not seek the public spotlight as much as some of us would like him to.
Likely the insertion of this scene was for purely banal reasons (maybe non-US audiences were accustomed to and expected movies to run longer; more bang for the buck). It could just be padding for overseas distributors focused on longer running time because that's what their audiences wanted.
ReplyDeleteThe movie was made when double features were the norm at US movie houses and US-made films from the era are generally shorter than those produced today, especially those that were produced for the second showing (i.e., the "B" movies).
I love this film. I found it wildly entertaining and unintentionally hilarious in some places ("mute-ants").
BTW, watching Ufologists jumping at any chance to bash each other in print is as exciting as watching paint dry. Grow up. This behavior belongs in middle school.
Thanks purrlgurrl - well said!
ReplyDeleteI'm not a ufologist! I'm merely judgemental.
ReplyDeleteMenzies had very little budget to work with on this film. That's why you see a lot of stock military footage at the end of the film - it was cheap or free and it padded the movie's run time. This little education scene probably fills the same purpose - it advances the plot, adds context and was cheap to produce.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the scene adds context - but it adds FAR MORE context than is necessary. But the scene most definitely does not advance the plot. It stops the movie dead in its tracks - for over 8 minutes! Without the scene, the movie is 79 minutes in duration - not unusual for sci-fi and horror B-movies of the time: 'I Married a Monster from Outer Space' (1958) is 78 mins, while 'The Flying Saucer' (1950) and 'Invasion of the Saucer Men' (1957) are both just 69 mins.
ReplyDeleteYes, the scene would have been cheap to produce, but it would also have required a certain amount of specialist research. Seems like a lot of effort to go to for no apparent reason.
The material is very sober and informative, far more so than you would expect from an SF movie of that era or even of our modern era (ET, Mars Attacks). We have infantilised UFOs since then. I am not surprised that it did not get into the US version of the film as it contains too many awkward real facts but I am surprised that it was made at all, or that it got into the European version.
ReplyDeleteRe: "mute-ants." I'm assuming that was the prevailing pronunciation back in the '50s (or maybe just in Hollywood?) -- first time I ever came across it was in THIS ISLAND EARTH (1955).
ReplyDelete