I was a young child when I first discovered the fantastic through television broadcasts of science fiction films. These became sources that fueled my fears and fed my imagination. My fears took shape through films like Invaders From Mars (1953) with the images of aliens burrowing underground and mind control devices drilled into the base of human skulls. My sense of wonder gorged on films like The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) with my imagination running wild through the possibilities presented by an army of Gort-like robots zapping people with his laser beam. Over the years my appreciation for these films has increased, and among fans they have become classics. For me, the problem with classics of cinema is that as a general rule they should be left alone in the area of remakes, although I am sympathetic to such films providing the inspiration for new creations of the fantastic.

This is particularly the case with December’s release of a new version of The Day the Earth Stood Still. I first heard that this film was in the works a few months ago and immediately my shields of skepticism were raised as I pondered how bad a remake of the classic could be. My skepticism was tempered somewhat when I heard that Scott Derrickson served as director, perhaps best known for The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) and Hellraiser: Inferno (2000). Derrickson has a real appreciation as a fan for horror that contributes positively to his work, and my hope is that this will lend itself to a fresh interpretation of the ideas behind the new take on Klaatu, as well as his 2009 effort in the remake of The Birds. (In my view the remake of Psycho [1998] was unnecessary and contributed nothing to Hitchock’s classic, even reproducing Hitchcock’s orginal shot for shot thus confirming the brilliance of the original, so why The Birds [1963] remake should fare any better is beyond me. But I’m trying to think positively.)

Beyond these general concerns for the new film a few other areas are worth watching for.

First, the context for the 1950s classic was the Cold War, the potential for global thermonuclear war, and the newly formed United Nations. It remains to be seen how the new film will engage its current historical, social, and cultural context of a post-9/11 world of global terrorism and the many failures of the United Nations to address this and other challenges. Hopefully the new film will move beyond the current tendency to create action films with thin veneers of horror or sci fi and will engage our current cultural crises through the promising possibilities of social engagement and commentary provided by science fiction.

Second, Michael Rennie did a wonderful job as the alien Klaatu in the original film, lending gravitas to the subject matter which even his co-stars such as Patricia Neal did not take seriously. Keanu Reeves plays Klaatu in the new film, and while he has established a body of work in science fiction, including the Matrix trilogy, most critics acknowledge his popular appeal while recognizing his lack of depth as an actor. Will Reeves’ popularity in science fiction films in the past be enough to counter possible perceptions of lack of gravitas in the title role? I suppose it depends upon the depth this film attempts to present to viewers, and whether it is a sci fi-action film or a sci fi film with great digital effects which nevertheless wants to be taken seriously in addressing contemporary cultural issues.

Third, the original film is still the subject of academic debate in the figure of Klaatu who is killed and resuscitated by Gort. Many commentators, such as Anton Karl Kozlovic, have interpreted Klaatu as a Christ-figure who dies and rises again, while others such as Douglas Cowan, have challenged this commonly accepted interpretation. It remains to be seen whether the new film will present Klaatu as Christ-figure, especially given Derrickson’s Christian faith, whether the character and the plot are so different from the original that it is not possible to interpret the character in this way, or whether many viewers will interpret Klaatu in this fashion regardless of the way in which the character is depicted. (See Christopher Deacy’s interesting discussion of this phenomenon here.)

Perhaps next month I will be watching this film with greater scrutiny than many of my fellow film goers. But in any event, it holds the potential of being a successful end-of-year sci fi film much like last year’s I Am Legend. Despite my continuing skepticism, I’ll try to think positively. See you in the theater with popcorn and Whoppers in hand.