Way back in the 1960s NBC pioneered the concept of showing movies in prime time on network television with "Saturday Night at the Movies." However, you got the feeling the Hollywood studios were not enthralled with allowing their best stuff to get overexposed, and NBC wasn't going to spend a lot on the movies, either. So they were a bit old and usually black and white, not that many people had color at the time.
Two films kept getting shown over and over: The Day the Earth Stood Still and No Highway in the Sky. I remember going over to a friend's house and seeing these movies, more than once. I wonder if NBC was trying to tell the public something: aliens in Washington and plane crashes. Of the two, The Day the Earth Stood Still has become a classic, but No Highway has been forgotten, except by me.
I still remember elements of the movie: the odd shaped tail falling off, and the advice to sit on the floor of the men's room if the plane is crashing. However, I assumed there was more of a whistleblower conflict to it, with the plane manufacturer trying to cover up the flaw, as in modern, real-life scenarios, when actually they wanted to figure it out, too, in the movie.
Over the years, when a plane crashed with some defect or whatever, I usually thought of this movie. By the 1960s when it was on TV, it was generally known that there had been real-life incidents similar to those in the movie, specifically, the British Comet in the 1950s. So I suspect No Highway was influential, though, sadly, not enough.
I guess NBC got this cheap because it was a British movie and they were showing it outside its main market, in America. It's a movie that was a bit futuristic at the time, but dated quickly. It was a purely fictional, futuristic plane that no plane could realistically look like inside, especially the absurd kitchen; a little turbulence and the coffee and plates would be broken on the floor. But in the 1950s or even early 1960s few people had flown, and fewer across the Atlantic, so who knew? No the director.
The movie tapped into the fear of the dangerous, new mode of transportation. Who doesn't have some fear of being on a plane that is going to crash? But the science and the aviation technology is rather mixed up; a turboprop with dialogue about a piston engine, and some strange idea of nuclear fission of aluminum alloy caused by vibration producing the fracture. Huh? It would have been more effective to talk about the then new jet engines causing some mysterious vibration to trigger the fracture.
The Theodore Honey character is rather over-baked, at least early on. WTF is a boffin? Is the British director trying to ridicule the American scientist? In the end, Honey is vindicated, so no harm done. The contrast between Honey initially not figuring humans into his equation and later on the plane being intensely concerned, shows that the character is integral to the plot. And the excessive faith in precision is shown to be somewhat mistaken in the final outcome, a point that bothers me, the viewer.
It should be noted that Jimmy Stewart as a pilot based in England flew numerous bombing missions over Germany during WWII. So criticism of his portrayal I think is misplaced, and it was probably a matter he felt strongly about.
Essentially, No Highway is an early disaster flick without the disaster: somewhat shallow characters, some romance, a what's going to happen to them thing. I think it would have been stronger if it had been more realistic and The Establishment had been engaged in a cover up. Remake?
Despite its obvious flaws and sorely dated aviation technology, it is an interesting and important film. Everyone involved in the aviation industry should see it, including the folks at Boeing and Airbus, and all the airlines, especially Asiana.
When there is the probability or even just possibility of something going very wrong, each individual has the responsibility to speak up, regardless of consequences. That is the lasting lesson of No Highway in the Sky, and why it is still worth watching today.
Two films kept getting shown over and over: The Day the Earth Stood Still and No Highway in the Sky. I remember going over to a friend's house and seeing these movies, more than once. I wonder if NBC was trying to tell the public something: aliens in Washington and plane crashes. Of the two, The Day the Earth Stood Still has become a classic, but No Highway has been forgotten, except by me.
I still remember elements of the movie: the odd shaped tail falling off, and the advice to sit on the floor of the men's room if the plane is crashing. However, I assumed there was more of a whistleblower conflict to it, with the plane manufacturer trying to cover up the flaw, as in modern, real-life scenarios, when actually they wanted to figure it out, too, in the movie.
Over the years, when a plane crashed with some defect or whatever, I usually thought of this movie. By the 1960s when it was on TV, it was generally known that there had been real-life incidents similar to those in the movie, specifically, the British Comet in the 1950s. So I suspect No Highway was influential, though, sadly, not enough.
I guess NBC got this cheap because it was a British movie and they were showing it outside its main market, in America. It's a movie that was a bit futuristic at the time, but dated quickly. It was a purely fictional, futuristic plane that no plane could realistically look like inside, especially the absurd kitchen; a little turbulence and the coffee and plates would be broken on the floor. But in the 1950s or even early 1960s few people had flown, and fewer across the Atlantic, so who knew? No the director.
The movie tapped into the fear of the dangerous, new mode of transportation. Who doesn't have some fear of being on a plane that is going to crash? But the science and the aviation technology is rather mixed up; a turboprop with dialogue about a piston engine, and some strange idea of nuclear fission of aluminum alloy caused by vibration producing the fracture. Huh? It would have been more effective to talk about the then new jet engines causing some mysterious vibration to trigger the fracture.
The Theodore Honey character is rather over-baked, at least early on. WTF is a boffin? Is the British director trying to ridicule the American scientist? In the end, Honey is vindicated, so no harm done. The contrast between Honey initially not figuring humans into his equation and later on the plane being intensely concerned, shows that the character is integral to the plot. And the excessive faith in precision is shown to be somewhat mistaken in the final outcome, a point that bothers me, the viewer.
It should be noted that Jimmy Stewart as a pilot based in England flew numerous bombing missions over Germany during WWII. So criticism of his portrayal I think is misplaced, and it was probably a matter he felt strongly about.
Essentially, No Highway is an early disaster flick without the disaster: somewhat shallow characters, some romance, a what's going to happen to them thing. I think it would have been stronger if it had been more realistic and The Establishment had been engaged in a cover up. Remake?
Despite its obvious flaws and sorely dated aviation technology, it is an interesting and important film. Everyone involved in the aviation industry should see it, including the folks at Boeing and Airbus, and all the airlines, especially Asiana.
When there is the probability or even just possibility of something going very wrong, each individual has the responsibility to speak up, regardless of consequences. That is the lasting lesson of No Highway in the Sky, and why it is still worth watching today.