So, on this anniversary year, what are we to make of Vernilak’s life and legacy?
He is rightly celebrated among both producers (especially in Europe and Asia) and their usual enemies, film critics (in many regions of the world). His work has cult followings in several locations, often extending beyond SF fans and those passionate about postwar Eastern European cinema. That none of his films were made in the English language has surely restricted their impact, but he is certainly among the top two or three directors from what was the Eastern bloc whose films managed to make, and retain, a substantial reputation in the West.
Much cinema continues as if he never existed. Yet traces of his ideas and approach are pervasive (see Delany’s account of – often surprising – influences on the Star Wars series). Hatchlings and Swansong motifs are evident in the rash of films about children and young people with superpowers, and the reactions to them of the wider society. (These are often directly drawn from comic books, but the authors of these are likely to have been influenced by Vernilak.) Few time travel films escape his influence directly, or more often indirectly, through its uptake by modern physics. Of course, much SF these days is grappling with issues concerning robots and AI. These topics have come to almost obsess contemporary makers of serious SF, though they have well-known antecedents in Metropolis, Demon Seed, and a host of less memorable works. Perhaps the Frankenstein motif deterred Vernilak from venturing in this direction. But more to the point, probably, is his preoccupation with themes of humanity encountering aliens and their works – or the even more unfathomable political artefacts of contemporary social systems.
Vernilak’s work is of its time, to be sure. But it is of much more than historical interest, and is surely due for a revival that will secure his place in the pantheon of unmissable cinema. Perhaps the Netflix dramatization will lead to more of his work becoming available on streaming services, being discussed on fan sites of all sorts, securing the recognition it deserves beyond cineastes.
Meanwhile the major impact of Vernilak’s work is undoubtedly in modern philosophy and, more recently, in some arcane but fascinating areas of quantum physics. In each field – and they overlap, of course – As It Was has become something of a trope, frequently referred to in discussions of the nature of time, the paradoxes that might be associated with travel in time, the existence of multiple realities, and the like. Moving on from simplistic criticisms of the supposedly inconsistent temporal mechanics of the film, philosophers have argued about the “many worlds” implications of the abortive attempts at re-engineering the past into a more acceptable direction. Ideas such as “knotted time” and “transitional inertia” are deployed by critics of “many worlds” and multiverse accounts. Meanwhile proponents of the multiverse – and not only those who proclaim “if it is possible, but has not happened here, then it will have happened elsewhere, perhaps in many elsewheres” – see As It Was as an exemplar not of track dependence, but of slippage across worlds. The time machine is also an engine of displacement, which seems appropriate enough for Vernilak and his compatriots.
Physicists have also taken the film up, especially in America. Hy in particular claimed that it was seeing this as an adolescent that prompted his lifelong fascination with the physics of time, and led to his pivotal role in the development of quantum supratime theories. As It Was (or more accurately, variants of the brief synopsis of As It Was presented in several of Hy’s earlier studies) is regularly cited in both popular accounts and cutting-edge studies. Disputed claims that laboratory work is demonstrative of looping effects like those of the film have emerged from two US teams, with researchers in other countries disagreeing about the substance and/or significance of their claims. The debate is reminiscent of that over so-called cold fusion a few years ago, though the expenses of the necessary apparatus have meant that there is nothing like the rush to replicate that was then evident. Meanwhile, there is the usual touting of alarmist fears about unintended consequences of human meddling (“playing God”) with nature. The current sensationalism resembles that around the Large Hadron Collider, which allegedly was going to accidentally create a black hole into which we would all disappear. The trajectory of quantum physics suggests that this controversial field of study would have risen to the fore whether or not Vernilak had made his film. Perhaps the intense debate about temporal paradoxes might not have done. We might have been more preoccupied with the intricacies of worm theory, as developed by Prinn, Bloch and their followers, who focus more on the problems of dark time that are creating such stumbling blocks for analysis of the Big Bang.
The message of As it was, is an ambiguous one, but it can be seen as warning us against speculating too much about what might have been had history taken a different course. One thing is certain. Without the rise of quantum supratime, Netflix and their gaggle of independent producers would never have hired Hy and his colleague Alhazred as “advisors” to their forthcoming miniseries on Vernilak. Billionaires do sometimes invest in vanity projects in space exploration or biomedicine, as we well know: publicly listed companies less often. Historians and other specialists are often employed as consultants in film and video projects: SF movies will often have engaged astrophysicists and the like. But controversial quantum physicists, whose work is barely comprehensible to most laypeople, are another matter. Not only is the field of study unusual; according to information given to investors, a large chunk of the “advisory” funding is paying for laboratory research. What can this mean?
We can dismiss the ideas floated on some outlandish websites that this funding is intended to finance a “chronoscope” (a device for viewing historical events), or even to build a functioning time machine. The only piece of “evidence” for such ideas is an off the cuff comment by Alhazred in one of his rare public appearances since the deal with Netflix was commissioned. He said that he hoped to “establish the truth” about Vernilak’s early life and to “test his philosophy of time”. These comments may be frivolous, or are more likely to be misdirection. Perhaps the testing is purely theoretical work, and the establishment of truth a matter of more archival study. The alarmists also seize on Hy’s recent statements (reported by participants in several academic seminars) that he is well on the way to documenting how transitional inertia can actually be combined with his version of supratime theory. If this could be done, it is implied, we can rest assured that interventions in the past (if such things were possible) would follow the main thrust of As It Was, and not disrupt history. Fearmongers have seized upon these statement as proving that his team is hell-bent on more than subatomic time travel. But physicists that I have spoken to insist that these statements are merely elaborating on claims that he has made for many years now, and that alleged mathematical models have yet to be fully elaborated, let alone validated by other researchers. (There is, at the time of writing, a call for papers on this topic in the International Journal of Supra- and Hyper-time Studies.)
If we dismiss the idea that any real effort is underway to advance the study – let alone the practice – of time travel, what is going on? I can see several possibilities, which are not mutually exclusive. I think that it is most probable that the researchers are employed to provide insight into the veracity of the miniseries’ treatment of time travel. Perhaps, too, they are being consulted as to the equipment featured in As It Was, why Vernilak chose the apparatus he did, how far it corresponds to modern technology, and so on. Another speculation is that the entertainment company is looking beyond Vernilak, and exploring prospects for further documentary or drama series around the themes of time travel. Perhaps Netflix is simply seeking to gain publicity and/or burnish their output with scientific credentials. Among the more sane discussions on the web, I am struck by two viewpoints in particular. At one extreme is the group calling itself The WatchMen, along with numerous excitable commentators. Most of these voices assume that time travel is not only possible, but its deployment is imminent. They ask for radically new regulations and more “responsible innovation” to govern this and other areas of science. They demand that we properly understand the limits of temporal inertia, and most of these commentators seek to ensure that nothing is done that might substantially change the course of history. A few individuals have argued that we have a duty to erase major tragedies from the past, making a progressively better world. But the great majority of Watchmen commentators see this as fraught with immense dangers – not least the obliteration of ourselves, since major changes in history would probably undermine our own existence. The possible investigation of Vernilak’s past is a case in point. What if his death were forestalled? We would then have access to the body of work that he might have gone on to create… but would “we” still be we? My memory of writing these lines would have been erased, since I would never have been engaging in these speculations. My account of his career would have taken some other form. Or what if time travellers somehow interfered with his earlier life, perhaps in an effort to uncover some of his secrets? Might be have been exposed as an agent? Might his life have been ended, or taken different paths – he could have been inspired to be a philosopher rather than a filmmaker? Could it be that an effort to discover the real person would mean that the name Vernilak would never even have come into being?
The second viewpoint is more mainstream. This echoes the opinion of many scientists that such speculation is pointless, that the advances in quantum time physics are of no practical significance. Their scepticism about the possibility of transporting any significant material backwards in time through time is expressed almost every time that they deign to comment on the topic at all. Furthermore, some of them have remarked that there is the issue of space, as well as time, to consider. Since the Earth is hurling through space, aty an orbital velocity close to 30 kilometers per second, would not a trip back in time, even one of a few minutes, mean that travellers would find themselves propelled into a vacuum yet to be occupied by our planet. (Consider the even worse consequences of emerging within the body of this planet – the explosive consequences of two bodies of matter attempting to occupy the same space at once.) There is little reason to assume that that a time-travelling person (or other object) would continue to move in synchrony with the Earth in its orbit round the Sun (itself moving relative to other parts of the Milky Way, which in turn is moving relative to other galaxies…). Relativity theory tells us that space itself is not some static unchanging grid. I confess that I get lost in the scientific arguments about whether there are any mechanisms that could enable an object displaced in time to retain a stable relationship with persisting elements of their environment. What I can deduce, however, is that these are only the most immediately striking of a large number of problems articulated in academic journals and more popular media. It is also apparent that the WatchMen and their ilk have displayed little interest in engaging with such issues. Until they can systematically refute the objections from mainstream scientists, their alarmism warrants little attention. But then again, perhaps the Netflix series will in some way build upon the arguments. If the researchers they have hired are advising precisely upon this, the outcomes are going to be, shall we say, interesting.
Vernilak’s name will live on in one way or another. He will be more than a footnote in the worlds of philosophy and physics. If Hy’s hypotheses prove correct, and supratime becomes an established paradigm, he may become today’s version of Newton’s apple. Beyond that, hopefully he will be best remembered as a virtuoso and creator, as a pioneer of East European and indeed world cinema, and as one of the giants who brought SF into mainstream respectability. Whatever spell is cast by the Netflix drama, the embroidery around his life is unlikely to overshadow that reputation. The miniseries, if completed, will surely bring more people to his work. We can then look forward beyond As It Was, to As It Will Be.
Otherwise 