Wells put a great deal of his hopeful philosophy as well as his despair into this fantasy. He seems to have expressed the hope more than once that if the world's VIPs could be assembled around a big table, peacefully, they could create the conditions for Utopia without too much trouble. In this tale, with Fotheringay's miracles, he shows that even if that could be achieved, there is inertia to contend with. Utopia cannot be achieved in an afternoon, so Fotheringay's impatience defeats him. To give the world leaders time to plan, he orders the Earth to stop rotating. Physical inertia, rather than figurative inertia, takes over, and you can understand the result of that. Fotheringay survives to put things back where they were before "the gods" gave him the power of miracles. Back in the bar where it all began, he sighs "I'll never get the chance (to improve the world), now". One of "the gods" thinks mankind can still achieve Utopia gradually. Even in a sort of despair, Wells was ever the optimist.
Roland Young creates a very believable Fotheringay, who gradually changes from a bumbler, with no real idea how his suddenly acquired miraculous power can be used for good, into a man determined to mold the world the way he wants it. Alas, he is a simple man without enough knowledge and must depend on others for advice. Of course, they let him down. Ralph Richardson's character, a retired colonel, now a magistrate, embodies those others. He can't imagine a world better than the one he is in. The cast work is excellent and believable special effects illustrate the "miracles". A few eyes may pop when shop-girl "Ada" is changed in a flash into "Cleopatra", like (Claudette Colbert) "in the movie" as Fotheringay orders.
"The Man Who Could Work Miracles", as Wells wrote it, is actually his attempt to encapsulate the gist of his monumental oeuvre "The Work, Wealth, and Happiness of Mankind" into a charming fantasy parable, that could reach the average person better than his immense tome on political economy. It always seemed to me that of the three great philosophers of political economy (the other two being Karl Marx and Adam Smith), Wells was the most "accessible" writer. The trouble was, I think, that because he often employed Science/Fantasy to reach the public, many did not take him seriously. Those three great writers trying to design a politico-economic Utopia all made the same mistake. All assumed that at bottom all human beings are decent and caring, if you just eliminate "want". They all overlooked the fact that the folks with the most drive and ambition, and the ability to put formulae into operation, are usually the ones with the least decency, honesty, integrity, and sense of public responsibility. I wonder what old Adam Smith would think of the Enron mess, for example, or old Karl Marx of the former Soviet Union and "comrade" Stalin. As for Wells, I don't know of any attempt to implement his essential "technocratic" Utopia, but no doubt the result would have been equal failure.
Roland Young creates a very believable Fotheringay, who gradually changes from a bumbler, with no real idea how his suddenly acquired miraculous power can be used for good, into a man determined to mold the world the way he wants it. Alas, he is a simple man without enough knowledge and must depend on others for advice. Of course, they let him down. Ralph Richardson's character, a retired colonel, now a magistrate, embodies those others. He can't imagine a world better than the one he is in. The cast work is excellent and believable special effects illustrate the "miracles". A few eyes may pop when shop-girl "Ada" is changed in a flash into "Cleopatra", like (Claudette Colbert) "in the movie" as Fotheringay orders.
"The Man Who Could Work Miracles", as Wells wrote it, is actually his attempt to encapsulate the gist of his monumental oeuvre "The Work, Wealth, and Happiness of Mankind" into a charming fantasy parable, that could reach the average person better than his immense tome on political economy. It always seemed to me that of the three great philosophers of political economy (the other two being Karl Marx and Adam Smith), Wells was the most "accessible" writer. The trouble was, I think, that because he often employed Science/Fantasy to reach the public, many did not take him seriously. Those three great writers trying to design a politico-economic Utopia all made the same mistake. All assumed that at bottom all human beings are decent and caring, if you just eliminate "want". They all overlooked the fact that the folks with the most drive and ambition, and the ability to put formulae into operation, are usually the ones with the least decency, honesty, integrity, and sense of public responsibility. I wonder what old Adam Smith would think of the Enron mess, for example, or old Karl Marx of the former Soviet Union and "comrade" Stalin. As for Wells, I don't know of any attempt to implement his essential "technocratic" Utopia, but no doubt the result would have been equal failure.