5/10
Saturday, 30 June 2012
Anger management (Charlie Sheen's return)
Today I sat down to watch the first 2 episodes of Charlie Sheen's new TV show Anger Management. I don't know how many of you are Charlie Sheen fans (also known as Winners) but I quite enjoyed Two and a Half Men and was interested to see how Charlie would do afterwards. Obviously there was the media storm around the time of his leaving and his abusive lifestyle seemed to drag him down, whether that continues I dont know but it isnt shown in his TV show. His new character, Charlie, is a more grown up version of his Two and a Half Men character and seems two have some of the same issues but is a more realistic version of a mix between Charlie and Alan Harper. The show itself is relatively amusing and I can imagine the arcs that will appear as the characters develop. It is at its heart a traditional style of sitcom and would be nothing without its star. I myself am quite a fan of Charlie and despite its current placement at FX I am sure when its reruns crawl onto Comedy Central in Charlie shaped marathons with Two and a Half Men I will be happy enough to watch. To sum it up its Charlie grown up a bit, as a psychiatrist, a bit of a giggle.
The Strangers (Bryan Bertino 2008)
"Is Tamara Home?"
Not much can be said for this film, the only horrific thing about it is its genericness. It was very simply formulaic and unexplained and simply a jumpy hour and a half worth of Liv Tyler being scared and crying. Unfortunately that is the way most current horror goes, but for a typical horror flick this one was actually particularly good. Although there was no explanation to the physical and mental torment that builds tension and makes the audience jump, the tension itself was well created and I jumped more than once. It is however a shame that the masks were not used in a slightly better way as they themselves are quite creepy. I wouldn't give it an overall high rating but if you fancy a little jump than try The Strangers, just don't expect to find a new favourite.
4/10
Friday, 29 June 2012
Moon
"I hope life on Earth is everything you remember it to be."
This was recommended to me by many people so I finally gave it a watch. You will get no spoilers here but basically it is excellent! The whole film builds an excellent atmosphere with excellent acting accompanied by a hauntingly beautiful piano soundtrack. The iscolation and mystery throughout the film make it really gripping and make Sam a sympathetic identifiable hero. I like the (spoiler sorry) fact that it didn't turn into 2001 Hal2.0 or anything like that and the computer stayed an essential character without being a HAL copy. (end of spoiler) I really liked the film and, as is becoming common, recommend it to all scifi nuts and film fans in general.
Wednesday, 27 June 2012
Starship Troopers
"Would you like to know more?"
I hadnt seen this classic sci fi until recently when I decided it was time to give it a go. Wow! I expected a dodgy looking cheesy half arsed scifi and I got a comical/ satirical, intelligent, epic, war scifi with some balls!
I think my favourite thing about the film is its guts to show people being mauled by savage beasts and even savager drill instructors, then fixed by unexplained scifi medicine. I also liked the political commentary on "fleet doing the flying and MI's do the dying" along with the scientific side being aided by telepathy. Overall there is so much scifi goodness in there and like all good scifi it doesnt waste time with too much exposition, it just gives us comical media snippets, the whole film is excellent and a scifi masterpiece!
Tuesday, 26 June 2012
Source Code
"Lily awoke in an evening dress and an opera cloak. In her hand were 5 playing cards"
So I recently watched Source Code by Duncan Jones, I am quite a science fiction fan and thought this might be a good flick. I did really enjoy the film and would recommend it to anyone who likes an action film with a bit of mystery and intelligence. The best thing the film does is to add the mystery of what the source code is and what the main character is doing and where he is when he isn't having his Groundhog day moments. This dual narrative is the most interesting part of the film an what happens on the train is practically irrelevant. The strongest science fiction idea doesn't come till near the end SPOILER!! where you find out the source code is more than the scientists think and that the source code continues as a parallel world for the hero to live in. This concentrated dose of scifi ideas saves the ending from being a cheesy cliché in which the boy gets the girl and asks her if she "believes in fate". END OF SPOILER So overall its an easy watch with not too bad acting and a nice bit of scifi.
I am Legend
"Four-fifteen. Four-thirty. It was a quarter to five.
In another hour they'd be at the house again, the filthy bastards. As soon as the light was gone."
I had unfortunately seen the movie first so I was expecting certain things from the book itself. The real reson I read it is because Gorge A Romero sites it as being one of the inspirations for Night Of the Living Dead. I won't get into that in this review but it can be seen clearly if you watch the zombie classic.
So I guess the real question is why do I like I am Legend so much? So first and foremost it is Matheson's writing style, his simple but beautiful lexical choice and his carefully structured centances make all of his works a pleasure to read. Their flowing, gripping and often self reflective nature are truly brilliant. That leads me on to the specific narrative voice of I am Legend which is neither omniscient nor is it the central characters inner monologue however the narrative voice seems to at times get taken over by Robert Neville's voice as he pessimistically attacks and mocks his own actions and feelings. That is another of the great things about I am Legend, Robert Neville himself, and the struggle he goes through in day to day life, hating himself for his survival and his vices. This is a central theme to the book and is shown in the very first chapter in an entertaining argument Neville has with himself
"He brushed his teeth carefully and used dental-floss. He tried to take good care of his teeth because he was his own dentist now. Some things could go to pot, but not his health, he thought. Then why don't you stop pouring alcohol into yourself? he thought. Why don't you shut the hell up? he thought."
The simplicity of the self commentary and pure hatred makes Neville a brilliant character and throughout well placed emotional flashbacks and emotional climaxes that combine action with anger, loss and desperation, it is hard not to want Neville to survive and somehow win. Matheson is purely and brilliantly cruel in manipulating the reader by first making him route for Neville then showing time and time again that he has no hope and he can not win, battering the reader with the same emotions as Neville himself... which only furthers the readers sense of identification. Some may argue that the book is not SF and his horror, I would argue that is a sucessful blend of both genres as it uses a classic horror monster but beegins to question it scientifically, this grounds the vampire in reality and the scientific parts of the narrative are some of the best. You will get no spoilers here so I will be vague if you have not read the book but towards the end the forced change in perspective adds a whole new angle to the book and makes you consider right and wrong all over again.
Well there are many more bits I would love to quote and many more comments I would like to make but if you haven't read the book the only way to understand completely is to pick it up and lose yourself in the pages of my favourite book. 10/10 duh.
2001 A space Odyssey
"No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information."
As a science fiction fan 2001 A Space Odyssey is a film I have always wanted to see unfortunately I was disappointed with the film when I finally saw it. On reflection however I'm really not sure how I feel about it. Stanley Kubrick is obviously a genius director and I cannot and would not dare fault his often stunning unique imagination. However I think the film is not for the general audience of today. The film on the surface lacks any real focus. A few ideas could be argued for example, to illustrate that despite intervention by evolutionary monoliths humans are still just apes. Another possible theme is the danger in scientific advancements such as Hal 9000 but this seems to have little coherence with the rest of the film. Some other small signs support this theory such as humans appearing lazy or stupid as they fall asleep on there computers that have made us redundant. So overall the focus of the film is difficult to pin down and I personally thought it was unsuccessful at dealing with any kind of subject matter. I found the film very difficult to watch as it was painfully slow and lingered on almost every beautiful image just a little too long with only repetitive classical music to accompany and entertain the audience. I do however believe that I feel this way because of the bombardment of CG images and fast paced, high concept blockbusters that have dulled the images and the ambiguous story telling of 2001. The form of the film relates massively to its content and the introduction of the monoliths at such large intervals with such little explanation makes the film a mystery and is one of the only reasons I managed to watch the film to the end. It is typical of Kubrick to narrate and write a story in such a way that the audience has to become active to achieve pleasure and whilst this is something to be admired it seems that t has maybe gone too fa in this instance.
Kubrick's visual style and content are interesting but for today's audience not enough to grant the viewer pleasure. The film visually is a masterpiece, the form cut of the bone ad ship for one example is excellent. 2001 was surely as usually regarded a large contributor to the modern conventions of science fiction cinema as Kubrick stylistically altered what we knew to be a genre as he often does. A good film to study however maybe not one for simple viewing.
As a science fiction fan 2001 A Space Odyssey is a film I have always wanted to see unfortunately I was disappointed with the film when I finally saw it. On reflection however I'm really not sure how I feel about it. Stanley Kubrick is obviously a genius director and I cannot and would not dare fault his often stunning unique imagination. However I think the film is not for the general audience of today. The film on the surface lacks any real focus. A few ideas could be argued for example, to illustrate that despite intervention by evolutionary monoliths humans are still just apes. Another possible theme is the danger in scientific advancements such as Hal 9000 but this seems to have little coherence with the rest of the film. Some other small signs support this theory such as humans appearing lazy or stupid as they fall asleep on there computers that have made us redundant. So overall the focus of the film is difficult to pin down and I personally thought it was unsuccessful at dealing with any kind of subject matter. I found the film very difficult to watch as it was painfully slow and lingered on almost every beautiful image just a little too long with only repetitive classical music to accompany and entertain the audience. I do however believe that I feel this way because of the bombardment of CG images and fast paced, high concept blockbusters that have dulled the images and the ambiguous story telling of 2001. The form of the film relates massively to its content and the introduction of the monoliths at such large intervals with such little explanation makes the film a mystery and is one of the only reasons I managed to watch the film to the end. It is typical of Kubrick to narrate and write a story in such a way that the audience has to become active to achieve pleasure and whilst this is something to be admired it seems that t has maybe gone too fa in this instance.
Kubrick's visual style and content are interesting but for today's audience not enough to grant the viewer pleasure. The film visually is a masterpiece, the form cut of the bone ad ship for one example is excellent. 2001 was surely as usually regarded a large contributor to the modern conventions of science fiction cinema as Kubrick stylistically altered what we knew to be a genre as he often does. A good film to study however maybe not one for simple viewing.
Monday, 25 June 2012
Tau Zero
"Constellations grew lopsided, grew grotesque, and melted, as their members crawled across the dark"
Anderson's himself is an SF figure and has written a staggering number of classics and won a large number of award, he was even the President of the Science Fiction Writers of America. When reading his work it is easy to see why. Using his knowledge as physics graduate Anderson pleases both a non scientifically educated by describing things simply but somehow refrains from becoming patronising. He uses difficult scientific concepts and SF concepts that have routes in science fact and somewhat educates and pleases readers that are in the know. He therefore adds a realism to the staggering feats featured in Tau Zero and uses both scientific and poetic language, in the frequent paragraphs that outline the ship Lenora Christine's current state, to capture any kind of readers imagination. The science seems not just a plot device which is nice and parts of the book for some readers may be too science driven however the character arcs are also heavy features so the science should not be off putting for any non-scientific readers.
Like I said Tau Zero is very good but a little slow to start and with the frequent jumps forward in time it is a little hard to get to know the characters. However once you do, it is a really good read full of tension, humanity's struggle and science! I would recommend this more to science buffs and give it an 8/10
Sunday, 24 June 2012
Terminator 5 and Tron 3
This is the best news update for me personally in a long time! I check these things often and finally!!! Some news to relay :D
Terminator 5
Ok so since last year the production of T5 was put on hold as director Justin Lin worked on Fast and furious 6, at that time there were a lot of rumours about original cast members returning and more time travel sending them to the setting of the first film and forgetting about Salvation. However, recently Schwarzenegger gave an interview stating
“I can’t say to much they want it held in secret if you know what I mean, but I will say that next year I will start filming it and it’s going to be one of the hardest films I have ever done I can tell you that already for sure” "They have six months set aside just for filming, so I will be training and getting into the best physical shape I possibly can before filming starts. It does follow Salvation although some of the producers and franchise owner were not too happy about the job McG did with it but they felt it was good enough to continue on, and they want the fifth and sixth instalments to be the closing of the franchise"
So..... Yay things are moving again and it sounds like Salvation will be the planned start to a strong cannonical trilogy!
Tron 3
I was a really big fan of Tron Legacy and it did marginally well at the box office so it can be considered for a sequel. Boxleitner, the actor who plays Tron supposedly said almost immediately that the sequel was on the way and some of the writers have mentioned the development of a script so it is looking likely. The Tron Uprising cartoon viewing figures may also be a factor in weather the film comes to fruition or not however Boxleitner stays positive and his most recent statement is
“It’s in the works. Anything could happen, but all I can say is, it’s in its formative stages. [Joseph] Kosinski, who is slated for it, he’s shooting another movie now, and then they’ll get around to doing that. I think somewhere around 2014, maybe. I’m talking way out of school here, but they can’t shoot me because I’m Tron.”
So again it sounds like the ball is kinda rolling soooo good news for us nerds!
Terminator 5
Ok so since last year the production of T5 was put on hold as director Justin Lin worked on Fast and furious 6, at that time there were a lot of rumours about original cast members returning and more time travel sending them to the setting of the first film and forgetting about Salvation. However, recently Schwarzenegger gave an interview stating
“I can’t say to much they want it held in secret if you know what I mean, but I will say that next year I will start filming it and it’s going to be one of the hardest films I have ever done I can tell you that already for sure” "They have six months set aside just for filming, so I will be training and getting into the best physical shape I possibly can before filming starts. It does follow Salvation although some of the producers and franchise owner were not too happy about the job McG did with it but they felt it was good enough to continue on, and they want the fifth and sixth instalments to be the closing of the franchise"
So..... Yay things are moving again and it sounds like Salvation will be the planned start to a strong cannonical trilogy!
Tron 3
I was a really big fan of Tron Legacy and it did marginally well at the box office so it can be considered for a sequel. Boxleitner, the actor who plays Tron supposedly said almost immediately that the sequel was on the way and some of the writers have mentioned the development of a script so it is looking likely. The Tron Uprising cartoon viewing figures may also be a factor in weather the film comes to fruition or not however Boxleitner stays positive and his most recent statement is
“It’s in the works. Anything could happen, but all I can say is, it’s in its formative stages. [Joseph] Kosinski, who is slated for it, he’s shooting another movie now, and then they’ll get around to doing that. I think somewhere around 2014, maybe. I’m talking way out of school here, but they can’t shoot me because I’m Tron.”
So again it sounds like the ball is kinda rolling soooo good news for us nerds!
Saturday, 23 June 2012
Report 23/06/12 Elysium, Sheen, Transformers, Tai Chi and Dredd!
Lots of news from the last few days that I think needs mentioning sooooo here's my take on recent movie news!
Elysium Plot
"Set in the year 2159, where the very wealthy lives on a man-made space station while the rest of population reside on a ruined Earth, a man takes on a mission that could bring equality to the polarized worlds."
So this is the recently revealed plot for Neill Blomkamp's in development sf blockbuster Elysium. If your unfamiliar with Blomkam he was a visual effects artist before he wrote and directed his first feature District 9, a film I shall soon review, well worth a watch. Despite not having Peter Jackson's funding I am confident Blomkamp's second feature will be good, and the plot has just made me more excited.
Machete Kills Casts Sheen
http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/president-charlie-sheen-machete-kills/
Not seen Machete but have to laugh at Rodriguez' casting!
Transformers 4, Bay drops Shia Lebeouf
This week Bay announced that Transformers 4 would not be a reboot but would also not feature Shia Lebeouf or his character. Is this a good thing? Well I'm not a big fan of the films for two reasons; 1 I can't tell the difference between good giant fighting robots and bad giant fighting robots... after the fight finishes I wait for the humans reaction so I can find out if the good guy won. 2 Despite the heartwarming relationship between Sam and Bumblebee it seems like all of the films have a good hour or so of useless wasted time in which we see boring snipits of Sam's life that we don't see enough of to care about. So for me it seems like a good thing, where will it go? Well Bay said he wanted to take it to space where the transformers come from but not make it too scifiy and keep it accessible. So there must still be human characters but it sounds like it could be a very different film... However judging by Bay's history just expect action, explosions and a tiny bit of plot.
Keanu Reeves Man Of Tai Chi Kungfu Proof of Concept
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-zHlY3P25aA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VuWWlYLbxUo
So these are the demo's of the camera control for Keanu Reeves' directorial début Man of Tai Chi. I think it visually looks pretty awesome and whilst it is fluid smooth and well controlled it is heavily inspired by the CGI style fights of The Matrix and more recent Kung Fu movies however I think the organically created visuals look really nice and I am looking forward to seeing Reeves' ideas as a Director and not just an actor.
Dredd Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PifvRiHVSCY
So I'm not a judge dredd fan or reader but was hoping for a good film out of the concept and this week the trailer was released for the new film. If you want a Dredd informed opinion I suggest you read this review
http://acupofteainthesun.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/my-response-on-new-dredd-trailer.html
My personal opinion is a little bit cautious... whilst it looks like there are some cool ideas, the drug, the building complex and the mob style crimelord to name a few the whole thing in general just doesn't quite feel right. Why I'm not sure, it could be the slightly cheesy action and dialogue but I think the lack of real dirt and the mismatch between the gritty mise en scene and basic lighting give it an unrealistic look. However I think my biggest dislike is just the mask.... I have no problem with that much of a face being covered or I wouldnt like Robocop but it just doesnt seem right, maybe its a little wide I'm not sure. I also didn't like the contrast to the dark an cool poster that was released a little while ago http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3051727360/tt1343727 the poster looks cool, dark, stealthy and almost Chris Nolan Batmanesque and that would be a good film, but Judge ing by the trailer that's not what we are going to get. The trailer itself tells us the whole plot and I'm not expecting anything really special but I will keep my fingers crossed.
Wow lots of news! more reviews, reports and reveals on the way!
Elysium Plot
"Set in the year 2159, where the very wealthy lives on a man-made space station while the rest of population reside on a ruined Earth, a man takes on a mission that could bring equality to the polarized worlds."
So this is the recently revealed plot for Neill Blomkamp's in development sf blockbuster Elysium. If your unfamiliar with Blomkam he was a visual effects artist before he wrote and directed his first feature District 9, a film I shall soon review, well worth a watch. Despite not having Peter Jackson's funding I am confident Blomkamp's second feature will be good, and the plot has just made me more excited.
Machete Kills Casts Sheen
http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/president-charlie-sheen-machete-kills/
Not seen Machete but have to laugh at Rodriguez' casting!
Transformers 4, Bay drops Shia Lebeouf
This week Bay announced that Transformers 4 would not be a reboot but would also not feature Shia Lebeouf or his character. Is this a good thing? Well I'm not a big fan of the films for two reasons; 1 I can't tell the difference between good giant fighting robots and bad giant fighting robots... after the fight finishes I wait for the humans reaction so I can find out if the good guy won. 2 Despite the heartwarming relationship between Sam and Bumblebee it seems like all of the films have a good hour or so of useless wasted time in which we see boring snipits of Sam's life that we don't see enough of to care about. So for me it seems like a good thing, where will it go? Well Bay said he wanted to take it to space where the transformers come from but not make it too scifiy and keep it accessible. So there must still be human characters but it sounds like it could be a very different film... However judging by Bay's history just expect action, explosions and a tiny bit of plot.
Keanu Reeves Man Of Tai Chi Kungfu Proof of Concept
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-zHlY3P25aA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VuWWlYLbxUo
So these are the demo's of the camera control for Keanu Reeves' directorial début Man of Tai Chi. I think it visually looks pretty awesome and whilst it is fluid smooth and well controlled it is heavily inspired by the CGI style fights of The Matrix and more recent Kung Fu movies however I think the organically created visuals look really nice and I am looking forward to seeing Reeves' ideas as a Director and not just an actor.
Dredd Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PifvRiHVSCY
So I'm not a judge dredd fan or reader but was hoping for a good film out of the concept and this week the trailer was released for the new film. If you want a Dredd informed opinion I suggest you read this review
http://acupofteainthesun.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/my-response-on-new-dredd-trailer.html
My personal opinion is a little bit cautious... whilst it looks like there are some cool ideas, the drug, the building complex and the mob style crimelord to name a few the whole thing in general just doesn't quite feel right. Why I'm not sure, it could be the slightly cheesy action and dialogue but I think the lack of real dirt and the mismatch between the gritty mise en scene and basic lighting give it an unrealistic look. However I think my biggest dislike is just the mask.... I have no problem with that much of a face being covered or I wouldnt like Robocop but it just doesnt seem right, maybe its a little wide I'm not sure. I also didn't like the contrast to the dark an cool poster that was released a little while ago http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3051727360/tt1343727 the poster looks cool, dark, stealthy and almost Chris Nolan Batmanesque and that would be a good film, but Judge ing by the trailer that's not what we are going to get. The trailer itself tells us the whole plot and I'm not expecting anything really special but I will keep my fingers crossed.
Wow lots of news! more reviews, reports and reveals on the way!
Monday, 18 June 2012
A genre study with specific reference to science fiction and the films of Ridley Scott and Stanley Kubrick
A genre study with specific reference to science fiction and the films of Ridley Scott and Stanley Kubrick
Genre is something that is mentioned every day however as a theory it is not just a way to categorize films. Genre theory and criticism asks many questions such as what actually is a genre? Why do we need them? And how are genres formed? These questions and the contradictions within their many answers are what I will discuss. Ridley Scott and Stanley Kubrick are two directors who have produced some of the best sci-fi films of all time I will reference 2001: A Space Odyssey(Kubrick, 1968), Clockwork Orange(Kubrick, 71), Alien(Scott, 1979) and Blade Runner (Scott, 1982).
The simplest definition of sci-fi comes from the Oxford English Dictionary “fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets.”1 This definition is not definitive, many critics have tried to define sci-fi and failed. I will for now define the sci-fi genre through a combination of its history, conventions and the “common cultural consensus”2 of what a sci-fi film is.
Like many genres sci-fi predates cinema beginning in literature in the 1800’s with Frankenstein (Mary Shelley 1818) often being called the first sci-fi novel. Shortly after the invention of the cinematograph Georges Melies began making “early science fiction films”3. Melies set up stages to film and used camera trickery to create Le Voyage dans la Lune (1902) a story of space travel, aliens and the moon. It was influenced by sci-fi literature like Jules Verne’s From Earth to the Moon (1864) and
HG Welles’ The First Men in the Moon (1901) so much so that the film features aliens with the same name as in Welles’ novel.4 It is possible that the comic and extreme stylisation is Meleis way of satirising the novels however one of sci-fi’s key themes is explored in this work, the cultural “anxieties brought about by the fast changing landscape of an increasingly industrialised society.”5 Despite Meleis shorts and many other early sci-fi works it was the mixing of horror and sci-fi that shaped the early years of the genre with monster movies and mad scientists featuring in films such as Frankenstein (dir. J. Searle Dawley 1910) and Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (dir. Lucius Henderson 1912). Utopian futures were also popular in early sci-fi, films like Metropolis (dir. Fritz Lang 1927) made commentaries on politics through parallels with futuristic worlds. Most sci-fi dropped out of the cinema and became the subject of pulps and comics.6
The 50’s saw the sci-fi B movie flooding the market at drive-ins to regain popularity. However it was the space race in the 60’s that brought the genre back into the spotlight despite audiences seeing real science media rather than fiction. This forced the genre to focus on real science as the public were now educated. Films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey flourished as they showed magnificent realistic images of space and played off the popularity of the American moon landing. The LSD trip culture of the early 70’s began to shape the genre as it became more psychedelic and philosophical, the creativity of these films appealed to the counter culture youth audience giving the newly emerging auteur’s freedom to shape the genre. Finally the more conservative 80’s removed much of the psychedelic imagery whilst keeping some of the iconography.7 This historical context of sci-fi has created recognisable conventions including space ships, aliens, tunnels and robots, and has shaped the way we as a culture see sci-fi.
This historical approach to defining the genre is helpful but it is purely factual and does not answer many of the debateable questions about genre itself. The first question seems simple, What is a genre? Sci-fi films are identified by their conventions and conventions can be identified by looking at archetypal films however there is no way to decide what the archetypal films of a genre are without knowing the conventions. One simple solution to this “empiricist dilemma” is “genre is what we collectively believe it to be”8 This has interesting implications, it means there is an interaction between director, genre and audience. An auteur breaking a convention for example to make a point means that he must have knowledge of the genres conventions and of an audience’s expectation of the genre. For example Kubrick breaks many sci-fi conventions in A Clockwork Orange so that it is more realistic than normal sci-fi.
There are many theories as to why we have genre, one that was popular in the 70’s concerns the mythic qualities of genre and the ritualistic relationship an audience has with film.9 An audience attends a specific movie with expectations, the popularity of genres informs Hollywood of the needs of the spectator and tells the studios what to produce for maximum profit. This reproduction of what is popular insures high income for the film industry but also allows audiences to enjoy films that they have specific expectations of because of viewings with previous films of the same genre. Stephan C Pepper calls a repeated interaction with a text “funding” which Barry Kieth Grant believes takes special significance within genre as this is what allows audiences to immediately connect with a genre film as they know what to expect.10 This makes marketing a film simple for distributors and helps audiences decide what to see. The idea that an audience immediately expects a film to play to generic conventions would, in Alien cause the audience to instantly expect a sci-fi monster movie of some kind and therefore psychologically prepare them for the horror and sci-fi themes of Alien. It could also be the reason that the bleak dystopian Blade Runner failed at the box office as sci-fi’s released around the same time showed a much more positive future and promoted family values, for example Star Wars (dir. George Lucas 1977). It is also an important tool when the suspension of disbelief is considered as when a film breaks conventions in an extreme way it may confuse audiences. This happened in Blade Runner when Deckard drifts off whilst playing the piano he dreams of a picturesque landscape and a unicorn, this short scene was so stylistically different from the rest of the film the producers removed it despite Scott’s wish to keep it in as it was of key importance to the subplot. Rick Altman views the immediate identification of films to genres in a more negative way saying that “Hollywood uses its genres to short-circuit the normal interpretive processes”.11
Altman discusses later in “A systematic/syntactic approach” the way in which Hollywood uses genre to mask its political ideologies and force audiences to believe in them.12 Both the directors I am discussing were politically active and were anti establishment, you would therefore expect their films don’t conform to Hollywood ideology. However you may say that the protagonist succeeding in Alien, Blade Runner, Clockwork Orange, and debatably succeeding in 2001 as the next step of evolution is achieved, is a Hollywood ideology suggesting that some people are better than others or promoting the American dream that you can do anything if you try hard enough. The difference between these two theories is that the ritual approach which many critics like Levi Strauss and John Cawelti believe says that Hollywood’s output is shaped by audience demands whereas the approach that concerns Hollywood ideologies suggests that it is Hollywood that manipulates the audiences into believing what Hollywood tells them.
Understanding what a genre is also relies on the understanding of how a genre is created. As I have already discussed the simple repetition of archetypes may not be correct however it should not be forgotten. Altman says genre theory should analyse both the syntax and semantics involved in genres and genre formation. The semantic approach of analysing genre is defined as “common traits, attitudes, characters, shots, locations, sets and the like” and syntactic as “certain constitutive relationships between undesignated and variable place holders”13. Therefore in simpler terms we can define semantics as signs and syntax as themes or plots, he later specifies “while each individual text clearly has a syntax of its own, the syntax implied here is that of the genre, which does not appear as the generic syntax unless it is reinforced numerous times by the syntactic patterns of numerous texts”14. Altman suggests there are two ways in which genres are formed, a set of semantic givens is developed through syntactic experimentation or a pre-existing syntax develops a new set of semantics. He himself relates this to sci-fi saying that “the genre first began borrowing the syntactic relationships previously established by the horror film”15 this can be seen within the syntax of Alien for it is mainly a horror film set in a sci-fi setting, this brings about the idea of a genre hybrid, a film with two or more genres attached to it. If we use Altman’s semantic/ syntactic approach we can say that Alien uses both horror and sci-fi semantics and both sci-fi and horror syntax which it could be argued is the same. 2001: A Space Odyssey however uses purely sci-fi semantics such as space and aliens and sci-fi syntax of evolution and technological advancement. Clockwork Orange on the other hand involves new technology used to strip Alex of his pleasures however its lack of sci-fi syntax and semantics mean it is widely regarded as a crime drama. After establishing the syntactic/ semantic development genres Altman refers back to the two contrasting views of genre study mentioned previously and says that they are linked, “most genres go through a period of accommodation during which the publics desires are fitted to Hollywood’s priorities… Because the public doesn’t want to know that it is being manipulated, the successful ritual/ ideological “fit” is almost always one that disguises Hollywood’s potential for manipulation”.16
I have already mentioned the possibility through semantics and syntax that the four films I have chosen are genre hybrids, this is certainly the case for Blade Runner a clear mixture of sci-fi dystopias and classic noir thrillers. It can be argued that Alien is pure sci-fi as sci-fi now includes many elements of horror, however the underlying point of the film is to scare the audience classifying it as much a horror as a sci-fi. Clockwork Orange as I have said is more of a rime drama with sci-fi elements. 2001; A Space Odyssey is an interestingly pure sci-fi, it breaks many Hollywood conventions by having little plot, no continuous characters and an experimental ending to say the least however it sticks to many sci-fi conventions and even creates them. Kubrick’s idea in the specifically unusual ending was for the audience to engage with the text hence the specifically vague and imaginatively colourful tunnel sequence that despite a narrative explanation has many different interpretations by all audiences including the LSD culture of the 70’s.17 The idea of a film making the audience active rather than passive is something that Kubrick instilled in many of his works. It is possible the subject of perception, pleasure and voyeurism within Clockwork Orange is a comment on voyeurism. Barry Keith Grant discusses the idea of an active audience in Experience and Meaning with specific reference to John Dewey who defines a “work of art” as something that “takes place when a human being cooperates with the product so that the outcome is an experience that is enjoyed because of its liberating and ordered properties.”18 If we take Blade Runner as the product the audience enjoys the experience because they identify with characters and the film conforms to the narrative conventions of something “ordered” that they recognise, either sci-fi or noir, but it also adds different plot elements that are “liberating” such as the then unique overcapitalised view of a dystopian techno oriental future. Grant ends his essay on the audience in relation to genre with a quote from Christian Metz “I am at the cinema, attending a film, ATTENDING. Like a midwife who attends at a birth…. I help it to live, I help it to be born”19. This quote summarises the importance of audience interaction, whether in a ritualistic way, an active way, a way in which audience is submissive and takes in Hollywood ideologies or in a way which combines these, as Altman suggests, it is clear audience are important to genre theory.
I believe all of these theories shed light on the idea of genre and all are valuable when attempting to theorise why people consume media of a specific type, what they feel the need to categorize and how these categories are made. My chosen films are all sci-fi however this essay shows that they are not just sci-fi and that the classification of sci-fi itself has interesting implications about expectations and audience manipulation. Genre it seems is less a classification and more a tool used by Hollywood writers and directors to get an audience to react and enjoy a “work of art” and a tool for audience to communicate their preferences. All of my chosen films show this interaction with audience expectations and it is this that I believe is at the heart of the genre debate.
1. Oxford Dictionaries (2012) [online] Last Accessed 02/01/2012 at http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/science%2Bfiction?q=science+fiction
2. Tudor Andrew, Genre in Film Genre reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas 2005) p5
3. Cornea Christine, Science Fiction Cinema Between Fantasy and Reality (Edinburgh University Press 2007) p12
4. Cornea Christine, Science Fiction Cinema Between Fantasy and Reality (Edinburgh University Press 2007) p12
5. Cornea Christine, Science Fiction Cinema Between Fantasy and Reality (Edinburgh University Press 2007) p13
6. Cornea Christine, Science Fiction Cinema Between Fantasy and Reality (Edinburgh University Press 2007) p20
7. Cornea Christine, Science Fiction Cinema Between Fantasy and Reality (Edinburgh University Press 2007) p32
8. Tudor Andrew, Genre in Film Genre reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas 2005) p7
9. Altman Rick, A Semantic/Syntactic Approach in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas, 2005) p30
10. Grant Barry Kieth, Experience and Meaning in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas) p127
11. Altman Rick, A Semantic/Syntactic Approach in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas, 2005) p29
12. Altman Rick, A Semantic/Syntactic Approach in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas, 2005) p30
13. Altman Rick, A Semantic/Syntactic Approach in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas, 2005) p31
14. Altman Rick, A Semantic/Syntactic Approach in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas, 2005) p39
15. Altman Rick, A Semantic/Syntactic Approach in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas, 2005) p36
16. Altman Rick, A Semantic/Syntactic Approach in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas, 2005) p37
17. Cornea Christine, Science Fiction Cinema Between Fantasy and Reality (Edinburgh University Press 2007) p 83
18. Grant Barry Kieth, Experience and Meaning in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas) p118
19. Metz Christian, History/Discourse: A Note on Two Voyeurisms in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas) p128
Genre is something that is mentioned every day however as a theory it is not just a way to categorize films. Genre theory and criticism asks many questions such as what actually is a genre? Why do we need them? And how are genres formed? These questions and the contradictions within their many answers are what I will discuss. Ridley Scott and Stanley Kubrick are two directors who have produced some of the best sci-fi films of all time I will reference 2001: A Space Odyssey(Kubrick, 1968), Clockwork Orange(Kubrick, 71), Alien(Scott, 1979) and Blade Runner (Scott, 1982).
The simplest definition of sci-fi comes from the Oxford English Dictionary “fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets.”1 This definition is not definitive, many critics have tried to define sci-fi and failed. I will for now define the sci-fi genre through a combination of its history, conventions and the “common cultural consensus”2 of what a sci-fi film is.
Like many genres sci-fi predates cinema beginning in literature in the 1800’s with Frankenstein (Mary Shelley 1818) often being called the first sci-fi novel. Shortly after the invention of the cinematograph Georges Melies began making “early science fiction films”3. Melies set up stages to film and used camera trickery to create Le Voyage dans la Lune (1902) a story of space travel, aliens and the moon. It was influenced by sci-fi literature like Jules Verne’s From Earth to the Moon (1864) and
HG Welles’ The First Men in the Moon (1901) so much so that the film features aliens with the same name as in Welles’ novel.4 It is possible that the comic and extreme stylisation is Meleis way of satirising the novels however one of sci-fi’s key themes is explored in this work, the cultural “anxieties brought about by the fast changing landscape of an increasingly industrialised society.”5 Despite Meleis shorts and many other early sci-fi works it was the mixing of horror and sci-fi that shaped the early years of the genre with monster movies and mad scientists featuring in films such as Frankenstein (dir. J. Searle Dawley 1910) and Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (dir. Lucius Henderson 1912). Utopian futures were also popular in early sci-fi, films like Metropolis (dir. Fritz Lang 1927) made commentaries on politics through parallels with futuristic worlds. Most sci-fi dropped out of the cinema and became the subject of pulps and comics.6
The 50’s saw the sci-fi B movie flooding the market at drive-ins to regain popularity. However it was the space race in the 60’s that brought the genre back into the spotlight despite audiences seeing real science media rather than fiction. This forced the genre to focus on real science as the public were now educated. Films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey flourished as they showed magnificent realistic images of space and played off the popularity of the American moon landing. The LSD trip culture of the early 70’s began to shape the genre as it became more psychedelic and philosophical, the creativity of these films appealed to the counter culture youth audience giving the newly emerging auteur’s freedom to shape the genre. Finally the more conservative 80’s removed much of the psychedelic imagery whilst keeping some of the iconography.7 This historical context of sci-fi has created recognisable conventions including space ships, aliens, tunnels and robots, and has shaped the way we as a culture see sci-fi.
This historical approach to defining the genre is helpful but it is purely factual and does not answer many of the debateable questions about genre itself. The first question seems simple, What is a genre? Sci-fi films are identified by their conventions and conventions can be identified by looking at archetypal films however there is no way to decide what the archetypal films of a genre are without knowing the conventions. One simple solution to this “empiricist dilemma” is “genre is what we collectively believe it to be”8 This has interesting implications, it means there is an interaction between director, genre and audience. An auteur breaking a convention for example to make a point means that he must have knowledge of the genres conventions and of an audience’s expectation of the genre. For example Kubrick breaks many sci-fi conventions in A Clockwork Orange so that it is more realistic than normal sci-fi.
There are many theories as to why we have genre, one that was popular in the 70’s concerns the mythic qualities of genre and the ritualistic relationship an audience has with film.9 An audience attends a specific movie with expectations, the popularity of genres informs Hollywood of the needs of the spectator and tells the studios what to produce for maximum profit. This reproduction of what is popular insures high income for the film industry but also allows audiences to enjoy films that they have specific expectations of because of viewings with previous films of the same genre. Stephan C Pepper calls a repeated interaction with a text “funding” which Barry Kieth Grant believes takes special significance within genre as this is what allows audiences to immediately connect with a genre film as they know what to expect.10 This makes marketing a film simple for distributors and helps audiences decide what to see. The idea that an audience immediately expects a film to play to generic conventions would, in Alien cause the audience to instantly expect a sci-fi monster movie of some kind and therefore psychologically prepare them for the horror and sci-fi themes of Alien. It could also be the reason that the bleak dystopian Blade Runner failed at the box office as sci-fi’s released around the same time showed a much more positive future and promoted family values, for example Star Wars (dir. George Lucas 1977). It is also an important tool when the suspension of disbelief is considered as when a film breaks conventions in an extreme way it may confuse audiences. This happened in Blade Runner when Deckard drifts off whilst playing the piano he dreams of a picturesque landscape and a unicorn, this short scene was so stylistically different from the rest of the film the producers removed it despite Scott’s wish to keep it in as it was of key importance to the subplot. Rick Altman views the immediate identification of films to genres in a more negative way saying that “Hollywood uses its genres to short-circuit the normal interpretive processes”.11
Altman discusses later in “A systematic/syntactic approach” the way in which Hollywood uses genre to mask its political ideologies and force audiences to believe in them.12 Both the directors I am discussing were politically active and were anti establishment, you would therefore expect their films don’t conform to Hollywood ideology. However you may say that the protagonist succeeding in Alien, Blade Runner, Clockwork Orange, and debatably succeeding in 2001 as the next step of evolution is achieved, is a Hollywood ideology suggesting that some people are better than others or promoting the American dream that you can do anything if you try hard enough. The difference between these two theories is that the ritual approach which many critics like Levi Strauss and John Cawelti believe says that Hollywood’s output is shaped by audience demands whereas the approach that concerns Hollywood ideologies suggests that it is Hollywood that manipulates the audiences into believing what Hollywood tells them.
Understanding what a genre is also relies on the understanding of how a genre is created. As I have already discussed the simple repetition of archetypes may not be correct however it should not be forgotten. Altman says genre theory should analyse both the syntax and semantics involved in genres and genre formation. The semantic approach of analysing genre is defined as “common traits, attitudes, characters, shots, locations, sets and the like” and syntactic as “certain constitutive relationships between undesignated and variable place holders”13. Therefore in simpler terms we can define semantics as signs and syntax as themes or plots, he later specifies “while each individual text clearly has a syntax of its own, the syntax implied here is that of the genre, which does not appear as the generic syntax unless it is reinforced numerous times by the syntactic patterns of numerous texts”14. Altman suggests there are two ways in which genres are formed, a set of semantic givens is developed through syntactic experimentation or a pre-existing syntax develops a new set of semantics. He himself relates this to sci-fi saying that “the genre first began borrowing the syntactic relationships previously established by the horror film”15 this can be seen within the syntax of Alien for it is mainly a horror film set in a sci-fi setting, this brings about the idea of a genre hybrid, a film with two or more genres attached to it. If we use Altman’s semantic/ syntactic approach we can say that Alien uses both horror and sci-fi semantics and both sci-fi and horror syntax which it could be argued is the same. 2001: A Space Odyssey however uses purely sci-fi semantics such as space and aliens and sci-fi syntax of evolution and technological advancement. Clockwork Orange on the other hand involves new technology used to strip Alex of his pleasures however its lack of sci-fi syntax and semantics mean it is widely regarded as a crime drama. After establishing the syntactic/ semantic development genres Altman refers back to the two contrasting views of genre study mentioned previously and says that they are linked, “most genres go through a period of accommodation during which the publics desires are fitted to Hollywood’s priorities… Because the public doesn’t want to know that it is being manipulated, the successful ritual/ ideological “fit” is almost always one that disguises Hollywood’s potential for manipulation”.16
I have already mentioned the possibility through semantics and syntax that the four films I have chosen are genre hybrids, this is certainly the case for Blade Runner a clear mixture of sci-fi dystopias and classic noir thrillers. It can be argued that Alien is pure sci-fi as sci-fi now includes many elements of horror, however the underlying point of the film is to scare the audience classifying it as much a horror as a sci-fi. Clockwork Orange as I have said is more of a rime drama with sci-fi elements. 2001; A Space Odyssey is an interestingly pure sci-fi, it breaks many Hollywood conventions by having little plot, no continuous characters and an experimental ending to say the least however it sticks to many sci-fi conventions and even creates them. Kubrick’s idea in the specifically unusual ending was for the audience to engage with the text hence the specifically vague and imaginatively colourful tunnel sequence that despite a narrative explanation has many different interpretations by all audiences including the LSD culture of the 70’s.17 The idea of a film making the audience active rather than passive is something that Kubrick instilled in many of his works. It is possible the subject of perception, pleasure and voyeurism within Clockwork Orange is a comment on voyeurism. Barry Keith Grant discusses the idea of an active audience in Experience and Meaning with specific reference to John Dewey who defines a “work of art” as something that “takes place when a human being cooperates with the product so that the outcome is an experience that is enjoyed because of its liberating and ordered properties.”18 If we take Blade Runner as the product the audience enjoys the experience because they identify with characters and the film conforms to the narrative conventions of something “ordered” that they recognise, either sci-fi or noir, but it also adds different plot elements that are “liberating” such as the then unique overcapitalised view of a dystopian techno oriental future. Grant ends his essay on the audience in relation to genre with a quote from Christian Metz “I am at the cinema, attending a film, ATTENDING. Like a midwife who attends at a birth…. I help it to live, I help it to be born”19. This quote summarises the importance of audience interaction, whether in a ritualistic way, an active way, a way in which audience is submissive and takes in Hollywood ideologies or in a way which combines these, as Altman suggests, it is clear audience are important to genre theory.
I believe all of these theories shed light on the idea of genre and all are valuable when attempting to theorise why people consume media of a specific type, what they feel the need to categorize and how these categories are made. My chosen films are all sci-fi however this essay shows that they are not just sci-fi and that the classification of sci-fi itself has interesting implications about expectations and audience manipulation. Genre it seems is less a classification and more a tool used by Hollywood writers and directors to get an audience to react and enjoy a “work of art” and a tool for audience to communicate their preferences. All of my chosen films show this interaction with audience expectations and it is this that I believe is at the heart of the genre debate.
1. Oxford Dictionaries (2012) [online] Last Accessed 02/01/2012 at http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/science%2Bfiction?q=science+fiction
2. Tudor Andrew, Genre in Film Genre reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas 2005) p5
3. Cornea Christine, Science Fiction Cinema Between Fantasy and Reality (Edinburgh University Press 2007) p12
4. Cornea Christine, Science Fiction Cinema Between Fantasy and Reality (Edinburgh University Press 2007) p12
5. Cornea Christine, Science Fiction Cinema Between Fantasy and Reality (Edinburgh University Press 2007) p13
6. Cornea Christine, Science Fiction Cinema Between Fantasy and Reality (Edinburgh University Press 2007) p20
7. Cornea Christine, Science Fiction Cinema Between Fantasy and Reality (Edinburgh University Press 2007) p32
8. Tudor Andrew, Genre in Film Genre reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas 2005) p7
9. Altman Rick, A Semantic/Syntactic Approach in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas, 2005) p30
10. Grant Barry Kieth, Experience and Meaning in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas) p127
11. Altman Rick, A Semantic/Syntactic Approach in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas, 2005) p29
12. Altman Rick, A Semantic/Syntactic Approach in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas, 2005) p30
13. Altman Rick, A Semantic/Syntactic Approach in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas, 2005) p31
14. Altman Rick, A Semantic/Syntactic Approach in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas, 2005) p39
15. Altman Rick, A Semantic/Syntactic Approach in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas, 2005) p36
16. Altman Rick, A Semantic/Syntactic Approach in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas, 2005) p37
17. Cornea Christine, Science Fiction Cinema Between Fantasy and Reality (Edinburgh University Press 2007) p 83
18. Grant Barry Kieth, Experience and Meaning in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas) p118
19. Metz Christian, History/Discourse: A Note on Two Voyeurisms in Film Genre Reader III Edited by Grant Barry Kieth (Austin, University of Texas) p128
1984 and Daredevil rumours
So first bit of news is about the writer of the 1984 reboot, not read the book but want to, and know that it is a classic and deserves a good movie adaptation. I have seen the 1984 Michael Radford version but was not a fan so its reboot status makes me happy... although the writer attached appears to have done nothing I have seen.
http://www.empireonline.com/news/feed.asp?NID=34297
News number 2 is a possible actor for the Daredevil reboot to play the titular character Matt Murdock. The proposed actor is Josh Hartnett http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001326/ who was also up for the post of Loki. I don't think he looks quite right but looks can be tweeked so thats not a major problem, after all Chris Evans made a good Captain America and a good Human Torch. I do have faith in Hartnett's acting ability as I am a keen fan of Black Hawk Down so fingers crossed :D
http://www.empireonline.com/news/feed.asp?NID=34299
http://www.empireonline.com/news/feed.asp?NID=34297
News number 2 is a possible actor for the Daredevil reboot to play the titular character Matt Murdock. The proposed actor is Josh Hartnett http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001326/ who was also up for the post of Loki. I don't think he looks quite right but looks can be tweeked so thats not a major problem, after all Chris Evans made a good Captain America and a good Human Torch. I do have faith in Hartnett's acting ability as I am a keen fan of Black Hawk Down so fingers crossed :D
http://www.empireonline.com/news/feed.asp?NID=34299
Sunday, 17 June 2012
Joss Whedon's Screen writing tips
http://adelaidescreenwriter.blogspot.fr/2011/11/joss-whedons-top-10-writing-tips.html
The first Report! This is an interesting and helpful little article from the nerd god of writing Mr Whedon himself.
The first Report! This is an interesting and helpful little article from the nerd god of writing Mr Whedon himself.
Saturday, 16 June 2012
Rogue Moon
"If all women were for was the continuance of the race, what did they need intelligence for? A simple set of instincts would have done"
Rogue Moon is one of the SF Masterworks series I am currently reading and is by Algis Budrys who I had never heard of but I picked it at random and am glad I did. So simply did I like it? YES!!! Why?.... that's where reviews get tricky :s
Budrys' novel focuses on the awkward genius Edward Hawks and the teleportation device he has made to search an anomaly on the moon that kills or sends insane all the best cadets he can find. At the centre of the novel is the conflict between Hawks, Connington (the personnel manager tasked to find a new kind of man to brave the anomaly), Barker (the thrill seeking 'man's man' who braves the anomaly), Clair Pack (Barkers wife who enjoys twisting and teasing Connington) and Elizabeth (a new friend and ear for Hawks). So how do all of these characters form a thrilling or exciting story about science the moon and technology? Well they sort of don't, the device and the anomaly and all of the science in the novel is just a plot device to force these characters together and watch them blow up. And so the book is fairly philosophical and talks alot about "kinds of people", I like this personally as whilst all the characters around Hawks seem to sum up everyone in specific categories Hawks himself treats all of the characters with caution and as individuals. Hawks seems to be Budrys' mouthpiece and is the most relatable character (for me, what can I say he's a visionary genius how could I not relate :p) and whilst the above quote about women could be taken as offensive it is one of Hawks' many gems of intelligence, and in context shows his overall opinion of sexual equality. Gender is clearly a theme as the characters range from ultra masculine to ultra feminine and whist a lot ha changed since it was written in 1960 the gender commentary is still insightful and relevant.
As far as Burdys' writing style goes, I really liked it, whilst there are a lot of large sections of speech they work brilliantly to give the impression that these characters are lecturing each other and the intellectual interplay between Hawks and Barker is one of the most gripping and interesting things about the book. However when description does come Budrys keeps it simple, visual and beautiful "They were standing on an arm of rock that thrust out seaward into the surf." (The underlined bits are the words I think are really strikingly simple and strong)
Finally from the scifi point of view I believe using it as a plot device is an excellent thing to do as long as its given full attention and thought, which Hawks' experiment really shows. Not only is the concept and workings simply explained but the finer philosophical points are also given due attention. It also has a killer last line which I always love.
I sincerely recommend to scifi fans and anyone who is interested in people... so everyone! I was really satisfied and will be giving it a second read in not too long. So yeah a really good book 9/10!!
Rogue Moon is one of the SF Masterworks series I am currently reading and is by Algis Budrys who I had never heard of but I picked it at random and am glad I did. So simply did I like it? YES!!! Why?.... that's where reviews get tricky :s
Budrys' novel focuses on the awkward genius Edward Hawks and the teleportation device he has made to search an anomaly on the moon that kills or sends insane all the best cadets he can find. At the centre of the novel is the conflict between Hawks, Connington (the personnel manager tasked to find a new kind of man to brave the anomaly), Barker (the thrill seeking 'man's man' who braves the anomaly), Clair Pack (Barkers wife who enjoys twisting and teasing Connington) and Elizabeth (a new friend and ear for Hawks). So how do all of these characters form a thrilling or exciting story about science the moon and technology? Well they sort of don't, the device and the anomaly and all of the science in the novel is just a plot device to force these characters together and watch them blow up. And so the book is fairly philosophical and talks alot about "kinds of people", I like this personally as whilst all the characters around Hawks seem to sum up everyone in specific categories Hawks himself treats all of the characters with caution and as individuals. Hawks seems to be Budrys' mouthpiece and is the most relatable character (for me, what can I say he's a visionary genius how could I not relate :p) and whilst the above quote about women could be taken as offensive it is one of Hawks' many gems of intelligence, and in context shows his overall opinion of sexual equality. Gender is clearly a theme as the characters range from ultra masculine to ultra feminine and whist a lot ha changed since it was written in 1960 the gender commentary is still insightful and relevant.
As far as Burdys' writing style goes, I really liked it, whilst there are a lot of large sections of speech they work brilliantly to give the impression that these characters are lecturing each other and the intellectual interplay between Hawks and Barker is one of the most gripping and interesting things about the book. However when description does come Budrys keeps it simple, visual and beautiful "They were standing on an arm of rock that thrust out seaward into the surf." (The underlined bits are the words I think are really strikingly simple and strong)
Finally from the scifi point of view I believe using it as a plot device is an excellent thing to do as long as its given full attention and thought, which Hawks' experiment really shows. Not only is the concept and workings simply explained but the finer philosophical points are also given due attention. It also has a killer last line which I always love.
I sincerely recommend to scifi fans and anyone who is interested in people... so everyone! I was really satisfied and will be giving it a second read in not too long. So yeah a really good book 9/10!!
Return to Earth
"Remember when we looked up and saw that beautiful white orb that bathed everything in silver light? Now when we look up we see that blue and yellow toxic wasteland."
For anyone who doesn't know, Return to Earth is a scifi tv script I am working on to film in the long long future when I can afford to fund it and make it well.
A team of soldiers leave their sanctuary on the moon to return to the nuclear wasteland of Earth to save their family and friends from the dictator of the world.
Sounds good right? It's inspired by lots of good Scifi and war films and tv such as BSG, SGU, Alien, Blade Runner, TSCC, Firefly, Black Hawk Down, Full Metal Jacket, Battle LA and many more! However being new to scriptwriting and tv scripting I dont know exactly what Im doing. I am planning over the next few weeks or so to watch and analyse a few scifi series that I think work well. Specifically I will be looking at lengths of scenes and the amount of time spent with each storyline per episode. A large inspiration for the pacing I am trying to write and multiplicity of stories per episode happening at once is the series Caprica. Im sure I have seen tv that does the same thing but the sheer number of characters involved in 4or5 stories per episode is a really exciting way to pace and work so Im going to study study study like a good student.
If you want to know more about Return to Earth let me know, I am sending copies of the script so far to people for feedback so let me know!!!
As always if you like this or have an opinion drop me a comment on one of my sites over there >^>^>^>^
Friday, 15 June 2012
Review Report Reveal.... What?!?
“God will forgive them. He'll forgive them and allow them into Heaven. I can't live with that.”
Hi people my name is Robin Booker and I am Robin Booker Films! This blog shall "Review" things I watch and like, "Report" the news I like and "Reveal" what I am working on!
I shall also be posting a quote from a film with each post and leaving you guys to let me know when you figure it out.
Hi people my name is Robin Booker and I am Robin Booker Films! This blog shall "Review" things I watch and like, "Report" the news I like and "Reveal" what I am working on!
I shall also be posting a quote from a film with each post and leaving you guys to let me know when you figure it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)