[SF-INDEX] [^^LIT index] [^^TERMS (master index)]
See also: -[sf tv]-
NOTE: Please feel free to link-to/copy these pages.
If you down-load the source, you will see many
specific links and sub-links. Any q's pls email
freely to Frank:
fleeding AT: hotmail.com
SPOILERS THROUGH OUT; these are intended as essentially
"literature study" pages... sf rules the universe.
"Science Fiction is the Literature of the Future"
- James Blish (best known as the author
who "novelised" the original series)
See also: -[Film]- (as medium)
esp: -[Film: DieHard]- (study film)
btw: I *would* like to "standardise" the entries with a sort of
"trading card" entry on east. M/W: two of your abs fab refs are:
-[www.imdb.com]- (I/N Movie D/B)
-[www.MoviesUnimited.com]- (if they don't have it,
lord help a duck!)
Share and enjoy froods,
viddy well my slovos, my brothers,
sisters,
and neechers!
NOTE: As much as i would like to, i have
NOT included fantasy works (eg, Zena, Heavy Metal, etc)
-- much as i love those kinds of things as well; alas.
See also: [SF index]
[SF: Futurism]
[SF General]
[SF Technology]
[SF Writing]
[SF Effects]
[SF Elements]
-^_6
[LITERATURE INDEX]
[The ALT LIST!] (ah, those literary weirdos!)
[terms] (index of indexes)
--- THE SF FILM ---
(sf film as film literature)
On this page: {Intro}
{2001} (& 2010)
{AI}
{Andromeda Strain}
{"Back to the Future"}
{BladeRunner}
{Imposter}
{Minority Report}
{Screamers}
{A Boy and His Dog}
{Brazil}
{Butterfly Effect}
{Contact}
{Day the Earth Stood Still}
{"Cyborg 2087"}
{Dr. StrangeLove}
{FailSafe}
{On the Beach}
{Alas, Babylon}
{Ghost World}
{I, Robot}
{Jurassic Park} (& etc)
The Last StarFighter
{K-PAX} "Hombre mirando al sudeste" (Man facing southeast)
{The Matrix}
{Momento}
{>RoboCop}
{Power Rangers}
{s1m0ne}
{"Sliding Doors"}
{War Games}
{Yojimbo}
{Zardoz}
{Back to the TOP of this Page}
SF Film
In this section: {Overview}
{Brief History, etc}
SF Film: Intro
Seeing as SF is associated with "flights of fancy" or in general with
futurist/What-If/etc thinking, it is only natural that film makers
would use it as a means to say what they want.
The lesson early-learned in TV was with Rod Serling and others, in
such series of serious thought as "Ben Casey", "The Defenders", etc.
What they had written to open the public dialog via TV - it's hard
to remember that prior to TV, most townfolk openly debated issues,
instead of waiting to be told what to think. Anyway, when the writers
for TV came on the scene there were already CENSORS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD
in place. The so-called "Hayes Code" had come about because films
had either gotten a bit too racey (read that as sex) or at worst
didn't clearly show that "CRIME DOESN'T PAY!", etc.
Thus, when TV came up, what you could say about politics and such
was already at the very least *scrutinised* - and not just by the
official central scrutiniser, but self-appointed guardians of
public decency. And if we take a page from the pychic scrap book
of Orson Welles and "Citizen Kane", we can all too readily see
what happens to anyone who "steps too far out of line".
Enter SF. TV, and Rod Serling: You can almost say *anything* that
that you want as long as the words
are spoken by some gloppy monster, alien, creature, computer, etc.
This torch was carried by producer/writer Joseph de Stefano in his
"Outer Limits" series, as well by Gene "Great Bird of the Galaxy"
Roddenbery with Star Trek. He told his writers: Write what sticks
in your craw! And of course we got the race question brought out
in almost absurdist theatre style as two men half-black/half-white
- but each thinking the other's symmetry was WRONG! CAN'T YOU SEE??
And such early TV successes fed back into the theatres and the cycle
towards GOOD SF went onward...
So, now back to the past....
When film came onto the scene, it was only natural that it would be
coupled with SF - after all following 1900, it was the age of science;
what with the telegraph, telephone, steam engine, railroad, and soon
radio and even rocketry. The worlds primary SF writers were of course
H.G. Welles and Jules Verne who were not only seen as visionaries but
inspired many other authors to take up the concepts as well. And of
course, then in 1905 with Einstein's simple eqaution, and then with
the world's first World War (and first *modern* war - planes, dirgibles,
mustard gas, the machine gun, tanks, etc) -- all provoked many thoughtful
writers and more so would-be film makers.
As far as Ameican films are concerned there are three main stages:
Early fantasy films - an sf adventure is a form of "dream trip".
Cautionary tales - mainly inspired by works by Fritz Lang (mainly
"Metropolis", (1927)), as well as films such as
"Things to Come" (1936), based on H.G. Welles' story.
Red Scare films - coming up as parables of the cold war dressed
in SF clothing. Best representation is "Invasion of
The Body Snatchers" (1956).
And then (finally) came "Treu SF Films" - Robots, Rockets, and beyond.
One of the first was "Destination Moon" (1950) was action/adventure, but almost
as exactly based on what space travel would actually be like and was based on a
story by SF writer/engineer/futurist Robert A. Heinlein - not until "2001: A Space
Odyssey" (1968) would the scientific accuracy be matched. "Tobor the Great" (1954)
featured the first intellegent robot as well as influential "Forbidden Planet" (1956)
one of the most inovative SF as SF films.
Of course, there isn't going to be any nice *linear* history as well.
Several things to remember are:
The way the film is written. Who's the target audience?
What genre is it really?
What "moral lesson" or story does it tell?
Which studio was making it. How much budget was available? What stars?
&
Who wrote the script? How much control did the director have? What was their
vision as both story teller and futurist (if at all)?
For example, there are a whole slew of movies that were made by "American
International" and the consistent theme is "Science is bad. Man will be
punished for daring." Despite a few "placating words" to the contrary
wise they were thinly veiled religious/moral tales decrying the age of
science (usually as mis-read via the technology of the time).
Thus, we get "Man With the X-Ray Eyes", "The Fly", "The Incredible
Shrinking Man" - esp the last of which almost entirely losing the
visionary ideas of the original story. Always a problem that
(even outside of SF, as if we didn't know *that*).
Oddly enough, at about the same time many of the classic
"monster movies" were being made. And despite the *horriffic*
nature of both sf, monster, and other films the actual "horror"
film (blood and guts) hadn's really emerged - although "Man with
the X-Ray Eyes" is certainly one of the goriest of the times.
But, in many ways, the monster movies carried much of the gothic
literature tradition forward. This is especially true of the
Dracula movies where among other weapons against the vampires
is a cross - or even the shadow of a cross. Another monster
film well worth study is "The Body Snatcher" (1945) (no
relation to "Invasion of the Body Snatchers") which comes
closest to actually puting on the screen the philosophical
ideas of Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein" - whih other than an
obscure Spanish language version has *yet* to be done).
And while i'm on about it, i can't help but take yet another
swipe at the ridiculously bad interpretations of Jules Verne's
"Mysterious Island" - now in two extravagant colour films
- both with MONSTERS!!!
Regardless the examples of the moral ideas of good and bad,
corruption by power, etc are far and few in SF. More modern
works are also still, all too rarely exploring these
possibilites - often only paying a single sentence to the
ideas of the dichotomy between the promise of science and
the possible plague of science. A recent exception is
"Jurassic Park" (1993) (directed by Steven Spielberg, based
on Michael Chriton's works). The theme is most clearly
stated by "Ian Malcom" (played by Jeff Goldblum) -
"Your scientists were so excited by the
fact that they could, that they didn't
stop to ask if they should."
Which of course totally parallels Albert Einstein's regrets
some 40 years after his seemingly "only a scientific curiosity"
of relativity prompted him to say:
It is not enough that you should understand
about applied science in order that your
work may increase man's. Concern for man and
his fate must always form the chief interest
of all technical endeavors... in order
that the creations of our mind shall be a
blessing and not a curse to mankind. Never
forget this in the midst of your diagrams
and equations.
Thus, one of the main functions of SF (outside of its often
mis-used "scare" factor)is that of cautionary tale of technology.
Unfortunatley, for the most part many films (since in order to make
money they almost always have to devolve to the action/adventure
prop to get the film made) rarely explore any of the moral dimensions
and points of view explored in the SF (written) literature. It's as
unlikely as not that there will never be another "2001" film made
- even the "sequel", "2010: The Year we make contact" (1984) which
was made with the blessings and help of Arthur C. Clarke (who had
co-wrrient 2001 with director Stanley Kubrick) had the
"action/adventure" which Clarke admitted was probably a necessity
given the reality of spending so much money to make a film of
that scope.
Thus the ability of SF to make "statements" has almost inevitably
fallen to TV series or films. First off the "small screen" can
get by with cheaper effects, sets, and effects. It should be
interesting to see how this will change with more and more
"large screen tv's" and of course HD-TV. Also, since it is
a more intimate medium it can thus concentrate more on story.
Finally, with the success of J. Michael Strazinki's
"Babylon Five" (which in turn inspired the Star Trek people to spin
off "ST - Deep Space Nine") a clear path that the tried and true
"story arc" concept can be used in TV series to enhance the over all
story, the things that can be said (depth of concepts/characters/situations,
complex topics and story lines, etc) -- all of which had been known for
decades by the soap opera writers/producers/etc.
That is: The viewer *can* actually follow more than a 30 minute plot!
Thus, degree of character development that has gone into novels can finally
be exsprssed in TV series, and (hopefully) with the success of the "Lord of
The Rings" and "Harry Potter" films this might extend into films as well.
Although, to be perfectly honest the efforts are *still* limited to the
cost of production and effects. For example, compare "Batman" (1989) which
used many back-lot locations (director Tim Burton had told the art and set
people to think of "Hell as if it burst up thru the pavement and kept on
growing" - not an exact quote) with the sets, effects, and such of SF
films such as "Terminator 2: Day of Judgement" (1991). Part of the problem
has become the expectation by "fans" of big lavish sets, lots of action
adventure, etc. Even the relatively simple plot of "Paycheck" gave forth
to an extravagent production. Compare this with the sets and production
of "Imposter" and "Screamers" -- all three of which are based on short
stories by SF master writer/futurist Philip K. Dick.
Again, the BLURB is "bigger is better".
And so we come back to the simple idea that much of the original lure of
SF wer the ideas, possibilities, and limit-less-ness-es that it offered.
Ideas such as "is the there life on other planets?", "what would life
be link on those planets?", "what would they believe?", "what would they
think of us?". etc.
The possibiities of things like robots, rockets, space travel, travel
under the sea, time travel, living forever, the end of the world, the
colonisation of other planets, having a "fresh start" on a new world,
etc, etc.
And the idea that the "here and now" the "what we know" the "this is
how it is", etc -- all could be just fragments of a much greater
reality. One of my fav lines is from "Men in Black" by "K" (played
by Tommy Lee Jones) when he says,
1000 years ago we KNEW the earth was flat,
500 years ago we KNEW the earth was the
centre of the universe, 200 years ago we
KNEW god created men, yesterday you KNEW
we were alone in the universe,
just think what you will know tomorrow.
(thanks and three tips of the old towel to: -[enmoot.com]-
(note that the bit about God was dropped from the film!)
Thus, SF offers us not just escape but a total re-examination of everything
we take for granted. And with that, (unless you want to read the "history"
section below - when i get around to working on it....)
We now present our feature films (ladies will kindly remove their hats)...
SF Film: Brief History, etc
need to research and have links here....
sort of a catalog if you will - hmmm, surely, Shirley, someone has already done this.
From earth to moon
International films??
Man facing southwest
2001: A Space Odyssey
See also: -[Hal's Legacy]- (in sf-futurism)
-[sf-fut: A/I entry]-
2010: The Year we make Contact
See especially: "2010 - A film Odyssey" by
Arthur C. Clarke and Hyams.
(details their conversations in the making
of the film)
In a way, 2010 provides in "closed form" the
answers to what 2001 was all about. In this,
we get nice clear answers (even up until the
year 10_0000_001 or so), but in the original
film we hardly know what to think of the Star
Child - what is it thinking? It's well that
Kubrick has it take no action - it just sits
there in thought - a most private thought.
Next, let's look at Dr. Floyd: He is out there
to find answers, to asuage his feelings of guilt
at having lost the mission under his direction.
Compare this with the engineer who on the night
of the Challenger Explosion called desparately
to stop the launch (as desparately as Dr. McCoy
tried to save the Chancelor in "ST: The Undiscovered
Country". In fiction, the price for failure is
punishment - in reality, the self-punishment of
the engineer was to build a wall of bricks each
night until exhausted.
And then of course: "The Two Worlds" - or in mod
speek: Left and Right Brain. The Russian Captain
and the American Scientist (and all that command
and creativity have hidden in their pockets - the
atomic bomb, nazi war experiments on people, etc)...
The Captain says, "Dr. Floyd you are not very
practical" to which he responds, "Practical?
Take a look out there (at the monolith) - that's
not some piece of junk. Tell me what's practical?
Again the confrontation between the perceived and
known (such is the arrogance of thought and sense)
vs "What the hell is that???" ask's Arthur Dent
as the Vogon space ship cruises over head.
The ration, reductive, linear, "proovable", etc.
vs. the grasping at straws - it is the realisation
that the dinosaurs in "Jurassic Park" are real
that makes Drs. Sadler (emotion) and (rationality)
weak-kneed. The in-conpreshensibility that something
so in-comprehensible CAN be perceived.
Much of the maths of geniuses such as Ramajan and
??name?? is like that: One can hardly have been
able to think up the formulas - let alone to see
that they are actually true.
In both cases, the proofs often came from other
sources - again, the non-linear leaps of intuition
(what is that thing?) and then the "showing" that
it's actually true.
In Larry Niven's "RingWorld", he allows the rationalists
to come to the wrong conclusion. It is enough for them
(like Arthur C. Clarke's "Rendesvous") to simply see
that is possible - let alone to understand "How did
you do this?". Doctor McCoy stands in awe with
the new knowledge from the "Teacher" (machine) to
say, "Of course: A child could do it."
And here we are: Almost 2010 - and actually closer
to the 2010 version of space and politics than
the 2001 one.
Some years back (while in corporate) a friend of
mine from India (Sam Kumar) and i used to have
lunch everyday together - and at the same Chinese
restaurant (thus two pression questions: What do
you want to eat? and Where should we eat? were by
default taken care of.
Among one of the points that we disagreed on was,
my observation that some people seemed to lose
their humanity; eg, the nazi's, or more other
fascists, etc. He could't accept that - in fact
he would say it was non-sense. Such were our
few differences (many actually) in viewing the
world - and more importantly: Our fellow passengers
on SpaceShip Earth.
Later i decided on the idea: People can turn their
humanity off. We now know that in some cases they
can lose their humanity; eg, thru brain injury
or extreme conditioning/events. But, it is the
apparent only - and possibly quite deeply) recovery
of that humanity that interests us here. Namely
the victims of (eg) the Holocaust or other such
disasters/dis-connects when they DO re-gain their
humanity. Refer to: "Soldiers and Slaves" (the
American GI's who were sent to the work camp
in the last ditch effort). The point here is:
The prisoners who had already been thru the
singling out, internment and then (eg) Buchenwald,
etc - survived much more than the much healthier
GI's who hadn't been thru those experiences.
The mind (as the author and many of the survivors
said) determined more than anything else the
probability of survival. Of course, this isn't
to say that a single bullet or action couldn't
end someone's life, but that giving up. Indeed
the sustaining hatred was the most prominant
factor - not even hope (again that small word)
or "looking forward" to "real life" again.
So, the question is the question is this:
What is it that sustains David Bowman?
--42--
AI
-[sf-fut: A/I entry]-
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
Andromeda Strain
This was an early work by the man who was to give
us "Jurassic Park" and other such films. This is
probably the "hardest" science sf work that
Criton ??sp?? has produced; there is actually a NOVA
science show about "could Jurassic Park" be real?
-- which is enough to say about anything.
So: Could Scotty's Transporter be real?????
(i think that ??author?? in "Goedel, Escher, Bach"
has answered that sufficiently - or not, depending
on your view of "clones"; see, the ??name?? in
the Star Trek Deep Space Nine series where he
(a clone) keeps getting killed, but then the
factory just sends out a new one with the previous
nights "save and exit" data in it) -- along
that same thing:
"Earth Mark II" in
"The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy", etc.
Regardless, and probably at high cost the original
film still stands well and being acted by non-sf
actors helps. Dr. ??Ruth?? ??name?? made a "sequel
like" film ??title?? that went further
in exploring contagion
in general - especially the idea that by using
antibiotics indiscrimanently we can produce "super
bacteria" that are immune to them - which was a v.
new idea at the time. Again, a good film with a
disturbing/thought-full ending (more along the lines
of {FailSafe} than anything else.
Next: BladeRunner.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
BladeRunner
Two things (that have been said a million times)
you have to consider BladeRunner as "inspired
by", but not based on:
"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep".
As well, as Riddly Scott (good/bad/indifferent) people
on the set actually wore t-shirts saying:
"I no longer fear hell;
i've worked for Riddly Scott"
In the sequence of things, this was a bold move (since 2001
and much earlier "Destination Moon") to seek out an
ACTUAL sf author as the basis for a film.
Every aspect of the film adheres superbly to the
Clarke-Hyams law of sf film adaptation:
To make a film that can be marketed
(despite exhorbitantly high production
costs) - some artistic sacrifices
will have to be made.
In viewing the film in terms of "purity" against
"Do Androids...", the "saving moment" is when
??name?? (played by ??author??) becomes human
at that last moment.
Worst adaptation: Taking "Lubba Luft" ??name??
as the opera star that "Rick"
loves and admires (only to find out that she is
a replicant) and turn her into the stripper. Man,
have you NO shame??? Also, self-doubts are barely
hinted at in the film - but, then that was restored
in the "Director's Cut". I mean can you imagine having
to have HAL talking to himself or some other innane
voice over explaining what "2001" *means* ????
The one quirk is of course:
"The brighter the flame, the shorter that it
can burn"
as metaphore that ??name?? as a Nexus 6 will expire
as directed - because of the DESIGN ITSELF and yet
this is negated for the sake of the HAPPY ENDING.
And i won't even comment, on the happy ending as
compared to the ending in "Do Androids..." where
"Rick" receives salvation (or is it like the androids
maintain a pure fiction???) but loses himself.
Hard to bring that kind of "text" into a pure
film form - well, unless you lose the voice over
and leave the audience (some almost angrily) leaving
the theatre saying, "Now, what was THAT all about??"
as in 2001.
Next: Imposter.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
Imposter
This is probably (other than arguably "Screamer") rendered
(ie, "translated from text to film) of all of Phil's work.
The most beautiful part is the "hope" installment when
the underground ??name?? (??actor??) sees that ??name?? etc
was in fact a replicant and answers the question:
So, is that true?
with: Whatever he is/was there was some good in him.
Of course, this goes back to one of the most common
of Dick's themes:
The self-discovery of the replicant
that he IS a replicant.
This is explored in ??title?? where a robot find out
that he has a little punched-tape in his body and
begins experimenting by punching new holes in it
(suddenly a flock of birds flies through the room)
and covering up holes.
But, it is this "oh. that's why i'm different" self
discovery (like the pronouncement of "schizophrenia"
-- see "A Brilliant Mind" or "cancer", etc) can have
on a person. But, of course, this IS the self - the
one thing (western-thinking-wise) we are told that we
ARE.
Oddly enough that idea "Well if i am, then of course
i am!" might not be true is the primary anti-pode of
Buddhism - or at least in the "denial of self". But,
if there is no self, then how can i deny it? (trickster
questions on a tuesdae)
Too bad we can't view things as more a matter of chanse
than "destiny" and such. After all, Ford Prefect responds,
to "What do you mean?" with "I don't mean anything. I just
am." Or of course, as one of our greatest philosopher
characters, Popeye the Sailor sez,
I am what i yam,
and that's all that i yam.
The most interesting (and of course intriguing) part of
the film are the scenes during the final credits. I'm not
sure that we can dismiss this as the equivalent of
"mental masturbation".
It's almost as if in the world of self-aware chess (not
personified where people represent the pieces on a board),
that white exists only for black and black only exists for
white. And that black must always be in a state of readiness
for white to make the first move. And like (the gunslinger
who draws first - often loses; see, Neils Bohr's ideas on
this) the pressure is on White to act.
Despite all of then, White almost always makes the same
move. And then Black responds in the same way - but, now
the "call to action", "the game's affoot", to act is to
be, etc....
To assert the truth that ??name?? is NOT the imposter is
only to find that he is - or is he?
Of course, this goes to the ideas of paranoia nesting
thinking anyway. And of course, no we wait for something
like (as explored in "Time Bandits") that the imposter
is in fact the real, and that the real is the not the
imposter at all, but God. endless chains here....
Also, refer to the "Beta Unit" in {"The Last StarFighter"}.
Next: Minority Report.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Minority Report
Agaain, based on of Dick's short stories, Minority
Report dwells on the paradoxical idea of a "future
fact" - in this case, a person committing murder.
The beauty of the film is in the rendering of the
future world: Spielberg at his best. Since the
oiginal story (as with much of Phil's work) does
not detail out anywhere the detail that we get from
more modern writers; eg, Charles Dickens. We have
to recall that for the most part Phil was up against
the wall as far as eeking out a living; esp writing
sf. Thus, the expansion of the idea of future paradox
is expanded into one of the best renderings of Phil's
big-brother-pchycho-technic paranoid world of the
future. Rivaled only by "BladeRunner".
Of course what was good for an intellectual short-story
(the nature of the paradox in the story is that ONLY
a future-crime memeber) would have the ability to
avoid a future "fact". To bring the story to the
silver screen, the idea here-in explored is about
the concept of free-will rather than pre-destination.
In a sense the film "lets us down" since it makes the
idea plausible that the system isn't fool proof. And
thus, undercuts the main concept of the original story.
In a way, that's only natural since this IS a short
story (and hence not intended to explore the idea of
pre-destination even to a major extent; eg, as in
"The Galactic Pot Healer").
An interesting note is that in "Galactic Pot Healer",
part of the idea is that pre-desitination is at least
partly a political/power ploy by the writers of the
book. Thus, by predicting the future and having their
reputation established they actually enforce the future
to be believed in and thus happen. Of course, part of
this goes back to parts of the book that contradict
other parts - thus, in keeping in the many worlds
view of reality. Borges explored this as well many
times and the idea is hinted at in "The Book of Sand".
Aside from that detour, the film works well as a
standard "power struggle" film in the nature of
{"The Net"}. One of the best
elements is the idea of "future knowledge driving
an in-the-present person" slightly bonkers; which
is of course part and parcel in "Martian Time Slip"
(more on schizophrenia than dualism) and especially
in "The World that Jones Made".
This is brought out beautifully by THE THREE clarivoyants
and their "Mother" who details the ideas of the minority
report itself: "Which one? Why the stongest of the three:
The female." This if of course brings that character to
life - and the "balloons and umbrella" scene mirros
other "in plain sight" paradoxes in the chase scene; eg,
the "basket kidnapping of Indy's love interest" in
"Indiana Jones I". In this case, the work is much smoother
and works well into the central core of clairvoyance
- esp as she tells one woman: "He knows." - in keeping
with the "crimes of passion" theme established early
on.
The ending actually is much neater in that the cause
of the singularity ()
finds the only way out of the paradox
is to save the system by destroying the source of
the singularity itself. Oddly enough, this could
have been (very subtly) worked into the film for
a second viewing but isn't. In an episode of Star
Trek, Commander Data reaches the same conclusion:
That to save life, he must destroy it. Unlike films
such as "Butterfly Effect", this idea of self-sacrifice
and hence time-line change isn't explored. Which is
in keeping with the original thesis of the story
that it isn't a paradox, but information about
the future made available to someone who has
control of the source of that "worm hole".
To date, only {"Cyborg 2087"} and {"Butterfly Effect"}
successfully explore the altered time line in films
effectively; possibly, due to the "paradox" being so
familiar that it can only be handled tongue-in-cheek
or at least as a sub-element of cause and effect in
the strong sense; eg, notably in {"Back to the Future"},
{"Sliding Doors"}, etc.
Next: Screamers.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Screamers
Screamers
Of course to say that Phil's works are *enticing* goes
*without* saying, can *any* film (or more properly,
can any film-maker) *ever* do justice to his work?
Well, maybe not. But i would say that Screamers is probably
the exception that proves the rule: A superb adaptation of
not only look and feel, but content, narrative, and ideas
from the short story. The least effective film would have
to be "Total Recall"; the idea that at the end of the STORY
the world-within-a-world becomes apparent is totally abandoned
for the same sickly-sweet ending as given in "Alien Resurrection".
(were they having some bargain close-out on sacrine endings?)
The only film (so far in the universe of discourse, locally
speaking) to handle the ending of "We can remember it for
you wholesale?" is the superbly original "Brazil".
If you wanted to see how to turn a text (short story)
into a successful "translation" into film -- then
this would def be one of the case studies.
The set work is extensensive and imaginative (as it
must always be with Phil's work - et tu, Dvorak?). When
you are writing by the word and anything less than zamm,
whoom bam will NOT get a return request for more work
-- then you can not be Dickens.
Would that we could. It would be nice if "somehow" we
could get the behind the scenes look at Phil's input
(if any - so what is it: Directors just want the idea
now go away - you're just the author) on "BladeRunner".
Not since 2001 at that time had a "large scale, serious"
SciFi movie been attempted. And of course, Philip K. Dick
was one of the acknowledged masters. Notable are of course
"2001" (Clarke) and "Destination Moon" (Heinlein). Later,
PBS actually footed the bill for "The Lathe of Heaven"
(Le Guinn). All of which were inspired by the "Star Wars"
technology that made films a lot more affordable. And
of course, with blue screen (eg, "The Last Star Fighter"
and previously "Tron") then we have the problem at the
other limit: How can you "act" when you're talking to
a tennis ball on a stick???
Regardless, one can see the "terse and down" feel of
"Alien" in the film which suits perfectly the idea of
the hopeless war that has now esculated far beyond the
mere humans that started it. That is, now the machines
are fighting each other for dominance and man has become
the "rats in the sewer" - well, sort of. In terms of
Phil's work (rather than my own) it goes back to the
disposesed "Japanese Optical Workers" (who we know turned
out to be the half blinded Mexican Optical Workers),
as well as other whose "job rating" was OBSOLETE;
(ref to: Twilight Zone episode with Burgest Merideth ??episode??
??link??)
I, Robot
A quite adeuqtely made adaptaptaion of Asimov's
robot stories. Despite adaptation to the "action
adventure" format, it preserves some of the philosophical
aspects of Asimov's queries in his stories. Unfortnately,
it doesn't explore the possible "problems" that the
classic "3 laws" created and which Asimove exploited
to tell simply "good stories" that happen to be SciFi.
The film is also notable in that it explores some
aspects of cyborg implants in a much more realistic
and intriguing manner than the "Borg" in StarTrek.
Only in the episode "I, Borg" does Star Trek (TNG)
dip into the grey area of self vs collective.
And the nice touch that: The technology that saved
me killed someone else - and yet, i am sworn to
"take a bullet" for the innocent. We see that this
beautifully upgrades the "programmed response" by
"Murphy" in {"RoboCop"}.
Jurassic Park
Again in the ation/adventure format, the film very
forcefully confronts the central aspects of the
morality and abuse of technology. This is followed
up in two excellent sequels that explore the concept
further. It is a credit to Spielberg that the very
humanistic POV is taken towards the dinosaurs and
their right to exist outside of a "packaged, slapped
on a lunch box" commodity. All of the actors invovled
are clearly "on board" with this interpretation.
Damit - i guess i'll have to read the novels, yuh
think?
K-PAX
(The planet Kpax in the constellation Lyra)
Seems v. related to: "Hombre mirando al sudeste" (1986)
-[IMDB: The Man Facing Southeast]-
Wr/Dir by: Eliseo Subiela
"K-Pax" directed by Iain Softley; Writers (WGA):Gene Brewer (novel) and
Charles Leavitt (screenplay).
-[IMDB: K-PAX]- (note the capital letters)
-[WWW: k-pax.com]-
google: "man facing southeast" "k-pax"
-[Law suit (2001.11.30)]-
Even a brief viewing of the newer film makes one wonder
why they weren't successfully sued for plagerism. The
original film contains a much less surrly and cynical
POV that gives it tremendous charm. The newer film (if
viewed thru rose-coloured new-age glasses) provides a
fresh view of eschewing the material. But, since it seeks
to self-validate itself, it is (for what reason?) forced
to provide evidence that the KPAC (the alien) is in
fact a self-deluded mental patient. This idea is left
"in metaphysical doubt" in the original film. Thus,
giving it superb charm as does the INDY film "Englightenment".
-[]-
-[]-
-[]-
-[]-
-[]-
-[]-
-[]-
The Last StarFighter"
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Next: Brazil.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
Next: Brazil.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Brazil
Next: Contact.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
Next: Contact.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Contact
I'll skip the amenities here, saying only that this is one of
my favorite movies of all time (and of course with that
tet'a'tet between Jody Foster and James Wood -- film
just doesn't get any better than that!).
Regardless, i will concentrate on the under-laying concept
of *CONTACT* itself. My gentle contribution to the field
is contained (nicely so, i rather like to think) in the
story: [Return to Sender]
[The Contact Lingo Problem]
Next: Day the Earth Stood Still
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
Day the Earth Stood Still
Despite its preachy cold-war undercurrents (hmmm,
perhaps adapt it to global terrorists?), this is
again a classic "well made" sf film. At the time,
if fit perfectly with the "Atom Bomb Secrets",
"Red Scare", and other period paranoia.
Based on the short story, "Return of the Master"
by ??author??, it presents in a fairly straight
forward one of the best "alien visits earth and
is appauled" messages -- unlike many of the
"monster pictures" of the time. See "Cyborg, 2087"
below.
Notable are the presence of black people as ordinary
citizens - emphaisizing the return of black vetrans
and the beginning of re-orienting our world view
in "Reagan's America". If ever there was ever a film
that seemed "left-leaning" (ie, read as "pro-Soviet")
this is it. But, again with the presence of "Dr.
Barhardt" (Sam Jaffey - who btw, taught maths at
Analpolis during the war; so the equations for
calculus of variations are almost certainly correct)
-- perceptably "Dr. Einstein" -- it brings across
the idea: Learn to co-exist or perish. Note also,
the care in skirting any matters theistic - even
aliens believe in the Almighty Spirit. Thus, science
is not god - where's Dr. Strangelove when you need
him?
Cyborg 2087"
Cyborg 2087 was made "slightly" as a sequel to Day
the Earth Stood still but presents the idea of
telepathic mind control via "radio telepathy".
It's handling of the time-line is one of the best
ever (I have often suspected that the author
"Arthur C. Pierce" was in fact Clarke - hmmm).
Traveling from the future a cyborg (played by
Michael Rennie) returns to the present to prevent
the experiment that will make creatures like him
(and an oppressive future) possible.
The film (although in colour) is in the rich
tradition of the b-scifi films complete with
"hep cat" music and beat-nick-like (much more
gentrified) characters. Well edited, and using
many night scenes (to save costs) it shows that
good sf doesn't have to cost an arm a leg. Most
of the props look like the hundred million other
"computer lab" scenes - but it doesn't matter
since the story line of "radio telepathy" is
so strong and such. The ending, is almost
totally anti-Dr.StrangeLove/The Net - but the
message being altruistic and cautionary....
All things aside, the film continues the essentially
one big happy world ideas of "Day the Earth Stood Still".
By today's "action packed" standards, the plot is
fairly thin and as i mentioned before the
ending (unrealistic in the days of "The Net"
or "Dr. Strangelove") re-iterates the "scientists
must be responsible for the results of their
research message of "Day the Earth".
Next: Dr. Strangelove.
Dr. StrangeLove
Other than Brasil, the future has never been so sarcastically
portrayed. The film is marred that by its similarity to
"FailSafe" (see below) that Columbia prevented that ]
picture from being shown first. Also, note that one
of Philip K. Dick's novels "Dr. BloodMoney" was given
the subtitle "How i learned to stop worrying and survive
AFTER the bomb" to tie it in to the film's success.
Dr. Strangelove was probably a composite of Edward
Teller ("But, Oppie [Openheimer], i can get 100 times
the destruction with the super!"; ie, the H-bomb)
and possibly of course other ex-nazi scientists
now on "the right side". Note that this idea is
brilliantly portrayed in the film adaptation of
Leonard Wibberyly's "Mouse on the Moon" where-in
the rocket designs, concern/conversations, and
even manerisms of the Soviet and USA space efforts
are identically mirrored by ostensibly ex-nazi
space scientists.
Regardless, the film is rather mediocre - even though
brilliantly conceieved and executed: When compared to
the other two "the day after" films:
FailSafe
and On the Beach
THis is to detract nothing from the film - just timing.
FailSafe
Probably the best depiction of cold-war MAD (Mutually
Assured Destruction) and the mind set that it encombered.
There are (arguably) one-to-one correspondences between
each character in the film and REAL people in the world
at the time. Also, note that Henry Fonda as THE president
was unusual - since in almost all cases prior to that
the president wasn't shown unless it was to quote an
actual speach, etc. - eg, "Yankee Doodle Dandy - The
George Cohen Story".
And of course "JR Ewing" here for the first time in
a superbly acted role as "translator".
Also, note the realistic dialog and portray of racial
issues (v. subtle).
On the Beach
Another case of bad timing. This film is a cautionary
tale of "the day after" leading to "the end of the world"
via atomic war. Superbly created the film makers were
sued (and counter-sued in term, as i recall) between
Dr. StrangeLove and Fail Safe. Even though they are
clearly different stories - many people thinking about
the same problem came up with similar "views" of what
it would be like if we (as in all us human type beings)
are at the brink of atomic war.
The tone creates very well the "with a whimper" tone
of the book. Only in recent times have sf films at least
tried to follow the form of the author.
Alas, Babylon
This is probably the first and only accurate portrayal
in a post atomic war. To avoid the "On the Beach"
hopelessness, the author takes the "just this little
island of serenity" approach. Which was part of the
under-current of On the Beach, but in this case the
spark of hope and only partial destruction (similar
in outlook to "Andromeda Strain") are used as the
primary text.
The issues of being in the city vs being in the country,
fallout, lawlessness, etc are all brilliantly detailed.
...as far as i know, this book hasn't been made into a
film; hmmmm..
Next: Ghost World.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Ghost World
Who am I? My name is Enid.
What am I? (my dirary is art; i am an artist, but i do not realise it)
What am I to do? (i do not fit in; after a while i think that i have
chosen to *not* fit in; in reality, i perceive the "dark segment"
and realise and perceive the absurdity of the world, and yet everyone
else (mostly) clamors and clamours for more and more rice pudding --
never realising that the "unclaimed ingot" exists only in the afternoon
cafe of the mind.
How do i begin to become? Norman knows that what appears to be death
is an escape -- to leave everything behind is to escape to the edge
of the cliff (he alone has the courage to step off the edge and then
how??? he does not fall! He is gone -- surely this is death! I can
not! I can not! I pack my case and in the other reality of myself
i pass the cafe (not of the mind) and think: You have become a
beautiful young woman towards my friend -- and wonder if she or i
is the greater fool. I sit, and wait. Godot does not come; instead
he sends a bus. Into the vastness of space i go, wondering what
will happend when it comes. I'm afraid, Norman. I'm afraid.
Now, it is here: the vastness of the noise and light!
Here comes the explosio...
Next: The Matrix.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
See also: -[Matrix as Metaphore]-
-[Computation, Turing Machines and "The Matrix"]-
Next: Momento.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
I, Robot
a beautiful blend of not only Asimov's ideas (the three
laws are generally attributed to Asimov/Campbell) as
well as Asimov's SF mystery series with R. Danieel.
The screen play was written by Jeff Vintar (who also
gave us the superb screen play for "Final Fantasy !)
Of all screen adaptations of pop sf (was Philip K. Dick
*ever* popular?) this ranks closest in "target" to
Dick's "Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep" - which
(so sue me) i still think falls far short - at least the
most recent works are using short stories to make a
120-minute "film".
Regardless, the story within a story is based on not only
the general series, but a particular story in which the
famous 3 laws are "weakened".
??title?? -- dadrat my old memory circuits!!!
Next: Momento.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Momento
Next: Pi.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
Next: Pi.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Pi
Next: Contact.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
Next: Brazil.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Brazil
Next: Contact.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
Next: Brazil.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Brazil
Next: Contact.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
Next: Brazil.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Brazil
Next: Contact.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
Next: Contact.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Contact
Based on the SciFi novel of the same name by Carl
Sagan, the film quickly slips into a metaphysical
debate over perceived vs believed reality. Based on
hard SETI science and speculation, one of the main
protagontists (Dr. Arroway), ostensibly an aethiest
seeks to make contect with ET. This finally comes in
a massive data download that describes how to build
a worm-hole-based space conveyor. This is built,
and despite opposition by Christian fundamentalists
(who blow up the first system) Dr. Arroway makes
the mind-blowing journey between the stars to find
an entire network of worm-hole-based inter-stellar
"tubes". However, when she returns she is confronted
that other than her own experience, she has no "proof"
that she has in fact traveled anywhere. This parallels
the love interest with a new-age priest (the love
interest) who had confronted her with the idea of
"belief" being as real as "proof".
The novel explores an essentially different idea of
a deistic view that the universe was designed. The
fact that such proof is buried somewhere in the
billionth digits of pi is bizare to say the least.
It is clear that the film tries to portray the parallel
between revealed religious experience/knowledge and
scientific "proof". The film is marred by several
philosphical weaknesses, despite its great beauty
and cerebral content.
COmpared to 2001, both the film and novel seem to be
some sort of wishy-washy wish-ful thinking about
contacting SETI. As Clarke has observed, more likely
than not we will find protozas and gods - but no men;
ie, at the same level of techno DEV as us.
Next: zzz.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
zzz
Next: zzz.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
zzz
Next: zzz.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
zzz
Next: zzz.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
zzz
Next: Power Rangers.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Power Rangers
See also: [Morphing] (A/H term)
A thought occurs to me:
1. The original power rangers was made in
japanese actors.
2. The film was re-shot using american
actors and the original (suited actors)
sequenes were used as is with re-dubbed
(american) voices.
Why couldn't this be done for EVERY kind of
person/language/culture. For all we know there
are wookies in those (transformed) suits!!
Or ewoks, or sponge creatures, intellegent
funguses (as one of the hero's in Philip K. Dick's
"The Clans of the Alphane Moon") -[here]-
Next: zzz.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
RoboCop
imdb
RoboCop presents a near-future distopic view of
law-enforcement centred around "New Detroit" the
soon to be re-vitalised "Detroit of the Future".
Primarily, the concept of technological futures of
law-enforcement are given by two diametrically
opposed views:
Ed-209 - mil-std-spec enforcement droid
along the lines of a "not quite working"
Gort character. In fact, in keeping with the
sardonic view of the problems of "keeping order",
it presents itself as more of a "3-stooges
meet corporate america". In this case the
ED-209 despite a few glitches is cynically seen
as a bottomless source of funding for upgrades,
and applications not just in domestic/civilian
theatres, but the idea of the MIC (Military
Industrial Complex) is clearly brought in as well.
Juxtaposed against this is:
RoboCop - a cyborg gone-zombily-bad. In this case
a policeman "Murphy" played almost per
fectly by Peter Weller (see "Contaigon" for his
best work as an actor in the Sf genere; below).
Who has all but lost his life in a drug bust gone
bad (where have we heard that before?) is resurrected
as a zombified human that is pretty much a drone
with super-human strength.
In both cases, the cynical corporate view is that we
are all just drones, and when we sign on for the job,
we give up any real choices in our life.
The plot reaches its zenith when the regular police
forece in "Old Detroit" go on strike, and thus forcing
the hand of the ED-209 group (already corrupt and dealing
out favours to drug lords, etc) to eliminate its only
real competition: RoboCop.
The end breaks free of the Frankenstein paradox in
that de-personified "Murphy" regains his identity
and "saves the day".
Of course, this means that the "happy ending" within
a film that is mostly action/adventure doesn't leave
much time for self introspection. The "saved" moment
between "Murphy" and "Lewis" is in Weller's line:
I feel them, but i don't remember them.
An entire film could be made out of that - as of course
has been done in much of sf: The protector who has no
actual feelings for "us" but protects us, because that
is what it is programmed to do. Duty above honor or
emotion.
Contagion
This is a well made film - especially the writing
and acting (if Weller's character would just get
a kleenex!) - somebody should have tightened that
bit of the film. The pathos between ??name??
??actor?? as the HazMat scientist and ??name??
(Peter Weller) as the "plague man", is nothing
short of brilliant: Set, camera, acting, etc.
The timing is a bit drawn out at the last (and
doesn't work logically), but the happy end that
is in fact a "retaliation" to those that caused
this mess makes up for it. ??actor?? as ??name??
(the HazMat operative) could not be better done.
Also, the fact that this is set in Europe and
thus as "under-story" the nazi era makes it even
more poignant. It's too bad this film is so
obscure, since it does a much better job than
such over-priced (but well intentioned) films
as "Cassandra Crossing" - sometimes having too
much money loses something in the editing and
story work.
Next: s1mOnel.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
s1m0ne
-[sf-fut: A/I entry]-
Ref pages: -[www.imdb.com]-
Wr/Dir by Andrew Niccol.
War Games
-[sf-fut: A/I entry]-
Produced during the Reagen-era paranoia of nuclear
war "just around the corner" is placed front and centre
with the decision to take the "man out of the loop" in
the nuclear deterent silos and the well-known "two man
failsafe" system. Parallel to this, is a yound hacker
teenager trying to find a back-door into what he thinks
is a game company's latest product but is in fact a
back-door into THE American nuclear defence system.
The hacker accidentally activates a HAL-like persona
left in the system by the peace-loving original designer.
The persona "Joshua" takes to task to actually win the
war by forcing the clueless humans at NORAD to step
up the war status to the point where Joshua can
launch the missels and "win" the game of "Global
Thermo-nuclear War". In a "lessons lost/learned"
turn around, the hacker with the help of the original
programmer force Joshua to learn that: "The only
winnging move is not to play. How about a nice
game of Chess?"
Yojimbo
Concepts of alternate raltiies -- reltaed again to the
aesthetic experience as changing in time. See also:
[] (H. Hobson)
Next: Zardoz.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
Next: Zardoz.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Zardoz
[again from ???, Pp. 206.
[in the Vortex room, when Connery's character (Zed) has
been "captured"] (ellisions are in the original text)
BEGIN BLOCK QUOTE
... [some of the elders] want him destroyed, while another ...
insists that he should be studied for a while. During the
contest that follows, Zed acquires an enclopaedic knowledge
of the Vortex and its purpose, confronts the forces that
enclose it, and restores to its delighted, centuries-old
inhabitants the ability to remain dead when they die.
The process of evolution is released once more, and the
natural history of man can resume it's course.
[LOCAL foot note: This same theme is treated far less
interestingly and at much higher cost by the diffuse
and more recent *Logan's Run* (Anderson, ??author?? ,1976).
]
... (elision mine)
The "visual collage" of print in Zardoz makes language
(and its components) concretely physical, colourful,
and kinetic. It also simultaneously emphasises the
inherent abstracness of language by physicalising it,
by giving it visual substance in an abstract design.
Becoming an integral part of the total scren image
in *Zardoz*, language as image comes to have a concrete
being and loses, therefore, much of its paricularised
meaning. Our response as viewers is to wonder at the
transformation, to delight in letters and numbers
and words sliding over the curves of a human body in
a caresss composed of colour and light.
The way in which the SF film uniquely utilises language
as image certainly neeeds further exploration -- as do
our responses to these images. Literally "reading" the
screen is a strange cinematic experience when, as viewers
our act of reading is made self-conscious. [Z Note 1]
Obviously, we read all screen images in some fashion,
but to read them as we would read print in a book [Note 2]
[Jump to Collage] (art history term)
thrusts us into a new stance, gives us a new perception
[Great Zarquon's Goat! Doesn't *anyone* ever
give art design credits to movies!! Now, i
have to go but the photin' thing and actually
watch it. Mr. Rains may well have been right]
of letters and numbers as visual entities which exist
independent of their meaning. [ 3 ]
END BLOCK QUOTE
NOTES (this section only)
[1] On thinking about the ways that the reading can be made self
conscious would be the very obvious scene where one of the
elders (eg) tells the protagonist: DON'T LOOK AT THE SCREEN,
and then we see in a pull-back shot that that the hero IS
looking at the screen and that we along with her/him/neth are
reading the text and looking at the images as well. The montage
can then be expanded to different parts of the screen in over
flowing and sections that as emerge and disperse bring different
meanings to the TEXT. This idea brilliantly realised in the
theis work of Micahel ?krause? ??name?? at the University of
Dallas using projectors, and reflected words on the top of
water tanks. An osciallating fan would then stir up the water
making it LESS reflective and those words projected by reflection
would shimmer and disappear. The othe words projected directly
onto the viewing surface (often made of a translucent material
hung in the walk path so that it could be viewed from either
side). When the words were all in focus, the image projected a
king of interesting (but rather banal) "poem", when the fan
interrupted the waves, the message that was visible was:
And you still don't know who i am.
-- absolutely stunning! This (like so much of pop, ab ex, and
op art NEEDS (indeed MUST) be explored in association with not
only film, but installation and partcipatory (happening) art
as well. Refer to: [Will Insley's ESSAY!Back to the TEXT}
[2] This point is excellently made in the movie *Sneakers* where
during the middle of a scrabble game one of the players
realises that the name "Seatec Astronomy" is not what it appears.
He (Redford's character "Bish") clears the letters off the scrabble
board and they start to re-arrange the letters until they reveal
what it *really* stands for. The camera closes to their faces,
and then scans along the letters, revealing little by little what
they spells
t o o m a n y s e c r e t s
(hope that works!)
btw: i refer to the above way that you had to (hopefully)
scroll the view thingie left to right as COERCED PERFORMANCES
[Link here]
{Back to the TEXT}
[3] Again this brought out brilliantly in the movie
*Wargames* as LAUNCH CODES are flashed up on the
screen, and then seen reflected off of the computer
science who helped to create the computer that is
about use those codes to start world war II (don't
worry, no real world was harmed in the making of
this picture ;)
Thus, text (or in this case RANDOM codes have meaning to
us because we know that they are more than what they
appear. This goes back to whether or not we can *ever*
escape meaning. The nonsense song "Daisy" that HAL
sings *means* to us that he is literally losing his
mind -- contrast this with the malevelent intent that
he had just before that "this mission is too important
to let you jeopardise it" (thus saying, if i have
to kill you, i will).
Thus, the use of random and non-sensical words or patterns
of numbers would still have some meaning. But, the art
concept that Shemoigan ??name?? says *is* very valid:
Can we create a PURE abstract thing with letters
or numbers that won't literally be read, but
enjoyed as abstract things. Obviously if we used
(for eg) the Kuffic ?sp? script as a calligraphic
form of design (in much the same way that much
of the arabic geometric decorations are meant to
be abstractions from the real/physical world), then
if we (as viewers) did *not* know that script it
would appear very abstract indeed.
-- alas, i must be off to story lab, more later (hopefully -- still haven't decided yet)
{Back to the TEXT}
[4]
{Back to the TEXT}
[5]
{Back to the TEXT}
[6]
{Back to the TEXT}
Next: zzz.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
zzz