Soggy Sci-Fi
What’s the saddest thing is the lack of anything of interest that has been hitting the theaters in the most recent months. It's as if all the ideas were sucked into a black hole without any interesting thought escaping. None. There is only an empty abyss of no interesting ideas which marks the movie industry.
The only things of interest to me are films like Shutter Island which is directed by Martin Scorsese, best known for his gritty films like Taxi Driver or Raging Bull. It is based on a true story regarding a couple of detectives trying to dig up some strange happenings on Shutter Island. Surprisingly, Leonardo DeCapio turns out a solid performance here. The other ones of interest would be foreign flicks such as The Secret in Their Eyes (El Secreto de Sus Ojos) from Argentina or The Milk of Sorrow (La Teta Asustada) from Peru. However, “The Hurt Locker” sounds like an interesting film to star an older actress in the lead role. Otherwise, there’s nothing left except breadcrumbs of filmmaking.
The only science fiction film to be taking notice is “Avatar” at the Oscars yesterday.
There are no real science fiction or horror films which seem to have dried up for the moment. Nothing at all. I am stepping into a long blight of nothingness here. It’s very sad. It’s heart breaking when you realize that there is nothing going on in the filming industry of interest… or could it be that they are merely waiting for the summer blockbuster splash when we will be greeted with most likely more cheery garbage. With the possible exception of Iron Man 2, which looks very interesting, I don’t know much else that is coming out. I feel bad. I want to kick some people in the heads for not coming up with anything more promising.
However, it is through no fault of their own. Mostly, science fiction hasn’t been taken seriously since Star Wars create its rule since it was the most influential film of its time… for better or for worse. I would say, “For worse.” While the use of myths such as the samurai or cowboy have its inventive points in the film, it is often trampled by very poor dialogue/scripting. It is almost as if Lucas himself didn’t care about the story itself and threw himself into the technological fever of it.
With technology mastery, Lucas is successful. Story-wise, he is not. Some people bellowed and booed when Star Wars did not make a clean sweep through the academies in 1977, and some of them foolishly believed that the film should have won best story. This honor went to the “Annie Hall” by Woody Allen. Which is a far better story. Better written, better dialogue. Allen deserved the best story award in 1977.
In my own thoughts, I believe the best science fiction film on every level would be the epic “2001: A Space Odyssey” directed by Stanley Kubrick in 1968. Here, there is a feeling that he is taking the science fiction film very seriously. There are hints of care and beauty in his work which struggles to portray humanity from the very cradle of the early days to the futuristic explorations in their maturity. It is a wonderful film that takes on many mythic proportions too. The first part of the film, without any dialogue, is certainly an attention grabber as it remains very mesmerizing stuff. Not many directors can do this without the aid of dialogue. But Kubrick was able to hook the film's interest with a bunch of apes.
He took on a number of serious approaches to the film which makes it very literary. His film is one of the few, very few, which portrays the silence of space. When the astronauts are in space, all you hear is the bleeping of computers and the hoarse breathing inside the helmet. Nothing else. When Star Wars came along, all you hear is the thunder of explosions ripping a hole in space. I’m guessing Lucas is going for the dramatic. Instead, he is taking us into stupidity.
The film “2001” also has one of the most interesting villains in the form of a crazy computer. How many times have this been done in movies since 2001 came out? Many times. But here, you really get the sense of evil easing out of Hal the computer trying to corner the two surviving astronauts as it was a cat boxing in mice. There is no stupid stuff here. If you want stupid stuff, just go to Lucas for that.
Star Wars brought in some more awful, borthersome influences. And this may have been around the time when the atrocious abbreviation “sci-fi” was brought into the mainstreamed audiences. Now gone was the serious minded epic of space opera ushering in the dorks wearing crazy costumes and goofy dresses. Perhaps there is a certain charm to their merry ways at the conventions. But “sci-fi” became the component of everyday conversation. Lesson number one. It isn’t “sci-fi.” Nor is it S-F which I have been know to use. It should be science fiction.
Someone else have let me know about another possible term which could be befitting in the very words of “science speculation.” Yes, that one could work too. Very good. It could cover all the main departments of fantasy, science fiction and anything else that might take place outside the known reality. Science speculation can be a very good way of describing
So what has happened these days? There are a lot of the older writers who are dying off who may have been in the good habit of using the term of science fiction. Those guys are gone. Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg has gone off to the great void of darkness. Harlan Ellison is teetering on the very edge of his old age and still grumpy as ever, though he still uses the term very well. Now we may very well have many younger writers who are forgetting the importance of stressing that it is “science fiction,” not “sci-fi” or some other stupid abbreviation coined by people who couldn’t debate their way out of third grade.
Whatever may be the case, there may be possible rays of hope coming through the veil of crapola. Directors like James Cameron may have possibilities of bringing the literary component back into filmmaking with his new film “Avatar.” I haven’t seen it yet. But it does look like merely eye candy to be with plenty of special animation designs which were up for an award at the Oscars. But that’s just it. No more science fiction films getting any nods for best stories other than Avatar.
“Avatar” did win for best art direction and cinematography. Not a surprise. However, I’m hoping that Cameron would continue to hone his directing craft and bring some sense of respect back to the realm of science fiction. His films “Terminator 2” and “Aliens” are very excellent marks of filmmaking in the field of science fiction. He could make more like these.
One can only hope.
The only things of interest to me are films like Shutter Island which is directed by Martin Scorsese, best known for his gritty films like Taxi Driver or Raging Bull. It is based on a true story regarding a couple of detectives trying to dig up some strange happenings on Shutter Island. Surprisingly, Leonardo DeCapio turns out a solid performance here. The other ones of interest would be foreign flicks such as The Secret in Their Eyes (El Secreto de Sus Ojos) from Argentina or The Milk of Sorrow (La Teta Asustada) from Peru. However, “The Hurt Locker” sounds like an interesting film to star an older actress in the lead role. Otherwise, there’s nothing left except breadcrumbs of filmmaking.
The only science fiction film to be taking notice is “Avatar” at the Oscars yesterday.
There are no real science fiction or horror films which seem to have dried up for the moment. Nothing at all. I am stepping into a long blight of nothingness here. It’s very sad. It’s heart breaking when you realize that there is nothing going on in the filming industry of interest… or could it be that they are merely waiting for the summer blockbuster splash when we will be greeted with most likely more cheery garbage. With the possible exception of Iron Man 2, which looks very interesting, I don’t know much else that is coming out. I feel bad. I want to kick some people in the heads for not coming up with anything more promising.
However, it is through no fault of their own. Mostly, science fiction hasn’t been taken seriously since Star Wars create its rule since it was the most influential film of its time… for better or for worse. I would say, “For worse.” While the use of myths such as the samurai or cowboy have its inventive points in the film, it is often trampled by very poor dialogue/scripting. It is almost as if Lucas himself didn’t care about the story itself and threw himself into the technological fever of it.
With technology mastery, Lucas is successful. Story-wise, he is not. Some people bellowed and booed when Star Wars did not make a clean sweep through the academies in 1977, and some of them foolishly believed that the film should have won best story. This honor went to the “Annie Hall” by Woody Allen. Which is a far better story. Better written, better dialogue. Allen deserved the best story award in 1977.
In my own thoughts, I believe the best science fiction film on every level would be the epic “2001: A Space Odyssey” directed by Stanley Kubrick in 1968. Here, there is a feeling that he is taking the science fiction film very seriously. There are hints of care and beauty in his work which struggles to portray humanity from the very cradle of the early days to the futuristic explorations in their maturity. It is a wonderful film that takes on many mythic proportions too. The first part of the film, without any dialogue, is certainly an attention grabber as it remains very mesmerizing stuff. Not many directors can do this without the aid of dialogue. But Kubrick was able to hook the film's interest with a bunch of apes.
He took on a number of serious approaches to the film which makes it very literary. His film is one of the few, very few, which portrays the silence of space. When the astronauts are in space, all you hear is the bleeping of computers and the hoarse breathing inside the helmet. Nothing else. When Star Wars came along, all you hear is the thunder of explosions ripping a hole in space. I’m guessing Lucas is going for the dramatic. Instead, he is taking us into stupidity.
The film “2001” also has one of the most interesting villains in the form of a crazy computer. How many times have this been done in movies since 2001 came out? Many times. But here, you really get the sense of evil easing out of Hal the computer trying to corner the two surviving astronauts as it was a cat boxing in mice. There is no stupid stuff here. If you want stupid stuff, just go to Lucas for that.
Star Wars brought in some more awful, borthersome influences. And this may have been around the time when the atrocious abbreviation “sci-fi” was brought into the mainstreamed audiences. Now gone was the serious minded epic of space opera ushering in the dorks wearing crazy costumes and goofy dresses. Perhaps there is a certain charm to their merry ways at the conventions. But “sci-fi” became the component of everyday conversation. Lesson number one. It isn’t “sci-fi.” Nor is it S-F which I have been know to use. It should be science fiction.
Someone else have let me know about another possible term which could be befitting in the very words of “science speculation.” Yes, that one could work too. Very good. It could cover all the main departments of fantasy, science fiction and anything else that might take place outside the known reality. Science speculation can be a very good way of describing
So what has happened these days? There are a lot of the older writers who are dying off who may have been in the good habit of using the term of science fiction. Those guys are gone. Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg has gone off to the great void of darkness. Harlan Ellison is teetering on the very edge of his old age and still grumpy as ever, though he still uses the term very well. Now we may very well have many younger writers who are forgetting the importance of stressing that it is “science fiction,” not “sci-fi” or some other stupid abbreviation coined by people who couldn’t debate their way out of third grade.
Whatever may be the case, there may be possible rays of hope coming through the veil of crapola. Directors like James Cameron may have possibilities of bringing the literary component back into filmmaking with his new film “Avatar.” I haven’t seen it yet. But it does look like merely eye candy to be with plenty of special animation designs which were up for an award at the Oscars. But that’s just it. No more science fiction films getting any nods for best stories other than Avatar.
“Avatar” did win for best art direction and cinematography. Not a surprise. However, I’m hoping that Cameron would continue to hone his directing craft and bring some sense of respect back to the realm of science fiction. His films “Terminator 2” and “Aliens” are very excellent marks of filmmaking in the field of science fiction. He could make more like these.
One can only hope.
posted by K.M. Paters at 12:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home