[SF-INDEX] [^^LIT index] [^^TERMS (master index)]
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:
fleeing@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)
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}
{AI}
{BladeRunner}
{Imposter}
{Screamers}
{A Boy and His Dog}
{Brazil}
{Contact}
{Ghost World}
{I, Robot}
{Jurassic Park} (& etc)
{K-PAX} "Hombre mirando al sudeste" (Man facing southeast)
{The Matrix}
{Momento}
{s1m0ne}
{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]-
AI
-[sf-fut: A/I entry]-
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
Next: BladeRunner.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
BladeRunner
Next: Imposter.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
Next: Imposter.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Imposter
I, Robot
Jurassic Park
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)]-
-[]-
-[]-
-[]-
-[]-
-[]-
-[]-
-[]-
NEXT: Screamers.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
Next: Screamers.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
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".
Meanwhile, back at the war....
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: Ghost World
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
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: -[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: 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: 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}
s1m0ne
-[sf-fut: A/I entry]-
Ref pages: -[www.imdb.com]-
Wr/Dir by Andrew Niccol.
War Games
-[sf-fut: A/I entry]-
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