Today's Double News: Flashy new Hobbit name

Here's a double bit of recent movie news for y'all:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155362/derde_hobbit_krijgt_nieuwe_naam

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155325/fox_produceert_remake_flash_gordon

You can't keep a legendary Sci-Fi franchise down forever. Interest in it waxes and wanes, and always it comes back, though it may take a few decades. Flash Gordon is about as classic a name in the genre as they come, currently celebrating his 80th birthday no less. Still, most members of the contemporary audience will probably recognize the name only from being (lovingly) made fun of in Seth MacFarlane's recent comedy Ted. Admittedly, I have never seen or read any of the various incarnations myself (for shame!). I guess I should at least check out the 1980 movie, which is arguably the most well remembered version on the character's tale around. From what I know about the adventures of Flash, the most important aspect of a potentially successful remake is not to make it feel corny and kitsch. Though it cannot be denied that the character has had a great impact on popular culture and the Sci-Fi genre in particular - Star Wars owes more than a few of its narrative make-up to the 1930s' space hero - its familiarity also caused the genre to be looked at with disdain for decades. It was just hard to take this space opera seriously - can you blame it with silly names like 'Planet Mongo' and 'Ming the Merciless'? - and it wasn't until the Fifties that science fiction pictures based around intelligent premises instead of the attractive exoticness of special effects and alien locales started to make their mark on (the cinematic front of) the genre. Ever since then, Flash has had a tough time truly connecting with an audience other than avid fanboys. The 1980 movie failed to built a continuing franchise of movies around the concept, and even the 2007 TV-series proved shortlived. Maybe the wondrous sense of adventure of the space opera is just too outdated and old-fashioned by now, as spectators demand more intelligence form their science fiction these days. After all, John Carter is a very similar sort of space hero, and look how poorly he did at the box office only two years ago. Will Flash Gordon do any better? It may take a few new Star Wars movies to get the public interested in space operas again, but it's safe to say Gordon will return in one form or another even if this new project fails to find an audience. He always has. Hopefully the same will ring true for John Carter...

Now fantasy, that still works. In fact, if you say it's more popular a genre than ever, you may not be wrong. It keeps scoring with the audience, as Game of Thrones reaches new heights in terms of audience ratings (and download ratings too). And at the same time, The Hobbit trilogy carries on, slowly but surely nearing its end as Peter Jackson is in the process of finishing that third and final movie. Which just got a new name, like it or not. There and Back Again it is called no more, as it has received the novel subtitle The Battle of the Five Armies. Can't say I'm a big fan of that one. Granted, it covers the movie's contents well enough, as this is what most of the film will deal with. I'd say it's too blunt a title. The Lord of the Rings movies may already have had their subtitles picked out for them by the source material, but The Hobbit is not so fortunate. Can you imagine the second LotR movie being named The Battle of Helm's Deep? Surely not, as The Two Towers has a more ominous and poetic, less direct quality to it. So I thought it was with There and Back Again, as the book did not provide a catchy enough subtitle itself (The Clouds Burst? Nay!). PJ argues it would have fit a two movie adaptation, but not a three part series, as Bilbo was already 'there' in The Desolation of Smaug. True. But he's still 'there', and he is destined to go 'back again'. So in my mind, it's not a relevant argument. The Battle of the Five Armies is simply too direct, though not without merit of mystery for a lay audience. Whose forces make up these five armies? And how does the dragon, which at one point seemed to be what this series was all about, fit in exactly? Predictable questions that would not arise with There and Back Again, but will not entice the audience any more than the last movie already would have. Truth is: The Battle of the Five Armies sounds like a cheap video game title. I would have preferred something with a little more literary charm to it. Even the other suggested new name, Into the Fire, sounded more intriguing. But hey, I'm not making these movies, I'm only paying to watch them (well, not really) so why should I care about the titles as long as the movie proves as entertaining (or more so) than its predecessors? It's not like fanboys revelled in the second movie's name either. Or even the first. I guess it takes an actual fantasy writer slash linguist to come up with something really iconic. It surely would have helped if Tolkien had split up the original novel in three parts himself.

Today's Triple News: amazing dragon jobs

Let's put an end to MovieScene news posts by my hand accumulating indefinitely right here, right now:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155304/danny_boyle_beoogd_regisseur_voor_biopic_steve_jobs

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155276/eerste_vijf_minuten_how_to_train_your_dragon_2_online

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155262/x-men_in_aftiteling_amazing_spider-man_2

Good going, Fox and Sony... As if the situation with the various Marvel properties isn't complicated enough for non-fans to grasp, you two just had to go and muddy the waters some more. This is bound to be getting people's hopes up needlessly. The X-Men and Spider-Man are never gonna team up in a movie. Period. Like Marvel big-shot producer Avi Arad said only last week, interstudio team-ups are a last resort for when the studios have run out of ideas with their franchises. And considering the amount of work currently being done to ensure smooth internal crossovering, there's simply no room yet for adding characters of other franchises to the mix for at least two decades or so. Fox is too busy making sense of the larger X-universe and looking for ways to also incorporate the Fantastic Four in there somehow, while Sony is reworking the Spider-Man legacy to explore ways of producing spin-off movies without the webhead himself, like Sinister Six and Venom. At this point, the whole notion of Spider-Man joining the X-Men in a mutually shared adventure just makes no sense, and putting a scene for an upcoming X-flick in the end credits of the latest Spider-flick ought to be considered false advertising. Better to introduce an exclusive clip from Days of Future Past in advance of screening the actual Spider-film, so lay people understand it's not connected at all, as it isn't. Sony's cause would be better served including a teaser for The Amazing Spider-Man 3 in their latest blockbuster, as the studio did in the case of its predecessor (even though in hindsight, judging from the second film that particular scene now raises more questions than it answers, which might point at Sony's long term strategy not being so clearly envisioned as the studio would have us believe). So far, indications seem the X-clip in question is not part of the Dutch release of The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Good thing too, since I don't feel like snapping all those clueless cinemagoers going in to see Spidey and coming out hoping for his showdown with them mutants out of their big Marvel dreams. That would be cruel, even though I'm not to blame for this poor marketing move on the studios' part.

Coherency seems better handled in the How to Train Your Dragon franchise, judging from the first few minutes of the new film which are now widely found online, two months prior to the film's actual release. A common strategy as we've seen of late, as other big budget movies took the same route in the hopes of convincing people to go and check out the rest of the film soon. This opening of the sequel bears more than a minor similarity to the start of the first film, which is of course the idea. It parallels the former status quo wherein dragons were a threat to the inhabitants of Berk to the new situation in which both parties have formed a mutually beneficial alliance. A symbiosis which of course comes under threat from the movie's new antagonist, who's out of the picture here just yet so as to not spoil what the movie is actually about, other than providing us with some more adventures of Hiccup and Toothless to get us interested. How to Train Your Dragon 2 seems a typical sequel to its original, which is not a bad thing at all as that was a fun, high spirited family film with a heartfelt message of looking past differences and promoting universal understanding of others. At least this movie won't claim random ties to  computer animated films from rival companies where non exist.

Speaking of companies, Steve Jobs co-founded a notable one (bad segue, I know). Now he's dead and apparently Hollywood isn't done just yet telling the story of the man who created Apple. One biopic isn't enough, especially as jOBS apparently didn't do justice to the great man. Now Sony attempts to draw in the bigger names in order to produce a more prestigious film about Mr. Jobs. Danny Boyle is in the spotlight as director after David Fincher left the project, while Leonardo DiCaprio is sought to replace Christian Bale portraying the main character. Strong names all, but is there a real need for another Jobs film in so short a time span? Or is Hollywood still trying to cash in on the demise of the man? Granted, jOBS was a fairly low budget film and did bring in thrice its budget at the box office, but it still didn't draw huge crowds, despite the continuing popularity of Apple products. It seems those big shot names are more suited for enticing the audience to come see the film. In DiCaprio's case, if it worked on a sleazy fraud like Jordan Belfort, who's to say it won't do the same for a revolutionary inventor/entrepreneur like Steve? Guess DiCaprio needs to show off he can run a company in a responsible manner as well.

Jurassic Park Chaos Effect: Trike Dozer

Year of release: 1998

Accessories:

-detachable lights section

-rotating capture crane pole with noose

-giant grappling claw

Description: this medium sized vehicle sports a total of four huge black wheels (like airplane size) between a bright green “platform”, which is enriched with protrusions and detailing to make it seem more elaborate and technical than it actually is. In the middle of the space between the wheels, there’s a white cockpit capable of holding one figure (including foot space, which may not fit all figures though). The inside of this cockpit, including the driver’s seat, is coloured in the same green as most of the vehicle. On top of the cockpit there’s a black framework with grids on each side and on the topside, to protect the human inside from any potential dinosaur attacks. At the back end of this “roof section”, there’s another black frame which supports a large lights section on the top of the vehicle. It consists of a network of a total of 18 round lamps supported by a frame, and two rectangular lights on top; the entire lights section is made of a transparent orange plastic.

On both the front part and the back part of the Trike Dozer an arm is attached, each with a different function. The one on the front is the vehicle’s main weapon and defence: it’s labelled a ‘giant grappling claw’. A green arm, held together by grey highlights including a button at the end which makes the whole contraption rotatable in a full circle, sticks out of the front, ending in a white “hand” with two grey “fingers” sticking out on either side. Pushing the red button in the middle of the white part, or better yet have a dinosaur figure push it, makes the “fingers” snap towards each other with force, closing the claw and trapping any creature unfortunate enough to get caught between it. The green arm on the back end of the vehicle is actually a crane, standing on a small green pole which is also rotatable 360 degrees. On first glance the crane is only about ten centimetres in length, but two smaller parts can be pulled out of it, making the total length about 30 centimetres. In this way it’s adjustable to various heights, making it easier to lift things over obstacles and keep them at safe enough distance from humans. At the end of the crane there’s a black hook, which holds a light green strip. This strip has holes on either side, making it form a noose when both ends are attached to the hook (adjusting to various sizes of whatever it needs to carry). In this way it’s easier to move dinosaurs around.

Analysis: this is an okay vehicle, but nothing special compared to most of Kenner’s earlier vehicles. However, it is more original qua design since it differs a lot from most other vehicles. The grappling claw is a new action feature and the bulldozer like look of the Trike Dozer also makes it stand out. The same goes for the odd combination of colours this truck sports, consisting of green, white and grey. It’s not the most appealing colour scheme, but certainly restrained by Chaos Effect standards.

The grappling claw is an interesting new option and makes for a very powerful weapon. It’s easy to picture: a dangerous hybrid monster prowls about, the Trike Dozer thunders out of the bushes and rams the monster, thus springing the claw’s mechanism and trapping the beast. In come the humans with their guns and stun sticks (or whatever they use to kill or sedate the animal), after which the crane arm lifts it up and transports it to its enclosure, or grave. It may seem a bit silly, such a weird arm sticking out of the vehicle, but it’s certainly a handy tool. Does it work though? For the most part. When the button is pushed the claw closes with force. However, because the “fingers” aren’t that big, it’s easy for dinosaur figures to slip away. It’s also not strong enough to lift larger dinosaurs off the ground. So the humans better sedate any animal the vehicle catches quickly, before it breaks loose…

The crane is a fine addition to this set, though less original. It’s basically the same thing we saw on the Mobile Command Center (of both this toy line and TLWS1), being both fully rotatable and extendable. However, the MCC used a small claw to carry its loads, while the Trike Dozer uses a noose. In both cases it doesn’t work all that well, since here too any creatures being transported easily slip loose. Still, the rotation and extension parts of the Trike Dozers’ crane work well, though the mechanism which is used to left the crane to various heights isn’t smooth to operate.

Overall, this is a fun addition to the toy line and Kenner’s range of vehicles, though not all of it’s action features work as well as one would hope. The vehicle’s look is decent enough, particularly the funky lights on top, but not overly appealing. 

 

Playability: adequate. The trapping arm mechanism works fine, though it’s only useful for smaller dinosaur figures, which slip through its grasp easily enough unfortunately. The same goes for the noose which can hold a dinosaur while it’s being moved around by the crane. The crane itself, being both rotatable and extendable (though neither very smoothly) works fine. Though it’s not specified as such, the removable lights can be called dino damage, adding to the range of playability options. The fact there’s room for only one figure takes something away though.

Realism: as a rather odd, almost over the top, dinosaur catching instrument this vehicle fits in perfectly with the rest of the bizarreness which makes up the Chaos Effect toy line. Its colours aren’t even all that extravagant, unlike most of the dinosaurs. Needless to say the Trike Dozer was never featured in any of the JP movies. However, as a maintenance bulldozer unit this vehicle doesn’t seem all that out of place with non Chaos Effect figures. It’s not hard to imagine this vehicle riding around the Command Compound closing fences and moving dinosaurs about.

Repaint: no. This vehicle was designed specifically for this toy line, and as such, it would not be repainted for any following lines either.

Overall rating: 6/10. It’s an adequate addition to the range of JP vehicles, but doesn’t offer anything really noteworthy. The colour scheme and action features aren’t remarkable, despite the strong grappling claw, but it’s still a welcome change from the usual variety of ‘track & trap’ jeeps seen in the previous toy lines. It’s one of the more common items in the Chaos Effect line, and shouldn’t prove all that hard to find, though in areas where this toy line wasn’t released it’s usually somewhat harder to get your hands on.

Today's Review: Noah

Noah: ***/*****, or 6/10

You have to applaud his boldness, as Darren Aronofsky isn't afraid to seek out controversy with his first blockbuster movie. After sticking to the experimental and independent corners of contemporary American cinema for decades and continuously teasing the industry with his alleged plans to direct a big budget film for a major studio on more than one occasion (RoboCop for example), Aronofsky finally did just that. He hasn't made it easy on himself, opting for a Biblical epic that needs to appease both the religious spectators and the general international audience that does not care much for Old-Testament overtones, in a time where the divide between the tastes of both has parted as wide as Moses did the Red Sea. With Noah, Aronofksy makes a brave attempt to keep everybody emotionally invested in the story of the man chosen by God to preserve His creation, but it proves an undertaking as monumental as saving the whole of the animal kingdom on a single boat.

Noah's main problem is it must be faithful enough to the source material without being so religious as to scare away non-believers, as the studio can't afford to choose one part of the film's potential audience over the other to recuperate from its 125 million dollar budget. Concessions to both parties had to be made, and the result is an obvious, uncomfortable attempt at making a Biblical epic feel less Biblical but no less epic. If the studio ever thought they could have made a final cut of this movie that wouldn't be prone to harsh judgment from Christian groups, screentesting three different rough cuts – none of them in line with Aronofsky's own vision – to strong criticism from a religious audience made them aware of the impossibility of that endeavour. And so Aronofksy's cut is the one shown in theaters, bound to undergo the inevitable public scrutiny.

Noah follows Russell Crowe as the titular character. A descendant from the line of Seth, he and his family live a life of vegetarian righteousness and solitude, away from the rest of mankind, the offspring of the murderer Cain, which has deteriorated into a semi-industrial yet barbaric state and devoured the natural world. Avoiding contact with other people, Noah and his wife (Jennifer Connelly) have kept their three sons sheltered, teaching them to respect creation above al else. Naturally, the boys prove curious as to the way of life from their violent brethren, the rebellious middle son, Ham (Logan Lerman) most of all. Plagued by disturbing visions of humanity suffering under a great flood and inexplicable signs of the Creator – a being adressed only as such throughout the piece, as the term 'God' appears taboo – Noah seeks out his grandfather Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins) to learn what It has in store for him. The strange and somewhat childish hermit informs him that the Creator is planning on cleansing His world by water, washing away all the wickedness of man, while Noah is destined to save the innocent, the animals, from extinction. And thus Noah sets out to built a vessel to do just that.

Even a man as tough as Crowe cannot hope to perform such a Herculean task by himself, but thankfully Aronofksy has added some stone giants to aid him in his divine labour. Fallen angels that were abandoned by God because they desired to help the sons of Cain in their growth, they exist as supernatural beings of light trapped in volcanic rock bodies, deformed and in agony over the fact men returned their kindness with mayhem and war. Of course, a man as obnoxiously righteous and noble as Noah wins them over easily. These so-called Watchers now do more than observe, helping Noah to complete his task and protect the Ark they construct together over eight years time. The stone giants form a welcome addition to the rather dreary Noah and his one-note family, dull to watch thus far. It's also clear that much of the budget for visual effects went into designing them, at least more so than the budget allocated to rendering the animals that come pouring into the Ark when it is completed. Their design, which bears to mind both utterly fantastic and prehistoric creatures, compels the audience to consider Noah even more of a fantasy picture: unless Aronofsky means to take some sort of evolutionary process into account, envisioning these animals as almost their contemporary counterparts, but not just quite there yet.

Naturally, it's the human element that proves key in making us care about Noah's plight. The selfless man must confront the vicious king Tubal-Cain (Ray Winstone) and his legion of followers as the rains start to fall and the monarch gets wind of the Creator's purpose for his people. Winstone as always makes for an alarming villain, but there is an uneasy truth in the king's philosophical rhetoric as well: God made man in his image, so does that not also include his capacity for destruction? After all, how much difference is there between a God who feels like destroying mankind to save His creation and a king who kills to feed his people? Though the resulting thunderstorm battle between Noah and the Watchers and Tubal-Cain's vast forces proves a fairly thrilling battle – a comparison to the Helm's Deep battle from The Two Towers does not feel inappropriate – it's such exploration of the nature of man and his relation to the Creator's purpose that make for Noah's most interesting aspect, as could be expected from Aronofsky. Unfortunately, once the battle is over and the waters swallow the world, the film has reached its narrative climax, but Aronofsky spends another 45 minutes examining the emotional climax, as Noah's family finally gets to evolve into more than cardboards characters. A little late to the game, as an overdrawn ending forces itself upon the spectator.

It's in this third act of the film that Noah emerges as a true religious fanatic, claiming to alone understand his Creator's purpose as His chosen one. The protagonist feels that God intended for humanity to die out entirely, including him and his family, for the greater good of the innocent animals. Fortunately the only woman in his company eligible for breeding, a young girl once rescued on the road (Emma Watson, with an overly strong off-putting English accent), was barren, but proves no more thanks to Methuselah's convenient magic. As his oldest son gets her pregnant, Noah makes no secret from his intention to murder her child if it's a girl. And so the noble hero quickly degenerates into a violent misogynist terrorizing his family for months on end. Suffice to say, the audience quickly loses all sympathy for him. Maybe this new side of Noah is what ticked off the religious audience in the first place, as it wanted to make clear that not all true believers condone such homicidal, fanatically zealous behavior. To make matters worse, the king managed to slip aboard the Ark unseen and lick his wounds in the lower levels aided by the rebellious teenager Ham, who is angry with his father for not allowing him to find a girl to share his life with before the Apocalypse. It takes nine months for the waters to recede and Noah's crisis of faith to reach its crescendo, while the king is eating his way through the animal kingdom in the lower decks and Noah doesn't even notice species dying out rapidly on his watch. Of course Noah predictably chooses love over blind faith in the end and kills the king: and so generic Hollywood conventions triumph over Aronofksy's fascinating but at times disturbing notions on the human condition in relation to its supreme being.

For those that feared Aronofsky's signature style is lost adhering to the rules of Hollywood, they can rest assured to some extent as it is only tempered. Aronofsky still gets to revel in fast cutting montages and creepy dream sequences as often before, applying the former into a neat but contextually awkward sequence of life's evolution. The director also makes wonderful use of the fabulous landscapes provided by the Iceland locations to give the viewer a sense of awe throughout the picture. And as in his earlier work, he's not afraid to occasionally outright shock the audience, illustrated by a nightmarish sequence in which Noah visits Tubal-Cain's encampment in secret and witnesses animals being torn apart alive by hungry mobs, who have also taken to cannibalism. The disturbing imagery effectively evokes dark and moody paintings of hell and Judgment Day by the likes of Bosch and convinces us that whatever truth there is in the king's words, Tubal-Cain is not a good guy. So we are left with picking the side of a man who makes his family cry as he threatens to kill newborns on behalf of a God who destroys the world to start over, in the hopes of getting it right this time. It's ironic the studio tried to do a similar thing in the editing room to get that final cut of Noah that appeases everybody, despite the misgivings of the director who had to do all the hard work. Man failed God (again) as was bound to happen, and though there's solid action galore and a decent time allotted for thoughtfully debating the relationship between man and his creator, Aronofksy similarly could never have succeeded in making Noah work for everybody.

Today's Article: It's a mad house!: de dystopische sciencefictionfilm 1968-1977, Part 1

Time for the big one. Posting my master thesis on dystopian and post-apocalyptic science fiction films of the Seventies has been long overdue, so I might as well remedy it now, since I lack the time to write reviews of movies I've recently seen (and I saw a decent score of those). I'm kinda scared to read it after five years, fearing I might not be as proud of it in hindsight as I was when it was freshly completed. Nevertheless, it's an integral part of my college education that deserves to be added to my Article Archives, and probably should have been a lot sooner. It's quite a lengthy piece (a total of 92 pages, though that includes administrative sections like bibliographies and such), so it'll be a while before it's fully posted, but I'm in no hurry. It's a welcome reprieve from my usual droning on about collectible plastic dinosaur figurines based off a certain popular movie, I'm sure.

Abstract

In the years between 1968 and 1977, science fiction movies revelled in a height in popularity unseen since the 1950s, thus establishing a Second Wave of popular and critical success in the genre (the First Wave took place during the fifties). Nevertheless, the movies in this era were marked by the abundance of dark and negative themes and dystopian societies in their stories, reflecting the various crises in Western society (most notably, the United States and the United Kingdom) during that time. The author of 'It's a mad house!': de dystopische sciencefictionfilm 1968-1977', discusses in what ways these movies appropriated negative themes, what messages they relayed to the audience and how they reflected the anxieties, desires and fears of this era. Two main themes are discussed in depth, which the author holds to be the most prominently displayed themes of the genre in this period (though these were definitely not the only themes the science fiction genre addressed): these themes are 'technophobia' and 'environmentalism' respectively. 

 

In the first chapter of this paper, the author discusses various works of other writers also dealing with the science fiction genre during this era: he both praises and criticises these works for what they do and do not say about the genre, defining his own research approach in the process. In the second and third chapter, the author examines the two main themes, putting them in historical context and describing how these themes were addressed in the science fiction genre. In the case of 'technophobia', he notices the predominant use of computers controlling humanity's destiny, resulting in dystopian systems; a second, related, technophobic theme, dealing with robots threatening man's identity, is also described. He concludes this chapter with a casestudy of Colossus: The Forbin Project. Similarly, the author discusses the way environmental issues were incorporated in the science fiction genre, resulting in 'prophetic' movies dealing with dystopian or post-apocalyptic societies in which humanity faces its own demise due to his careless control over the world and its ecosystem. This chapter is concluded with a casestudy of Soylent Green.

Inleiding

Now, the craziest things seem to attract the public. People will pay a fantastic amount of money to see something that is terribly depressing, so everyone starts making super-depressing films and seldom anything else. […] For me, the cinema is essentially for entertainment, not for sending depressing messages. I can't imagine why people want to pay to look into a garbage can.¹

Dit citaat van Ray Harryhausen, meester van de stop motion animatietechniek, die in de jaren vijftig triomfen vierde in de Eerste Golf van het sciencefictiongenre met films als The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (USA: Eugène Lourié, 1953) en Earth VS the Flying Saucers (USA: Fred F. Sears, 1956), geeft aan hoezeer de situatie in de zeventiger jaren verschilde van die in de jaren vijftig. Harryhausen was in de jaren zeventig nog steeds actief, maar zag zich geconfronteerd met toenemende desinteresse in het type romantische avonturenfilms waaraan hij destijds werkte, zoals The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (USA: Gordon Hessler, 1973). Zoals het citaat aantoont, gaf het publiek nu de voorkeur aan “deprimerende” films, die niet alleen als vermaak dienden, zoals dat in de vijftiger jaren de hoofdzaak voor Hollywood was, maar ook een boodschap hadden (of in ieder geval claimden te hebben). In het sciencefictiongenre, Harryhausens vroegere werkgever, komt dit “educatief pessimisme” van deze periode als in geen ander genre naar voren, en dit gegeven zal de focus van deze scriptie zijn.

Na twee omvangrijke papers over sciencefictionfilms geschreven te hebben (respectievelijk It Came from Cold War America en Destination God), of specifieker gezegd, sciencefiction in Harryhausens hoogtijdagen, de jaren vijftig, blijkt mijn fascinatie voor dit genre nog niet uitgedoofd. In deze scriptie wijd ik mij er opnieuw aan. Ditmaal richt ik echter de blik op de jaren zeventig, aangezien ik meen de films uit de jaren vijftig en hun relatie met zowel wetenschap als religie afdoende beschreven te hebben, en bovendien omdat het een logische voortzetting van het onderwerp is. Wanneer men, zij het om persoonlijke of academische redenen (in mijn geval allebei), historisch onderzoek verricht naar het sciencefictiongenre, kan men niet om de zeventiger jaren heen. Dit heeft te maken met het feit dat de populariteit van het sciencefictiongenre een golvend patroon volgde, waarbij de periode 1968-1977 van groot belang is.

Na een ongekende populariteit doorgemaakt te hebben in de vijftiger jaren daalde de interesse voor het sciencefictiongenre eind jaren vijftig en bleef het genre weinig opzienbarend gedurende het grootste gedeelte van het decennium erna, om in 1968 opnieuw alle aandacht te krijgen. Zoals ik beargumenteerde in mijn bachelor-scriptie It Came from Cold War America: wetenschap en Amerikaanse sciencefictionfilms in de vijftiger jaren werd de opkomst van het genre in 1950 veroorzaakt door een combinatie van factoren, met als voornaamste de UFO-rage en de 'space race' tussen de Verenigde Staten en de Sovjet-Unie. In dit decennium kon sciencefiction voor het eerst een zelfstandig filmgenre genoemd worden – hoewel er voorheen ook sciencefictionfilms gemaakt waren, hadden die echter sterke banden met andere genres waardoor het sciencefictiongenre nog niet als apart genre beschouwd kon worden maar het gerekend werd tot horror of 'fantasy'– waardoor ik in deze scriptie sprak van de Eerste Golf in het sciencefictiongenre. Gedurende de vijftiger jaren werd er in relatief korte tijd een ongeëvenaard groot aantal sciencefictionfilms geproduceerd, met als gevolg dat rond 1958 het genre zichzelf zodanig geëxploiteerd had dat het publiek haar interesse verloor en het genre clichématig werd, en niet meer serieus te nemen viel. Dit is vooral te wijten aan een overvloed aan goedkope, snel gedraaide B-films die de status van het genre meer kwaad dan goed deden.²

 

In de zestiger jaren bleef het genre overwegend impopulair, vooral omdat de grote studio's zich er weinig meer mee bezig hielden en de productie van sciencefictionfilms grotendeels in handen bleef van kleine low budget studio's die vooral uit waren op het snel in elkaar draaien van 'cheap thrills' voor het tienerpubliek. Serieuze sciencefiction werd op zeer beperkte schaal vervaardigd, waarbij het effectsspektakel Fantastic Voyage (USA: Richard Fleischer, 1966) of de Europese auteursbenadering in Fahrenheit 451 (UK: François Truffaut, 1966) tot de meest memorabele voorbeelden behoren. Deze situatie bleef onveranderd tot 1968, het jaar waarin twee serieuze sciencefictionfilms uitgroeiden tot enorme successen, bejubeld door filmcritici en omarmd door het publiek: 2001: A Space Odyssey (USA: Stanley Kubrick, 1968) en Planet of the Apes (USA: Franklin J. Schaffner, 1968). Met deze films begon de Tweede Golf, gestimuleerd door zowel hernieuwde interesse van het publiek als de erkenning van filmstudio's dat sciencefiction toch nog geld in het laatje kon brengen.³

De sciencefictionfilms van de Tweede Golf verschillen inhoudelijk veel van de films van de Eerste Golf. De films uit de Eerste Golf behandelden weliswaar serieuze thema's, zoals de angst voor de atoombom en de 'red scare', maar ondanks zulke thema's bleef de sfeer in deze films overwegend luchtig en onderhoudend. Een enkele uitzondering daargelaten werden deze films hoofdzakelijk beschouwd als entertainment en moesten zij zichzelf niet zodanig serieus nemen dat zij het publiek zouden vervreemden. Entertainment was uiteraard ook een doel van de films van de Tweede Golf, maar het merendeel van deze films moest het meer van hun thematische dan van hun onderhoudende waarde hebben. De films van de Tweede Golf waren allerminst luchtig, maar werden gekenmerkt door zware thema's als geweld, racisme en milieuproblemen, in dystopische samenlevingen waarin de mensheid gebukt ging onder repressieve en moorddadige systemen. Er kan zelfs gesproken worden van een algemene tendens tot duisterheid en negativiteit in de Tweede Golf. En waar de mens (of in ieder geval de Amerikaan) in de jaren vijftig zegevierde over de indringers die de (Amerikaanse) samenleving bedreigden, hadden veel films uit de Tweede Golf een onheilspellender einde dat aangaf dat de problemen minder makkelijk aan te pakken waren dan men zou willen.

En juist hierin ligt de situatie die ik in deze scriptie onder de loep wil nemen: waarom zijn deze sciencefictionfilms zo duister? Het is zeer aannemelijk dat de representatie van deze pessimistische thema's verbonden is aan de sociale gebeurtenissen in dit tijdperk. Hoe reflecteren de in deze films behandelde thema's de tijdsgeest van deze periode? Deze vragen zijn de basis voor dit paper, en ik hoop ze uiteindelijk voldoende en steekhoudend te kunnen beantwoorden. 

 

Over welke thema's spreek ik hier? Hoewel het genre een breed scala aan grote en minder grote thema's behelst, concentreer ik me op twee specifieke sociale thema's, respectievelijk 'technofobie' en 'milieuproblematiek'. Deze thema's zijn overkoepelend en kunnen onderverdeeld worden in kleinere thema's. Elk thema is een eigen hoofdstuk toebedeeld waarin dit thema en eventuele subthema's (zoals, in het geval van 'milieuproblematiek', de subthema's 'overbevolking' en 'vervuiling') besproken worden en de status van deze thema's in de door mij behandelde sciencefictionfilms toegelicht wordt, zowel in het genre in het algemeen als in een casestudy van één specifieke film. Uiteraard bespreken sommige films in mijn corpus meerdere thema's, waardoor er sprake is van enige overlap, maar deze indeling zorgt voor een overzichtelijk geheel. Hoewel deze thema's hoogstwaarschijnlijk door de actualiteit van de jaren zeventig zo prominent aanwezig waren in het sciencefictiongenre, waren ze niet per definitie 'nieuw'. Technofobie speelde ook in de jaren vijftig, alsmede in oudere films die tot het sciencefictiongenre gerekend kunnen worden, een aanzienlijke rol. Hetzelfde kan echter niet gezegd worden van milieuproblematiek, dat juist door de actualiteit in de jaren zeventig nadrukkelijk in het genre bespreekbaar kon worden.

De titel van deze scriptie gebruikt de term 'dystopia'. Hoe verhoudt deze term zich tot de besproken thema's? Waar een 'Utopia' een perfecte samenleving is, is een 'dystopia' een imperfecte maatschappij. De films die ik hier bespreek tonen samenlevingen die geheel of gedeeltelijk imperfect zijn: repressieve systemen waarin de mens onvrij is, post-apocalyptische werelden waarin de mensheid in ernstig verval is geraakt en maar met moeite overleeft, of zelfbenoemde Utopische samenlevingen die in stand gehouden worden door het (fysiek of psychologisch) onderdrukken van het individu. Uiteraard is onze eigen hedendaagse samenleving (zowel in de jaren zeventig als tegenwoordig) geenszins perfect, maar deze films draaien hoofdzakelijk om het weergeven van het onjuiste, het onrechtvaardige in de samenleving; de duistere kant van de maatschappij waarin de protagonisten van de films leven, een schaduwzijde waartegen gevochten kan worden, of waaraan juist niet te ontsnappen valt. Zodoende geven deze films 'critical dystopias' weer, in de maatschappij spelende thema's die vergroot worden weergegeven in een culturele tekst, bijvoorbeeld een film, als waarschuwing voor de rampzalige situatie die kan ontstaan als dergelijke thema's genegeerd blijven.⁴ Jaap Verheul omschrijft deze term als volgt:

Many of these dystopian predictions aim to change the current social trajectory by showing what will happen if there is no change to the course of history. In this way these dystopian predictions not only serve as social warning signals, but are construed as appeals to radical action and intervention.⁵

Ik zal de tijdsgeest in de jaren zeventig proberen te verbinden met deze term, aangezien de in het sciencefictiongenre getoonde dystopia's exemplarisch lijken voor het 'critical dystopia'. Gaven deze films dergelijke toekomstbeelden als reflectie op de eigen tijd, of als concrete waarschuwing voor wat kon komen? Proberen deze films imperfecties in de eigen samenleving bloot te leggen? Zijn de dystopische samenlevingen uitsluitend negatief, of zit er een logische, positieve kant achter die hun bestaan rechtvaardigt? De eerder genoemde thema's betrekken zulke vragen bij hun weergave van dystopia's in mijn corpus van films: deze thema's zijn een onderdeel van het in de films weergegeven dystopia, soms slechts een klein radertje in het systeem, soms de macht waaraan het dystopia haar bestaansrecht ontleent. Door onderzoek te doen naar de weergave van deze sociale thema's kunnen wij begrijpen waarop het dystopia in het corpus aan films gebaseerd is, en wat het zegt over de tijdsgeest van de hier bestudeerde periode. Evenals voor technofobie geldt dat de weergave van een dystopia niet per definitie nieuw was: al in 1927 verscheen er in de vorm van Metropolis (Duitsland: Fritz Lang, 1927) een sciencefictionfilm die een op alle fronten dystopische samenleving portretteerde. In latere periodes volgden films die vergelijkbare situaties schetsten, zoals Invasion of the Body Snatchers (USA: Don Siegel, 1956) en Fahrenheit 451. Het is echter de prominente aanwezigheid van dystopische sciencefictionfilms in de periode 1968-1977 die zo opmerkelijk is, waardoor een bespreking van de term hier niet achterwege kan blijven.

Welke sciencefictionfilms worden er in deze scriptie behandeld? Uiteraard is het niet zo dat alle sciencefictionfilms in de periode 1968-1977 zich concentreerden op duistere thema's en dystopische systemen. Het merendeel hield zich hier echter mee bezig, waardoor de positievere films die een optimistischer beeld van de toekomst of technologie schetsten als uitzondering op de regel beschouwd kunnen worden. De meer utopisch ingestelde en “vrolijkere” sciencefictionfilms uit deze periode zullen in dit paper slechts beperkt besproken worden, hoewel in sommige positieve sciencefictionfilms bepaalde sociale thema's wel aanwezig zijn, waardoor zij niet geheel achterwege kunnen blijven. Eén film, al eerder genoemd, verdient in dit licht speciale vermelding: 2001: A Space Odyssey is een overwegend utopisch ingestelde film die menselijke ontwikkeling niet per definitie in kwaad daglicht stelt. Desondanks speelt het thema technofobie, in de vorm van de rebellerende en moorddadige computer HAL 9000, een belangrijke rol. Dit, en het feit dat de film de belangrijkste aanzet was voor het in gang zetten van de Tweede Golf, maakt dat 2001: A Space Odyssey in deze scriptie niet mag ontbreken, ook al weken haar navolgers doorgaans af van haar utopische ideologie. 

 

Het voor dit paper gebruikte corpus aan films, een totaal van 29 films, omvat een representatief scala aan sciencefictionfilms uit de periode 1968-1977 dat zich hoofdzakelijk bezig houdt met negatieve sociale thema's. De overkoepelende thema's worden naar mijn mening voldoende geïllustreerd in dit corpus om iets zinnigs over hun weergave in het sciencefictiongenre van deze periode als geheel te kunnen zeggen. De aanwezigheid van deze thema's varieert in mijn corpus van zeer uitvoerig tot onopvallend aanwezig. In tegenstelling tot het corpus aan films in mijn vorige scripties over het sciencefictiongenre in de vijftiger jaren beperk ik me hier niet tot uitsluitend Amerikaanse films, maar betrek ik ook films uit andere westerse landen (vooral het Verenigd Koninkrijk) in mijn onderzoek. Gezien het feit dat Amerika het grootste aantal sciencefictionfilms produceert (zowel destijds als vandaag de dag) is het niet opmerkelijk dat het merendeel van de films in het corpus afkomstig is uit de Verenigde Staten. Uiteraard werden er destijds ook sciencefictionfilms geproduceerd in niet-westerse landen, maar deze films zullen hier niet behandeld worden: gezien de afwijkende ideologische achtergrond waartegen zij vervaardigd werden (alsmede het gebrek aan academisch verricht onderzoek aan en beschikbaarheid van zulke films) zou een apart onderzoek naar dergelijke films beter volstaan. 

 

De hier behandelde periode loopt tot 1977.⁶ Dit jaartal markeert opnieuw een keerpunt in het genre van de sciencefictionfilm. Zoals 2001: A Space Odyssey en Planet of the Apes hernieuwde interesse voor sciencefiction aanwakkerden in 1968, zo deden twee andere prominente sciencefictionfilms dit in 1977: Star Wars (USA: George Lucas, 1977) en Close Encounters of the Third Kind (USA: Steven Spielberg, 1977). Met deze films werd ook de heersende trend van de dystopische sciencefictionfilm doorbroken.⁷ Close Encounters of the Third Kind was naar verhouding met films uit voorgaande jaren welhaast volledig utopisch. En hoewel Star Wars wel degelijk een dystopische samenleving portretteerde (het kwade 'Empire'), maakte de sfeer van ernst en sociale onrust plaats voor een atmosfeer van spectaculair vermaak en luchtigheid: de film was niet bedoeld als serieus pamflet, maar portretteerde zich naar de avontuurlijke 'serials' uit de dertiger jaren. Na een periode van tien jaar waarin sciencefictionfilms zich hoofdzakelijk concentreerden op “de boodschap” hoefden zij nu geen zwaar te verteren thema's te behandelen om aanspreekbaar voor het publiek te zijn: sciencefiction mocht weer op de ouderwetse manier 'leuk' gevonden worden (een ontwikkeling die Harryhausen ongetwijfeld toegejuicht zou hebben).⁸

 

Dit nieuwe type sciencefictionfilms zorgde voor een Derde Golf in het sciencefictiongenre, hoewel het in tegenstelling tot bij de Eerste en Tweede Golf moeilijk is te spreken van een daadwerkelijke “golf”: het sciencefictiongenre is sindsdien immer populair gebleven en nooit meer terug naar de marge gedrukt. Bovendien, in tegenstelling tot in de Eerste Golf werd de markt niet meer snel verzadigd door een groot aanbod aan sciencefictionfilms in betrekkelijk korte tijd. 2001 en Planet of the Apes hadden dankzij hun aanbod aan dure special effects ervoor gezorgd dat het budget dat nu nodig was om een geslaagde sciencefictionfilm te kunnen produceren te groot was voor de meeste kleinere producenten (wat niet uitsluit dat het niet geprobeerd werd, meestal zonder noemenswaardig resultaat).⁹ De nadruk op visueel overweldigende effecten werd in het genre steeds groter, en dankzij Star Wars werd de lat voor dergelijke effecten nog hoger gelegd. Wat betreft thematische inhoud, uiteraard werden er ook na 1977 nog grimmige sciencefictionfilms geproduceerd die zich bezig hielden met de sociale thema's die in dit paper de boventoon voeren (of met andere thema's), zoals technofobie in Blade Runner (USA: Ridley Scott, 1982) of Minority Report (USA: Steven Spielberg, 2002) maar een algeheel dominante sfeer van duisterheid zoals in de periode 1968-1977 heeft zich sindsdien niet meer voorgedaan in het sciencefictiongenre.

1Harryhausen geciteerd in: Brosnan, John. Movie Magic: the Story of Special Effects in the Cinema. Londen, MacDonald, 1974: p. 176

2Anderson, Craig W. Science Fiction Films of the Seventies. Jefferson: McFarland & Company Inc., 1985: p.7

3Anderson 1985: p. 9. Hoewel Planet of the Apes hogere opbrengsten had en studio's er dus eerder toe neigde sciencefictionfilms te produceren dan 2001: A Space Odyssey, is het de laatste film die als het beginpunt van de Tweede Golf wordt gezien. Deze film was een 'stijlbreuk' met voorgaande sciencefictionfilms: 2001 was serieus, wetenschappelijk verantwoord en stilistisch geslaagd. John Baxter spreekt in verband met 2001 niet ten onrechte over een renaissance van het genre. Baxter, John. Science fiction in the cinema. New York, A.S. Barnes & Co., 1970: p. 171, 184

4De term 'critical dystopia' is van Lyman Tower Sargent,die erover spreekt in verband met sciencefictionliteratuur, maar de term is naar mijn mening evengoed toepasbaar op sciencefictionfilm. In: Verheul, Jaap. Dreams of Paradise, Visions of Apocalypse: Utopia and Dystopia in American Culture. Amsterdam: VU University Press, 2004: p. 2

5Verheul 2004: p. 2

6De meest recente film uit het corpus is het technofobische Demon Seed (USA: Donald Cammell, 1977), die haar première beleefde in april 1977. Star Wars werd een maand later uitgebracht. In deze scriptie wordt uitsluitend aandacht besteed aan films van voor Star Wars, aangezien deze film beschouwd wordt als de film die voor een breuk met de hier besproken Tweede Golf in het sciencefictiongenre zorgde.

7Dean, Joan F. 'Between 2001 and Star Wars.' Journal of Popular Film and Television, nr. 1 (1978): p. 40

8Anderson 1985: p. 163

9Anderson 1985: p. 11

Today's Trailer: a very X-citing final X-trailer

As promised, here's the latest and apparently last trailer for X-Men: Days of Future Past:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155150/laatste_trailer_x-men_days_of_future_past_online

Any doubts I had about this film when watching the previous few trailers have disappeared: this film looks like a total blast! What it relays the most pressingly, compared to its predecessors, is the sense of a coherent story line; always welcome in a movie involving time travel. Even though it does kinda feel like a gratuitous set-up to have the original X-Men's X-Men and their recent First Class past counterparts hook up. It's definitely a step away from the original comic book story, wherein there was no past, only the present and the abysmal future that would have occurred if the X-Men hadn't halted certain events in said present. This time it's the past that needs to be altered for the good of both mankind and mutantkind, while the future serves as an alternate present, considering the characters from previous X-films do not appear all that much older (okay, so Iceman grew a beard: whoop-dee-doo!). Despite all the techie stuff involved, this grizzly future seems to takes place around the same time as our present (roughly stated, 2015-2020), making it a future only for the past.

More intriguing is what happened to the 'first class' of X-Men, who seem to have disbanded, making for a rather disheveled and depressed Xavier. There's definitely some explaining that needs to be done there. As happened in First Class, the need to form a new team is imminent, and this time it's Wolverine (Hugh Jackman playing that part for the seventh time, and still he's up for more: that's loyalty!) who must do the job. Question is: is this the actual future Wolverine transported in time, or has the older Xavier somehow mentally instructed the past Wolverine to do so through time? As seen in the marketing campaign, though not something easily picked up in this trailer, both the boney claw Wolverine and his adamantium wielding equivalent will be spotted in this movie, but will they share the screen, thus making for two different Wolverines in one film? This is still left a little vague, as can be expected from a film involving temporal mechanics. In the original story, Kitty Pride (Shadowcat) was the one doing the time travelling, but she didn't do so physically, as her present counterpart was mentally picking up future events sent to aid her in forcing a change that should prevent that bleak future from ever happening. Shadowcat makes an appearance in this movie, but since Wolverine is still the most popular X-Man, he now has taken over her role, and apparently reduced her character to mere cannon fodder. The notion of seeing two Wolverines onscreen simultaneously is a wonderful concept and I wouldn't mind exploring that avenue. But then, there's still plenty of fascinating character moments bound to pass, judging from the trailer, as Wolverine is confronted with past versions of fellow mutants he has come to know and love, or in other cases, hate.

And of course there's mindblowing action with Sentinels and all kinds of mutants and crashing football stadiums and stuff. Good to know, but in this case more than ever there's a great opportunity for getting to know these characters, some of them established is two different ways, from fresh and unexpected angles. Bryan Singer has previously proven to work well with large ensembles, giving everyone their appropriate due and I have full confidence he won't let us down in that regard once more. I was somewhat sceptical about this film thanks to the first two trailers - and the fact this movie deals with what is arguably the most classic and well loved X-tale of them all - but this trailer has gotten me X-cessively hyped for this latest X-travaganza. And those to follow, since Days of Future Past will have great consequences for various X-projects to follow, like X-Force and X-Men: Apocalypse. Seems the X-future will be at least as X-citing as the X-past!

Today's News: introducing a new breed of X-Men

Here's a bit of news I posted on MovieScene earlier this week. Related news soon to follow, but not yet posted on that site.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155100/openingsscene_x-men_days_of_future_past_online_geplaatst

This is a common occurrence for big budget blockbuster movies, to post finished clips of the actual movie in the few months leading up to its theatrical release. They usually stick to material from the film's opening to intrigue the audience as to the exact cause of events (which is left in the dark well enough for them to be enticed) and to prohibit giving too much away from the actual plot, which the studio prefer to keep to itself until the movie hits theaters. I recently posted a clip of Captain America: The Winter Soldier on MS that adhered to the same marketing strategy. Of course, some movies go even further and post way more than just a few scenes from the movie's first half: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 currently has so many clips up online you might puzzle together the whole movie from those. That's no fun for the nerds that actually attempt to do just that and end up spoiling the final viewing experience for themselves completely. Fortunately I'm not that determined.

This one minute scene begins and ends in medias res; you might accuse it of missing context, but then, the context is provided by the rest of the film this early released clip wants you to go and see soon. There's a lot of characters in this dynamic scene, half of whom fans will recognize from previous X-movies (Colossus, Shadowcat, Iceman). The other half consists of new characters, who appropriately get to show off their powers which define them. Even though we don't get much on their character background here as yet, we learn what they can do and how well they act as a team in a dire situation like this. We're also introduced to the nightmarish future world wherein these mutants have become the hunted, as well as their enemy, the ominous and ruthless future Sentinels. We learn little about those genocidal robots from this clip, which also pushes us to want to see the movie to learn just how dangerous they are to our heroes and what role they played in bringing about this Apocalypse. Deducing from this scene, Bryan Singer once again revels in his craftsmanship when it comes to making the audience acquainted with lots of characters, while not sacrificing the pace of the movie. It helps that the spectator is already familiar with many of the personas present in this movie, but there are many characters left to explore and all need ample screentime. If needs be, established characters are pushed to the background, as happened to Anna Paquin's Rogue, who was almost cut from the movie entirely, though word has now reached us that she will at least make a cameo appearance. Singer knows that in a movie with so many characters as this one, there is a serious risk of the story getting padded to the detriment of the film as a whole, so sacrifices have to be made. I expect these mutants to serve as canon fodder in their attempt to escort Wolverine to the past where most of the story takes place though. No problem, as long as Singer makes us care about their demise. If there's one person who excels at bringing together large ensembles without confusing the audience needlessly and making them empathic about all of them, it's Singer.

Tomorrow: final trailer for this same movie. X-celsior!