For a while now there has been some heated discussion going on in the science fiction community over the new film Gravity. Before it appeared in theaters disagreements raged over whether the film should be classified as science fiction. Dave Taylor at ScienceFiction.com argues that this should not be considered a genre film, and weighs in with a review that finds the film disappointing.
For me I find myself in agreement with Taylor on the former, but not on the latter. The film cannot be understood as a form of speculative fiction in that it does not speculate or posit any kind of futuristic technology, civilization, or alien life, but instead explores contemporary technology in space travel set in a disaster scenario. This make Gravity a drama or thriller more like Apollo 13 than 2001, or more recently, Moon and Europa Report. However, perhaps an argument could be made that Gravity is more of a thriller that borders on horror as it largely explores the tense and seemingly hopeless struggles of a single individual in a horrific and life threatening situation throughout the majority of the film, much as was done in Buried.
In addition, there is a spiritual element to the film. It can be understood as incorporating echoes of Lovecraft’s cosmic horror where a fragile humanity wrestles with the question of meaning in light of a seemingly indifferent universe. Related to this Jeffrey Weiss at The Huffington Post discusses how this film “philosophizes about existence for the ‘Nones,'” that segment of the population identified in a Pew Survey who respond “None” to questions of religious affiliation. Weiss connects the Nones to Bullock’s character:
Central questions of existence are raised: “What’s the point of going on? What’s the point of living?”
Why, indeed? Stone, we’ve learned, has been emotionally adrift since her 4-year-old daughter died in an accidental fall. But somehow, somewhere, she comes up with an answer that she doesn’t monologue to those existential questions. She does talk about her daughter as an angel and asks the spirit of one of the characters who hadn’t made it to give the kid’s spirit a hug.
And when she finally ends up safely (we assume) on a beach on a lake somewhere on Earth, she grabs a handful of sand and murmurs “Thank you.”
But who is she talking to?
Returning to Taylor’s review, the author takes exception to the alleged lack of tension in the film in contrast with Apollo 13. In that film the stranded astronauts worked with NASA in Houston to try to work out a solution for a safe return, wherein with Gravity all communication with NASA is lost and the astronauts must find their own form of rescue. For me there was plenty of tension that was portrayed by the challenge of being alone while hurtling through space without a space shuttle, and no back and forth between astronauts and NASA technicians was necessary.
The visuals for the film are impressive. The cinematography of this film was amazing, coupled with the exceedingly believable special effects. Many of the scenes unfold as long, seamless shots without recourse to cuts as the camera appears to move through space and shift from astronaut to astronaut, then to earth and back again. The 3D in this film was also helpful. It did not come across as a gimmick to entertain the audience, but instead served as a compliment to viewers and contributed to the experience of what it would be like to be in space.
Some are suggesting that Gravity will be nominated for several Academy Awards. I can’t disagree, and I highly recommend this film.
October is Black Speculative Fiction Month. Take a few moments and visit the African American Science Fiction website and watch the trailer below to learn about “Afrofuturism.”
As a male I run the risk of being told I have no right to comment on an issue related to women and their experiences, but given some reflections over the last couple of days I’ll take that risk in order to offer my thoughts and an observation.
For some time now the geek community has been engaged in some self-reflection on the issue of the objectification of women in connection with cosplay at conventions. This has ranged from the popular at places like Not the Singularity to the more thoughtful such as that at GeekFeminism.org. There seems to be some disagreement as to whether the clear display of sexuality in cosplay by women is to be understood as a form of empowerment or self-objectification.
This debate was on display in this week’s episode of Fangasm, the new reality series on Syfy. The setup for the program is a group of geek interns who work for Regina Carpinelli, CEO and Co-Founder of Stan Lee’s Comikaze Expo. The series follows their work as interns, and also includes the social context for romance and conflict. This week’s episode, “A Date with a Supermodel,” featured an argument between Mike Reed, a male cosplayer, and Molly McIsaac, a female cosplayer and feminist, over the subject of cosplay and the objectification of women. Hints of what was to come were present in the series premiere where the interns watched a group of female dancers dressed as fantasy characters, to which McIsaac strongly objected, arguing that this was not what cosplay or geek culture was about. The Fangasm website provides a summary of this episode, with this excerpt describing the argument:
He’s not likely to try after their next conversation, in which Molly gets teary-voiced about misogyny in cosplay and tells Mike the male experience isn’t comparable, and he in turn gets annoyed that he’s not allowed to participate in the discussion, and when he wonders why women who don’t want to be sexualized wear revealing costumes, Molly fumes, “Oh my god, slut-shaming,” and leaves the table. Neither of them is doing a good job articulating the difference between “sexualizing” and “harassing,” and Mike’s attempt to apologize is met with Molly misquoting his position. Still, they make up.
Later in the episode Adrianne Curry appeared as a guest on the interns’ podcast. McIsaac used the opportunity to raise the issue of cosplay and the objectification of women. Expecting that Curry would side with her, to her great surprise and Reed’s elation, Curry seemingly saw the issue as a minor one. Readers may be aware that Curry is a celebrity figure in cosplay at conventions, and uses her sexuality as a part of this process. In watching this episode Curry seemed to be holding to a mediating position in the debate between Reed and McIsaac. While women may dress provocatively in their cosplay having the freedom to display their sexuality, nevertheless this does provide an invitation to men to objectify or sexually harass them at conventions. This interpretation of Curry’s views would seem to be supported by her sexualized cosplay, and her past Facebook complaint posted when a man at a convention ran up and took a photo of her crotch when she was vulnerable and did not give consent.
But this interpretation is apparently wrong. Earlier today Carpinelli tweeted a photo of her hand “copping a feel” on Curry’s breast with the text “Cosplay constant THIS!” Curry posted this photo on her Facebook page, and I took the opportunity to offer a comment on my thinking that on Fangasm she offered a mediating position on the cosplay and objectification issue. Later, Curry responded by writing, “Women are always objectified…xoming [sic] from a multiple rape/molestation victim. ..no movement or pink signs will change a douchebag.”
While using her sexuality as a form of empowerment and expression in cosplay on the one hand, and obviously retaining the right not to be harassed in the process, nevertheless she holds that women are “always objectified,” which would include during cosplay. Why then engage in forms of cosplay that encourage and facilitate the objectification she finds so problematic? In my view Curry seems to offer a confusing if not contradictory position. If the topic of misogyny and the (self)objectification of women is to be adequately addressed in the geek community, then consistency on the issues involved would help contribute to this process. Unless as a male I’m missing something.
Guillermo del Toro has taken the reins in providing the opening credits and extended couch gag for the 2013 installment of The Simpsons “Treehouse of Horror XXIV” that airs this weekend. How many horror icons can you identify? It airs October 6 on FOX.
In the past I have written on various aspects of African American work in genre, including African science fiction and horror. Not long ago I also posted a link on the TheoFantastique page to the discussion of why African Americans tend not to involve themselves in more mainstream aspects of genre that tends to see higher participation by Whites. Yesterday I was pleased to discover through i09 the website of Afrofuturism: The World of Black Sci-Fi and Fantasy Culture that is related to the book of the same title by Ytasha L. Womack and published by Laurence Hill Books that “explores black geek culture and more.” Visit the website and order the book for an exploration of a neglected facet of the depths of geek, sci-fi, and fantasy culture(s).
Previously I have written about Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) and suggested that it may contain commentary on the religious right. My thinking found some connection to an interview with the film’s director, Philip Kaufman, by Michael Doyle in the September 2013 issue of Rue Morgue magazine. It is found on pages 21-22:
Were you aiming a few satirical jabs at the rise of cults and self-help groups in America as some have speculated?
Yeah. I was in London for the release of Body Snatchers after the Jonestown tragedy took place and 800 people drank the poisoned Kool-Aid and died. That expression “drinking the Kool-Aid” has now become a catchphrase for “just listen to your leaders.” It’s the opposite of what Bob Dylan said, “Feed your parking meters.” There was this very strong feeling in the air back then – this issue of pods and poddiness versus human emotion and passion – which I think is central to a lot of what is still going on today. I really feel that politics can be overrated as a cure for things because whether you are on the left or the right or wheverer, what you have to watch out for is your own susceptibility and vulnerability to the wrong set of ideas. All the Jim Jones people came out of San Francisco. I mean, it was the centre of all that and so much was happening here at the time. This city has always been an area for bohemianism, for beatniks and hippies, bit it also has this kind of therapy that runs rampant and if you are not careful and you fall asleep, your face will end up on a dog.
I was invited as a guest participant in the Cinefantastique Spotlight podcast to discuss The Wicker Man in light of the release of the “restored version,” and Rialto Films’ re-release for its 40th anniversary. This film was shot in 1973 and released in 1979, and has since become a cult classic. The story revolves around a police sergeant who sets out to investigate the case of a missing girl on a Scottish isle where a Pagan civilization flourishes. Along the way the film combines mystery, horror, and even musical. For TheoFantastique one of the more interesting facets of the film includes its incorporation of the “Old Religion,” and the conflict between Christianity and Paganism. On top of all this, the film has an interesting legacy, including not only its cult following, but its cinematic influence in films like Black Death, Burning Man Festival’s wooden effigy, and its popularity among many contemporary Pagans. You can listen to this podcast here.
Call for papers: Southwest Popular / American Culture Association – Zombie Culture
Make plans to join the Southwest PCA/ACA for our 35th annual conference, February 19-22, 2014, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel and Conference Center in beautiful Albuquerque, New Mexico Hyatt Regency Albuquerque.
The conference theme this year is: Popular and American Culture Studies: Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow The area chair for Zombie Culture seeks papers and presentations on any aspect of the zombie in popular culture and history. It seems as though the world has gone “zombie crazy.” There are zombie walks, games on college campuses like “Humans Vs. Zombies,” zombie children’s books, zombie poetry, fiction, video games, zombie ammunition and guns, and zombie running contests. Almost anything can be “zombified” and society and fans all over the world are literally “eat it up.” The zombie has come to represent the chaotic world we live in, and courses continue to pop up on college and university campus all over the world. This is due in large part to the success of films like Night of the Living Dead, Zombie Flesh Eaters (Zombi 2), Dawn of the Dead, 28 Days Later, Shaun of the Dead, and most recently Warm Bodies, World War Z and the television program The Walking Dead.
Any aspect of zombie culture will be given consideration. However, in keeping with the theme of the conference SPECIAL ATTENTION will be paid to those proposals which discuss the distinctive American aspects of the zombie in film, literature, and popular culture in general. How does the zombie influence American culture in a way that resonates in our transmedia world?
Some topics to consider:
Directors: George Romero, Lucio Fulci, Umberto Lenzi, Todd Sheets, Danny Boyle, Sam Rami, Peter Jackson, Amando de Ossorio…
Specific zombie films: White Zombie, King of the Zombies, Dawn of the Dead, Tombs of the Blind Dead, Dead Alive, Evil Dead, Zombies on Broadway, World War Z…..
Specific books/zombie literature: Zombie Bake Off, World War Z, Book of All Flesh, Case of Charles Dexter Ward…
Zombie writers’ fiction and non-fiction: Stephen Graham Jones, H.P. Lovecraft, Robert Kirkman, Steve Niles, Max Brooks, Matt Mogk, Jovanka Vuckovic. Stephen King…..
The Walking Dead
Zombie comics (any aspect: history, cultural impact, storytelling…)
Zombies since 9/11
Zombie children’s books
Zombie running
Fast vs. slow zombies
Zombie gore
Teaching the zombie (zombie pedagogy)
Zombie cosplay
Zombie brains-food
Zombie video games
Zombie ants
Can a real zombie outbreak happen?
The voodoo zombie-the historical roots of the zombie
The Euro-zombie
Nazi–zombies
Viking zombies
Marvel zombies
What exactly is a zombie?
Humans vs. zombies
Zombies across the world (Ro-langs…)
Zombies’ roots in cinema
Are mummies/Frankenstein’s monster zombies?
What does the rise in the zombie’s popularity tell us about society?
These are just a few of the topics that could be discussed.
Please submit your title, and 100- to 250-word abstract by November 1, 2013, through our database, which can be accessed at: http://conference2014.southwestpca.org/
For a while now I’ve been waiting to see the William Shatner’s Get a Life! documentary. This film is part of the EPIX Originals series, and Shatner serves as one of the executive producers. He also wrote and directed this piece. After doing his documentary The Captains as part of a process of self-discovery, this was his next project, but one that is qualitatively different. Captains was a cathartic process of coming to grips with the character of Capt. Kirk by way of reflection on the other captains in the franchise. It was also, interestingly, a way of embracing the twilight of life. But William Shatner’s Get a Life! represents a process of trying to understand the intense devotion of fans to the mythology after over 45 years. Although Shatner explored some of this previously in his book Get a Life!, this documentary is the actor’s attempt at understanding the topic for himself in more depth, and for the fans whose lives he considers along the way.
This film is similar to other documentary explorations of the Star Trek phenomenon, such as Trekkies, in that it devotes large segment of the documentary to portraits of various fans and showing the depth to which the Trek mythology has impacted them. This is important as the foundation for the analytical portion of the film as it attempts to answer why people like this are so enamored with the franchise, and in such deep ways. But in my view, this documentary would have been strengthened had it spent less time portraying the lives of various fans, and spent more time by way of analysis.
After laying a foundation in Trek fandom the film then begins its reflections on the meaning of this phenomenon. The analysis is interspersed periodically in the remainder of the documentary amidst the personal stories of various fans. In order to find out what Star Trek means, Shatner turns to Richard Imon who teaches Liberal Arts at Regis University. Imon uses Star Trek in his course work, and draws upon the theoretical framework of Joseph Campbell in terms of the human psyche and myth. After introducing this interpretive method Shatner then turns to Robert Walter who is President of the Joseph Campbell Foundation. For those familiar with Campbell’s work, whether through his books or the Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth program on PBS where he was interviewed by Bill Moyers, the viewer learns little that is new. Walter explains that Star Trek functions as a powerful mythology from which people craft their own personal narratives and live this in various ways, from the hope of a united humanity, to its ethical framework, to performative and ritual aspects. This seems fairly obvious, even without the insights of Campbell’s mythological understanding, but is there more we might tease out?
In my view Shatner missed an opportunity to learn much more about the meaning of Star Trek. Not only could critical considerations related to Campbell’s view of myth been brought out, but other aspects could have been explored beyond that of the late great mythologist. Shatner could have considered some of the academic work on the ethics of Star Trek, the implications of participatory culture and performance art, convention attendance as a parallel for some fans by way of religious pilgrimage, and the various sacred aspects of science fiction and the Star Trek mythos in particular. In short, Shatner could have moved beyond the obvious in Star Trek being a significant mythology, to a consideration of whether it has become a religious phenomenon. This may seem out of bounds, but as Gary Laderman has noted, we need to expand our concepts of the sacred. Instead of formal and more traditional definitions of religion and religious institutions, Laderman suggests this is not the best way to understand the current religious landscape:
So what if the sacred is not only, or even primarily, tied to theology or religious identity labels like more, less, and not religious? We might see how religious practices and commitments emanate from unlikely sources today: science and the pursuit of truth; music and the social ecstasy of concerts; violence and the glorification of warfare; celebrity worship and technological wonders; heroic doctors and evil villains; funereal spectacles and sexual compulsions; the Super Bowl and sacrificed soldiers; Elvis and drugs, both legal and illegal.
If present experiences with the sacred have moved beyond the more traditional and familiar boundaries of the past, perhaps it wouldn’t be a stretch to add science fiction conventions, especially Star Trek conventions, as an unlikely source of the sacred in the 21st century.
This documentary will be of interest to those who want an initial exposure to reflecting on the meaning of Star Trek. But for those with more than a basic background in Trek studies, the film represents a missed opportunity to explore the mythos in more depth by drawing upon alternative interpretative possibilities. I recommend this documentary for general Star Trek fans, but for the well-read fan and the scholar, it is best to look elsewhere for fresh and deep insights on the Star Trek universe.
William Shatner’s Get a Life! is available through EPIX.
