[SF-INDEX]  [^^LIT index]  [^^TERMS (master index)]

SF FILM Down to FILM LIST

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