film
23 Oct 2009
This Mission Is Too Important For Me To Allow You To Jeopardise It
Blockbuster cinema has given science fiction a bad name. Lynden Barber has been watching new independent SF films that are reinvigorating the genre
It's become a mantra of critics of the Australian film industry to call for "more genre films". I know what they usually mean by this.
For some reason, while many critics of Australian films are obsessed with horror films like Wolf Creek, they do not seem to regard crime stories or lavender lady films for the blue-rinse set (starring whoever is the Aussie equivalent of Maggie Smith) as genre films at all. This is a pity, since there's one genre that's all set to be dusted off and revamped, not only here but in the US and indeed, the rest of the world: science fiction.
You may be excused if you initially assume that I have a drooling android loose in the top paddock. Following the decline of the Western and the rapid rise and fall of the buddy cop movie (Lethal Weapon et al), science fiction has become the dominant genre of spectacle-driven blockbuster filmmaking. You may well ask, how can independent filmmakers in Australia or indeed anywhere compete commercially with the likes of digital-FX-a-thons like Independence Day, Transformers, Deep Impact , War of the Worlds or whatever digit we've reached in the Terminator series?
Answer: you're not paying attention. One of the success stories of the year is District 9, a film that performs a neat twist on the creature-feature formula by transforming aliens into the oppressed, corralled into South African squatter camps after their mothership stalls over Jo'burg. The allegorical level of the film — mistreated aliens = black South Africans — is hardly subtle but District 9 can at least lay claim to a perceptible subtext.
What's more, the film — whose special effects are more seamlessly convincing than many films with 10 times the budget — is an independent production with no name stars, originating in South Africa and shepherded to the screen by executive producer Kiwi Peter Jackson. It's not just another monster studio baby. Despite its Transformers-style finale, District 9 is far more thoughtful and entertaining than most sf movies belched out by the Hollywood studios.
Exhibit Two for the defence of sf will be released in Australia next Thursday. The Box is the third feature from Richard Kelly, the filmmaker who gave us the teen angst meets rip-in-the-time-space-continuum story Donnie Darko. The new film falls within the well-respected tradition of "inner space", the strand of sf that rejects space travel and monsters and finds its intrigue instead in the moral, existential and philosophical quandaries produced by advances in technology. Here the quandary is faced by a family loaned a mysterious box that will bring them a gift of a $1 million if they choose to press the button on top — and cause the death of a stranger.
Inner space themes were fondly nurtured by UK writers of the 1960s like JG Ballard and Brian Aldiss, and reach back further to John W Campbell's Astounding Science Fiction magazine of the 1940s and 50s, to which Kelly pays open homage.
The Box is one of those seriously flawed films that is much more engaging than many more smoothly crafted, yet anodyne, specimens. Watching it I wondered why we don't more frequently see stories with this level of ambition: in other words, why don't we see more films of ideas?
My thoughts moved along the same lines when I was watching Duncan Jones's intriguing independent drama Moon the other day. Moon is about a solitary lunar worker (Sam Rockwell) who is fast approaching the end of a three-year stint mining a substance that will revolutionise Earth's energy production. That is, until events start to get seriously weird.
Moon is another reminder that science fiction need not be the skin-deep genre that George Lucas and Michael Bay expound but rather an opportunity for serious filmmakers to explore ideas and fresh sensations and experiences. The film sparks memories of a handful of earlier classics like Dark Star, the low-budget film that launched John Carpenter's career as a director. This droll comedy was the first film to suggest that life as an astronaut might be as mundane and unglamorous as life back on earth on the factory night shift. Moon's grotty living quarters and Rockwell's lank hair and greasy complexion are clear echoes of this theme.
More significantly, Moon echoes two of the most revered science fiction movies of them all, Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Andrei Tarkosvky's Solaris — both of them films of grand philosophical, even spiritual and theological ambition.
Tarkovsky later returned to the genre in Stalker, set in a strange, post-acopalyptic area called The Zone. And Tarkovsky was not the only European art film director to use the supposedly low-brow vehicle of sf. French New Wave filmmakers François Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard and Chris Marker made sf films such as Fahrenheit 451, Alphaville and La Jetée (which was remade by Terry Gilliam in unfortunately madcap style as 12 Monkeys). Bertrand Tavernier later managed to predict the ethically challenged media sensationalism of our current decade in Death Watch.
These intriguing films were made on relatively limited budgets, years before digital effects were invented. They showed that science fiction could be at it most potent when viewers were required to use their imaginations.
Being able to encompass grandiose spectacle and serious themes is no impediment to Hollywood — witness films like Total Recall and Blade Runner, both based on the writing of Phillip K Dick. But $100 million budgets are often not necessary. A thousand potent sf stories are waiting to be turned into film with only a smattering of modest special effects, if any.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
But Lynden, if Australians start making sci-fi, how will audiences ever get to grips with the realities of everyday life in the Australian suburbs? How will we ever find out about the struggles of the modern family? How will we learn about the hardships of drug addiction and long-buried domestic secrets?
HOW, Lynden?
Lynden, District 9 impressed me too. Besides being a memorable film in its own right, it also showed up just how ‘form-over-content’-ridden Hollywood is. i recently watched Harrison Bergeron, a made-for-TV adaptation of Jurt Vonnegut’s short story. I think you’re spot-on - there’s a goldmine for film producers in SF. But as Ben alludes to, we’d have to think a bit to connect the dots to our own lives. Or maybe not.. after all, Mad Max was Science Fiction!
"I think it would be a very good idea." Gandhi
-I’ll confess that last time there was an article in New Matilda on Aussie cinema I commented that we need more genre films. I don’t think this nescessarily has to equate to ‘more horror films’ though, especially not if they are the trashy "I know what you did last summer" type, as opposed to the genuinely tense and scary "Wolf Creek" type. The point should be to tell the stories which Hollywood isn’t telling, or isn’t telling well, and Hollywood does not treat genre films with any respect these days, whereas Australian filmakers historically have. E.g. I’m actually hard pressed to think of a recent American horror film worth watching, while I can think of recent Aussie, British and French horror films I that would highly recommend.
On the Independence Day type film / Bladerunner type film distinction though:
Back when science ficion was something to be found is pulp magazines, rather than cinema screens, there was a distinction between "space opera", which was melodramatic fantasy set in space, and "science fiction", which explored the (often philosophical or moral) implications of advances in knowledge and/or technology. The idea of space opera was to use space and high technology to provide an exciting background. The idea of science fiction was to take scientific, or at least science based, ideas about what the world might be like, or might come to be like in the future, and to ask questions about what this might mean for us as human beings. In this sense a Sci-Fi story is a ‘thought experiment’. Hollywood does space opera really well, at least at times -Star Wars is the perfect example. Space opera really does need budget, as it is substantially about flashy effects etc., but SciFi can be done on the cheap -most of the classic SciFi films mentioned in this article were done on the cheap. Risk-averse Hollywood doesn’t seem interested in real SciFi these days. Sci-Fi is always about new ideas, and making films about new ideas is always going to be risky -your audience may not ‘get it’, as the themes won’t be familiar to them. But without a huge budget, you need to take risks in order to break through. I would dearly love to see more Australian Sci-Fi.
There are lots of other other ‘genres’ worth looking at too. How relevant would a bikie film be today? Stone made a packet.
Since the bible mankind has been boldly going to the farfetched and improbable with monotonous relish.
Is it because reality is intrinsically so dull and deadly boring?
It must be because otherwise why would civilized societies so readily and with little or no provocation take up arms and blow the bejeezus out of each other; and risk even blowing the whole total disaster to kingdom come?
So it’s no wonder that most of the novels by the 19th century "sci fi" authors are of a anti war theme, Jules Verne , ‘20000 leagues under the sea", HG Wells "first men on the moon", "Time machine",
Undeclared war between men and robots in Isaac Asimov’s stories.
Maybe that country of the mind where, fantasy meets reality can be charted one day, and if things are’nt the way we like it, then we can just "go" somewhere they are, without anyone getting hurt, robbed or killed, or even paying for air fares.
I’ll see you on the dark side of the moon, Oli
I’m not sure there’s a shortage of movies looking at suburban life - it’s not like most Australians need to look to movies to inform them of what they are experiencing every day - and whether we really gain any great insights from movies of any genre is debatable but for the sake of nothing more than entertainment there is something to be said for SF with a bit more story and substance than the usual Hollywood creations. I find the stereotyped characters and the simplistic plots aren’t compensated by the dazzle of special effects; too often it looks like the dazzle is all there is and it’s too often wasted on chases, shootouts, gore and depictions of the monstrous and magical rather than giving a sense of realism to more complex creations of imagination.
Compelling cinema takes chances.
Australian cinema of late has forgotten this rule.
We seem to have become obsessed with the human experience to the point that we are now in some strange snail shell effect, looping in on ourselves. The great thing about intelligent SF is that you don’t need large special effects etc to pull it off. Its all about the nrrative, the characters, the story…somehow we’ve forgotten this.
As a screenwriter, I know full well that to write effectively, one needs to read broadly. Research, quality research is king. Without quality research filmmakers more often than not will pull back to what they know, or what they think they know, this more often than not will be out the front door.
People will say " We don’t have the budgets to make intelligent Sci-Fi"…well we had eight million dollars to dump into that shocking bollocks called "The Tenderhook"
I think a good example of intelligent Sci-Fi is Children of Men. A compelling narrative, set in the not too distant future, not huge on special effects, but big on Character and ideas. Okay it had a whopping budget, but it could have also been done for far less and in any other country..if it had to. The idea was intelligent.
I think the main problem here is also Producer intelligence and reader intelligence. The thing that Writers, Directors and Producers need to do is get the reader on the page, handing in a script is not enough. An expansive well researched treatment, with a mood reel, potential actors, storyboards, concept art etc etc..all these things need to be attached to a script, like a companion bible. I’m currently in the process of writing two features, one is a Sci-Fi/Horror and another is a drama set in India, both will have expansive treatments that will be attached to the script. Its time for writers, directors and producers to think outside of the square and grow up…and for readers to move outside of the comfort zone a little…to do that..they need to be inspired. Lets face it…reading scripts is a bit boring. Reading scripts with a treatment, complete with storyboards, concept art, mood reel..that’s a whole other approach. I can just hear a large percentage of the Industry whine…"But that’s too hard"
How much do you love your story..or know it?
Enigma’s please, not explanations
I recently attended the Premiere screening of underground Aussie genre film, ERASER CHILDREN. It played as the Opening Night Film of the Fantastic Planet Sydney International Sci-Fi Festival. It is an example of exactly the sort of film and filmmaking that Australia needs to embrace. The director was on hand to discuss the project. The film was made with a miniscule $20,000 budget - yet it looks fantastic! It’s not a perfect film by any means. But, as far as ambition, technical expertise and gumption go - it’s an amazing effort for debut filmmakers.
Check out the website: www.eraserchildren.com.
There’s also some stuff on youtube.
It is a shame that SciFi doesnt really get much of a look in with Australian film makers. Like Dahlmatilda has shown there are people who are willing to go out on a limb and make them but the mainsteam movie makers are more interested in shows about comedy, family hardships and relationships.
I also agree with you that many sci fi movies dont require a high budget like the cube. Using the same stage over and over again as a new room was pure genius.
I’m working on a special sci fi project myself and when the ball gets rolling I will be sure to let everyone know. I think Australia has incredible talent and yet it is vastly under utilized and with a little bit of elbow grease we can produce something unique.