Archive for the ‘Science Fiction’ Category

REVIEW – "Moon" (2009)

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

What does it mean to be human? More specifically what does it mean to be a person? How do we find meaning and purpose in an apparently absurd universe?

It boggles my mind that critics could rave about how “Moon” (2009) is brilliant science-fiction that everyone must see – and yet the film was released only in Los Angeles and New York City. In other words everyone needs to see a movie that almost no one can see.

For months I have ached to see it. Finally January 12 arrived and my family gave it to me for my birthday. Watched it with my younger daughter. She thought it was sad and depressing. I do not disagree but would phrase it differently. It is both profoundly disturbing and profoundly moving.

The sets and visuals are persuasive – all the more impressive when one realizes that “Moon” was filmed on a mighty small budget. The background music is exquisite. One of my pet peeves in many American films is the loud music that tells us how we should feel at every given moment. But in “Moon” several important scenes have no music. And when music is present it is elegant delicate and haunting. It enhances rather than forces the emotional impact of key scenes.

“Moon” tells the story of Sam Bell – the always enjoyable Sam Rockwell provides an exceptional performance – who is only two weeks from the end of his three year contract. His job is to maintain the equipment that mines the surface of the moon for Helium-3 (an isotope used in fusion to generate energy back on Earth). He is completely alone. Well except for the constant companionship of the robot helper Gerty (voice by Kevin Spacey). The communications satellite has been broken all this time so he cannot have live conversations with his family back home. He can only watch and send back recorded messages.

The years of loneliness and isolation appear to be taking their toll. But he is going home! “Two more weeks buddy!” Sam says to Gerty while eating breakfast (which is “the usual” – a nice touch that reinforces the sense of isolation and monotony).

Already the film raises important issues about the human need for companionship. How does a human being survive complete isolation? Sam appears to enjoy his work. The monotony of checking and reporting how many miles a harvester covered each day is occasionally broken by a full H-3 canister which Sam must retrieve and then ship back to Earth. But even Sam still has plenty of free time which must be filled somehow. He cares for and talks to his plants. He carves wooden models of people and buildings back home. He watches old television reruns.

But notice the pattern. Sam is utterly alone. He must talk to somebody. To Gerty. To his plants. Even the lunar harvesters are given names. A person needs relationship with another person. Even if the other is a substitute. (See also Tom Hanks in “Cast Away” and his relationship with “Wilson”.) This raises questions about the extent to which we engage in substitute personal(?) relationships. Virtual pets. Video and online computer games. Again we confront the interior-exterior distinction which is so important in Orthodox Christian theology. We are created for relationship – but relationship with persons.

I do wonder “would God be enough?” If for whatever reason I was completely alone would the presence and companionship of the Triune God – who himself is three persons in relationship – be enough to keep me from going insane? The answer is probably yes when one considers the stories of monks and saints from Christian history.

But even then – the idea of escaping from the world is to bring back to the world the spiritual resources we gain during our time in the wilderness. Sam’s three years alone is a struggle but it also changes him for the better (confirmed by one of the recorded messages from his wife Tess).

But back to the struggle. One evening Sam is making coffee when he sees a teenage girl(?) sitting in his chair. We wonder, Have the 3 years been too much? Is Sam losing his mind? Who is this teenage girl that Sam thinks he sees?

The next day Sam once again goes out to retrieve a full canister of Helium-3. And something happens that changes everything.

***WARNING – SPOILERS AHEAD!***

(more…)

REVIEW – Inner reflections/contradictions in "Avatar"

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

I almost did not go to see it. Most of the conservative blogs/websites I follow criticized harshly the movie “Avatar” directed by James Cameron. In a nutshell – that it is a silly and predictable leftist anti-American anti-capitalist rehash of “Dances with Wolves”. But some people I know and respect saw it and loved it. Perhaps I should see it and make up my own mind. But what if I hate it? Will James Cameron give me my money back?

Even the harshest critics acknowledge how impressive the film in terms of visuals and effects. In 3D we are as immersed in Pandora as is the protagonist Jake Sully when he lives among the Na’vi. Normally one sees people get up during a movie to visit the restroom or buy a snack or check the time on their cell phones. During “Avatar” hardly anyone moved. Even to stretch or shift in their seats. About two-thirds through the film I noticed my neck was sore from being held in one position for nearly two hours.

So on one level we can appreciate “Avatar” as a powerful visual and cinematic experience. We can also appreciate the creativity and innovation Cameron demonstrated not only in creating this film but in developing new technologies and techniques that such a film requires.

It is precisely this point – “Avatar” as immersive experience – that represents an important counterpoint to the list of conservative(?) criticisms against the film. Conservative critics of “Avatar” focus on what they discern to be its underlying (social-cultural-political) message. (And I will return to this.) That is they criticize the film as ideology. But what about “Avatar” as science-fiction?

My friend and colleague Joshua Villines has penned an original and thoughtful review of “Avatar”. He writes:

In Avatar, James Cameron has chosen to tell a story by creating a fully-immersive, coherent world.  For fans of science fiction, that alone is a huge gift. [emphasis added]

In science-fiction not everything has to add up scientifically. (Most of the time. “Hard” science-fiction which focuses heavily on science would be an exception.) Cameron creates a world and immerses us in it through the visuals cinematography and effects.

Quibble all you like about gravity inconsistencies and weak dialogue, James Cameron has crafted perhaps the most internally-consistent, immersive, extra-terrestrial world ever brought to life on the large screen.  In so doing, he has made the atrocities of ethnocentric consumerism real in a way that a cleverly contrived plot alone would not have.  For threats of mass destruction or genocide to be real to us, they must threaten our home.  This is why the apocalyptic scenes of Terminator are so much more terrifying than the destruction of Alderaan in A New Hope.

Read the whole thing here.

So what about those conservative criticisms?

In a nutshell – they are partly correct. Sorry. In fact they might be more correct than people realize.

This week an article by Patrick Goldstein on the Los Angeles Times website asks “Why do conservatives hate the most popular movie in years?” The article – by someone who is not conservative – understands the situation well.

For years, pundits and bloggers on the right have ceaselessly attacked liberal Hollywood for being out of touch with rank and file moviegoers, complaining that executives and filmmakers continue to make films that have precious little resonance with Middle America. They have reacted with scorn to such high-profile liberal political advocacy films as “Syriana,” ”Milk,” “W.,” “Religulous,” “Lions for Lambs,” “Brokeback Mountain,” “In the Valley of Elah,” “Rendition” and “Good Night, and Good Luck,” saying that the movies’ poor performance at the box office was a clear sign of how thoroughly uninterested real people were in the pet causes of showbiz progressives.

The dirty little not-so-secret is that Hollywood is not just interested in making money. Because generally the “high-profile liberal political advocacy films” tank at the box office. And generally the conservative(?) themed films – at least those films that do not ridicule the lifestyles and values of “middle America” – do much better. So why does Hollywood continue to churn out films with a (left/liberal) message that lose money? Probably because they care about the message.

The article understands the situation well – but to a point.

Of course, “Avatar” totally turns this theory on its head.

Um… no. Not only because it is silly to think a single exception turns a general rule on its head. Especially when the article goes on to explain precisely if accidentally how “Avatar” may be an exception that proves the rule.

“It has the politics of the left, but it also has extraordinary spectacle,” says Govindini Murty, co-founder of the pioneering conservative blog Libertas and executive producer of the new conservative film “Kalifornistan.” “Jim Cameron didn’t come out nowhere. He came on the heels of all the left-wing filmmakers who went before him, who knew that someone with their point of view would have the resources to finally make a breakthrough political film. But even though ‘Avatar’ has an incredibly disturbing anti-human, anti-military, anti-Western world view, it has incredible spectacle and technology and great filmmaking to capture people’s attention. The politics are going right over people’s heads. Its audience isn’t reading the New York Times or the National Review.”

Ding. “The politics are going right over people’s heads”. Audiences are captivated by the spectacle and miss the underlying message.

Or do they?

Some of the comments left in response to Goldstein’s piece are instructive:

It is not so much that the people embrace the ideology of the film, which most certainly leans left, but that the message of anti-America, anti big business, and embrace mother earth themes are not really portrayed in the trailers. It’s not until you are sitting in your seat in the theater that this themes are revealed by then it is too late – the money has been spent.Try getting a refund from the theater because it doesn’t agree with your politics. Even my 76 yr old mom, a life long Democrat, came out and the first thing she said was “Why was that movie so Anti- American?” [emphasis added]

Or this comment which directs our attention toward one of the inner contradictions of the film:

Why is everyone who isn’t in love with this movie automatically “a conservative”? I’m a Democrat and I find it a total sop to American fantasies about how much the world requires our presence. The spectacle of the Na’vi needing an outsider to become their spiritual leader is nothing new or groundbreaking. This movie panders to American culture’s greatest wet dreams about itself.

Ah. Okay. So we have (1) these highly industrialized and technological humans who would despoil a beautiful planet and to make a profit also (2) murder the peaceful non-industrialized non-technological natives who must be led and saved by – pay attention now – (3) a human being who is only able to join them because of some highly advanced technology.

Please note that Goldstein at no point denies what conservative critics of “Avatar” claim is the underlying message of the film. Quite the contrary. Note also a recent ABC News piece on “The Politics of ‘Avatar’”:

For his part, Cameron has been unabashedly open about his political intentions.

The movie is about how greed and imperialism tend to destroy the environment, in this case the “pristine” environs of Pandora, Cameron said in an interview with NBC’s Today show. “It’s a way of looking back at ourselves from this other world, seeing what we’re doing here.”

We have a film that appears to criticize imperialist America and its capitalist economy driven by the military-industrial complex…

That cost $300 million to make… $150 million to market it… that required new technologies… that could only have been funded and made in (more capitalist than not) America… a nation that is largely free and safe thanks to the United States military.

There is a word in the English language for that.

9/11 and America-as-terrorist

***WARNING – SPOILERS AHEAD***

(more…)

"V" is (not really) about Obama administration

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

This will be a short post.

The script for “V” was written during the Bush administration.

So those who think it is about the Obama administration are mistaken. That includes those who think “yeah! sock it to them!” and those who think “what is this paranoid right-wing extremist nonsense?” And there have been many of both.

That does not mean it might not apply. I think it applies rather well.

My wife and I watched it Saturday evening on the computer and it was excellent. Tense. Disturbing. Creepy.

I thought it interesting to note there were two actors who had been in the short lived but excellent science-fiction series “Firefly” – although by the end of the pilot one of them was thoroughly dead. Nice to have you in town.

We look forward to more.

REVIEW – "Terminator Salvation"

Tuesday, May 26th, 2009

In a nutshell – I thought it was much better than the mediocre or even negative reviews led me to expect.

I read enjoy and respect Big Hollywood. John Nolte was not kind to “Terminator Salvation”.

What a crushing and noisy disappointment this is. For whatever reason, Director McG’s fourth chapter in the “Terminator” franchise tosses aside the simple but successful plot template that made its predecessors so memorable and goes all “Bourne” with a hyper-complicated plot, narcissistic “hero” and a big fat wide blur between the concept of good battling evil. Yes, welcome to Hollywood’s post-Bush “Terminator,” where a militaristic Resistance demands we “Stay the course,” Terminators work through their feelings, and John Connor runs off to find himself only to end up in a numbingly dull third act that plays like a direct-to-DVD toss off.

Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.

I still respect Nolte of course. But I enjoyed the film. I did not think it was as sullen and dull and lacking-in-warmth as many critics (not just Nolte) argued. My daughter rather pithily commented, “If people want warmth they should watch a chick flick”. (Hey um Big Hollywood? Got an opening for a twelve year old?) I thought the story was engaging. The pacing tense. Some of the acting genuinely touching.

Let me offer a couple quick and mild criticisms centering on the character of Marcus Wright.

{WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD! AWOOGA! AWOOGA!}

He is indeed a sympathetic character. But believable? This person was sentenced to death for the murder of his brother and two police officers. How then does this person come off as so noble and selfless? Is it programming?

And the movie never quite explains just how that whole “Marcus gives his body to science [read Cyberdyne] and ends up working for Skynet” thing works. Is the doctor sent back in time by Skynet? Is she human? If so – what does she think she is doing? Was it an experiment in making benign cyborgs that gets coopted by Skynet? This part of the plot is just too full of holes to ignore.

Now – I understand why more conservative reviewers think there is a post-Bush dig on the war against terror. “They are the machines. We are human. We are supposed to behave like humans”. Fair enough.

But is it that obvious? And is there a counterargument? Do conservatives wish to argue that… argue what exactly? Do we not often argue that one of the problems with liberalism is that too often liberalism assumes the end justifies the means? That results do not matter only motives? (“Well we are trying to help the poor. Does not matter if the result is generations of broken families enmeshed in poverty”.)

Moreover – does not the movie imply that we are defined by our decisions more than our nature? Do we not often argue that liberals emphasize too much “this is what you are” – as if background and ethnicity and orientation determine destiny? Is it not conservatives who tend to argue “yeah sure that is who you are and where you are from – but you have a choice“? And that is precisely the point of Marcus Wright.

Marcus breaks free from his destiny. He chooses against his programming. “There is no fate but what you make”. Surely conservatives can celebrate that!

Anton Yelchin (as Kyle Reese) is much better here than in “Star Trek” (where the Russian navigator Chekhov cannot pronounce the phoneme v). I admit that Kate Connor’s pregnancy is completely and strangely ignored.

I think the movie deserves better than the 33% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. If you enjoy the “Terminator” movies – see it! You do not have to wait for the DVD.

REVIEW – "Star Trek"

Friday, May 8th, 2009

Wow.

Personally I thought it was fantastic – primarily in terms of “when you sat there watching it did you enjoy it?” Exciting. Touching at times. (Got choked up in a couple spots – I refuse to show tears in front of my wife. If I can help it.) And unexpectedly funny – laughed all over the place.

Kirk well done. Spock very well done. McCoy perhaps my favorite. Pike well done.

Later I will add some not-quite-profound reflections. Let me shift to a few criticisms.

SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! AWOOGA! AWOOGA!

(more…)

American troops give early buzz on "Star Trek"

Sunday, April 12th, 2009

The director and cast of the forthcoming “Star Trek” movie graciously traveled to and visited with American troops serving in Kuwait. The troops were given the opportunity – in fact two opprtunities – to watch a “special premier” of the film. This is what one self-described Trekkie soldier had to say:

As we say in the military, Bottom Line Up Front: This movie was fantastic in every sense of the word. [emphasis added]

Read the whole thing at Ain’t It Cool News. H/T to Big Hollywood.

Rotten Tomatoes already is giving it 100%.

Wow.

"Space is disease and danger wrapped in…"

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

I thought this was hysterical.

Oh and “Rohan has no king”.

Glory to God for All Things – "Orthodoxy and Science Fiction"

Thursday, February 12th, 2009

Do I really need to justify linking to this fine and thoughful post by Fr Stephen Freeman?

Strangely, I have long thought of science fiction as a form of modern theology – or at least of modern theological thought. It is a sad tragedy that a science fiction writer, in at least one case, was so bold as to create his own religion – but it seems a not so strange result from a genre that is so inherently theological.

Why do I consider science fiction theological? For the simple reason (for the really well-written material) that it has to imagine a world or a universe and what is true and not true for that universal system. There may or may not be any overt religious material in a particular science fiction work, and yet the world it imagines inherently contains rules and norms and a “way things work” such that some theological account is created.

Read the whole thing at Glory to God for All Things. You do not have to register.

Perhaps Fr Stephen also helps us to understand just what theology is.

REVIEW – "Battlestar Galactica" first episode of season 4.5

Tuesday, January 20th, 2009

My goodness!

My head is still spinning. Hm – how many bombshells did they drop in the episode “Sometimes a Great Notion” of “Battlestar Galactica” last Friday evening?

*SPOILER ALERT!
READ NO FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO BE SURPRISED!
SPOILER ALERT!*

  • We now realize what did not happen to Kara Thrace aka Starbuck when she supposedly died disappeared for two months then suddenly showed up again. (Which still leaves a huge mystery. So what exactly happened when her fighter apparently imploded in the depths of a gas giant?)
  • We now know something mind-shatteringly significant about the Thirteenth Tribe that journeyed to Earth.
  • Which in turn tells us something about the remaining five (not four! see below) Cylon models and where they come from.
  • We now know who the fifth “unknown” Cylon is. (And we thought she was dead.)
  • Lt Dualla – gut wrenching.

Grace and the Deconstruction of Deserve

Saturday, September 20th, 2008

What do we mean by “deserve”?

I still remember a sermon three years ago one Sunday evening by Dr Jay Hogewood pastor of University Baptist Church discussing the idea of grace.

He referred to a recent episode of “Extreme Home Makeover” in which Ty(sp?) and his buds are doing their usual thing for some struggling family whose home is in bad shape. Ty tries to motivate his crew and the volunteers by explaining “these people really deserve this”.

Jay focused on this. What do you mean by “deserve”? Who deserves anything? I have never forgotten that.

The Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin book cover

Finished sermon for this Sunday on Matthew 20 and the parable of the vineyard and the workers with this quote from The Dispossessed by science-fiction writer Ursula LeGuin. (Shevek wants to visit the home world from which his society comes. But a few powerful people oppose this and threaten him if he ever tries to come back.)

Rulag said. “And if there is violence you will have caused it. You and your Syndicate. And you will have deserved it”.

A thin, small, middle-aged man began speaking, at first so softly that few heard him. He was a visiting delgate, not expected to speak on this matter. “… what men deserve,” he was saying, “For we each of us deserve everything, every luxury that was ever piled in the tombs of the dead kings, and we each of us deserve nothing, not a mouthful of bread in hunger. Have we not eaten while another starved? Will you punish us for that? Will you reward us for the virtue of starving hile others ate? No man earns punishment, no man earns reward. Free your mind of the idea of deserving, he idea of earning, and you will begin to be able to think.”

My eyes watered when I read this and typed it into the manuscript. Such beauty and power and challenge to our human notions of economy and reward and deserve – notions above which as far as the sky is above the earth are the thoughts of God who has the authority to do what he wants with what is his.

The kingdom of heaven is not an economy.