John Bowker ([info]johnbowker) wrote,
@ 2007-01-02 13:48:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Reviews in which I am Unshielded
Horrorscope and AsIf review "Wildstyle" in Andromeda Spaceways InFlight Magazine #26:

http://www.asif.dreamhosters.com/doku.php?id=asim_26
http://ozhorrorscope.blogspot.com/2006/11/review-andromeda-spaceways-inflight.html


Both are fairly positive, but there's a common observation between the two which has had me thinking as I begin my annual forced-march binge of this year's science fiction and fantasy movie offerings for the "Movie Year in Review" panel I sit on every year at Arisia. 2006 served up a whole lotta crap (Bloodrayne made me wistful for last year's Aeon Flux and brothers and sisters, that's saying something) but it also had a few films that didn't appear on the moderator's list and that I suspect will be shot down as lacking fantastic elements despite the fact the worlds they offer are as surreal as any bunch of blow-dried Ren-Faire rejects with unlikely swords and equally unlikely breasts.*


The first movie that comes to mind is Brick, which I've gone on about before. The world in the film is very recognizeably our own; there are no swords or spaceships, no magic, no unlikely devices. However, the characters are very much something else, high school students ridden by the loa of 1940's detectives, gangsters, and molls, their dialogue and actions simultaneously out of and in-character with both their high school and underworld environments. It's not an escapist fantasy world (I certainly wouldn't want to live there) but a fantasy can be as much about a character's inner landscape as their outer. To my mind, Brick fits the suit.


The other movie that tops my list is John Cameron Mitchell's Shortbus. This one should be easier because it actually does have a few moments of undeniable magic. However, it's also a movie almost entirely about sex and sexuality and SF&F has a weird relationship to that. With a few exceptions, sex in the genre is still mostly adolescent, there for wish-fulfullment or titilation. The sex in this film is neither. Still, with its frank look at the myriad twists and turns of the human eros and the convoluted relationships that grow up around that core, Shortbus offers a fantastic exploration of the sexual zeitgeist of a surreally sculpted gender-fluid New York City. If the Tiptree had a media category, it would win at a walk.

In both films, the world they offer is the one we know, kinked, observed by a small number of people while the rest of the world continues to flow by unaware. That's the fantasy that interests me, the stuff that might be happening out of the corner of your eye and around the corner, offering the possibility that the world we live in is already weirder than fiction. Sometimes I get closer than others.


*Again, Bloodrayne? Awful. Really, really bad. It made Iron Eyes Cody cry.

(Read 8 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]johnbowker
2007-01-04 06:48 pm UTC (link)
Okay, let me try a little more convincing...

"Fantasy" is an ill-defined term, but one of the generally accepted categories is "What if?". For example, on the list for this year's panel is the movie Cars (what if cars were anthropomorphic and lived in a world in which they were the dominant species?). Sometimes the spiral outward can be larger (Children of Men: What if humanity can no longer have babies for some reason, what's 20 years in the future going to be like?) or smaller (The Lake House: What if two people can live in the same house at the same time, only a year apart?) but the spiral itself hinges upon the what-if? question.

With Brick, the what-if? looks something like this: What if the hard-boiled characters and plots of film noir were superimposed on the high school experience? Because while all of the characters in Brick resemble high school students, they're not. They live in a world almost completely devoid of adults, one in which they've in effect taken on the adult roles, with associated maturities vastly outside what they'd likely show in reality. The movie isn't about "real" high school kids*; it's about cynical, ruined grown-ups wearing high-school bodies while they act out their drama to its conclusion. It's not fantasy as it's generally understood, but it's definitely a world slightly disconnected from our own, kinked just enough to be off-parallel. To my mind, that makes it slipstream and therefore fantasy.







(Before anyone jumps in and says "You don't understand, high school is like that now, maaaan!", I will freely admit it's been awhile. Maybe Brick is exactly what high school is like now. But god, I hope not.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]mdm_sosostris
2007-01-04 07:08 pm UTC (link)
I hate to be the one who jumps on you here (leave it alone), but my high school experience *was* almost entirely devoid of adults. They were background--extras, if you'll stretch the metaphor. To some extent, you can make that argument about all film. The actors are central; anyone not involved is peripheral. Anyone over 18 and under 12 or so is peripheral to your average teenager. The rest of the world is practically imaginary; the entire perspective is microcosmic. (At least from what I remember/experienced with the older kids at summer camp.)

The "what if" premise needs a bit of work. The premise for Jaws is (by way of William Goldman) "what if the shark got territorial?" This changed *everything* about film (if you believe Goldman); but I'm not sure that makes Jaws a fantasy. There are fantastic elements, sure; but Spielberg's primary goal seemed to be terror, not numinous transportation.

Hrm. These terms need work. Either that, or I need to shut off my "exegetical fussiness." Grad school bit me hard.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]mdm_sosostris
2007-01-04 07:10 pm UTC (link)
PS--Cars was a dumpy movie. I don't think it merits any sort of even semi-serious scrutiny. Though it is more "fantastic" than Brick.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]johnbowker
2007-01-04 08:27 pm UTC (link)
I agree the terms need work, and to agree with you, films that use the "what-if?" construction are not by default fantasy. What if the Olsen Twins went to New York? What if Carrot Top owned a supermarket? What if a guy as old as Michael Douglas could seduce and marry Catherine Zeta Jones? What if naked women lie in wait for the pimply pizza delivery guy? (Okay, those last two are sorta fantasies, but not the kind we're talking about.) There needs to be something more, and I think that's where arguments both for and against break down.

Using Jaws as an example is okay, because for the purposes of this discussion, we're including horror that contains a supernatural component under the heading of "fantastic". The shark in Jaws isn't just territorial, it's got a bone to pick. (Admittedly this is more true in the sequels, but even in Benchley's book there's the suggestion the shark is more than just a shark; it's almost a form of divine punishment.)

Moving back to Brick, it isn't the lack of adults that makes it a fantasy; it's that the characters are adult noir archetypes overlaid on their high school counterparts. I strongly doubt the writer or the director considered Brendan, Laura, the Pin, or Emily to be realistic portrayals of modern high school students; they were using high school as a fantastic setting for a much older and darker story. If it's not fantasy, it's close.

Of course, checking IMDB for character names, I've discovered that Brick was a last minute 2005 release, so it's out of contention for the purposes of this panel in any case. Bah.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read 8 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…