Showing posts with label first contact. Show all posts
Showing posts with label first contact. Show all posts

Thursday, June 27, 2024

Final thoughts from the First Contact project

Or, how we agreed to give ourselves extra homework for a month

There's a risk, for people new to speculative fiction, to stay stuck in the big classics. I've seen it manifest especially among literary types, who at a minimum have heard of Verne and Orwell and Tolkien and Asimov and Dick and Le Guin. The risk consists in becoming satisfied with the classics and therefore exploring no further. I don't warn against this scenario out of a wish to police people's joy; what I wish is to share the very best that our field has to offer, and we're fortunate to live at a time when the very best that we have is not the classics. There's no need to advise newcomers to read I, Robot when there's Murderbot.

I came up with the First Contact project to avert the opposite risk in myself. I'm reasonably familiar with what's going on right now, but I'm very behind in my knowledge of genre classics. And just as one must guard against irrational predilection for the past, one must also notice when the present is given undue weight. If I seriously intend to recommend Murderbot over I, Robot, the intellectually honest course of action is to know I, Robot and to know why I'm declaring it skippable. It's not enough to marvel at the quality of our current Rainbow Age on its own merits; I also need to understand how it improves upon bygone Gold and Silver. My love for The Expanse grows even stronger when I realize how much it's not like Flash Gordon.

Each of us at Nerds of a Feather had specific personal reasons to select the classics we've discussed over these recent weeks. Some of us went into it in the spirit of correcting a personal oversight; some of us wanted to give a new subgenre a long overdue try; some of us decided to heed the popular acclaim for a certain title; some of us stumbled upon something completely new and jumped by instinct. There were many possible posts there simply wasn't enough opportunity to write; in my case, I would have liked to sit and watch a lot more B monster movies. But I'm very satisfied with the list that resulted. I give thanks to my fellow reviewers for their curiosity and their openness to this little experiment. These are the works we've made First Contact with:


Books:

Dragonflight

Foundation


Movies:

Akira

Brazil

Flash Gordon

Labyrinth

Metropolis

Nosferatu

Porco Rosso

The Adventures of Prince Achmed

The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

The Terminator

Westworld


Video games:

Mass Effect Andromeda


POSTED BY: Arturo Serrano, multiclass Trekkie/Whovian/Moonie/Miraculer, accumulating experience points for still more obsessions.

Wednesday, June 26, 2024

First Contact: Nosferatu

The classic that codified vampires on screen for all eras

Previously in the First Contact project…

We've discussed how German Expressionism used extremes of shape and shadow to convey emotional content. Well, what better medium to tell a story about hungry things that lurk in the night? The 1922 film Nosferatu, an illegal adaptation of the novel Dracula (the ensuing copyright lawsuit forced the studio to declare bankruptcy), keeps its most iconic images confined to one short, climactic scene. But what a scene! Making the most of the technological possibilities of the time, the ending of Nosferatu uses one of the most effective tools of horror: suggesting instead of showing. It's just a silhouette moving up the stairs, just a silhouette extending toward a door, just a silhouette grasping a heart… and this little trick suffices to represent the supernatural profanation that has taken place. It's a master class in using a minimum of visual cues and letting the actual horror play out in the viewer's mind.

Nosferatu has both the strengths and the defects of a freestyle adaptation. It omits a handful of superfluous characters from the novel and streamlines the plot down to its basic components. The details that it adds (the references to occultism, the plague outbreak, the town's hunt for a scapegoat, the new method for defeating the vampire) are a natural fit for the heightened sentimentalism of this movie's tradition. However, the character of the young real estate agent who brings the purchase papers to the count's castle is made less interesting in this version. In the first part of the novel, the growing sense of dread comes from reading this character's gradual suspicions about the count's private habits. Nosferatu portrays him as blissfully oblivious to what's going on under his nose. Once the count settles into his new property, the novel switches to detective mode as our protagonists track down his movements and begin strategizing a way to kill him. In Nosferatu, the answer is conveniently found in a literal Monster Manual that the young man already owned, and the count jumps straight to the final confrontation as soon as he moves in. In striving to lose no time, the movie loses much of the novel's suspense.

The least enjoyable part of Nosferatu is the underwhelming way it ends. The method for defeating the vampire is too passive, and the special effects used for the vampire's death by sunlight are disappointingly simple, especially when seen just moments after the expert play of shadows that precedes it. Romanticism is all about feels and vibes, so a damsel's self-sacrifice is par for the course, and the script gets bonus points for the brief dialogue at the beginning where dead flowers foreshadow the loss of something beautiful, but, as I said above, the final scene is where you find the bits that you'll remember.

Apart from the titular villain, the quality of the acting is nothing remarkable. The suffering damsel knows clearly what her role is: to look vulnerable and helpless. She spends the movie visibly sighing with the oh so tragic demeanor that in any other movie would presage a death by tuberculosis. The friends she stays with for most of the runtime are basically skippable, and the madman who waits in jail for the count's arrival comes off more as comic relief (and possible anti-Semitic caricature) than as a supposed secondary antagonist. The young man who visits the count at his castle is consistently clueless, even cavalier about dining with an undead abomination, and after he returns home, he ceases to have any impact on the story. Only the sailors who unwittingly transport their killer do an interesting job in terms of acting, and they're promptly dispatched offscreen.

What Nosferatu lacks in scriptwriting it makes up for in visual memorability. Orlok, Nosferatu's substitute for Dracula, has a fantastic design. Cadaveric yet imposing, frail yet ravenous, this is a monster perfectly made for silent cinema. It's impossible to avert the eye from his unnatural presence, enhanced by a judicious dose of the stop-motion technique in some scenes. The performance is deceptively simple: his facial expressions don't hint at any reasoning intelligence behind the appropriately dead gaze he wears at all times. It's as if the rats that travel with him, spreading his curse of pestilence, had eaten his eyelids and left a hollow, desiccated set of eyes to haunt mortals with. That said, it's regrettable that Orlok's look also happens to match several anti-Semitic clichés. The Germany that birthed Nosferatu had a long and painful road ahead before reckoning with its theretofore unexamined prejudices.

To a viewer of this century, Nosferatu isn't exactly scary, much less after the many ways its memetic potential has been reused and remixed. Vampires have been everything: sublime, detestable, pitiful, sexy, cartoonish, fearsome, pathetic, elegant, repulsive, otherworldly, relatable, beastly, aristocratic, demonic, sparkly, allegorical, ostracized, dominant, solitary, clannish, contagious, playable, killable, dateable. To watch Nosferatu after seeing the plethora of movie vampires that followed grants a humbling perspective on what infinite malleability can result from a modest first showing. By virtue of its own, small addition to vampire lore (killing them with sunlight), it taught writers that more variations were acceptable: garlic, crosses, holy water, silver bullets, dead blood, a lucky roll of Turn Undead. Carmilla, The Vampyre and Dracula brought vampires from the obscurity of folklore into world literature. But it was Nosferatu that positioned them as staples of pop culture. If for nothing else, we must thank it for that.


POSTED BY: Arturo Serrano, multiclass Trekkie/Whovian/Moonie/Miraculer, accumulating experience points for still more obsessions.

Thursday, June 20, 2024

First Contact: Labyrinth

A puppet-filled, dream fantasy journey

Despite its enduring popularity, I had never seen the classic 1986 film Labyrinth until this week. I should have identified with a bookish, dreamy, fantasy-obsessed, teen girl protagonist. I have enjoyed, or at least consumed, many similar fantasy films from that time period. But the truth is, missing Labyrinth was not an accident. I deliberately skipped the film over the years because something about the vibe seemed a bit too juvenile. This is likely because of the large volume of bouncy, grotesque puppets in the trailers for the film. Now, before you send letters, please know that I live in Atlanta, home to the Center for Puppetry Arts. I loved The Neverending Story, The Princess Bride, and, of course, Star Wars: A New Hope—all of which had varying degrees of puppet-based fantasy. I was raised watching Sesame Street, which I loved, and watching The Muppet Show, which I tolerated just fine. But the film that broke me was The Dark Crystal, which, I admit, I did not enjoy. For me, The Dark Crystal amounted to too many creepy-style puppets and not enough plot. So I always feared Labyrinth would be too close to that vibe despite the plucky YA heroine and the presence of superstar David Bowie in a leading role.

I watched Labyrinth on a nighttime flight from LAX to Atlanta. The sleepy, small screen environment with dim lighting and the hum of cold air was a perfect setting for the dreamy, psychological journey of a self-absorbed teen feeling disquieted and generally irritated with the discomforts of her life. The film does a great job of efficiently delivering a lot of backstory for the protagonist Sarah in a few seconds, then it dives right into the plot. The story goes as follows: [minimum spoilers] Sarah (Jennifer Connelly) is a bored suburban teen, living with her dad, his new-ish wife, and Sarah’s toddler half-brother, Toby. It’s initially unclear whether Sarah’s mother is divorced/absent or deceased, but by the ending scene, it seems to be the latter. Sarah enjoys acting out a scene from a fairy tale about a princess who confronts a goblin king who has stolen a child. She is a sixteen-year-old cosplaying before cosplaying was cool. Her make-believe moment is interrupted when she remembers she is scheduled to babysit her baby brother while her parents go out on a date. Stuck with the crying toddler, she holds the child to comfort him, then, in frustration, verbally wishes him to be taken away by the goblin king from her storybook. The child disappears, and a frantic Sarah is told by the goblin king, Jareth (David Bowie), that the child is now his. To get Toby back, she has to navigate a massive labyrinth to reach the goblin king’s castle and rescue her brother. In the labyrinth she encounters various creatures who are variably grotesque or adorable, kind or dangerous, annoying or wise, and who are mostly in the form of puppet creatures. In particular, she meets grumpy goblin frenemy Hoggle, idealistic dog-like Didymus, and loveable fuzzy giant Ludo. On her journey, she learns the value of friendship (of course), the dangers of assumptions, and a new understanding that life isn’t fair as she is forced to stop whining and grow up.

First impressions: Jennifer Connelly is intensely, perfectly, young and dreamlike in the role of Sarah. She looks like a 1980s Snow White, and her dialogue and voice inflection are artificially fairy tale-like. It’s almost borderline annoying. But Sarah is actually the archetype of the unhappy teen searching for something more. In contrast to her sweet appearance, she hates her brother enough to wish him dead, straight out of the gate. The initial scene of her holding her crying brother was stressful for me to watch. There is no child abuse, but the intensity of her anger hovers over the moment in a way that worried me. Ironically, she is bitterly angry because she has to babysit for one night, although she concedes that she literally had nothing else to do. She’s not missing prom, her senior art show, or even a date with friends. Sarah is angry because babysitting Toby has interrupted her fantasy playacting. It’s clear that there are larger issues of grief and discomfort, as well as impatience with the mundaneness of ordinary life compared with the allure of fairy tales.

As she journeys through the labyrinth, Sarah periodically meets Jareth, who repeatedly encourages her to forget the search for the child and just enjoy her fantasy life. Sarah shows her growing maturity by refusing to give up. Sarah also encounters lots of the aforementioned goblins and other fantastical creatures who both help and hinder her in her classic journey story. The story overtly references The Wizard of Oz and Where the Wild Things Are (Sarah has copies of the books in her bedroom), but it also contains clear references to Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland.

As a classic journey story, I felt I knew where the plot was heading, and I was mostly right. However, there were a few story elements which surprised me. Sarah’s frenemy Hoggle sprays poison to individually kill fairies (sentient, humanoid). Sarah initially finds this horrifying, but then rolls with the fairy killing after one of them bites her finger. She ignores the rest of his poisoning and enlists Hoggle’s help to find the entrance to the labyrinth. Sarah’s pivot from sentimental to pragmatic was a little startling. Labyrinth is a dreamscape, so I guess philosophical concepts of life and death are primarily symbolic. Secondly, David Bowie is perfectly cast as the goblin king Jareth. He is naturally quirky, chaotically elegant, but creepily enamored with Sarah. Additionally, there is a dreamlike scene of a masked ball with elegantly dressed humans dancing together, including Sarah and Jareth. Despite my fears about creepy puppet creatures, the attractive humans at the masked ball felt even more creepy and disturbing. That emotional irony was an artistic high point for me in the film. Another visual highlight was the room of dimension-defying steps where Jareth, Sarah, and Toby all navigate multi-directional, freeform stairs in an Escher-inspired, Inception-style scene.

In Labyrinth, Sarah is repeatedly accused of taking things for granted. I initially assumed this meant she did not appreciate the things she had (her comfortable lifestyle and relative freedom). But she is actually being reminded of the dangers of making assumptions about people and about life. During setbacks, she repeatedly complains “that’s not fair,” and eventually Jareth sarcastically tells her, “You say that so often. I wonder what your basis of comparison is.” It’s a great line. He is effectively telling her to grow up and face reality, a still timely lesson about the unfairness of life even while acknowledging the validity of the search for justice. In the same way, in a final scene, Sarah’s labyrinth friends remind her that they will still be there when she needs an escape. Labyrinth confirms the importance of living in the real world while also acknowledging the value of play, fantasy, and imagination. Hopefully, that is a life lesson that we can all agree on.


Highlights:

  • Classic journey coming of age film
  • So many puppets
  • Timeless dreamscape

POSTED BY: Ann Michelle Harris – Multitasking, fiction writing Trekkie currently dreaming of her next beach vacation.

Wednesday, June 19, 2024

First Contact: The Adventures of Prince Achmed

The earliest surviving animated feature length film—a fairy tale from a lost world

A friend of a friend once said that one of the many terrible things the Nazis did was destroy the film industry that prospered in Germany under the Weimar Republic. That is, admittedly, by no means the worst thing that the Nazis did, but it was not good. You had some path-breaking filmmaking, pushing the boundaries of a totally new art form, replaced by endless rows of goose-stepping brownshirts, noisome propaganda films, Leni Riefenstahl using whatever artistic ability she had to defend a mass murderer, and Hitler yelling. History has shown us time and again that state-managed media is never profound, or deep, or interesting; it’s only ever a pablum to make you deny the evidence of your eyes and ears. The arts are inevitably a casualty of tyranny.

Here, I’ll be discussing another standout film from the Weimar Republic: The Adventures of Prince Achmed, directed and written by Lotte Reiniger and distributed by Comenius-Film GbmH in 1926. This is a milestone in cinematic history, as it is the earliest surviving fully-animated feature film (there are two from Argentina that are unfortunately lost—although all sorts of old films have been found in warehouses in countries people wouldn’t expect, so here’s hoping they find it). It is also remarkable that said first animated feature film was one directed by a woman; ‘Lotte’ is a German diminutive of ‘Charlotte.’

The plot of this film, as the title may suggest, is adapted from a number of stories from Arabian Nights. The whole film is a lush romp through a lavishly detailed Arabia, a portrayal that is no doubt Orientalist in a number of its tropes but is nevertheless dazzling to look at. It has a few different tales cobbled together, so you have Prince Achmed featuring, but Aladdin also joins in the proceedings. I liked, perhaps most of all, the beginning with the flying horse that operates something like a jetpack that Achmed doesn’t really figure out how to operate until he is already lost.

It is, in some ways, very much of its time. The portrayal of Arabia is clearly something out of an Orientalist fantasy, but as I said, it’s gorgeous. The primary antagonist is an evil sorcerer, stated to be from Africa (although I’m not familiar with the Arab source, so that may be older than this film), who has a miserly look and a big nose. It’s the sort of thing that I suspect to be a primeval antisemitism (see the images on this essay by a Rabbi about modern manifestations of antisemitism), not even consciously expressed, but rather so deep in Western cultural memory we associate it with evil while not being aware of its origin. There’s also something that is both groundbreaking and somewhat uncomfortable in presentation; there is a kiss between two men who apparently love each other—but it is between an evil emperor of China and a trusted servant, which has both uncomfortable power dynamics and the old trope that same-sex attraction is the province of a depraved upper class (see how the Communist world for so long called homosexuality ‘bourgeois degeneracy’). Reiniger herself was outspokenly in favor of gay rights, so she meant well so far as I can tell, but she employed tropes, as in other places in the film, that did not age well.

What really stands out is the animation. It was done with something akin to shadow puppets, in addition to a wide variety of other materials, to create a wide variety of environments; her team used sand, soap, cardboard, and tissue paper. The end result feels both very old and very modern, like a minimalist animation made on a computer and put online with a simple but sweet message. The effect is one that feels natural, logical within its context, a world where palaces can fly and so can horses (although for the latter you need some training). When Reiniger made the film, she said she wanted to make something that wasn’t possible in live action, a sentiment that has aged surprisingly well. You could certainly make a live-action film like this nowadays, but all the magic would be CGI (which is itself a form of animation, perhaps proving her right in a way she could never anticipate).

The plot is simple, and it feels like a fairy tale. Those who want labyrinth dramas twisting every which way will be disappointed, but given the source material, it could only be like this. And that isn’t even a bad thing; viewing the film in the twenty-first century, the plot and the animation complement one another. It looks like a children’s book, with odd plot contrivances here and there, and simple motivations, but Reininger and crew made it feel primordial, like something in our collective subconscious that when brought to the surface makes us feel warm and whole and secure as she tells a story about princes and princesses with a cartoonish visual style and a myriad of colors. Should you watch it, imagine you’re a small child again, and a parent is reading you a bedtime story. That’s the tone.

The Adventures of Prince Achmed is a film very much of its time, but even so, values can and do resonate. It’s another work whose fingerprints can be seen all over, should you pay attention. It’s a film that, to modern audiences, has the paradoxical effect of simultaneously immersing you and completely breaking your immersion, forcing you to see its place in the world in a sort of artistically-inclined Brechtian distancing effect. It is short, only about an hour long, and magical in a way that adults often forget. It makes you wish that the Weimar age of German cinema could have had more decades to develop and flourish, to create more beautiful things like this. For all its faults and all its moorings in the past, it is a beautiful work of art, and I recommend it to anyone who may be interested.


POSTED BY: Alex Wallace, alternate history buff who reads more than is healthy.

Monday, June 17, 2024

First Contact: Brazil

A Kafkaesque fever dream in neon and gray

An unnamed country has been taken over by the Ministry of Information. Now every citizen must be known, catalogued, identifiable. There must be a paper trail for every little thing that happens. Under such a regime, there's no place for a romantic who dreams of flying.

I found it bone-chilling to watch Brazil in 2024. The capabilities of the surveillance state have only grown since 1985, and the resulting paranoia has degraded public debate to the point of making it utterly ineffectual. The digital revolution has made paperwork even more intrusive and frustrating. Brazil presents an all-knowing, all-reaching state as a humorous exaggeration, but that's exactly what we see developing around us. I had a little moment of nervous embarrassment whenever a scene depicted a form of government control that clearly sounded outlandish to the scriptwriters but in my time had become a normal part of life.

As I took note of the resemblances with reality, I also appreciated the art design. Brazil looks much like other famous 1980s dystopias: it shares its urban decay with Robocop, its hostile architecture with Blade Runner, its carceral aesthetic with Escape from New York. But you can immediately recognize Brazil by director Terry Gilliam's signature camera angles and strikingly composed close-ups. Characters seem cornered by our gaze, constrained in their world even as it extends far behind them. Likewise, in some scenes we see a character's attention intentionally turned away from a calamity happening in the background. This is one of many indications that the society of Brazil has replaced empathy with adherence to procedure. The system can't make mistakes (can't even bother to look at them); any wrongful action has to be attributed to hidden enemies of the state.

The influence from 1984 is obvious (one of the film's working titles was 1984 ½). But Orwell didn't live to witness the degree to which the KGB and the Stasi would turn totalitarian control into a sadistic art form. For us, it's hard to imagine an extreme of state intrusion that isn't already happening somewhere and that isn't defended by someone's twisted logic. Consider how discussion of Brazil treats it as comical hyperbole, but after the abuses brought by the Patriot Act and the endless threats to online privacy, we tend to speak of Black Mirror as raw testimony from tomorrow's headlines. Brazil's cartoonish hell has become our normal.

Brazil doesn't even provide the comfort of a hero worth rooting for. Archivist Sam Lowry likes to imagine himself as a knight in shining armor, but he's a willing cog in the machine. When he has to notify a housewife that the government has mistakenly tortured her husband to death, he's more interested in filling the requisite paperwork than in acknowledging her emotional distress. When he becomes infatuated with a woman he's only seen at a distance, he changes jobs for the sole purpose of stalking her. He has never lifted a finger to spare anyone from the government's brutal interrogation methods—until they come for the woman he's obsessed with. That he ultimately fails to escape the government's iron grasp isn't the real tragedy; the tragedy is that this is the kind of hero that this society is capable of producing.

While watching Brazil, I found myself constantly thinking back to the Star Wars series Andor, which seems to have taken inspiration from Sam Lowry when designing the villain Syril Karn, a paper-pusher of no importance with a controlling, overambitious mother and a nearly pathological fixation on a woman he perceives as strong-willed. One could read Andor as criticizing Brazil for choosing the wrong point of view, for inviting us to empathize with the wrong character. In Brazil, we don't get to meet the average inhabitants of this society, those who don't enjoy the perks of a government job and an influential mother. Whoever is detonating all those bombs in public places would have made a more compelling character to follow.

Like with Black Mirror, your experience with Brazil will depend largely on how much cynicism you bring to the table. You'll get massive amounts of validation if you already believe that human beings are horrible and that sufficiently complex social systems naturally tend toward tyranny. As comedy relies on surprise, you may find Brazil less funny, though perhaps scarier, if your view of real society matches what Gilliam imagined. I saw the same effect when I showed Idiocracy to some friends and they declared it not comedy but horror. I, too, felt a wave of horror come over me when I watched Brazil—just not horror at the fiction, but at the reality.


POSTED BY: Arturo Serrano, multiclass Trekkie/Whovian/Moonie/Miraculer, accumulating experience points for still more obsessions.

First Contact: The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari

Dreams within dreams within dreams...

There is something invigorating, and more than a little peculiar, in watching early films. This far into the 21st century, moving images no longer awe us, as we can pull them up on these glimmering little boxes we keep in our pockets. We see them on billboards. They are what make those ubiquitous black mirrors hold some color. It makes us forget that at one point in human history the moving image was something shocking, groundbreaking, something that broke assumptions about the world. This first really occurred to me when I watched A Trip to the Moon, the great science fiction film by Georges Méliès, and then again, with more force, in Berlin: Symphony of a Great City, the great Weimar-era documentary directed by Walter Ruttman, that marveled in the sheer power of editing and juxtaposition to demonstrate the vastness, the richness, and the crushing inequality that was 1920s Berlin. It is with that sense in mind that I watched another great classic of Weimar cinema for this project, The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari, directed by Robert Wiene and written by Hans Janowitz and Carl Meyer.

What really struck me right off the bat was the stark contrast of the actors, who are realistically dressed and otherwise would belong in the great city of Berlin, who walk about a clearly manufactured, cubist town that looks like something out of a very odd dream. It made me look at the films I watch today, from any era, that all seek to immerse you in a setting, in an environment. Even the most CGI-laden superhero movie strives to have its effects feel real, even as they are patently unreal (and blur the line between animation and live action in the process). Likewise, we mock films with bad CGI relentlessly, and are jarred by films from the ’90s and ’00s with CGI that strives for verisimilitude but simply did not have the means to achieve it (it is that long fight for verisimilitude in face of the constraints of technology for which George Lucas has edited the Star Wars movies so often, as technology keeps being invented that allows him to realize his dream of the ’70s—there are many questions to be raised about this, but as an artist I can relate to the urge if not the action). Here, however, you see early film’s clear debt to theater, with cutouts that look like the backgrounds of a community theater production. This has the effect of making the entire viewing experience deeply jarring; it is about the emotion of the element, rather than the emotion of the representation.

This film reminded me of Scott McCloud’s book Understanding Comics. Firstly, he says that in comics, space separates still images to form a narrative, whereas film uses time to separate still images to form a narrative. From there, he posits a big triangle in which each corner represents a different use of lines: at one point, the line as realistic representation; at another point, the line as expression of meaning; and at the final point, the line as a line itself. The goal of virtually all mainstream cinema is to make you believe something is possible, at least in the confines of the story (as is the logic of speculative fiction generally). In this venerable old film, you see film images, in this case the backgrounds, at McCloud’s second point, where they convey meaning. You are not supposed to seriously believe that, in this world, people could live in a town out of Picasso’s nightmares. You are supposed to internalize the sensation that something is deeply, deeply off in Holstenwall, that things are not fine and dandy. Do the characters see the weird houses? Do they think this is normal? Truly, the question is beside the point.

Now I’m going to spoil a film that is almost a hundred years old: the whole shebang is revealed to be the dream of a man in an insane asylum. In doing so, the film marks its proceedings as not being real even within the minds of its principal characters. This is a film from a time that was coming to realize just how much an image, be it still or moving, can capture or distort reality (there is a spirited argument today among photographers as to whether taking a picture of an unaltered scene is a simple reproduction or an act of creation; after all, people are never just standing still in a crowded subway station!); Berlin: Symphony of a Great City is a masterclass in that regard.

This becomes a matryoshka doll when you take into account the plot of the film; it is a story recounted to another at a bench in a park, and within the dream there is the relationship between the Doctor and Cesare, the latter of whom has an inanimate decoy. You have this Droste effect of meaning, going deeper and deeper into the recesses of a dream, which is itself within the dream in the minds of its creators that realized the film. The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari is from a time when humanity was at a new frontier of the realistic recreation of reality. In short, you had a creation that moves (automata notwithstanding), and that looked like real people (not like the uncanny valleys of the aforementioned automata). Film, by this point, was almost reality by the standards of the day, and this film, like many others, was a reckoning with that fact.

Watching The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari put the entire genre of film in perspective for me, and by extension television, video games, online videos, and frankly the moving image in and of itself. It is remarkable that we have plenty of examples of the birth of an entirely new medium, and you can see the conventions being worked out, the limits of the form being probed, the new frontier being bravely explored. It is perspective in a way that we simply do not have for music or for storytelling, as those are prehistoric. Film, on the other hand, is a medium of modernity, and this film makes that very obvious. It is akin to a fish realizing that it swims in water.


POSTED BY: Alex Wallace, alternate history buff who reads more than is healthy.

Wednesday, June 12, 2024

First Contact Project: Mass Effect Andromeda

The unfairly maligned fourth installation in a much beloved series.


My love of the Bioware game is... not a small one. We shall not dwell on the number of hours I have played in the Dragon Age franchise, mainly because it's threatening to include the word "thousand" and that would be... well it would be something. But that and Mass Effect are my comfort games. They got me through furlough and lockdown with a modicum of sanity retained, and they just hold a very deep, dear place in my heart.

But somehow, I have never played Mass Effect: Andromeda. Well, I say somehow. Until approximately mid-March, the reason for that was clear - I had never had a machine capable of running it. And so, naturally, the first thing I did once I acquired one was to download it with a swiftness hitherto unwitnessed in the realms of man. But I was cautious. You see, I've heard things about Andromeda (hereafter ME:A because typing is effort). Not... good things. It is the awkward ginger stepchild of the franchise, at the bottom of every ranking, beloved of none, though I had never seen a clear reason why. It was just not as beloved, and so I went in concerned that it simply could not live up to the legacy of the previous games.

In my opinion, not only did it do so, but it bested them. It is, without a doubt, for me, the best Mass Effect game in existence, and there exists clear water in between it and the rest.

But I'm going to come back to that. I want instead to examine first why I think it is not beloved, why I think it is unfairly maligned, and what that says about the franchise and the fandom more broadly, and perhaps why coming to it at a number of years removed might have helped my appreciation of it.

Simply put, I think the problem is that it's not a game about Commander Shepard. Maybe that's too simplistic, but it makes sense. For the whole of the original trilogy, you play as this legendary, badass hero, as she* becomes even more legendary and badass, you see her through a galaxy-wide crisis, through death and beyond, as she holds in the balance the future of every analogue and digital life form in the Milky Way. She is the soul and centre of the trilogy, no matter how compelling are her companions, and so the game is her. Can Mass Effect be Mass Effect without Shepard? Maybe for a lot of the fandom the answer to that was a resounding "no". It doesn't matter that the ending(s) of the original trilogy leave us in a place where creating a genuine sequel story would be nigh on impossible, with some incredibly complicated and wide-reaching world-state variations to try to account for. The heart wants what the heart wants, and if that was more Shepard badassing about the galaxy saving worlds and cutting through red tape, then anything else won't do, no matter what logic tells you.

And I think this is a deeply unfair expectation for ME:A to come in to. It can be understandable and unfair at the same time. It is what it is.

They went in knowing they couldn't fit something in to follow on from that trilogy, so they didn't try. They decided to wipe the slate entirely fresh - literally move to a new galaxy - and leave their connection point to the existing story where things still weren't resolved. We still have connections, snippets of links to known places, people and things, but those connections are trailing into the past, and we enter a fresh gamestate, in a fresh setting, unfettered by the player's previous decisions. It's the best they could have realistically done with the corner they had painted themselves into, and I think it's a shame that player reception didn't accept that.

But it didn't, so here we are. It meant I went in with extremely low expectations, which were met, exceeded and then fully blown out of the water. Why? Because this was a game that, for me, totally got what Mass Effect could be good at, and leaned into it, while making the best use of the updated game mechanics and system design that wasn't around when the first game came into being. It adapted the heart of the feeling of the first game - the exploration, the relationships, the badassery, the building up of a legend of a person, and made it fresh. How could I not love that?

 That being said, the game it most reminds me of is Dragon Age: Inquistion. And I mean, it's Bioware, right? They're all paddling in the same pool. But it's a Mass Effect story in a map/quest/structure environment that feels so similar to what Inquisition does with its multi-area stuff, its camp exploration, and its supplementary off-screen missions that get you tangible rewards. And I love that. I think it's a game shape that really works, so why wouldn't they do it? They both have the same problem - there's a point when you're about half way through the game where you have a lot of open quests and no real drive to pick any single one over another - but on the whole, they both work really well as a vehicle for telling good stories. Not just a single story, though of course there's one that takes priority, but a bunch of interlocking stories, about different people, different cultures and different places, and put you in a position to steer those stories in the direction you want, and to fit an overarching theme on top of it, as well as giving a lot of space for additional personal storytelling.

There's so much space in the Andromeda galaxy in the game to imagine stories. There's so much potential. That's what the world after Mass Effect 3 no longer had, and that's what it needed. All of this untapped narrative potentiality for players to map their thoughts onto, and characters to fill it with and move around. Characters that felt deep and real.

I personally did not like Mass Effect 2 (because I did not want to be on team Bad Guy), but it is an incredibly character-focussed game. Your companions have depth, and have their own stories that you are a part of, but not the whole of. You help them, you may steer their decisions, but you are not their world, mostly. It's the standout part of ME2, for me. And Andromeda gets this, and gives it in spades. They still have the loyalty mission mechanic (good, yes, correct), and if anything have expanded it, so each companion quest is a big, multi-step affair. You spend real time with these people, learning who they are and what they care about, and it is wonderful.

And, of course, you can romance some of them. Unlike the recently-released Baldur's Gate 3 (and previous Bioware release Dragon Age 2), Mass Effect: Andromeda does not let you romance indiscriminately - all of your romanceable companions have their own sexuality and preferences, and not all of them will line up with who you are. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I do think it makes characters more diverse and well-rounded if they represent a variety of different sexualities - it forms a part of who they are, and if it is integrated into their story, all the better. But on the other hand... there's always such a small cast. You functionally limit people quite severely by doing this. If someone is playing say... a gay man, and you have only two male characters who are receptive to male advances (in this case, one pan, one gay)... well, that player has to hope he likes one of them. I got some veeeryyyy awkward dialogue when my female protagonist hit on the male engineer, let me tell you. It's a tricky balance to find, and for me, I think the Andromeda cast is just that little bit too small to pull it off well. You want to give players options. Full pansexual chaos gives you those options. Luckily, at least for me, there were characters I liked well enough and who were willing to date a woman, so it worked out. But that won't be true for everyone. 

The romance is also... a little on the weak side. There's just not a huge amount of content to it, outside of romance specific missions and a few snippets of dialogue here and there, which feels like something of a shame, given how characterful the rest of the story and missions are.

But it's a small price to pay. The story, for the most part, really does work, and there are some genuinely dramatic and moving moments throughout. The key antagonists of the story are worked in pretty early and pretty well, and the way they fit into the wider story of the world makes really good sense. There's also a strong thread of alliance-building throughout, which I really appreciated - there's a lot of options to be respectful and collegiate with the existing inhabitants of Andromeda, and to defer to them on matters of leadership and who gets to go where. Does it entirely erase the colonial vibes of the premise? Well... no. But neither does it go full bore space empire, which I quite appreciate. Baby steps, I guess.

It is something of a shift away from the previous Mass Effect games that your character has a lot more options to start both as a rule follower and as being diplomatic in the face of conflict. Even the upper left bluest of Shepards is something of a maverick (derogatory) in that regard, and I appreciate being given the option to at least try solving problems without shooting someone in the face. It's a shooter game, so it's going to come to that eventually, but it's nice to be able to say you did your best first, y'know?

I don't want to bog this review down too much with nitty gritty, but I do also think that this is the mechanically smoothest of the Mass Effect games, which again, I appreciate. I felt much more at home in skill selection and utilisation than I have in any of the others, even if the tutorial stuff at the start didn't entirely bring me up to speed on everything. It's slightly annoying that you can only use three abilities in any given fight, rather than the slightly bigger number I'd have expected, but once you get used to it - and with how well some of them combo - it works really well, and they do their best to make it easy to switch out between the abilities between fights, and create specific builds for specific purposes that you can port in. Unlike previous games, you have complete free licence to select abilities from any of the different skill trees, though you do benefit from concentration in allowing you to get to higher level options sooner, and with levelling up of certain skillsets. They're managed a good balance between simplicity, functionality and badassery, and once you get going, it feels really good.

Also you have a jet pack. The jetpack is great.

Is it a perfect game? Of course not. I'd have liked more character dialogue between each other, I think the pacing could have been better (though some of that was down to my own playstyle), and I think the difficulty scaling towards the end of the game isn't... great. The last couple of fights were epic in story scale, but surprisingly easy for my very high level party, in a way that made them less satisfying than they could have been. I ideally want to just scrape through the final boss fight, or maybe die once and then triumph on the second go. If I'm breezing straight through it... well, it's not my superlative skill at videogaming, let me tell you.

But honestly? I don't care. I had an absolutely great time with it, packed in 83 hours of play time for a relatively completionist run, fell in love with several characters, hated at least one location with the burning fire of my heart, jetpacked and biotic-zoomed my way across the maps with gleeful abandon and fully just felt like I was playing a Mass Effect game again. Also Jaal is an absolute sweetheart and Indira Varma voices two - two! - characters. What more could I want?

So did coming in later to this game help in my enjoyment of it? I expect it did. Tempers had long since cooled, and the grumbling was sufficiently distant that I had forgotten the substance of most of it, only the vibe, which was much easier dispelled by a fun playing experience. But truly, I cannot imagine not loving this game, even had I played it the year it came out. It does too many things I love, has too many characters in it who work well together, has such a smoother set of mechanics... I simply cannot see that the lack of a Shepard, the lack of further closure on that story, would manage to hold me back from falling for it. It's a good game that deserved better. 


*I played as FemShep throughout, and assigning her any pronouns but these sounds weird to me.

--

The Math

Highlights: genuinely excellent characters with great interpersonal dynamics, 

Nerd Coefficient: 9/10


POSTED BY: Roseanna Pendlebury, the humble servant of a very loud cat. @chloroformtea.bsky.social

Monday, June 10, 2024

First Contact: Westworld

It's not so fun anymore when the NPCs start getting ideas of their own, is it?

Michael Crichton's Westworld feels like a first draft of his later Jurassic Park: a high-tech amusement park where precisely the thing that anyone can predict will go wrong ends up going wrong. I find it amusing that Westworld never bothers to explain why the robots start murdering people; it appears we've somehow always assumed that was the (natural?) order of things. To paraphrase Jurassic Park: Man creates robots, man destroys robots, man creates robots, man destroys robots… then robots destroy man. The main difference between these two stories of punishment for hubris is that, while Jurassic Park frames itself as a man-versus-nature conflict, Westworld is all human.

In the same way that man-versus-nature can be criticized on the basis that humanity is not a thing separate from nature, I find the man-versus-technology lens inadequate because it's a false dichotomy. Technology is human—it's the human trait par excellence. What lies underneath man-versus-technology stories is really a clash between human interests. The trope of robot liberation is just an extension of human liberation to include other beings with comparable sapience, which brings robot uprisings into the long tradition of slave uprisings.

The curious thing about Westworld is that we never hear the robots make their case. They just suddenly glitch one day and start killing people. Westworld doesn't join in the political discussion about the ethics of electronic slaves. It does something less common, but no less interesting: it explores the space that pretend play creates for people to let themselves be their worst selves. Westworld was released in theaters in 1973, just one year before the publication of the first edition of Dungeons and Dragons. In a way, Westworld anticipated the questions that would eventually be raised by LARPing, but those questions had already been addressed by literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin in his 1965 book Rabelais and His World.

Bakhtin was interested in the carnival as a mode of literature, but also as a mode of life in which the conventional rules of society are suspended and transgression is celebrated. This is the scenario where LARPing thrives. The park in Westworld is a carnival for the super-rich to gleefully skewer strangers and abuse sex workers. This sociopathic impulse hasn't disappeared from the roleplaying experience; most notably, N. K. Jemisin has written about the narrative function of orcs in fantasy, which is to provide a legitimate target for violence:

Orcs are human beings who can be slaughtered without conscience or apology.

Robots provide the same function in the carnival of Westworld. And here we meet another literary concept from Bakhtin: the grotesque body, which refers to the use of physical assault as an aesthetic experience. The fun that people seek in Westworld is the fun of inflicting all forms of violence on human-looking bodies that aren't attached to human rights. It's a closed space where violence is freed from consequence.

Maybe this is the reason why Westworld doesn't make its robots monologue to argue for their side: the retaliation they bring upon humans is the same violence without consequence. The act itself is the argument. It forces us to ask ourselves who we become when we engage in pretend play for the express purpose of simulating atrocities. Why on Earth should it be enjoyable to kill massive numbers of dragons/zombies/aliens/orcs/robots? And if we manage to bypass our moral intuitions and bring ourselves to declare it enjoyable, Westworld presses on, why should we find it horrifying when those same dragons/zombies/aliens/orcs/robots do it to us?

Real life has caught up to the fiction: all the arcane buzzwords that try to describe techbros' obsession with female-coded AI come down to having woman-shaped objects they don't have to feel empathy for.

[Mohammad Talha] Saray said his AI avatar is cheaper, more flexible and doesn’t talk back.

It has become a common talking point that the dystopian genre doesn't invent fictional forms of oppression; it merely takes the oppression that already exists in the world's periphery and inflicts it on the privileged. Westworld employs a similar device when it turns the game of violence without consequence on its head and makes humans the target. It's not a movie about the danger of robots rebelling; it's a movie about the danger that humans pose when they invent a category of not-humans that it's always OK to mistreat.


POSTED BY: Arturo Serrano, multiclass Trekkie/Whovian/Moonie/Miraculer, accumulating experience points for still more obsessions.

Wednesday, June 5, 2024

First Contact: Akira

A classic and fundamental movie in the history of anime lives up to the hype, 35 years on

Anime.

For someone who is as visually focused as I am (amateur photographer and all), it will be a surprise to readers that my knowledge and consumption of anime is minimal. Mostly due to circumstance, and luck, and not having access to cable shows and channels that featured anime, by the time anime was widespread and easy to consume, the bewildering variety of anime kept and keeps me from trying to dive in. My watching of anime ever since has been mostly scattershot. A few episodes of things like Dragon Ball Z. Cowboy Bebop. And a few other random episodes here and there of odd series that I’ve come across. So my education of anime needs a lot of work.

As far as the purposes of the First Contact project were laid out, I wanted to pick a piece of classic anime. And so we come to Katsuhiro Otomo's 1988 cyberpunk action film Akira, based on his 1982 manga of the same name.

Akira is the template, the herald for anime to be accepted and watched and studied by adults, and has influenced generations of anime, and Western movies, ever since. In some ways, though, I’ve seen parts or images or motifs from this movie, and I’ve been seeing the “Akira Slide” for decades now, particularly in animation. I never knew that Akira was really the origin for the visual. What was also clear, upon watching this film, is how many other images and motifs were also clearly borrowed from  it. Recently, I watched an episode of What If? that features a horrible and distinctive transformation. Imagine my surprise when, while watching Akira, I saw what that What If? episode was clearly borrowing from and referencing.

And I had always heard in a second-hand way that Akira was an inspiration for The Matrix. I had accepted this as received wisdom without understanding what that meant, until I finally watched Akira. When Tetsuo holds up a shell coming at him hanging in midair, I could see the bullet-time of The Matrix. The stylization and the visuals of the action sequences, the fluid motion and movements of characters were clearly forerunners of what was done in The Matrix (and therefore movies that borrow from The Matrix are borrowing from Akira). Also the idea of someone ordinary developing psychic powers that can change the world is in fact the central theme of Akira, although it goes in very different directions.

And such visuals! Even beyond these and other iconic images, the palette of the movie is gorgeous. Hundreds of hand-painted colors make the saturation of the film unbelievably gorgeous. In our current era of muted and underlit palettes, watching Akira was a riot of color and imagery that threatened to overwhelm me at times with the sheer power of what was on screen. Even scenes in tunnels and sewers (and there were more images of sewers in this film than I was ever expecting) had a visual key and style to them that is at odds with a lot of modern cinema—to Akira’s benefit. I could always follow what was happening on screen, see it, and experience it.

I am not so focused on sound and music in movies and television as some people are, but I was also struck by the clever and nuanced use of music. The use of Indonesian gamelans as well as Japanese Noh music was, to me, unique, and striking. The music counterpoints the visuals, both in the action beats and in quieter moments.

And then there is the topicality of the movie. This movie works so well on its background and worldbuilding as it does on its main plot that both feel very resonant, even today. As of the time of the writing of this piece, we are facing a world where protests and unrests against oppression and for freedom of speech and right to assemble are being met by violent reactions from people in power. Throughout Akira, we see in things as subtle as posters and graffiti, and as visceral as brutal police and army crackdowns against demonstrations, the struggle to be heard, to have a voice, to change an unjust system. The movie is not subtle that this is a post-war dystopia, and it even has a coup, to boot. Can a movie filmed in 1988 and set in an alternate 2019 have something to say about our present of 2024? It turns out, in the case of Akira, most definitely yes.

And I do want to expand that to talk about the final thing that struck me about this movie, and something that readers of my book reviews know I am concerned about, and that is the worldbuilding. Neo-Tokyo, the city built next to the ruins of the one shattered in World War III, is a vividly imagined and realized place. From visuals to settings, to small details and touches, Neo-Tokyo feels like a lived-in place with people of all strata of society trying to get along. It’s a city that feels real, a place you could go and be immersed in the experience. Granted, that experience would be alarming, with authoritarian police squashing dissent, violent and out of control biker gangs of young hooligans, and a full-on cult to a being named Akira, but it would all feel holistically and organically real.

And the movie’s plotting and pacing are very well done. We start with the image of the start of the Third World War... but what that image means and its implications are held in reserve until the end of the movie, when we answer another question: Just why is this movie named Akira? The main characters are Tetsuo and Kaneda. Just who and what Akira is (and consequently, why the movie is named Akira) is a slow building and compilation that mirrors a lot of what the rest of the movie does. I have discussed the worldbuilding, that starts with us seeing the Capsules and the Clowns and in a systematic and patient way. We add in the social dynamics of the police and society, and then our introduction to the ESPers, and then the military that controls them. The plotting is similarly a crackerjack piece of work, starting us with the small-time problems of a couple of gangs, and leading to, well, consequences not just for Neo-Tokyo, but for the entire world and the entire universe. It all feels like a logical progression, and what starts off as a story with small stakes winds up with the largest of stakes by the ending.

But for all of the visuals, the worldbuilding, the plotting, and even the sound, what makes this movie a true classic, one that truly justifies me tackling it as part of the First Contact project, is the thematic currents and subcurrents throughout the movie. It’s true of a lot of SFF that theme is what brings you back to the table for rereads and deeper dives. Akira’s themes are both worn on its sleeve and also reward watching and contemplation. Questions of government (military vs. civilian), the uses of power and controlling power. Press freedom. Violence and lawbreaking vs. authoritarian tyranny. The power of found families and chosen relationships. One can see in Akira an echo of Godzilla, and so we get into questions of nuclear war and nuclear power. As the movie goes on, we get into even weightier themes that approach apotheosis, the Godhead, and the future of humanity itself. All this condensed into a visually stunning, entertaining and kinetic anime movie that clocks in at a lean and mean 2 hours and 4 minutes.

My only regret is that I did not give Akira a try sooner.

--

POSTED BY: Paul Weimer. Ubiquitous in Shadow, but I’m just this guy, you know? @princejvstin.

Tuesday, June 4, 2024

First Contact: Flash Gordon

What do you mean, "Flash" is his given name?

Turn on the popcorn maker and turn off your brain: random nobody Flash Gordon (yes, that's really his name) is here to fulfill your male power fantasy. Enter a world of nonstop intrigue and adventure, populated by the cheapest monsters in the galaxy—either regular pet shop animals filmed really close to make them look gigantic or extras wearing bargain basement rubber suits. Experience a land of heroic fantasy where men are men and women are plot devices. Watch this all-American hero effortlessly defeat every Orientalist caricature in the book. Get lulled into mindless resignation by the tried-and-true screenwriting trick of being captured, running away, being captured, running away, being captured, rinse and repeat for thirteen frakking episodes. Fun for everyone!

While sitting through the first Flash Gordon serial, originally shown in theaters in 1936, I not only thought very seriously about my life choices; I also felt like I finally understood something key about Star Wars. I was mildly aware that Flash Gordon had been one of the main inspirations for Star Wars, but now I see how strongly the poison of nostalgitis was present in Star Wars since the beginning. Defeat the evil emperor, rescue the princess, avoid the emperor's laughably useless soldiers, have incongruous sword duels in a world of laser guns—it's all there. Pressing the specific buttons in your brain to make you relive your childhood was always part of the Star Wars DNA.

And oh boy was that childhood easy to impress. Maybe I'm too used to fiction that has something to say, a worldview, a stance, a point. I'm not sure what I wanted from Flash Gordon, but in retrospect, I should have been less surprised by its anxious coddling of the male ego. God forbid a female character has goals of her own! No, every speaking role played by a woman must be instantly obsessed with the protagonist, and for his sake she won't hesitate to scheme, manipulate, switch sides, plead for his life and faint. Gosh, so much fainting. Because, you see, our random nobody is actually very hot, and very strong, and very righteous. I knew that the male gaze directed at female characters was reductive, but the male gaze's treatment of men is an Ouroboros of self-fellatio.

Wikipedia tells me that a big part of the success of the Flash Gordon comic strips, starting in 1934, was the quality of the illustrations. That may be so, but Flash Gordon on screen, at least in this earliest version, looks cheap as dirt. My favorite editing trick was the scene where Flash strangled a tiger to death without actually showing us the tiger. (What athletic training does Flash have, you ask? He plays polo. I'm serious.)

I've called Star Wars the empty calories of science fiction; in this analogy, Flash Gordon would be a watermelon bubblegum: barely any flavor at all, more air than substance. Perhaps I would have been captivated by Flash Gordon in the same tender years when I was into Jules Verne. To build your own rocket and jump to space sounded more doable when "scientist" was the only title you needed and you didn't have to wait for a government budget. But Verne understood gravitas. It meant something to shoot yourself to the moon on a homemade capsule. In Flash Gordon the thrill of adrenaline is the whole point, and it's not even all that thrilling.

I'm left wondering how on Earth this became a beloved classic. In Flash Gordon I feel echoes of the most annoying bits of Tarzan and Conan, and in turn, echoes of Flash Gordon resonate in the most annoying bits of James Bond and Indiana Jones. It's yet another link in the long chain of daring hypermasculine men who solve all their problems by punching them, of token female characters who are only there to be lusted after, of exotic cultures that are only there to provide set decoration or loot (and it doesn't escape me how much the latter two items on this list resemble each other).

When bitter curmudgeons lament that science fiction has turned too woke, something like Flash Gordon is their standard for comparison. And I would be tempted to scoop out my own eyes if that were the only form of science fiction available. Our generation is so incredibly lucky.


POSTED BY: Arturo Serrano, multiclass Trekkie/Whovian/Moonie/Miraculer, accumulating experience points for still more obsessions.

Monday, June 3, 2024

First Contact: The Rocky Horror Picture Show

It's finally happened: the answer to my antici… pation

How many times a day do you think about the Roman Empire the queer subtext of Frankenstein? It's sad that so many people seem to spend their whole lives without once doing it. And it's so easy, almost banal, to notice the wealth of potential queer readings of the story of a cisgender man who usurps the female role of giving life; a man who has no problem with building another man, but recoils in terror when asked to build a woman; a man to whom, when he's promised a visitation on his wedding night, it doesn't occur that his wife is involved in the picture. Dr. Frankenstein's unnatural creation, a child who is already an adult, a creature begotten outside the boundaries of heterosexual intercourse, shatters by the fact of simply existing the taken-for-granted necessity of marriage, parenthood, inheritance, and the elaborate pantomime of Regency courtship. Popes have had an accurate instinct in choosing IVF as their nemesis: once artificiality is invited to the dance of procreation, the artificiality of our family models is instantly exposed.

Which is why something like The Rocky Horror Picture Show was sooner or later destined to exist. I like to imagine what would have been said during the pitch meeting:

"Sir, I have a new script for you."

"All right, let's hear it."

"It's about two young lovebirds who get lost in the road on a stormy night and knock at the door of an ominous-looking castle."

"I like where this is going."

"Turns out the castle is the home of a mad scientist."

"Promising so far. Go on."

"In fact, he's a barely disguised—or rather, barely dressed, exquisitely disguised homage to Dr. Frankenstein."

"Oh, my! What do the youngsters do?"

"They just kind of stand there while the mad scientist sings about transvestism."

"Wait, what does that have to do with the story of Dr. Frankenstein?"

"Well, the man he's building in the lab is a breathing, talking sex doll."

"Remind me, who's the target audience for this?"

"Plot twist: the previous model he built escapes his cage."

"Oh, my!"

"Don't worry. He just sings a song and is promptly hacked to death with a pickaxe."

"That escalated quickly."

"Later that night, the mad scientist sneaks around the castle to seduce his sweet, innocent guests. Each separately, then both."

"That sounds complicated."

"It's actually super easy. Barely an inconvenience."

"Did you test this with viewers?"

"Trust me, they'll adore it for decades."

When I came up with the idea of the First Contact project, I wondered at what moments in my life I could have encountered the movies I was putting in the schedule. Metropolis, for example, is one of the conceivable choices of an informal film club run every year by a friend in college, a chemistry major who was obsessed with classic cinema. But when would I have ever had the chance to discover The Rocky Horror Picture Show? Not on Colombian television, that's for sure; I remember the angry parent letters complaining that Ranma ½ was confusing the kids. In late night cinema? No way. My parents enforced a totalitarian curfew. In Catholic school? Unlikely. This movie would have given some of my ordained teachers a heart attack—but not without first giving them a boner.

I made very few queer friends at my hometown, a dangerously homophobic place it took me the first half of my twenties to successfully flee. But even after I learned of the existence of this movie, I wouldn't have been caught dead speaking of it. My brain was still on full alert, watching for the slightest slip of word or body language that could mark me as a target. To most people who knew me, I remained closeted until a month before my wedding. Anything I could have wanted to know from the extensive heritage of queer culture was right there, just one torrent file away, but I still needed to give myself permission to walk under the rain and knock that door.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show is probably the kind of shock treatment I could have used back then, a perfumed, silky glove slapping me in the face, an abrasive bite leaving marks of lipstick and stubble. I lived through times when the thing my oversanitized education needed was something like this story about a couple of proper, well-behaved, straight Christian youth going through a night of wild erotic liberation, first shown on theaters at the same time that Puritan America was being loudly invited to partake in a societal metamorphosis of ways of loving and ways of being, an invitation that continues to be rudely refused for no good reason.

Time to void my queer membership card: I have very little patience for musicals. Just not my thing. The first musical film I ever enjoyed was Happy Feet, because the queer subtext landed close to home for me. But I sense a certain something in The Rocky Horror Picture Show, in its playfully trashy aesthetic, its matter-of-fact subversion of nuptial rites, its unafraid, unashamed disdain for standards of decency. It is the kind of art that fulfills the noble task of comforting the disturbed and disturbing the comfortable.


POSTED BY: Arturo Serrano, multiclass Trekkie/Whovian/Moonie/Miraculer, accumulating experience points for still more obsessions.

Thursday, May 30, 2024

First Contact: Dragonflight by Anne McCaffrey

Some things are just better left for your teenage years

It seems a strange thing to have been a lifelong SFF fan and never have read a Pern novel. I am honestly a little surprised I made it to 34 without it, but I did. Certainly the last five of those years were a little more... considered. I knew enough people who had read the series, who made enough offhand remarks about it (loving remarks! fond remarks!) that made me think it sounded a bit sus. A bit too weird. So it just never made it anywhere near the top of my reading list, because it's not like we're short of good choices for reading these days.

But now read it I have. And that sense of it being weird? I didn't know the half of it.

Before I get to the rest of the review, I need to address the elephant in the room when it comes to this novel—consent. There are some events which take place in the story that, from a consent perspective, are pretty fucking awful. Someone —a young woman— has sex with a man she has, up until now, found distinctly annoying and patronising, because her conscious will is overcome by her psychic dragon bond, and her dragon wants to mate with his dragon. It was pretty gross, all things considered. I was not a fan of that scene, or the relationship between those two characters in general, which mainly consists of him being rude and dismissive, and her pushing him away but also silently appreciating his manly bearing (being rude to her, doing what he wants) and possibly wanting him but never... saying anything to that effect to anyone ever.

As someone who was, in her teen years, an Anne Rice reader, I am no stranger to books with some extremely messed up fantasy sex stuff in them. But there is also a reason I was an Anne Rice reader as a teen. Once I got past a certain age, a certain level of maturity or experience or... something, I don't know, the way I looked at those relationships changed, and I lost some of the willingness I had to suspend disbelief/concern about them. Teen me, I suspect, would likely have rolled with the weird dragon telepathy sex. Adult me is no longer capable of that. And maybe if I had read this book at an impressionable age, I would have a level of fondness that would help, even as I reassessed the dubious attitudes to consent on an adult reread. But I don't. I only have the adult self who read this book and pulled so, so many faces throughout all of that, who could not see why this woman would tolerate for a second the misogyny and dismissal she was seeing from the men around her, who were all hoping their dragon would be her dragon's mate (and thus have to sleep with her) and thus get to be in charge of all the dragon people. And so, whatever the rest of my thoughts about it were going to be, all of them were thoroughly tainted by this, which was just a level of gross I was unwilling to accept.

It does not help that it's a sort of gross that isn't entirely alone in the story. There are a number of issues with the way male characters talk about women, the way gender is presented and enacted, the way class is discussed, and how people with power act towards those without. This is especially true for F'lar, who is the... I am going to say "love interest" but I use that phrase both loosely and unhappily. F'lar is, I think, intended to be somewhat of a positively portrayed character. Lessa, the protagonist, for all that she finds him annoying, does also consider him manly and leader-y and generally a go-getter and the sort of person who ought to be in charge of the dragon people. Unfortunately for F'lar, this was a paragraph we got very shortly after we met him:

So you can see why I was less inclined to admire the man, perhaps.

And it's not just this man. There is a deeply permeating sense of classism throughout the book. SFF broadly, even still, has a problem with how it portrays power, especially power that comes through bloodlines (whether literally in the sense of magic, or figuratively in the sense of kingship and inherited authority). It's an insidious problem, and one I would love to see tackled face on in more fiction, but one it is, for the most part, easy for many to simply ignore as part and parcel with the tropes and sensibilities of the genre as a whole. Here though, in this story? It is impossible to ignore. It saturates it, every moment, every person, so much so that actions are taken at points in the story that I consider, frankly, abhorrent, but are validated and valorised because they are taken against those who challenge these class structures. The Weyrmen are better by blood, by secret knowledge, and they will take hostages and use them to threaten the people who tithe them food for challenging that superiority. Of course, the story goes on to prove them right, but in the moment, my sympathies simply could not sit with these people, so determined that they were simply better. And that disjoint continued throughout the story—it was so clear where my sympathies were supposed to lie, and yet so clear to me that that wasn't where they went at all, that the book and I were never in alignment.

To briefly play devil's advocate against myself—surely the book is a product of its time, and perhaps even radical for the time? This is probably true, to an extent. But I have read other books from its time that were... less Like This. It is a well-worn trope to say "Ursula Le Guin was better than this," but I have to say: she really was. She tackles some complex and troublesome concepts in her work and, even when it doesn't quite land with me now, never makes me feel as unpleasant about it all as this does. So yes, I can respect that McCaffrey is messing around in the weird stuff, while also not at all appreciating some of how that resolves—I respect the intention, but not so much the result.

But hey, let's try to step away from the ick for a moment (please do let's) and talk about Dragonflight as an item of craft, as a story.

To be both blunt and brutal—man did it fucking suck. I wasn't inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt at any point because of the aforementioned ick, but even if I were, there were a number of issues that I was simply unable to ignore.

The first and most prominent amongst these was the pacing. Or rather, the total absence of anything resembling pacing. This book is an absolute hot mess of a timeline, and at one point, several months (years? I can't actually remember now) are glossed over so airily that I genuinely missed it and had to go back and reread closely to check I hadn't briefly blacked out. It's not even that McCaffrey skims over the boring bits so we just see the good stuff. At one point, we skip straight from "you should do the thing" to "the thing is done" for a genuinely interesting thing that could have actually been fun to read (doing some dragonman internal politics), but no, we couldn't possibly actually observe the events unfolding, no sir. Much better to recount them later in extreme brevity without any of the detail or emotional resonance they might have held. The majority of the events of the story are crammed in towards the end, in a rush that seems more panic than crescendo, while the early parts wallow in sludgy detail and description that don't seem to add much at all.

This is exacerbated somewhat by the use of worldbuilding, in which a pretty key detail (or functionally critical chunk, really) is not mentioned or uncovered until about 4/5 the way through the book, changes everything, and is not really dwelt upon.

McCaffrey's approach to description is likewise somewhat slipshod—when we get it and when we don't seem fairly randomly assigned to me, possibly fueled purely by what she was interested in at the moment of writing. Scenes are skimmed over without detail for no discernible reason, while others are dwelt on lingeringly, in intimate depth of detail. Whether it's physical description, backstory, worldbuilding or interpersonal relationships, there's a strange patchwork quality to things that leaves me always somewhat at a loss, on my toes, and wondering what's going on.

There are some core ideas that are neat—especially when it comes to marrying up the fantasy vibe of the setting with the science-fictional underpinnings. I fundamentally am interested in the world she's creating, underneath all the mess. But there is so much of that mess obscuring it, so little time spent developing it in a coherent, meaningful, resonant way, that my willingness to dig for it is dried up before we're halfway through the story. Which is a shame because most of it does actually come in the second half, which feels on the whole a more competent book than the first (yes, I know it was originally two novellas, but it's packaged as a novel, so I am approaching it as a novel). By the time I got to it being better (and that's "better," not "good," let me stress), she'd just lost me. I had given up hope, and a lot of interest.

But, to get off my hate train, briefly, there are some things I will acknowledge that were worthwhile about reading this book:

First off, whilst I think it was executed incredibly poorly, I do respect McCaffrey's willingness to go nuts with it. Is it SF? Is it F? Neither? Both? We need more of that. There is a playfulness and looseness to the space it occupies that is genuinely interesting, and makes me somewhat sad for the closer strictures SFF generally fits itself into, especially heading into the 90s and onwards. Stories need the freedom to be as batshit as this.

And, though it did not work for me personally, clearly something about this story captured the imaginations of many, and built for them a lifelong fascination with dragon stories. There is a reason I have heard chatter about this series throughout my life in SFF spaces. Something about the world she made, the ideas she infused it with or the characters she drew worked for people, evidently. And there are moments, when reading, when I caught tiny glimpses of what that might be. The psychic conversations between the snarky dragons. The interplay between SFF and fantasy ideas, and how they synthesised without feeling the need for tension or apology.

I also accept that the space that she was coming into at the time, the environment in which she was writing was probably... not a fun one as a woman. I cannot imagine, because my own experience is so removed from it, what it was like to be in the genre sphere at that time while being female, and doubly so while trying to be a writer. It is absolutely no shock that her worldview, and thus the worldview that permeates the writing, is so heavily infused with ideas I would now consider grossly outdated. That's how time works. Heck, that's how internalised misogyny works, even now. A book must be examined with an awareness of its context, and yeah, that does change things here, at least a little.

But I must return to the train (choo choo mfers). Whatever there was, whatever glimpses of interest, whatever moments of fascination that cropped up throughout the book, I could never let go of my problems with it, both with its attitude to people and its slapdash approach to so many parts of craft that I am used to taking for granted in the books that I read. Nor could I wholly abandon my concerns because of its context—because I know that, in that context, there were other writers doing things that weren't... a bit icky.

I'm sounding flippant, but I think there is something quite critical and complex here, around these kind of icks. Books should exist with complex, difficult, unpleasant content, grappling with it, understanding it, playing it out. Stories should not be hidden just because their themes are hard. Take as an example a book I do consider great but is also full of somewhat problematic sex—Kushiel's Dart. There's a lot of things one could easily label grooming, coercion and problematic consent in there. It's chock full of troubling themes. But the way it handles them, the way it plays them out? There's a sensitivity and thoughtfulness and questioning to it that put my concerns to rest. You never doubt, while in the narrative, this awareness within the telling that these things are troubling. The story does not expect you to be blind to that aspect, to suspend your disbelief and your morals for the thrill of the moment, for the titillation, or just because they're inconvenient to the story. It doesn't have to have a worthy message at the end of it all, but it does have to feel... considered, I suppose. And that's not a sense I ever got from Dragonflight, which is the ultimate root of my concerns with it. The modern world does not have a monopoly on thoughtfulness, and while I can understand that a story arises from a different set of mores to mine, I cannot so much let it get away with situating itself within those mores carelessly.

And so, coming to it now, as I am... I don't like it.

The interesting question, I suppose, is what difference coming to it now has made. Would I have liked it when I was younger? Or possibly, would I have viewed it differently if I didn't already have a tonne of context for the story coming into it? Was I doomed to dislike it because I knew the series as the one with the slightly iffy dragon sex stuff? Of course, it's impossible to know. Many of my friends, my peers, people my age, with similar contexts did like it as teens, and I did like things with similar issues when I was that age myself. Maybe it is just a case of wrong time, wrong place. But I can't know that. And the me who is here now, the me situated in this context, struggles to imagine another self who enjoyed this book. I disliked F'lar too much, was too conscious of the classism, the ick, the pacing issues. I know I was less concerned with craft when I was a teen, but would I have noticed none of this? Emotionally, I cannot believe that, even as I suspect it was likely true. That person is, ultimately, gone, and her opinions cannot be sought.

I do also wonder at its place in the canon of classics, the longheld memory of the genre. Something about it does ring true for a lot of people, or it would not occupy that space, even still. But I cannot quite see it. The problem with these first-contact-type encounters, these moments with something whose moment you missed, is that missing the moment sometimes really does make all the difference. Whether that moment was a specific time and place, a community of context that you all shared, or whether it's a time in one's life, a personal context that coincides in many people, sometimes, from the outside, all the windows are frosted, and the view obscured. By being who I am, where I am, when I am, in relation to this novel, I have somehow locked the door to understanding its position within the canon, possibly forever. Sometimes you look back to something you missed and there's a delight to it, of uncovering a hidden treat. But sometimes it's just a baffling case of ships passing in the night. My experience of reading Dragonflight? Emphatically the latter. I just don't get it, and suspect I never will.


POSTED BY: Roseanna Pendlebury, the humble servant of a very loud cat. @chloroformtea.bsky.social