Matt Shea
RubySoho
Morgan Bell
Cibbuano
David O'Connell
Mountain Fog
The Return of Smart Sci-Fi
September 25th 2009 05:57
Sam Rockwell stars in Duncan Jones' brainy sci-fi effort, "Moon."
by Matt Shea
There’s no questioning the recent sickness of cinematic sci-fi. Once a burgeoning genre full of big ideas and clever allegory, science fiction films in the modern age have become afflicted with a depressing disease, ideological content being sacrificed at the alter of self serving special effects.
The low point has perhaps come in the last decade. Looking at AllMovie’s list of the top 50 sci-fi films, only The Matrix was produced in the last ten years, and only five – “The Matrix,” “Dark City,” “Ghost in the Shell,” “12 Monkeys” and “Terminator 2” – were produced in the last twenty years. It’s demoralising stuff.
Recent films that pass for science fiction have invariably been awful. You have the franchise slayers of “Terminator Salvation” and “Alien vs. Predator” (it killed two), or the hasty video game regurgitations of “Doom” and the “Resident Evil” series. That’s to say nothing of a series of botched remakes, including the unintentionally hilarious “The Day the Earth Stood Still” as well as the narratively hollow ‘re-imagining’ of “Planet of the Apes": as if it’s not enough for the studios make bad original sci-fi films, they now feel the need to go back and mess with the well-regarded originals.
Through it all, sci-fi fans have remained remarkably faithful to their chosen genre. Each month they trundle off to the local cinema looking for the latest piece of dork meat, and usually come away disappointed. Part of the problem is of course the budget of a modern film. And sci-fi is expensive, meaning it remains the domain of the cashed-up studios less interested in the compelling stories, subtext or metaphor, and more concerned with slick special effects and music video dynamics.
It’s a far cry from the late 60s, 70s and 80s, cinema’s golden age of sci-fi. “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “Solyaris,” “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” the “Star Wars” trilogy, “Stalker,” “Alien,” “Aliens,” “The Thing,” “Blade Runner,” “The Fly,” “The Road Warrior” and “The Terminator” all emerged during this rich era. And all were backed by significant studio or – in the case of the Soviet era “Solyaris” and “Stalker” – government money. Depth in material seemed to be encouraged, with a number of films crossbreeding sci-fi with rousing action.
And it’s that spirit that seems to have recently been rediscovered. 2009 is now turning into a bumper year for sci-fi films - despite the release of the hollow wreck that is “Terminator Salvation.”
First there was JJ Abraham’s solid recreation of a tried and true universe with “Star Trek.” An action film first and foremost, “Star Trek” still managed to capture the social and political shadings of a true Starship Enterprise experience. Even more impressive was the recent “District 9” – it too threw around the action, but also used a rock solid narrative to transmit a potent allegory of the state of refugees in South Africa.
Sharlto Copley in "District 9"
Things don’t seem to be slowing down in the later part of the year either. The verdict is of course still out on “Avatar,” but there’s plenty of meaty science fiction in the meantime.
“Surrogates” has just hit theatres, its concerns regarding the personal isolation of modern society looking to be potent grist for fans of the genre, while next month sees the Australian release of “Moon.” Co written and directed by Duncan Jones (better known as Mr Zowie Bowie!) and produced on just a $5 million budget, “Moon” is being touted as a true return to the smart sci-fi classics, its tale of a lone moon miner wrestling with his own identity being positively Tarkovskian.
So perhaps 2009 will be remembered as the year cinematic science fiction made its comeback. In any case, a genre that a year ago was all but dead and buried is showing some remarkable signs of life.
Check out the trailer for "Moon" below:
| 133 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by David O'Connell
Screen Fanatic
Surrogates seem to have arrived without any fanfare at all which is bizarre considering the star and director involved. Maybe it's a bad sign, though I haven't actually seen any reviews yet.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
HERE is a list i did recently about the Top 15 from the last 15 years
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
Ah, yes Morgan! I remember your post... are you saying I'm a baby boomer?!? Seriously though, while IMO there have been some serviceable efforts in the last 15 years, I tend to think the general quality has dipped since the turn of the 90s. Looking at your list, for me only The Matrix and The Truman Show are outright classics, and I'm not sure I'd class Truman as sci-fi. Serenity is good stuff, while Contact and Sunshine are solid, but flawed. There are a couple on there I haven't seen, however (including you fave, Nemesis!), and will have to correct that at some stage.
Comment by Wilson Pon
Health 2 Know
Adventure Toes
Techno Stuffs
boxing sound
Business Rope
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
i think older people over-scrutinise newer films more than they do "classics", and they are somewhat determined to be underwhelmed when they are presented with alternative styles and techniques
i actually dont know how old you are, but i do think younger people can inherit "boomer" mentality from their parents or peers
theres seems to be this tendency to not evaluate newer films on their merits but instead compare them to a set of older films considered to be perfect or the epitome of sci-fi
i am of course people a bit glib and speculative, but its just because i noticed a trend
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
Hey Morgan - I'd probably argue the other way: that sci-fi has tended to be a little more derivative over the past 20 years. A lot of films ape the classics but aren't nearly as well written. Serenity is a nice exception, being well scripted (Whedon: he's good!) and having a very particular feel to it.
That's what made so many of those flicks from the late 70s/80s successful - some very tight screenwriting. But, screenwriting is something that I think has suffered in films in general in more recent times.
I like to think I approach sci-fi with a pretty open mind - I think most sci-fi fans do. For example, Sunshine had me from the word go - awesome stuff and by halfway through I was heavily invested, but they blew it at the end with the weird genre switch, and I don't think it really recovered. Still a solid film, but not quite an excellent one... all IMO of course!
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Not surprisingly I tend to agree with your assessment. Great Science Fiction has the ability to really challenge audiences minds while stimulating the visual cortex.
In the modern era the focus has been much more on FX or shallow retellings of classics instead of offering new perceptions of the universe we live in.
The exceptions you listed are worthy and I would add Gattaca, Primer , The Cube, Pi and Scanner Darkly to the list.
Thankfully the foreign market has also bought with it some highly satisfying Sci Fi experiences like Open Your Eyes and TimeCrimes.
Moon has me very excited too and with Sam Rockwell in the lead I'm sure it will make for intelligent entertainment that offers some profound truths.
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
Re: Moon - perhaps its production on such a small budget will encourage more indie filmmakers to consider tinkering with sci-fi. Anyway, I'm crossing my fingers that it'll be a good one and Dave's comments have me even more excited.
Comment by Jason King
Sydney Table
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
Yay JD - Gattaca, Primer , The Cube, Pi are AWESOME!! Just rehired Gattaca yesterday for another viewing.
Sorry Matt - I thought Surrogates was a mediocre dud B grade IRobot
And I just don't get Serenity - thought it was the biggest piece of poo. I have even tried watching it a few times but still dislike it.
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
Yeah, I thought Serenity was pretty solid, and that's coming from somebody who hadn't seen the accompanying series - although I did have a buddy sitting with me giving a quick rundown.
Very jealous about Moon Q&A!!! Thanks for reading, man.
Comment by silverautumn
Cinema Three
Projecting Projectionist - Film Reviews from a Small Town Theatre Employee
But you are completely right! Except for this summer - Star Trek and District 9. I haven't heard of this one but I'll definitely be checking it out.
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
Star Trek was very good and District 9 fantastic, but Moon's looking very promising indeed.
Comment by Surfer
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
Comment by Mountain Fog
and being a fully paid up member of the baby boomer variety, I can say this; I never go into a film with a pre-determined outlook or attitude, unless I read a review by a journo I usually trust, and so am aware of the film's potential flaws, yet, often when that happens, I find other things that elevate my experience as my expectations are low.
While many baby boomers may have set ways of thinking, I say, Morgan, you spread that critcism far too thin and broadly.
Regarding my own peer group, it certainly does not apply.
Further, it has been my experience that it does not apply to a majority of the 'thinking' members of that arbitrarily assigned culture/age group, if it can be so described.
I find, the general problem with many (not all) films , of the last twenty plus years, and Hollywood sci fi in particular, is the loss of the auteur director and the advent of the 'bean counter' mentality producers, who do not care much about meaningful social message in general, they just think of bottom line profit, and what appeals best to the masses.
In addition ot this, there is a subculture in the big end of town film making, in Hollywood in particular, that definitely has a 'please the master' mentality, that being the federal government, so they get preferential treatment and access to government equpiment and restricted areas, always denied to film makers who have shown a history of critical comment of both government and social policy.
For the purposes of illustration, one (non sci fi) example, that appalling monstrosity Pearl Harbour, had all the military hardware supplied virtually free, because it was a 'flag waver' film, indirectly supporting the military action mentality of both the arms industry and government, was technically visually brilliant, but devoid of meaningful social comment. Sttar Trek also got support by the big TV network system, because it supported the view of America being world policeman, rather, universe cop, in its particular case.
Regarding creative control, it is not my own totally formed opinion, many of the great directors of the past (and lesser ones) have expressed dismay at the loss of total control of their work; how their work, once shot, gets stripped down in the editing room, under control of the studio management.
What many people do not realize is, the products of the big studios are often not just entertainment, but used as a low key propaganda tool.
In this enviroment, films that have a strong social conscience and message, fight really hard to be seen, particularly in their originally intended entirety.
The baby boomer age group did see a lot of films that had a strong message, not just in sci fi, Dr. Strangelove for instance, and having a world still recovering from WW2 and an atomic bomb attack, nearly everyone wanted to find some hope, somewhere. Also at this time, the clandestine government programme was swung into operation, and many hilariously silly sci fi movies were made, as part of the government cover up of the real life UFO appearances.
I do hold out hope though, and the internet is the way, most likely, for our collective social
consciences to be given room to express themselves more freely.
cheers
fog
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight