Thursday, July 24, 2008

Posted @ 10:25 GMT

send your name to the moon

"Fly me to the moon
And let me play among the stars"

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is a new NASA probe that's going to spin around our Moon in low polar orbit for a year, and then voyage on to Mars, and beyond. If you'd like to have your name added to the manifest of the craft, then fill in the simple online form. For those of you with children I thought it might be something cool they'd enjoy - you can print out a Certificate of Participation as a memento.

Tomorrow is the deadline if you want your name imprinted on a microchip that will float among the stars.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Posted @ 10:40 GMT

the horror... the horror... except for the good news

Yesterday I heard from Brian Yount and Mort Castle, the editors of Doorways Magazine, that they are buying my weird short story "Water" for their publication. I'm delighted, because it's a pro market, and a great magazine.

I finally watched I Am Legend last night. I've been putting off seeing this film because I love the Richard Matheson novel so much. I haven't read it in an age, but have a distinct memory of the book, which is pretty rare. This screenplay was written by Mark Protosevich and Akiva Goldsman, and it was directed by Francis Lawrence. I thought overall Will Smith put in a terrific performance as the gaunt and haunted Robert Neville.

I was completely gripped by this film for the first three-quarters of an hour, even though the infected were too CGI for me. Then, quite at the end, the God bomb dropped into the movie.

It totally ruined my enjoyment of the film. It's rare that a change in tone and direction can make me utterly furious, but this did it. The final scene, where the two survivors arrive at their enclosed pastoral village with the cure, and the American flag is flapping in the background, and the kids are getting out of school, and what's that Johnnie? Oh, I think it's the smell of an apple pie baking. You better run to your mom in her pinnie, so we can sit down together and say grace, and thank God for all our blessings... and that plague that got rid of the bad elements and wiped us clean.

I wanted to vomit!

Update: My friend Julie pointed me to the original ending of the film, which is far superior to the one that was used in the theatrical release. It's available on the Two-Disc or Blu-Ray edition of the film. Do not accept the inferior substitute!

After this we switched channels and saw that Apocalypse Now was coming on so I watched that again. It was double Apocalypse night at our house! This movie deals with the absurdity of war with a terrible focus that it maintains all the way to the end. And the lines, there are so many fantastic lines. It's one of the few films where a continued voice-over works. But, top notch screenwriting from John Milius and Francis Ford Coppola, with kudos to Michael Herr for the narration. Coppola directs with spooky skill in this film, and finishes up his golden decade, where he created a series of masterpieces: The Godfather, The Conversation, and The Godfather II.

We watched an episode of South Park afterwards to lift our mood. There's only so much apocalypse you can take in a night.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Posted @ 16:32 GMT

the good and the bad

Today I'm going to discuss two films that represent the best and worst of what's available in the cinema currently.

First up: WALL-E, Pixar's latest offering, which is usually a treat. The story was conceived by Andrew Stanton and Pete Docter, and the screenplay was written by Andrew Stanton and Jim Reardon; Andrew Stanton directed the film.

This is a fine example of the importance of character in film. Wall-e is a lone robot on a trashed planet Earth, who compacts the rubbish, but collects the artefacts of human existence: a light bulb, a Rubix cube, a string of lights, and an old VHS tape of the musical Hello Dolly are among the treasures in his Aladdin's cave. One day he finds a plant growing, and soon after another robot is deposited on the planet, the sleek Eve. It's love at first sight for Wall-e, but Eve is little harder to impress.

The plant is a sign the Earth is recovering from its human-made apocalypse, and once Eve discovers it she seizes it and is transported back to the Axiom, the spacecraft that holds the rest of humanity. Wall-e hitches a ride. What we discover is that this self-enclosed world has been waiting for 700 years for a sign to return to Earth. It's not that simple of course, and there are a number of chases, miscommunications, and eventually love and redemption.

The first third of the film operates with almost no dialogue, which is hardly noticeable. Wall-e's loneliness and his tenacious patience is completely endearing. What I found really interesting is the how the gender roles in the robots are distributed. Wall-e is the caring, sentimental robot. Eve is the rather cranky, gun-slinging badass bot. Wall-e wooes her by his persistence, honesty, and trust. Eve never diminishes in her purpose because of her affection for Wall-e. He saves her and she saves him. There's also some rather intriguing subtext going on with the broken robots - who work outside the strict lines and demarcations of their by-the-law lives. What a great lesson for children, even if they're only absorbing it unconsciously.

The only issue I have with Wall-e is one of colour. I was saddened to see that aboard the Axiom all the main characters who have agency are white. Of course there were people of colour but they were in the background. The Captain, and all the captains in the 700-year history of the Axiom were white. Pixar is usually so great that it's hard for me to contemplate how they dropped the ball on this. Especially since the wonderful Kathy Najimy voices the character of Mary.

Once I noticed this I began to follow a train of thought about the practicalities of the Axiom, and how much resources it would take to keep the spacecraft going and the people fed, and how the children were being conceived and born, and why there was no sense of the politics of the place, no artwork, or society in general. I suspect the idea was that everyone was kept in thrall by their vid-screen as they flew about in their big loungers, but it just didn't gel for me. I'd have thought that after 700 years stuck together on a ship everyone would have been a bit browner.

It's funny how one incongruous detail can lead to a deluge of questions about the "reality" of the world. The action, and the characters, kept me occupied during the latter part of the film but I lost something during that realisation. My suspension of disbelief wavered, and the real world seeped in a little.

Don't get me wrong, Wall-E is charming, funny, and moving film. It's the kind of movie you want children to see. I feel rather strongly, however, that children need to see representations of themselves in roles that are active, engaging, and emotionally powerful. Especially if they are set in the future. I think we need to offer them the possibility for change. At least the robots offer excellent role models for children (which is kind of a weird statement!).

On to the worst: Wanted. This is adapted from the comic book by Mark Millar and J.G. Jones, a story developed by Michael Brandt and Derek Haas, and the screenplay was written by Michael Brandt, Derek Haas, and Chris Morgan. This is not a good first sign. Timur Bekmambetov, best known for the visually inventive Night Watch and Day Watch, directed the film.

I've been thinking a lot about this film since I watched it some weeks back. Not for good reasons. I've been pondering on how a film so morally bankrupt could be made. The plot is this: Wesley Gibon (James MacAvoy) discovers he's really a special kid whose father really did love him even though the dad walked out when he was a baby. He's taken from his crappy loser life and inducted into the world of super-assassins by Fox (Angelina Jolie) and mentored by Sloan (Morgan Freeman). These assassins take their orders from Fate, in the form of an old-fashioned self-propelled loom (yeah, this one snapped my credibility elastic). Wes's dad was taken out by a rogue assassin, and even though Wes never knew his daddy he's intent on revenge. The film plays out in a series of flashy, impressive, set pieces, to arrive at its heinous last moment.

First off it's completely derivative. For the first twenty minutes I thought I'd be transported into an awful version of The Matrix. Wes=Neo, Fox=Trinity, and Sloan=Morpheus. Even the last "storming the castle" sequence at the end of the film is right out of The Matrix.

Most importantly the gender politics in this film are utterly rotten. Throughout the film violence is lauded as a way to solve all problems. Masculinity in defined in terms of gun-wielding, ass-kicking, women-despising, action. Wes is initially depicted as a drone in an office who takes orders from his fat, obnoxious female boss (of course she's fat, these days it's acceptable to code vile sad people as overweight). Wes knows his girlfriend is fucking his best friend, and yet remains on speaking terms with both - in short Wes is emasculated. What worse fate is there for a young man? Enter Fox, who although a woman is coded as male in pretty much everything so the boys can identify with her.

The worst insult that is thrown at men all the time is "pussy".

The crappiest scene is when Wes returns to his apartment after becoming superboy. He punches out his best friend, and when his ex-girlfriend launches into a tirade against him Fox enters the room and kisses him. The best friend, bleeding on the floor, looks up at Wes and says "You're the man!", and the ex then does an about-face and says the equivalent of "Call me" to Wes.

You see, ladies, that's what women really want: the obnoxious, rude, violent, man, who will treat us like shit.

This kind of offensive tripe perpetuates some of the worst stereotypes about what it means to be a man, and how men should deal with the world. It's also explicitly targeted at young men, who might be susceptible to this kind of garbage. One can only hope that young men today are raised with enough common sense to realise they are being fed a destructive myth that will diminish their experience of the world if they buy into it.

There's no imagination or originality to redeem the film. While the action scenes were often diverting, they are merely the hollow sounds from a very empty jar.

Monday, July 21, 2008

Posted @ 12:41 GMT

a feast of texts

At this point I'm sure many of you have heard about the official launch yesterday of the sparkly new Tor publisher's web site. It's pretty, interactive, and has plenty of content.

To celebrate Tor has placed a number of its recent novels online in a variety of formats for free, as well as a plethora of wonderful artwork from book covers. Be quick. You can download them all until the end of the week, and after that they will be whisked away again.

I was almost cackling with excitement as I downloaded the texts because it would allow me to road test reading a book on my Eee PC. Just to get a feel for it, I loaded up Cherie Priest's Four and Twenty Blackbirds. Why must I try such experiments late at night? Next thing it was silly o'clock, and I'd finished the novel. The screen on the Eee PC is just perfect for this kind of reading.

Four and Twenty Blackbirds is a great read. Priest's writing is simple, elegant, and persuasive. The story is told from the point of view of Eden Moore, a mixed race kid living in the South, who comes from a complicated -- and treacherous -- family line. The novel is Eden's bildungsroman, and begins with Eden's early years adjusting to seeing three sister ghosts, to growing up until she can investigate her history and discover why her cousin wants to kill her, among other family secrets. Eden is a fabulous heroine: smart, stubborn, and resourceful.

What most impressed me was Priest's ability to describe unearthly events - such as seeing ghosts - in an effective manner without any of the usual flourishes or exaggerations. She also succeeds in writing several very creepy sequences, which is something I enjoy. On top of all of this there's a lot of good storytelling, which is generally well-paced, and stuffed with fascinating characters. I thought the plot jerked a little after the story zipped past a bunch of years to when Eden was grown up. I'd liked Eden so much as a child it took me a while to adjust, but Priest helped me get over that problem by following Raymond Chandler's dictum: "When in doubt, have a man come through the door with a gun in his hand."

The story proceeded from there to the final denouement, although I thought the interjection of a secondary character late in the proceedings, was a little late and he tended towards expository scenes, but overall he worked. On occasion I thought the family tight-lippedness bordered on the unbelievable. It's a good job Eden grew up pre-Internet because there's no way some information about her background could have been withheld after the arrival of Google.

I do have a problem with one decision Eden makes at the very end of the book, which struck me as moral sophism, and showed a disdain for the rules of society she felt didn't apply to her. It better come back to bite her in the ass in the later books, of which, happily, there are two. I look forward to reading more of Eden's adventures.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Posted @ 15:29 GMT

a horrible analysis

I've been thinking a lot about Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog since it debuted this week. The first thing I did yesterday morning after I sat down in front of my computer was watch the third episode. So, that's a good sign of the show's success.

Yet, I have reservations. The following is a rather in-depth critique. If you haven't watched the show yet, or if you don't go in for this kind of analysis, then you might want to ignore this entry.

First off I should note that the three-act show has a lot of strengths considering it was shot in a tight timeframe (seven days I believe), and the cast and crew did it for nothing in the hopes they would be paid eventually if it proved successful. Whedon is an activist in the Writers Guild of America and knows that the Internet offers an opportunity for screenwriters to gain more control of their work. His model is smart: use the fan base loyal to his projects to generate a buzz about Dr. Horrible, offer them the entire show free for a limited time, and then recoup the costs by selling the show in various formats, and from merchandising: t-shirts, comics, etc. It's fair and smart.

Also, wearing my own Writers Advocacy Hat (it's a tricorne) I must point out that the show and lyrics were written by four people: Joss Whedon, Maurissa Tancharoen, Jed Whedon, and Zack Whedon, and Joss Whedon directed it. It's a particular peeve of writers that they are continually ignored when any show is successful, and the director is given all the credit. Writers are the first to be blamed when the film is difficult or outright bad, however.

On a structural and comedic level the show works very well. The humour is multi-layered and diverse: there are puns, slapstick, innuendo, farce, and surreal elements. The writers switch it up so it doesn't get boring. The three main actors, Neil Patrick Harris (Dr. Horrible), Nathan Fillon (Captain Hammer), and Felicia Day (Penny), act and sing with skill and charm.

One of my problems with Dr. Horrible, however, is its vanilla casting - all the main characters, and all the supporting characters (bar one groupie) are white. Since the show is set in L.A. I found this rather weird.

Second, the character of Penny is problematic. On first viewing she seems weak, passive, and a little too nice. Yet, after watching the third episode I've developed a theory about this. I re-watched the episodes again with a critical focus on Penny. Now, I think there's a lot more going on in relation to her character.

Even though there are four writers in the team, anyone with the smallest bit of familiarity with Joss Whedon's work knows that he writes strong female characters. It would be strange to imagine that in a show in which he had complete artistic control that he'd somehow develop a blind spot.

The first clue is in the name: Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog. The show is explicitly Dr. Horrible's point of view. All events are filtered through his opinion, and the audience is expected to be on side with him. Whedon as director does a fantastic job of moulding the audience to feel for Dr. Horrible's situation even as he becomes increasingly obsessive. His goals are established in the first few minutes: he wants entry into the Evil League of Evil, and "The world is a mess and I just need... to rule it." His rivalry with Hammer is highlighted. Penny is third on the list.

The other pivotal scene is when Horrible meets Penny on the street. She's collecting signatures to petition the city to set up a homeless shelter. She is actually doing something to help people. Horrible's initial reaction is outright contempt for her goal, which he modifies only because he fancies her. He talks to her about grandiose plans for changing the world, while she's grounded in the hard work of dealing with the underprivileged.

Horrible is in the middle of a heist: he's stealing Wonderflonium (Do Not Bounce) for his Freeze Ray, and Penny distracts him from it. Yet, when he has a choice to go after her he chooses to continue with his plan and launches into "A man's got to do what a man's got to do" song, which is taken up and sung by Captain Hammer when he interferes with the heist. There couldn't be a more telling song sung by both men, because throughout the series Horrible and Hammer are mirrored and contrasted: note the matching gloves (different colour, but the same), the same first initial, and the self-absorbed attitude. Hammer's goals are to beat up bad guys, look good in the press, and sleep with lots of girls. Neither Horrible nor Hammer are the kind of person you'd want in charge.

In the first act Horrible's heist puts Penny in jeopardy. It is a truism of screenwriting that the first and third acts often mirror certain crucial scenes. Horrible didn't intend to put Penny in danger, but he did. He learns nothing from the encounter or the concept of collateral damage. Hammer intends to save Penny at whatever cost, and as a happy bonus she falls for him. His interest in Penny is purely about self-indulgence: sex, and she provides more good PR. None of his actions indicate that he's truly interested in her as a person, or her goals - and the same goes for Horrible too. Neither man ever see her as a real person, and neither of them are ever honest with her.

She becomes a trophy that is contested between them. The fact that Hammer is with her makes Horrible want her even more. The fact that Horrible wants her makes Hammer want to keep her even longer. To them Penny is a way to keep score in their private vendetta.

We are only given a couple of insights into Penny's background and history, and from them it appears she's had a lot of problems in the past that have led her to help others who are more disadvantaged. Her way is not to destroy, or wallop, but to heal. Now, this in itself is rather clichéd, because women are traditionally identified with caring roles. I would have liked to see more of an edge to her character - but, would Horrible (or Hammer) have been attracted to her if that was the case? As it happens I know women like Penny, who are just downright nice and caring. The fact that this trait is often portrayed as weak and negative tells us a lot about our society's attitudes. Certainly, Dr. Horrible and Captain Hammer think that's not the path to success, and this show portrays Horrible's view of the world.

Penny works best in the story as a symbol, not as a real person. I can see the point that the writing team were trying to make with her, and it's a good one. As likeable as Horrible is, he's as blind to Penny as Hammer is, and equally as disdainful of her ambitions. To the mad scientist and the superhero real people are pawns to be moved around in their endless game of outwitting each other. Underneath the songs and the jokes the writers are attempting to make a point about the villain and the hero in many dramas are merely extreme mirrors of each other. They are out to achieve their ambitions at whatever cost.

The ending of the show is a surprise, yet it is completely inevitable. That is a classic screenwriting definition of the climax of a show. It is all set up in the first act, and it is alluded to in subtle ways throughout the show (pay attention to the song "There's no happy ending"). Of course Penny is going to die: the men are battling each other with no consideration of bystanders. As often happens the woman is sacrificed to advance the (anti-)hero to his goal.

Too late Horrible realises he's lost something essential. There is genuine poignancy in this final section, because Horrible's character has been established in conflict: he can't kill, even when he has Hammer in his sights. Ultimately, Horrible wants people to witness his ability, to be seen and heard, which is an aspiration of many people - who blog, I may add. The final scenes where Horrible gains prestige and entry to the Evil League of Evil is undercut by his last sad words, sang on his own, in his lab out of costume.

I think the writers could have made their point, and given Penny a little more believability. She could operate on a metaphorical and a realistic level at the same time. I suspect the coolness factor gets in the way. Both Horrible and Hammer are exaggerated and over the top, and have cracking lines, which makes Penny seem pale and uninteresting in contrast. The message I perceive under the jokes is lost because of the larger than life machinations by the men. I would have liked a little more subversion, and a more obvious exegesis of the tropes of mad scientist and superhero.

Penny's last words to Horrible, "Don't worry, Hammer will save the day" might have meant to indicate her disorientated state, but they function to add an extra level of pathos to the scene. They do not seem in character with Penny. This means that for some people you hear the grinding of the plot device gears rather than the words of a fully realised character.

Other things I liked: the iconic use of props and colour in the show, especially since this was created on a micro-budget. The bad guy is in white, the hero is in brown, and by the end Horrible wears blood red with black gloves (the same colour as Hammer's). There are lovely moments, like when Horrible digs the spork into his leg, which has to be an allusion to a similar scene in Young Frankenstein. Bad Horse's missives are always a joy. I love the final images of the Evil League of Evil: Bad Horse (thoroughbred of sin), Professor Normal, Fake Thomas Jefferson, Tie-Die, Dead Bowie, Fury Leika, and Snake Bite. It suggests a whole other world, which is the sign of good writing.

As much as I like Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog, and admire many of its fine jokes and catchy numbers, I can't ignore the flaws. The premise is not particularly original for anyone who has ever watched The Venture Brothers, for instance. Overall, I think the show functions well, but if the team plan for more shows then I'd like to see a little more diversity, and roles for women that involve them functioning more than as a symbolic device.

Friday, July 4, 2008

Posted @ 14:47 GMT

is it too much to ask for plot and characters with the chest bursting?

Last night I watched Aliens vs Predator - Requiem, or AVPR as it's also known, and reckon the Alien/Predator franchise has hit its movie nadir.

I will admit a fondness for the original AVP. It's formulaic, but it featured a strong likeable central heroine, Alexa Woods, (Sanaa Lathan), a clear story, and it delivered a couple of cool smack-downs: my personal favourite is when the Predator swings the Alien around like a discus athlete and knocks chunks out of the temple wall with the Alien's head. Unfortunately, AVP contained too few moments like that. I wanted a bit more of Aliens and Predators knocking the crap out of each other. If that's the title fight then I want ten rounds, not three.

It also did something intensely irritating, which was to speed up the period of time that a person is incapacitated after s/he has been nabbed by a facehugger, and to shorten the gestation period of the Alien inside its host. Before anyone points a finger at me and calls me a film geek and Alien/Predator expert (both are true), these are specific issues that are central to the Alien mythos.

This change in timing had been happening already, such as in Alien Resurrection - although that film was inconsistent about it for the purposes of plot. This can drain potential drama from the film.

There is a wonderful scene in Alien Resurrection when Ripley says to Purvis, an infected guy: "There's a monster in your chest. These guys hijacked your ship, and they sold your cryo tube to this... human. And he put an alien inside of you. It's a really nasty one. And in a few hours it's gonna burst its way through your ribcage. And you're gonna die. Any questions?" Purvis: "Who are you?" Ripley: "I'm the monster's mother." It's great dialogue delivered for chilling effect by Signorney Weaver, who did a fantastic job in that film.

AVP has a scene at the end of the film that was obviously a set up for another film. Sorry, if you haven't seen the film by now you're unlikely to do so: in it the dead predator is carried on board the spaceship, and despite the fact he's been dead for some time the final image is of an Alien bursting out of his chest. It's an Alien with Predator features, or an Alienator I as dubbed it last night (an appropriate title considering AVPR did a good job of alienating me).

This aggrieved me when I first saw the film, because I wondered why an advanced technological race like the Predators didn't have anything on board their super-cool spaceship that scans for infection or biological parasites, especially after a known encounter with the Alien race? It's just ridiculous. Plus, it has already been shown that predators can see an alien infection inside a body using heat imaging.

This is when I know that the people writing or directing the film have no real understanding of science fiction, or any appreciation for the intelligence of their audience. Such questions are swept aside with a "it just happens" presentation. The Alien/Predator world has been very well established by a succession of films, and meddling with the rules of the world, or not considering them with any kind of thought, just proves that these films are money-spinners, nothing else.

AVPR has almost nothing to recommend it. First off the plot is muddled, but most unforgivable there is no clear hero. This is crucial to action flicks, and especially this franchise. It feels like there are dozens of characters running around in the beginning half of the film, and several of them are introduced far too late. It's not until the last half hour that it becomes obvious with whom we're supposed to be empathising. The film should have put Dallas (Steven Pasquale) and Kelly (Reiko Aylesworth) front and centre early in the film, instead of messing around with countless subplots and character stories I never cared about anyway. Both Pasquale and Aylesworth are good actors, and had the potential to leave us with lasting memories if the characters had been written properly. And, I must add that I didn't take well to naming one of the characters Dallas. Someone probably thought it would be a nice homage to Alien, but since this is such an inferior film it feels like a lazy slap.

Not only is the script a mess, but the direction is dreadful. Colin Strause and Greg Strause (The Brothers Strause is their borg-name) can't even frame characters well in the same shot. Their background is in visual effects, and the film is lousy with SFX - but most of the scenes are so dark you can't tell what the hell is happening.

Again: cheated! When you blow up Aliens using nifty Predator tech I want to see it. Plus, why weren't there some new weapons? Half the fun with these films is oh-ing and aw-ing over the gadgetry. I remember sighing in delight at the tanks and guns in Aliens, and the whizzy-bang toys in Predator 2 (yeah, I was a bit unusual for most girls my age).

Worst sin: the film is never scary.

The location of the film is all wrong. All the Alien films have placed their stories in tight, isolated, claustrophobic settings. Even AVP understood enough about the series to do this. This is partly because the contamination threat from Aliens is one of the inherent dangers of the species. Predators, on the other hand can operate in wide settings because their threat has to do with their singular purpose and their stealthy mobility. Once Aliens are given any kind of foothold in an unsecured environment you might as well take the cyanide pill because those guys will do what they do best and infect every possible lifeform.

Yes, I have thought about these things because the filmmakers obviously have not done so. Anyone who writes fantasy or science fiction knows that credibility is an important factor in creating a world. Often it doesn't take a lot of work because your audience wants to be taken on journey somewhere else, but you have to prove to them that you have thought through the more obvious problems of introducing two extremely hostile alien races onto our planet.

(I won't even discuss the strange twist they put in the film that combined human pregnancy with Alien incubation - it came in late, and they never exploited it for its true gruesomeness. Oh, and showing a child infected by an Alien in such a casual manner just smacks of cheap exploitation, rather than trying to be subversive or using the situation to create genuine dread.)

One of the things that bugs me about introducing Aliens to earth during a timeframe set in our present is that it screws with the original Alien films, which are set in the future. I can only hope that AVPR didn't earn back enough to cover its costs, and Hollywood will spare us from tinkering with the franchise again.

I won't even mention the lame ending, which contained a little nod towards the fans: too little too late lads!

I think this is a Highlander 2 situation: close your eyes, and singsong, "La, la la, it doesn't exist."

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Posted @ 11:04 GMT

this fleeting life

Today brings the expected but crushing news that Frank Darcy has passed away. Frank was very active in science fiction circles in Ireland, and is perhaps best known as the organiser of P-Con for the last few years.

How do you summarise a person's life in a couple of words? It's at times like this I don't feel up to the job. The adjectives kind, dedicated, thoughtful, humorous, and generous can all be applied. Warm-hearted and friendly come to mind.

But it can't even touch upon the depth of Frank, who had a young family, and many dear friends, who will miss him sorely.

My sincere condolences to his wife and children.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Posted @ 15:16 GMT

good reading and poor viewing

Hurray! Today the postie delivered my handsome contributor copy of Shroud Magazine, issue 2. I'm sharing the edition with my rather more famous countryman, Kealan Patrick Burke, along with Colleen Anderson, Steve Vernon, Marie Brennan, Nathaniel Lambert, Nate Kenyon, Tom Piccirilli and Ken Bruen, and Christa M. Miller. It's a beautiful, well-produced, magazine. I'm proud my short story "Home" is in it.

Recently, a mysterious benefactor in RTÉ sent me a free copy of Halloween (2007), the version (re)written and directed by Rob Zombie. I've gone on record in the past of not enjoying Rob Zombie's films. Mr. Zombie likes the monsters who chop up and mutilate other folks. The victims are secondary in his films. What he admires are the leering grotesques.

His version of Halloween has not changed my opinion of his work. The film is really about Michael Myers, and a least a third of the movie is spent detailing his evolution from troubled child to psycho slasher. The Zombie version of Halloween has Michael the product of screwed up trailer trash parents - his Mom is a stripper, and his step-Dad is a bum and layabout. This is pretty stereotypical stuff, in which the working classes are a hotbed of violence and a breeding ground for sociopaths.

Characters posses that marionette-feel of them jerking around the scenes and opening and closing their mouths based on plot and script lines. They have no believability. In particular, Michael's mother is farcical: she loves her monster son, and visits him for a year or two in an asylum after he has killed her daughter and husband. Yet, in a moment of crisis she commits suicide, leaving behind a baby girl. This series of events strikes me as being written by someone who has no clue about women or their motivations.

The film does something that particularly annoyed me: it threw in a totally gratuitous rape scene in which the point of the action is to activate the monster, and the woman being brutalised is incidental. This encapsulates Rob Zombie's vision: victims are needed for monsters, and otherwise they are of no consequence.

As it happens, SciFi Channel is doing a John Carpenter retrospective this week, so I watched Halloween (1978) to refresh my memory (he co-wrote the script with Debra Hill). Carpenter's film situates the horror in the middle class estates of America. He wisely doesn't attempt to analyse Michael: a cute blond aberration, born into a middle-income family, but he turns against them, and in particular his sister who is screwing around with her boyfriend. Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence), Michael's jittery shrink, repeatedly refers to Michael as the devil, as a force of nature that must be contained or stopped to protect others.

Carpenter constructs a monster that is terrifying because it is blank-faced and relentless. It does not possess mercy or kindness. It kills because that is its sole purpose. And Carpenter establishes this with brisk efficiency and gets the action back to suburbia to focus on Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis), who is stalked by Michael. I don't find Halloween scary any more, but it is still creepy in places. In particular, Carpenter manages to convey the childish fear of the middle-class home when it is transformed at night into its shadowy double. Even Carpenter's minor characters have hints of depth, and are sympathetic. You may not like all of them, but they are understandable. They don't deserve to be killed, and you don't want that to happen. I'm somewhat nonplussed by many modern horror films that populate their films with annoying or nasty characters - is it the lame notion that it's okay to kill people if the audience doesn't like them?

There are many great scenes in this film, and the signature music works despite my familiarity with it. One moment that is effective without a lot of props is when Loomis approaches the asylum, and the headlights of the car pick out the ghostly figures of inmates in their gowns wandering the grounds. The audience never has to see inside the asylum. We know what's happened.

I love when Michael's mask seems to float out of a darkened doorway to hover over Laurie's shoulder, before he attacks. Or when he sits up in the background, as Laurie shakes in the foreground. The scene in which a bleeding Laurie screams and bangs on the door of a neighbour only to be ignored is a telling moment: this neighbourhood is about façade, do not bring real problems into the spotlight.

The final disappearance of Michael highlights that he cannot be understood or contained. He originates from within suburbia, and is part of its leafy avenues and clipped lawns. Carpenter's final static shots of silent darkened interiors and then the suburban street cement this notion.

Carpenter helped shape an entire genre of horror films through Halloween, and it remains a classic because it contains thrills, jolts, and an iconic monster. It also has subtext, and indicates that its creator put thought into what underpins the film.

In comparison Zombie's version is a shallow attempt to hijack the back story of Michael Myers to his own ends: to valorise the monster, and to say: "Hey, he's fucked up too... and isn't it cool when he stabs this person to death?"

Give me Carpenter's version any day. Thirty years later it still holds up to repeated viewing. In 2037 I doubt anyone's going to care too much about Zombie's version of Halloween, but the original will still be remembered.

Monday, June 30, 2008

Posted @ 16:22 GMT

partners

Bye bye June, July beckons.

I'm chugging away on research and will be plotting and outlining the screenplay quite soon. In fact I've been doing this for some time, but in this case I'll commit my thoughts to pixels. I've been pulling at the strings of the story over the past few weeks. Sometimes I braid them, other times I tangle the ends up hopelessly. Ultimately, I'm showing the ideas to my back brain, so it will come up with the good stuff.

Or at least, a combination of conscious me and subconscious me will figure it all out. We are the dynamic duo: the chatty intellectual one, who does all the heavy lifting, and the rather surly creative type, who mutters and scowls, but is a dishevelled genius. The first has to turn up and type every day, while the other one drinks coffee at the back door and stares at clouds. When the first one complains at this slothful behaviour, the other one roars, "Can't you see I'm working!"

It's amazing we get anything done.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Posted @ 17:18 GMT

trampling virgin soil

Today is a good mail day.

Not only did I get a cheque for my short story "Home" from Tim Deal at Shroud Magazine, but I received the latest edition of Lady Churchill's Rosebud Wristlet, which is always cause for celebration. It contains a new story by Maureen F. McHugh, whose molecules are imbued with awesome, and whose writing always pulses with genuine emotion. I can't wait to read it, and the other work by an impressive line-up of talented writers.

In the meantime I'm enjoying my stint in research-world, one of my favourite places to explore. Sometimes I discover entire new continents, and stand upon the shore breathless at the novelty of the land. Other times while wandering along a well-trodden path I notice a boreen obscured by tangled undergrowth and draping branches. I pull out my machete and cut through the briars and vines until I stand in a glade of informational treasures I've never witnessed before. It's worth the muck and the insect bites.

Alas, eventually I will have to retreat with my bags stuffed with knowledge, and attempt to apply it to my screenplay. Research is wonderful, but it can be a distraction from the graft of writing.

Tally-ho!

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Posted @ 12:28 GMT

goals and weather

It's June 22nd, which means it's the start of Clarion West in Seattle, the annual six-week residential writing workshop, where up-and-coming writers learn the joys of composing short stories to deadline while sleep deprived and caffeinated. Therefore it's also the start of the Clarion West fund raising Write-a-thon, and I'm participating. So, sponsor me in my aim to write a complete feature film screenplay during the coming six weeks.

I'm in research mode at the moment, and will be plotting and outlining soon. I already have the opening and closing scene in my head, along with the guts of what's going to happen. Hopefully, it will be fun and entertaining -- well, on the page anyway.

The weather in Ireland is proving its reputation for being capricious (and a little bit mean). The evening of June 20th, as we moved towards the apogee of the summer, was fabulous. I strolled in the woods--bursting with flowers and bristling with undergrowth--with Martin while our dog scampered around hunting out smells. Summer's promise was spread out around us.

The following day I woke to gloomy skies and gusting winds. It was cold, and raining intermittently. In the evening we had two monsoon-like downpours accompanied by thunder that turned my back yard into a temporary lake after five minutes.

Today, it's overcast and blustery. Now the solstice is over it appears that autumn has arrived early in Ireland!

Ah well, I'm sure more sunny weather will turn up eventually...

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Posted @ 13:56 GMT

3 x 10

The International Herald Tribune has an article today that lists the American Film Institute's "10 Top 10", which is the AFI's top 10 films in each movie genre: Animation, Epics, Courtroom Drama, Fantasy, Gangster, Mystery, Science Fiction, Sports, Romantic Comedy, and Westerns (where on earth is Horror?).

As expected, I have quibbles with the lists, and in particular I notice the strong emphasis on films made before the 1980s. I think it's an indication of the greying of the AFI's membership, rather than a true reflection of the merits of films in recent decades. For instance, I can't understand why Gladiator doesn't feature in the Epics Top 10 (they could chuck out Titanic instead).

So, here's my favourite 10 for Animation, Fantasy and Science Fiction - but, all these films have been made since 1977. I haven't numbered them as many are too close to call.

Animation

• Toy Story
• Spirited Away
• Toy Story 2
• Finding Nemo
• The Incredibles
• Lilo and Stitch
• Akira
• Monsters Inc.
• Princess Mononoke
• The Iron Giant

The Animation category is by far the strongest field in the last few decades. There has been a welcome emphasis on the importance of storytelling, often combined with lashings of humour. Animation overlaps with the science fiction and fantasy genre as well, which makes this a tricky one to whittle down. There is also a huge amount of Anime, much of Miyazaki's oeuvre, and other treats such as Les Triplettes de Belleville which unfortunately don't make the cut. People might be surprised that Shrek isn't in my top ten. It would make my top twenty, however.

Fantasy

• The Princess Bride
• The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring
• Labyrinth
• Highlander
• Pirates of the Caribbean
• Night Watch
• Big Trouble in Little China
• Videodrome
• The Purple Rose of Cairo
• Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

The Fantasy section is difficult because it depends on one's definition of the genre. I've included films underpinned by a surreal or fantasy element. There was a slew of films I didn't mention such as Legend, The Chronicles of Narnia, City of Lost Children, Being John Malkovich, The Fountain, Willow, Brotherhood of the Wolf, Beastmaster, and Krull (several of these are guilty pleasures). Fantasy often edges strongly into horror too. Again, I've had to make a call about what element I thought was dominant. There are a bunch of Asian films that could be included here. The AFI, no surprise, is focused on American films, but I'm not.

Science Fiction

• Alien & Aliens
• Bladerunner
• Matrix
• Terminator 2
• Pitch Black
• Brazil
• 12 Monkeys
• Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
• Robocop
• A Scanner Darkly

The science fiction category was particularly difficult for me to squeeze down to ten. I wanted to mention Star Wars, Primer, E.T., Red Planet, Back to the Future, Donnie Darko, Dark City, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), The Prestige, Cube, The Thing, X2, Total Recall, Time Bandits, and Predator for instance. It was interesting to note how much of science fiction overlaps with horror, and sometimes, fantasy. In that list I tried to privilege the science fiction trope over other elements.

Of course, much of this comes down to my taste in films. I like weird and quirky, but mostly I like a compelling story. There are certain films that tug on my imagination in strange ways, so I've selected with my preferences to the forefront.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Posted @ 17:25 GMT

the hammering of my heart is good news

It's always lovely when science backs up your vice. According to a study conducted in Spain women who drank two to three cups of caffeinated coffee per day had a 25 percent lower risk of death from heart disease.

That's because my heart gets extra exercise from the caffeine stimulation!

Time for another sip from my black Americano, brewed at home in my Gagia espresso machine using freshly ground Munkey Espresso beans.

I lavish care on my heart!

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Posted @ 14:19 GMT

splish splash

At some point when I was a kid I encountered the idea of a waterproof radio that could be used in the shower. I'm sure I first saw it on a film or a TV show, but I thought the idea was fantastic. Imagine, being able to shower and listen to music! I've always had a determination that I would get one.

Yet it was only this week I attained the goal. I went to my local Lidl, and purchased a shower radio for the princely sum of €7.99.

You know what, it was awesome having a shower and listening to the radio. I left it on as I went through the rest of my daily ablutions, and I got the useful warning from the local weather forecast that I could expect downpours later in the day. This small purchase made me happy in a simple and practical way. Martin commented: "If only all life's ambitions could cost so little."

It also happens that I've been listening to the new West of Ireland station i102-104fm lately, and enjoying it. The station has a focus on a young audience, so it doesn't play any tune that's pre-1990, but that's okay. I have an extensive library of music for when I want the old skool trax. What's great fun about i102-104fm are the local accents, the madcap surreal humour that's a signature of the West of Ireland, the energy of the DJs, and the audience participation (by text and email).

TV presenter Hector Ó h'Eochagáin and comedian Tommy Tiernan do a show on a Friday afternoon for a few hours that has me wondering when they'll be taken off the air. It's hilarious, oddball, and pushes the boundaries of taste like worn knicker elastic. Yet it's infused with the breakneck energy of the two fast-quipping hosts. Since Hector is a native Irish speaker there's even cúpla focal thrown in, but in that crazy Irilish mash-up that makes it comprehensible to even those of us with a creaking memory of the Irish language.

In fact, several of the presenters speak Irish - such as Fergal D'Arcy on the "I Go Home" afternoon show, and Barbara Nic Dhonnacha on the biligual evening chart show, "Ar Éileamh". It's all done in a fluid and non-intrusive way, and it's wonderful to hear Béarla agus Gaeilge intermixed. I'm even picking up a few phrases here and there.

After a time, however, if you listen to the programmes back-to-back you are very likely to hear several tunes a lot. Mostly, I put up with that irritation. It does cement my opinions about songs: if I can deal with hearing a tune on a regular basis then it's got something worthwhile.

For instance, I've always been baffled by the intense love that Coldplay inspires in people. The band strikes me as being of a lineage of British music that I never warmed up to: Oasis, Dido, and David Grey for example. Yet, because I'm having to listen to "Viva La Vida" on heavy rotation I have to admit that it's the kind of uplifting number that tends to get your foot tapping against its will.

Just don't pay too close attention to the lyrics, because I did and now my foot won't tap anymore. It appears to be about the death of empire and tyranny until you listen to the triumphal Christian messianic tone of the chorus. Having a quick scan of some reviews of the album I see I'm not the only who has noticed the mixed messages in the band's latest offering.

I've no problem with songs that are unabashedly pop entertainment. In fact, I love boppy numbers that you sing along to in your car, or in the kitchen as you've making dinner. So, come on Coldplay, just 'fess up. You don't really have that much depth, do you? That's fine, just drop the pretensions, and deliver the melodies.