The Flux Capacitor 10.19.07: Week 5 - Fires, Floods and Roads
Posted by Owain J. Brimfield on 10.19.2007
The past, present and future of science fiction - this week we look at the end of the world. Plus, all the latest from the world of SF.
Welcome to "The Flux Capacitor", the column that examines the past, present and future of the science fiction genre. I'm your host, Owain J. Brimfield, and each week I'll be taking a look at films, TV shows and a whole lot more that exemplify a particular theme within SF. We'll see how the sci-fi of yesteryear influenced what we see on our screens today, and take a look ahead to see what may be in store in the months and years to come. Later on I'll also discuss some of the latest SF news and see how it impacts on the genre. For now though, let's get the DeLorean on the road - this week's theme is:
THE END OF THE WORLD
The Past
Yes, it's a classic science fiction staple scenario, and one that is probably a bit of a clichéd follow-on from last week's topic. But still, it had to happen sooner or later (this column that is... although, the end of the world probably will too). If I can indulge in a bit of self-plagiarism - hey, of course I can, it's my damn column - a few years ago, I wrote the following in a short essay about the extinction of the human race for an SF course I took:
The primary point of interest with extinction in science fiction is quite simply the means by which the event is accomplished. The magnitude of catastrophe or conflict required to bring about the annihilation of an entire species is by necessity immense (assuming, of course, that said species is sufficiently numerous), and this epic quality is inherently fascinating. At the one extreme, extinction caused by cataclysmic events such as asteroid impacts or the firing of Death Star super-lasers engenders a sense of spectacle and wonder, appealing to our baser instincts in being party to such carnage. We are essentially being forced back into our seats at such a grandiose turn of narrative...
Lordy lord, how pretentious I feel right now, quoting myself like some sort of weird existential source material. But anyway, isn't the whole cinematic thrust of the end of the world geared primarily towards the "magnitude of catastrophe"? (God, I'm at it again)
Back in the 1960s, the answer was a very definite "no", for the simple fact that the end of the world was a very real possibility. With the US of A at the height of its Cold War against the evil empire of the USSR, the majority of the world's population felt as though they were on the brink of disaster. Naturally, the science fiction genre couldn't help but tap into the cultural zeitgeist, and the prevalent mood of the time is perhaps best encapsulated by British disaster-classic The Day the Earth Caught Fire. Although sounding from the title like some sort of pulp 50s B-movie, the film is actually much more intelligent than you might initially expect, and carries some wonderful overtones of British stoicism in the face of adversity. It's a simple premise - multiple nuclear tests by the US and USSR have cause the Earth to shift in orbit, moving the planet closer to the Sun. As a consequence, the planet's surface temperatures are reaching critical levels and mankind's only hope (according to the boffins, anyway) is to detonate a series of nuclear warheads in Siberia.
The movie unfolds from the perspective of a newspaper office and its workers, which is a neat narrative device, allowing the audience to feel entirely informed about the global circumstances depicted. Although at the other extreme to most similarly-themed films, which concentrate on the circumstances of the protagonist alone in order to increase the atmosphere of anxiety and uncertainty such a scenario would undoubtedly engender, it's surprisingly successful. The orange-hued intro and climax to the film are so tense the sweat almost drips from the screen, and the ambiguous ending presents some of the finest closing moments in sci-fi cinema. There's a real sense that humanity has resigned itself to the hands of fate, and will accept the course chosen for it with grit and determination.
The Present
Of course, when the Cold War ended, so did the sense of pending global disaster that had permeated a whole heap of science fiction for the previous forty years. What we have now is a far cry from that time - a War on Terror (and now matter how many times it's pointed out, people still perplexingly believe that a war on an abstract concept is possible - what next, the Fight against Thursday?) that has resulted more in global indifference than anything else. It's no surprise then, that while the end of the world has still been prominent in science fiction over the last decade or so, it's now portrayed in a much more optimistic and lighthearted vein. The most egregious culprit - of course I don't mean to suggest that this overriding theme is in any way negative, but when it's spawned films like Deep Impact and those I'm about to mention, it's not exactly the best thing to happen to SF - will be mentioned in a moment, but worthy of note first of all is the Jerry Bruckheimer "modern classic" Armageddon. Now, I have to confess, I do love this film. In fact, and I'm almost ashamed to admit, it's one of a select bunch of movies that actually caused me to cry. There, I've said it - that's a weight of the old chest. However, there's no denying it's a movie crippled by overwhelming cheese, and the serious sci-fi themes you'd think would be associated with the end of the world are passed by in favor of comedy Russian accents and miners flying into space (hey, at least it's no Space Cowboys).
The pinnacle of this modern school of apocalypse cinema though, really has to be The Day After Tomorrow. The story, naturally, is piss-poor and pretty irrelevant - global warming is inexplicably accelerated, causing the end of the world to come about via the wrath of Mother Nature and the accompanying hundred-foot tsunamis. Everything about the film is wrong - ridiculous scientific details that stretch the bounds of credulity way beyond the required suspension of disbelief, appallingly two-dimensional characters, entirely stupid quirks of the narrative such as Dennis Quaid walking three hundred miles in a blizzard over the course of a couple of days and Jake Gyllenhaal out-running Jack Frost. And yet, bogglingly, the film still manages to entertain. It's a decent, popcorn quasi-SF flick. Hey, you know what, maybe the end of the world could be fun? Why shouldn't it be presented on screen in true Hollywood style, complete with style-over-substance methodologies and screenplays that push all the right buttons in the wrong manner? Maybe the modern generation has come to think of the end of the world as something that happens only in the movies. Maybe the sense of profundity and scale the scenario entails has been put aside.
The Future
Frankly, fuck that. Go and read The Road by Cormac McCarthy. That, my friends, is what the end of the world should mean in contemporary science fiction. Yeah, so it was whored out a little by Oprah, but it's reputation is thankfully untarnished. Haunting and elegiac, the story follows a man and his son across the plains of America in the wake of cataclysm that has destroyed much of the planet and the human race (it's never specified, but the story plays out in a very similar wake to a nuclear winter). I really can't recommend the novel highly enough, so I'm not going to spoil the details for you. However, it would be a perfect candidate for a breath of fresh air into the science fiction genre, full stop. If intelligent televisual SF can thrive, like Heroes and to an extent Lost (not to mention the shows that fell by the wayside, like Firefly and Carnivale, and like I worry Journeyman might), then there's no reason why a similar approach can't be taken to the movies.
I should probably give mention to the fact that some feel it's not a sci-fi tale at all, particularly Michael Chabon (yeah, the guy who wrote Wonder Boys with Michael Douglas - cut him some slack though, his books are pretty good), but I can't help but feel the tale does fall within the genre's remit. Rumor has abounded of a film adaptation ever since the novel (deservedly) won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, although details are scarce - I did hear tell that Brad Pitt was at one point considered for the lead, but I'd prefer to see someone like Ed Norton or Christian Bale in the role. Although I'm a little unwilling to moot a director to breathe life into The Road, it'd be interesting to hear a musical score in the vein of Neil Young's work on Dead Man, or alternatively the aural minimalism of Cliff Martinez. Regardless though, this is one project that needs to get off the ground, so here's to a reinvention of apocalyptic cinema befitting of the new millennium.
Reactions and interactions
Always exciting when the first feedback comes flooding through into the inbox. Well, more of a trickle really, as this week's sole reader comments come courtesy of Dirk:
"Great column once again.
I'm a HUGE fan of post-apocalyptic or just "Last Man" style of films. I'm also probably one of the few people who actually enjoyed Waterworld and The Postman. I'm so into it, that I even bought the Wasteland games.
McG doesn't suck THAT bad. His stuff on the geeky series Chuck is pretty damn good (although I think Robert Duncan McNeill should probably get more credit for the look and feel of the show. Who knew Tom Paris would make such a great director/producer)
Eric Bana is great, I just hope they give him a character that he can really steal some scenes with."
If you like apocalypse / post-apocalyptic stuff then hopefully you enjoyed this week's column. If you're into Wasteland (ah, now there's a slice of classic gaming) check out the Fallout series on PC and STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl (also vaguely related to a move discussed several weeks ago). Both my girlfriend and I love Waterworld too, although I have to watch The Postman thinking of it as a parody or I can't really take the OTT cheesiness.
I haven't the chance to watch Chuck yet, although I'll set your recommendation against my antipathy for McG and Josh Schwartz. It does seem like the kind of thing I'd like though.
And apparently Bana's character in Star Trek will be called Nero, so hopefully we'll have something worthy of the name. Can't say I'm too psyched on Simon Pegg having just been cast as Scotty, though. Oh, hang on, that was supposed to be in the news bit below...
The Infosphere
Many actors are being tested for roles in the upcoming Justice League of America film. Director George Miller is reportedly looking at four or five actors for the parts of Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, Flash, Aquaman, Green Lantern and the Martian Manhunter, with a few overlaps. And he may also be casting a few non-hero parts. And he wants the casting done this week. And interestingly enough, Miller plans to cast many of the roles young, figuring the actors will grow into the roles over multiple films.
Adam Brody from The O.C. as Superman, anyone? I'm getting more and more worried about this. Still, Miller has a reputation as a perfectionist, so hopefully he will make the right choices.
Chris Pine is set to leave White Jazz so he can be part of JJ Abrams' Star Trek.
and
Simon Pegg and John Cho have joined the cast of Star Trek. The cast already includes Eric Bana, Anton Yelchin, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana and Leonard Nimoy.
After a promising start to the casting, things look to have taken somewhat of a downturn. Pegg and Cho are both great comedians and reasonable actors, but I'm very uncertain whether they're right for the roles of Scotty and Sulu. Pine as Kirk? I've never seen him in anything, but he has the biggest shoes to fill. Let's hope Abrams proves the doubters wrong.
Southland Tales director Richard Kelly wrote on his MySpace.com blog that his much-delayed SF epic movie will be delayed at least one more week, as Samuel Goldwyn Films is bumping its debut to Nov. 14 from the original Nov. 9. (courtesy of Sci Fi Wire)
Hmm, I hope this doesn't run into any more problems. It looks to be going the way of The Fountain - a real Marmite of a movie, either great or terrible. Thankfully, Aronofsky's film turned out to be brilliant, so there's still hope. Plus, everyone's curious to see The Rock in a decent role.
Entertainment Weekly reports that George Lucas is arriving soon in Los Angeles to meet with writers for his planned live-action Star Wars series.
Hooo boy. It begins. Incidentally, when's Star Wars 3D Super Spectacular Edition due in cinemas?
20th Century Fox has confirmed that the upcoming Wolverine film will now be titled X-Men Origins: Wolverine and hit theaters on May 1st, 2009. Liev Schreiber has also been cast as William Stryker, the film's main villain. Stryker was played by Brian Cox in X2: X-Men United.
You know, this sounds pretty encouraging, although it will be interesting to see how director Gavin Hood handles a complete leap away from his usual style. Schrieber is always good, although he's no Brian Cox. Anyone else think the title of this sounds encouraging for future X-based spinoffs?
and not strictly SF, but brilliant news all the same: Ian McKellen has confirmed that he would love to reprise Gandalf if The Hobbit ever gets made.
And finally…
As always, reader feedback and suggestions are welcome, I respond to everything so just drop me a line. You can also check out my column "The Wonder Years" over at 411 Games. Next week in "The Flux Capacitor" - it's Nostradamus revisited, or rather, reimagined. Until then - keep watching the skies.
