sci-fi

my absolute FAVOURITE cinema genre is the sci-fi area.  This isn't because there are very many good examples, but purely because it's the area with the most promise.  It's an area that divorces itself from films roots in drama and literature, becoming a purely cinematic style.  Films such as "Metropolis", "2001", or "Dark City" truly show just how far film as its own unique form can go in terms of creative expression.

Unfortunately, it's also incredibly easy to make a cheap, bad sci-fi movie.  In the earlier days of cinema, this was easy to spot: something like "This Island Earth" or the slew of pulp monster movies were based on the principle of "man-in-suit terrorizes bad actors". More recently, it's become a source of knowing humor. Make the worst science fiction movie you can, and it moves away from bad into funny:




With the advent of CG imagery, it's become more dicey.  It's hard to tell if it's good or bad based solely on (for example) a trailer, requiring you to actually see the movie to figure it out.  Dips into sci-fi horror with movies such as "Underworld" fit this to a tee.

Conventions of character don't exist as a whole, but in the more by-the-numbers example, you'll often have the intrepid space-farer, hard-bitten cop looking for that something weird, etc.  This protagonist often has a flimsy background in which he is the best at whatever he does, but lost someone as a result of his job.  combined to this is often the damsel in distress who outwardly SEEMS as powerful as the protagonist, but quickly falls into the one who must be saved when actual trouble comes up.

See "Event Horizon" for the epitome of this.  Horrid movie.

No matter how you look at it, science fiction depends on one element: the "other".  For the purposes of cinema criticism, the term becomes more of a jungian catch-all for aspects of self (or, sometimes, other characters) which are unknown and therefore terrifying.  The best science fiction embraces it in a way only the Western has been able to do.  "Metropolis" had the mysterious people living in the city, those who seemed nefarious and proved to be mechanical in origin.  Their enslavement of humans to keep the world running was the critical point to the film.  "Dark City" inverted this: humans lived in a seemingly normal world, but there were strange oddities about, which proved to be the product of a strange and mysterious group living underneath, powering the city as a part of a grand social experiment.

Setting: the most common setting is ELSEWHERE.  Space has become the most common area to set science fiction in the last fifty years, due solely to the fact that it is considered the "last frontier".  I mentioned above that the genre embraces "the Other" as a point of conflict and only the Western did the same.  The key similarity here is that both the Western and Science Fiction work because of the frontier mentality.  The other exists on the fringe or outside of society.  It is that which is unknown that we are wary of.  The western's death, it can be argued, is due to the settlement of the west by what we call civilization, leaving little else to the imagination.  It's hard to imagine the Indian as "Other" when we've cut away propaganda and have learned that the Indian is merely us.

Space is the most common, but far from the only area.  Our own world, while commonly considered "known", is in fact still filled with mystery.  Films such as "The Abyss" capitalizes on the fact that we know less about our ocean floor than we do about the moon.  It hypothesizes intelligent life far beyond our own capabilities living on the bottom of the sea, and the threats it can pose us.

Quite often, technology advancement is the key point behind science fiction...but not always!  Areas such as the post-apocalyptic film "The Road" can be argued as science fiction, and engage themselves solely based on the LACK of technology.  That which is different from our own familiarity becomes science fiction.  It can be more accurately stated that "technology differences" from our own norm is the commonality.  Even sci-fi dealing with supernatural elements (think "Underworld") deal with technological innovation to solve the key problems.  While the movie was certainly god-awful, you can't argue that they deal with classical horror conventions (vampires and werewolves) and embed a strong science-fiction principle in their fantastical weaponry used to fight them.

The basic features of the story:

The characters may be flawed or classical, but the common link between them all is resolve to deal with the problem at-hand.  While they are well-versed in the advantages of the technological marvels around them, it is their strength of character that defines them as unique: Captain Kirk isn't just the best with the technology around him...he's a stunning judge of character with a brilliant mind, and this is how he wins.

Problems almost always deal with death: either unknown forces outside of the frontier attack us as a species, or the frontier itself proves to be an adversary (2001 makes famous use of this).

The two basic assumptions going in: first, the world is more than what we can see, more than what we know.  What is outside our comprehension can kill us, or aid us.  Only understanding creates benefit.  second, our technology is the key aspect to our world.  Taking it away will devolve us into monsters, adding more will aid us, and the "Other" will always be able to overcome it.

Its goals: its primary goal is often in allegory.  The films will argue one of two things: either our path of technological innovation will save us, or it will damn us.  More recently, the latter view has fallen away, and the commonality in much of modern science fiction is that our technology, and our resolution/ability to use it wisely, is what will save us as a species.  More classically, it's been far more cautionary.  Science fiction can trace roots all the way back to early mythology.  The most famous example is that of Prometheus, he who gave fire (technology) to man was punished for allowing us to use that which should only belong to the gods.  This was continued not only in stories but in popular feeling til the modern day, seen most powerfully in "Frankenstein": here, man LITERALLY plays god with his use of technological innovation, and it kills him for having the nerve to play in a god's domain.  Within this, of course, is Dr. Frankenstein's struggles.  Note that he looked upon his creation with horror.  When faced with the sheer power of what he'd done, he couldn't act and use his creation responsibly.

Lesson Plan/Activity:

A history of the genre!

First, in groups of three, the class will brainstorm 3 ways which technology helps them, and 3 ways it hurts them.  These instructions should be kept this vague in order to allow the student to see it as he/she sees fit...anything from "my cell phone lets me talk to friends more" to "automobiles kill more people than the bubonic plague" become acceptable.

Second, in a large group, we discuss.  Each group lays out their three of each category, and they're listed on the board.  A "master list" is created.  The top three from each side.  Then they're examined: imagine the flip side to each one.  Example: the cell phone lets you talk to friends more, but does it invade into time you could/would be spending in more productive, happier ways?

Third, we move into the aims of science fiction.  Can we take them "literally"?  If not, what purpose do these stories serve?  What do they tell us about our own society?

Choose three science fiction movies and examine: what do they enlighten to us about our own world.  This enlightenment can be based upon society or purely technological innovation.

Examples:

Metropolis
Dark City
2001
Star Wars

What does this "other" mean?  Who do they REALLY represent?  Authority?  Chaos?