What we have here is a failure to communicate:
The basic SciFi example in my oppinion is Star Trek. If it takes place in a current or historical era without the addition of aliens of some kind or space travel or some such, it’s probabally not Science Fiction.
SciFi should certainly be distinguished from various sorts of fantasy (including your typical post-apocalypse action flick), and space operas. But I say that Eternal Sunshine fits one traditional style of SciFi where a new technology is invented and the film deals with the consequences of this changed world. It is not just metaphor since the conceit of the film is that there actually is a gizmo that wipes out memory.
Of course, you could have made a very similar film by having some magic shaman pick off the unwanted memories by casting spells. This would have then put the film in the genera of magic romantic comedies.
The Island?
Though that movie sucks….
The Island?
Which one? The Russian one, or the one with Scarlett Johanson? I haven’t seen the latter, and the Russian one is religious so… :D I can not say anything about this.
The way scifi is used today it means any fiction involving technology that does not exist. Purist would define it more in the realm of Asimov, where you hypothesize technology that could exist in the real world and imagine the impact it would have on society.
Ok… This is how I get it:
Science Fiction = an aesthetic category which shows concern for themes like the future of human kind emphasizing a moral and social development often with a tendency towards behaviorism and lack of individuality. Sexuality is found to be degrading, the androgyny being a typical topic along with puritan beliefs or even man-only and female-only societies. The characters are inclined toward rationality and cognition, usually function like machines, refuse sentimentalism and find it to be a manifestation of the weak. Technology is a common leitmotif and it is usually part of the picture due to the temporal placement of action.
To be continued…
@Jirin: Totally agree with the Asimov part. It is mostly about hypothesis, and here lies the difference between Sci-Fi and utopia: the societies created in science fiction are not ideal, even though superior. They are somehow imaginative experiments: " what would happen if the human mind we have now would be put in front of this and that? " The hypothesis has a basis and IS critical toward itself, analyzing the mind, the impact on society as you say, more then the society itself as it happens in the other case.
The crappy ScarJo one. But seeing as you haven’t seen it, I guess that’s not the one you forgot about. Save yourself the trouble though.
I’d like to write an “autobiographical” novel that takes place forty years from now when I’m on my deathbed and am writing a novel about when I thought about writing a novel of myself forty years ago.
I’d call it science fiction, but really, I’d call it something like Tense Confusion and some know-it-all university student working at Borders would lump it in “horror” or some such nonsense, and some syphilitic English professor would be shaking his head (earnestly) somewhere in a hospital bed.
Anyway, where was I going with this? Ah, yes, ALL science fiction is speculative but not all speculative fiction has scientific aspirations (or inclinations, if we want to be smarmy about it) … but really, does it matter what who thought what was? And where do you toss a book at the end of the day? Genres are like those little rows of cards one used to have at libraries (now replaced by huffing and buzzing machines which specialize in creating fuzzy retinas) in that they’re merely a guide; a direction is suggested and you may agree or disagree with its classification.
It’s pretty fruitless to try and define a genre because there will always be some work of art which defies that definition (even if it’s such a work that’s only reason for ever being created was to defy). To harp about how people, who are obviously ignorant in general let alone are knowledgable about basic genre guidelines, lump things which are ‘odd’ into science fiction, isn’t entirely productive. Just sayin’.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a branch on the Philip K. Dick tree of science fiction in that it’s more concerned with cognition and metaphysics than science per se.
@ Deckart, I am trying to define the genre because I find it a little unpleasing that we always take the liberty of not doing it, and fitting everything into everything. It may not be needed, it could not be very useful as it is after all subjective to understand a movie/book, even a leaflet, but still, we need at least a few guidelines to follow because rushing into stupid suppositions.
I would not say your book would be SF but more likely psychological as you in fact try to reflect upon yourself. I do like the name “Tense Confusion”. It implies two contiguous meanings of two contiguous states of being. But Proust had a tense confusion as well in his memory flow. Or even better, Joyce.
And um…odd? Well horror is odd too. “Salo” was odd, and unpleasing at the same time. A movie with queer guys can be odd for one who is not really open minded.
Oh, and you know what I like the most? That it’s actually quite hard to define or explain the words and concepts that we use with such freedom every single moment.
You present a lot of very interesting point and ideas, and I am intrigued by the variety and diversity of ideas you bring into play, Demoiselle. However, I find your thoughts fragmentary and occassionally contradictory, and in many places it feels like words aside, your basic underlying assumption is that films that deal with important or meaningful themes are not science fiction, because you selectively remove them; it gives me the impression that you are operating under the assumption that science fiction cannot be serious, and science fiction authors, fans, and theorists have been trying to fight against that assumption for decades.
Please forgive me if my reading of your writing is wrong, but nevertheless, I find no way of really confronting your ideas but on a nearly sentence by sentence basis, considering the streaming and associative nature of your writing. I am not willing to write off all of your ideas, but though you obviously are struggling with a lot of them you are not taking time to consider them individually.
Genres are fluid and largely arbitrary, but their purpose generally (same variant of the word) comes down to two broad uses: marketing to familiarize audiences in advance with what to expect, and signifiers for an author or filmmaker to play with to communicate a message through a certain mode of presentation.
So, from the top:
“By any means possible metaphor or analogy can not mean Science Fiction”
WRONG. Science fiction opens up many opportunities for metaphor and analogy, and in some cases are the only ways through which an author can present them without fear of censorship or marginalization. The science fiction author Stanislaw Lem, for instance, used science fiction to bypass many communist censorship codes.
" no, I don’t have anything against SF, I am just picky and skeptical and do not like things as a whole. "
I do not understand what this means, “things as a whole,” and how your picky skepticism should apply to a genre. In other words, just ‘cause you say it’s so, doesn’t make it so. Back up how metaphor or analogy cannot mean science fiction (which I believe you try to do below, but as I said, I’m taking things as they come).
“we all try to dump our remains after ending a relationship. And this impulse is always encouraged: even the magazines, newspapers, yahoo feeds say “Get ready for spring. Clean your closet. Dump the gifts you stashed in that box, they’re from your ex, get real, feng shui your living space and inner place.””
Science fiction can sometimes confront human tendencies and try to look into how “we all try to” by removing the dramatic context from recognized contemporary space and placing it in outer, inner, virtual, alien, temporal, or extra-dimensional spaces. Virtual reality becomes a very interesting subgenre of science fiction because the definition of virtual reality itself can include any attempt by humans to recreate and subjugate “reality” into synthetic or digital interactive form. Thus, advertising can be considered a form of virtual reality because they promise an virtual escape from the unpleasantness of real life into the interactive and pleasurable world of synthetic consumer happiness. Virtual reality has its basis in videogame interactivity and electronic representations of reality, but has come to expand semiotically into such things as army simulations, high-tech medical equipment, and the Las Vegas Strip, amongst other things.
For instance, in Dubai there is Ski Dubai, a snow slope in the middle of a desert that attempts to recreate a “virtual landscape” for Emiratis and tourists who do not have access to real slope and real snow in a land of under 10 inches of rainfall per annum. As well as bringing the idea of skiing to a geographical area where such an activity just simply doesn’t exist naturally, it also recreates snow that can be manipulated and controlled like real snow to build snowmen, have snowball fights, etc. Standing right in the middle of the Mall of the Emiratis is a contemporary example of pure virtual reality. Surrounding it is the Mall of the Emiratis itself, a consumerist space that brings people in under the assumption that their virtual measurements of value (“money”) will lead to goods or services that in theory will provide a “better” life—but is the life better, or just virtual?
“Getting back to the subject, I don’t agree that ANY film which contains a utopia/dystopia topic/blast or just an eccentric supposition/idea should be considered as SF”
Fine. Where did this come from? How did you get here? The topic above starts in the basis of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind , but by now you’ve already strayed from and thrown in various tangents and associations which make your overall intentions unclear. Okay, so the general idea is that you’re questioning science fiction conventions and how to classify them in genre, but why do you suddenly rest here? Where does this example come from and what point does it make? Similarly, if you want to discuss utopian/dystopian narratives, could you define them and how they reside separate from science fiction as well? What are examples of utopian/dystopian narratives that are not science fiction, and why?
“As Natasha, from Alphaville used to say: “One must put new words to correspond new ideas.” Maybe we should redefine the film genres a bit.”
Certainly there is a long tradition of genre analysis in critical theory. I am more than willing to confront science fiction as a genre, with the caveat that my opinion is that genre boundaries are fuzzy and will always be. However, at this point I have already learned to distrust your opinion. “Metaphor or analogy cannot possibly mean science fiction” indicates, to me, a lack of respect for the genre you are trying to analyze, and without respect for the topic, how can you attempt to analyze it critically (not criticize, critically analyze—two different things)?
" SF is anything from Science Fiction to Speculative Fiction. If Science Fiction usually contains new technology or presents the future in a way that COULD actually Happen its roots being placed in our world, Speculative Fiction is more imaginative and theoretical."
First of all, understand that the term “speculative fiction”, like “graphic novel”, was an attempt by writers, fans, and theorists to provide a new seriousness to formats previously considered not-serious and even downright childish, science fiction and comic books. I do not believe that the creation of a new word is very helpful in creating a fair understanding of these media because they lead to confusion and further debate in, for instance, whether one text can be considered “speculative fiction” or “science fiction”, a “graphic novel” or a “comic book”. It is much better to fight for the reconnotation of one word that already fits the definition, than to attempt to separate so called “serious” and “not serious” work into separate categories, which is at best more confusing and at worst highly pedantic. You correctly remove yourself from this argument later on in your post, however I do not believe you understand the history behind the words you are contending with, which is important to understanding how they come to mean what they do in today’s modern definitions.
“This is why the term can as well be too large and create confusion. Isn’t all fiction somehow speculative? If we were to accept or use that term, we would not have any genres at all.”
Exactly. ALL fiction is speculative. A narrative operates around a “what if?” happening to a “whom?” Thus, one approach of genre analysis may be to categorize certain trends of “what if?” regarding certain characterizations of “whom?” But that is only one way.
“For example we could say that vampire movies are SF, and not fantastic.”
Some people do. However, in the interest of not being completely deconstructionist, the principles behind how the vampire comes to be can be a major factor in its genre classification. A vampire’s genesis through demon worship could be considered fantasty while a vampire’s genesis through a malignant virus or radioactive element from a lab accident could be considered science fiction. One popular way to divide science fiction and fantasy is to separate technological influence from metaphysical or supernatural. However, many movies, especially in the realm of Japanese anime, seriously conflict with that separation, providing hybrid science fiction/fantasy accoutrements. On that note, however, it is important to recognize genre hybrids if you are going to deal with genre itself, because if anything were supposed to specifically fit into one genre without holding elements of any other, than no movie would fit any genre at all.
“Sooo, I suggest that we define what is Science Fiction and what is not, "
Always a fun game, let’s do it.
“as well as trying to separate it from utopian / dystopian films as these movies are Always confused with Sci-Fi.”
You seem to emphasize this. Do you have a bone to pick with a particular group of films? What are some examples of utopian/dystopian films that aren’t science fiction, and why? What are some examples of utopian/dystopian films that are science fiction, and why? What is your definition of utopian / dystopian films?
Furthermore, if “these movies are Always confused with Sci-Fi”, would it be fair then that by audience accord, these movies are, in fact, science fiction, and instead of adjusting the audience’s definition, it may be more worth adjusting your own? I do realize this goes both ways, with some of my arguments too, but genres especially more than I think any other type of classification system is really more based on cultural agreement on encompassing codes than actual strictly followed rules. Thus, if people arbitrarily decide that utopian/dystopian narratives are a subgenre of science fiction, then they are a subgenre of science fiction, and the definition of science fiction genre extends to encompass these things.
Yes, that means that if almost everyone randomly decided that all movies containing oranges were science fiction, then Godfather would become science fiction, as well as it’s already extant genre listings. However, genre isn’t that arbitrary, typically there is some basis behind people’s tendencies to lump things together. And I believe you provide a perfect argument for why utopian/dystopian narratives are science fiction later, which I’ll come to once I get to it.
“Alphaville → Metaphor”
See, again… this sincerely bothers me that metaphor, to you, automatically means a movie is not science fiction. When it comes down to it, as willing as I am to take on this messy topic, I really am hesitant to consider your arguments on the matter based on this opinion.
However, to deconstruct it more logically instead of emotionally, as all fictional narratives are speculative, all speculations can be read metaphorically or semiotically. HG Wells’ story 10,000 Leagues under the Sea is a commonly, popularly, and widely regarded science fiction story that is famous for foreseeing submarine technology before such technology existed. However, metaphorically it still confronts the anxiety of a group of characters as they enter an alternative “space” (underwater) where social hegemony and civil order does not rule, and comes to its climactic emphasis when the monstrous “Other” (the giant octopus) attacks the vessel. But according to you, since such metaphorical reading of this story exists (because I just made it exist), now the book isn’t science fiction. That makes no sense at all.
But this same section goes further. Let me show you:
“1. Alphaville → Metaphor, dystopia, totalitarianism!
2. 1984 → ibidem 1."
Star Wars —> ibid. The Matrix —> ibid. Dark City —>ibid
La Jetee —> ibid. Spectres of the Spectrum —> ibid.
A Boy and His Dog —> ibid.
“3. V for Vendetta [It’s like saying “The Crow” is SF.]”
How? I do not draw a whole lot of similarities between V for Vendetta and The Crow except that they are both based on comic books, a whole different situation, and one insignicant to our discussion because comic books themselves contain various genres including science fiction. Besides, V for Vendetta fits science fiction genre classification under your very own definition included in a later post, which I will get to below.
“4. K-Pax "
I think this is your best point because you draw a comparison between a very similar narrative that follows the basic rules. Martian Child was not considered science fiction either, and is roughly the same narrative as well. However, some semblence of science fiction still exists within K-Pax and Martian Child in terms of the numinous Other, and the confrontation of a character with an alienated other. What pulls it away is that such alienation ultimately turns out to be completely psychological with no basis in any science fiction genre narrative device. It seems like the movie might be about an alien, but ultimately the movie’s point is that the person is not alien. So the movies knowingly use science fiction codes to misdirect the audience, and if that is so, isn’t the use of those codes a possible reason to classify them as part of the genre? Or how about a genre subversion instead of hybrid?
“5. Vanilla Sky”
Haven’t seen it. Can’t help you.
“6. The Fountain”
Okay, simply put, I disagree with your overall reading of this movie though there are many elements of your analysis which I am perfectly in agreement with, and I think this would have to be a tangent we’ll have to discuss in some other thread or place. For now I’m not going to go into it. It is, however, a very interesting movie to discuss in terms of whether it is science fiction or not. To be continued, maybe.
“Nota bene: If you don’t know the difference between fantasy and fiction please read Tzvetan Todorov”
No.
If that difference is significant to your argument and understanding of that difference important for our comprehension, then we are here, now, talking to you, and need to understand what you mean by what you are saying. You can refer to Todorov to quote and summarize, but our comprehension of your writing should not rely on reading someone else entirely, or else you are not being clear.
I only really isolate this tangent because it is clear to me that you are pulling a wide variety of sources and influences to attempt to make your points, and you’re obviously a well-read and hyperkinetic person, but you seem to be assuming we always know exactly what you’re referring to when you don’t take the time to link your references to specific points and purposes. Keep in mind that as well as disagreeing with science fiction definitions, people can also read different texts in different ways, so I could read Todorov and decide that he disproves all of your points where you read Todorov and he influences all of your points. What does Todorov actually say that brings you to this conclusion? Otherwise, your citation of him is completely useless to this discussion.
Nota bene: I’d love to read Todorov, thanks for the recommendation!
“7. The Butterfly Effect → Yes, the guideline of time traveling is fictional and science fictional”
Okay, so… Now something can be science fictional, but not science fiction?
Can something be fictional, but not fiction?
I think this only complicates things, and leads us down a path we do not want to go. At this point I think you may want to let The Butterfly Effect go as an example of what you are trying to mean. However, I’m not done with it either, thus…
“buuut what this movie here treats is the psychological effects of every small event in one’s life and what we become due to our choices. "
First of all, I don’t agree that any of the events the protagonist tried to change were very small. They were all quite traumatic.
12 Monkeys —> ibid. The Time Machine (Guy Pierce edition) —> ibid. Primer —> ibid.
The Twilight Zone (practically every episode) —> ibid.
Heh. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind —> ibid.
" The guy turning back the clock all the time is just the pretext for everything else to happen"
All science fiction devices (devices meaning narrative devices and literal technological diegetic “devices”) are pretexts for everything else to happen! Otherwise, science fiction doesn’t tell any stories or make any points: “So in the future, there will be submarines.” “That’s nice, HG.” No! Wells has the submarines explore, characters confront each other, giant octopi attack! Is that potential or theorized future representative of what that technology ever came to mean? No, there are no German U-boats in 10,000 Leagues under the Sea . But there is the same device that supports both Wells’ fictional future, and the World War weapons that played a large influence in our nonfictional history.
In my opinion, this is the most significant use of science fiction. All fiction is speculative, but science fiction is an eye to the alternative spaces, times, and structures of our very social history and construction.
Alright. So there’s the original post. Now continuing on. But since I am now wary of space limits on this website, I shall post this as one response and then move on to the rest of mine.
—PolarisDiB
Moving on. Definition time:
“Science Fiction = an aesthetic category”
Yes. However, do you happen to know from where the aesthetics of science fiction derive? For instance, in cinema’s case, science fiction, horror, and film noir all share a common root in expressionism. This is significant because science fiction often involves an exagerration of a technology, trend, or historical occurence to create an alternative fictional space to make a point about contemporary issues. Many forms of cinematic exagerration have their genesis in expressionism.
" which shows concern for themes like the future of human kind"
Sometimes.
“emphasizing a moral and social development often with a tendency towards behaviorism and lack of individuality.”
Sometimes, yes. Meanwhile—doesn’t this encompass all utopian/dystopian narratives in some way? Aren’t you contradicting your own point?
" Sexuality is found to be degrading, the androgyny being a typical topic along with puritan beliefs or even man-only and female-only societies."
Uhhhh… yeah, sometimes. But… where did this come from? This idea is not supported or discussed anywhere in your own postings, and it’s only the topic of very few of the examples posted by anyone in this discussion. What are you basing this analysis on?
“The characters are inclined toward rationality and cognition, usually function like machines, refuse sentimentalism and find it to be a manifestation of the weak.”
Quite often, and usually, but not always.
“Technology is a common leitmotif and it is usually part of the picture due to the temporal placement of action.”
I will agree with this, as well as it is through that technological leitmotif that the inclination towards rationality and cognition takes place. That particular form follows that particular function.
So, starting with what you have, here is an initial attempt towards defining science fiction.
Science Fiction = an aesthetic category with a range of themes like the future of human kind (for instance, emphasizing a moral and social development often with a tendency towards behaviorism and lack of individuality), transgressive and alternative spaces (outer, inner, virtual, historical, alien, microcosmic, macrocosmic, and extra-dimensional, sometimes with an abject anxiety or sense of wonder), and the hypothesized effect of technological, rational, or cognitive human developments. Characters in science fiction are often confronted with the unknown, numinous, and supra-human Other, in the form of aliens, extra-dimensional beings, and discoveries beyond the current limits of human perception. Technology is a common leitmotif and it is usually part of the picture due to the temporal placement of action. In many cases, time and space can be altered either technologically or through some other extra-rational means that displaces the narrative from a contemporary or realist setting, but these displacements aren’t always obvious or the primary subject of the narrative.
That’s a start. Further discussion will of course alter it more from there.
“here lies the difference between Sci-Fi and utopia: the societies created in science fiction are not ideal, even though superior.”
First of all, the point of most utopian/dystopian narratives is that utopia is false, and contain a flaw that make them not ideal, even though superior. So I am still not comprehending the difference you are thinking about, and request examples. Besides, if utopia manages to be presented as ideal, there is no story or allegory—with no conflict comes no narrative. “What if the future was perfect!” “That’s nice, HG.” No! “What if the future seemed perfect, but was based on the slavery of cannibalistic subhumans from a different evolutionary path of the above-ground people?” Voila, The Time Machine .
“They are somehow imaginative experiments”
We’ve already deconstructed “speculative fiction.” All fiction is imaginative experiments.
“The hypothesis has a basis and IS critical toward itself, analyzing the mind, the impact on society as you say, more then the society itself as it happens in the other case.”
Another value judgment I don’t agree with. Some science fiction focuses on the personal, yes, but some on the political, social, and hegemonic as well. Part of the basis of dystopic narratives is looking into what a certain (almost always 1st world) society would do to itself once its underlying structure of comfort and hegemony are removed. Is that not science fiction, the displacement of a culture into an alternative and transgressive alternate space, through which the exagerrated undercurrents of that culture tears itself apart? Keep in mind a quote one of my friends once stated: “I hate dystopia stories. Loss of technology, anarchy or totalitarianism, people on the edge of existence—sounds like the average 3rd world country to me.” But science fiction conventions drive that analysis by placing us, the 1st world viewers (who are after all engaging already in a virtual reality conversation as naturally and un-self consciously as if we were talking face to face), into that abject space that is not fiction, but reality, to some other people.
“I am trying to define the genre because I find it a little unpleasing that we always take the liberty of not doing it”
That’s fine, but I find some of your assumptions displeasing and question your liberty of doing it based on those assumptions.
“and fitting everything into everything. "
Not the purpose of genre, and impossible. Genre delineates conventions, not rules.
“It may not be needed, it could not be very useful as it is after all subjective to understand a movie/book, even a leaflet”
Fully agreed. Genre understanding can help you understand the statements an artist working in that genre is stating, as well as be used by the artist to misdirect the audience by subverting the genre. Understanding a genre is a good way of understanding a movie, but it is ill-fit for understanding the movie as a whole (is that what you mean by you being picky?—you don’t like understanding things as a whole?!?!). It creates a foundation, but is rarely the entire architecture, and even within that architecture the people who inhabit it can use it for reasons alternative to its raison d’etre .
“we need at least a few guidelines to follow because rushing into stupid suppositions.”
Like science fiction cannot be metaphorical or allegorical? QED.
“And um…odd? Well horror is odd too.”
Horror and science fiction share many similar anxieties and influences. Keep in mind that a commonly established “first” science fiction is none other than Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein .
Also, in my definition, I included an aspect of science fiction not yet discussed but important to take into account, and that is the abject numinous, or the Other. That is to say, a commonly seen convention in science fiction is humans confronting alien landscapes (other worlds, under the sea, inside their own bodies, inside their own minds, beyond time and space, etc.), alien beings (androids, cyborgs, aliens, monsters, proto-humans, supra-humans, cloud consciousnesses, and ghosts in the machines), and alien histories (quantum displacements, redirected histories, the future, parallel universes, etc.). Characters respond to these with anxiety or wonder, or both. Anxious confrontation with the numinous or monstrous Other, and the abject feeling of anxiety in regard to transgressed spaces is very much a large part of horror as well. Gore delights in the internal turned external, monsters from beyond life, civilization, or comprehension stalk the night, a foreign landscape can lead explorers to a painful and fatal end.
“A movie with queer guys can be odd for one who is not really open minded.”
A whole new bag of beans, and still significant to our discussion. Queer theorists, in fact, deal in science fiction and horror genres quite often, and queer culture sometimes uses genre conventions, especially as regards kitsch and exagerration, to confront the assumptions and biases of heterosexual hegemony. Meanwhile, cyborg and cyberpunk science fiction subgenres, steampunk and culture jamming subcultures share fetishistic attitudes towards some objects the same way queer culture does, meaning it’s no surprise that in The Matrix and Johnny Mnemonic, these cyber-aged revolutionaries still find time to dress up in fantastic pleather and put on exagerrating make-up while fighting the machine. Did you know Larry Wachowski is now Lona Wachowski?
“Oh, and you know what I like the most? That it’s actually quite hard to define or explain the words and concepts that we use with such freedom every single moment.”
I agree entirely! And I really should apologize for some of my harsh tone in the posts of above.
NOW, to further complicate matters:
The science fiction genre conventions listed above we have pretty much kept to fiction to describe, but what about documentary? Since science fiction is “fiction”, can it apply to other modes of presentation?
The initial answer would be, “No, it’s fiction so fiction is what it is.” But!
What about Sans Soleil , Robinson in Space , and Dog Star Man ? All movies that use science fiction conventions to expand a documentary presentation into further realms of examination, either of self, of culture, or of civilization, as well as other motifs.
What about Jean Painleve, who basically made science fiction “documentaries”?
What I’m really saying is….
“Did you know there are emus in the l’isle de France?”
—PolarisDiB
Demoiselle X
I was searching this movie I’ve seen some time ago, it’s Sci-Fi, and although I am not a fan of the genre I enjoyed that one very much. I was under the impression that it was called Cellular, but I guess I was wrong. The plot: future times, humans function like batteries, they take this medicine every day, injections that keep them sane and tamed, they can not feel joy, nor hatred, they are unable to remember the ones who used to be dear to them. This man refuses to take his drug…and here my OWN memory starts being blank. A few little paths: the man’s dead wife used to be very keen on Poe’s poetry and nobody was allowed to see the sun. Maybe someone recognizes it. Anyway, while playing the detective I found a list: top 20 Science Fiction movies of the decade. The top of the list: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.[?!]
I don’t think that is Science Fiction. I’d say “no f**king way” but I guess la demoiselle should show a more mannered attitude. In my opinion, the erasing of memory is metaphorical: we all try to dump our remains after ending a relationship. And this impulse is always encouraged: even the magazines, newspapers, yahoo feeds say “Get ready for spring. Clean your closet. Dump the gifts you stashed in that box, they’re from your ex, get real, feng shui your living space and inner place.” And we actually do that, just to realize after some time that the things we shared with the person we tried to forget were beautiful, and they should not be thrown away just because we ended a phase, and so, the ones whom we loved/been with for a while remain in our memory, hidden some place so that only we can go rewind when needed.
By any means possible metaphor or analogy can not mean Science Fiction, and no, I don’t have anything against SF, I am just picky and skeptical and do not like things as a whole. I do taste Tarkovsky, Aronofsky(a lot of polemics here), Kubrick, even Spielberg [AI, Minority Report perhaps. (Schindler’s List – nothing to do with the subject, but this one IS his best, his Only, which I find a little contradictory.)]
Getting back to the subject, I don’t agree that ANY film which contains a utopia/dystopia topic/blast or just an eccentric supposition/idea should be considered as SF. As Natasha, from Alphaville used to say: “One must put new words to correspond new ideas.” Maybe we should redefine the film genres a bit.
What are the definitions now? A small Google inquiry on the subject reveals a lot of different opinions, SF is anything from Science Fiction to Speculative Fiction. If Science Fiction usually contains new technology or presents the future in a way that COULD actually Happen its roots being placed in our world, Speculative Fiction is more imaginative and theoretical. Speculative Fiction CAN include utopia, dystopia, anything supernatural, even fantasy. This is why the term can as well be too large and create confusion. Isn’t all fiction somehow speculative? If we were to accept or use that term, we would not have any genres at all. For example we could say that vampire movies are SF, and not fantastic.
Sooo, I suggest that we define what is Science Fiction and what is not, as well as trying to separate it from utopian / dystopian films as these movies are Always confused with Sci-Fi.
The movies I find to be wrongly classified as Science Fiction:
1. Alphaville → Metaphor, dystopia, totalitarianism!
2. 1984 → ibidem 1.
3. V for Vendetta [It’s like saying “The Crow” is SF.]
4. K-Pax → We do not know if the character is indeed who he says he is, or whether he is just crazy. The same thing happens with “Don Juan de Marco” [the one with Johnny Depp], on which we can all agree it has nothing to do with Sci-Fi. We could state, on the other hand, that K-Pax is an “ars kinematica” meta-SF as it concerns OUR perception about the possibility of other beings in this Universe. Genre in this case? Psychological for sure!
5. Vanilla Sky → Can not say I got the movie, maybe nobody did and it was a general decision to include it here… Where the fuck is the Science in this Fiction? A child’s question.
6. The Fountain
Nota bene: If you don’t know the difference between fantasy and fiction please read Tzvetan Todorov! ;)> I am aware that Aronofsky is a controversial director, but would someone please stop putting fantasy, religion and fiction in the same box?! What we have here? A man who is in love and who’s wife is dieing, he reads her book and he’s so drawn into it that he thinks it’s real: there you got the border between Reality and Fantasy, which anyone could experience in a REM. Next? He IS a scientist, but that does not mean the MOVIE has anything to do with SciFi [I keep writing it like this to avoid that Speculative shit]. He tries to save his wife using a cure that can be placed in two categories: 1religious [Tree of Life, Bible, Genesis of the World, the Unity of Creation – The Tree symbolizes the same nature of right and wrong, life and death, heaven and hell, as its roots and branches look almost the same (tip: the trigger of bogomilism theory). In extenso, all these opposites can be reversed: life becomes death, but death becomes life as well aka life After death] and 2- fantasy, for the agnostics/atheists and those who do not like confusion or unclear territory [The thing with the cure is Fantastic also because nobody knows if the Tree of Life actually exists and where it could be found, plus the myth/theme of Immortality or Eternal Youth has always been a “fountain” of stories and fairytales.]7. The Butterfly Effect → Yes, the guideline of time traveling is fictional and science fictional, buuut what this movie here treats is the psychological effects of every small event in one’s life and what we become due to our choices. The guy turning back the clock all the time is just the pretext for everything else to happen.
What are the movies you consider being incorrectly understood/classified? How would you define Sci-Fi? What is the difference between Science Fiction and utopia/dystopia in your opinion?