Speeding Along

It’s a little shocking to me just how quickly the revisions to my novel are proceeding. The first act has been corrected and locked, the second act has been turned over to my sweetie-wife for her excellent review and I started in on the third act this week.

Most people write in a three-act structure but lately I have been experimenting with a five-act format. I like how it breaks the story down into smaller elements and that the elements themselves have in general a better defined nature than establishment, conflict, resolution. So even after my third act is fixed that still leaves two more to complete.

I am also a bit surprised by how quickly the story is progressing. The nature of the plot and of the story, those are separate elements in my opinion, caused me a bit of a concern that it might begin rather slowly and beginnings are so terrible important. In fact when I wrote the first draft it originally had a prologue and it was the type that promised drama and action for later in the story but I have no awakened from my dread and I am cutting the prologue. It looks to me that the character and his troubles start at the opening scenes and the prologue was simply a mistake.

(Of course I still may be deluding myself, but that is what beta-readers are for.)

I have also received word that an editorial team at a comedic SF anthology likes my writing and have invited me to submit to their next anthology. That is very flattering and their submission window is still open. The question is can I compose something that is funny and within the tight but not impossible deadline? Comedy is very much outside of my skill set and my comfort zone and yet I am always advising fellow writers that they should attempt things outside of their comfort zone. I have a couple of ideas, but for me the forging of ideas into plot and story is the most challenging aspect of creation.

Share

Sunday Night Movie: The Last Starfighter

The mid 1980s, a period when Star Wars dominated studio thinking demanding escapist adventures, and every movie had to have a slew of pop songs imbedded in the soundtrack. Not at all bucking those themes The Last Starfighter did break startling new ground in the realm of visual effects. Utilizing the most advanced super-computers in the world, this movie presented the first feature film to present photo realistic, that phrase used generously, special effects for the big screen.
The story is simple; Alex Rogan is a teenager in a forgotten corner of California. He lives with him mothers and little brother in a tiny trailer park where Alex helps out with the repairs and maintenance while planning to go to college and have a life bigger then just being a super. The Starlight Star Bright trailer park is so devoid of excitement that the entire community turns out to witness Alex’s besting the arcade game Starfighter. Alex’s girlfriend Maggie is torn between hi dreams of a big life in the city, that nebulous unnamed metropolis presumably just over the parched mountains that surround the trailer park, and her fear of leaving home and the great unknown. Needless to say Alex somehow is pulled from the bland, boring existence and is drawn up into a galactic war with the fate of hundreds of worlds hanging on his particular gifts.
Even by the middle of the next decade the cutting edge SFX in The Last Starfighter were surpassed and not by the newest generation of super-computers but by banks of home computers. However one does not watch The Last Starfighter for its visual effects but rather for the charming, innocent, and a little naive story of Alex Rogan and his voyage into destiny. The cast had a number of 80’s up and comers, Lance Guest as Alex, Catherine Mary Stewart as Maggie, a blink and you’ll miss him appearance by Will Wheaton before not only Next Gen but before Stand by Me as well. In addition to the young cast member the films also boasted a pair of Hollywood veterans, Dan O’Hierlihy as Grig the gung-ho iguana and Robert Preston as Centauri an interstellar version of the same character he played in The Music Man.
The Last Starfighter never found the love that many genre films of the 80s acquired. The very dated special effect certainly hurt the film in terms of cable and broadcast airtime leaving this project as film with a small but devoted following. It would be interesting if instead of some studio launching a remake of the property if they simply replaced all the VFX with start of the art CGI and left the rest of the film untouched. IF they do such a thing or not The Last Starfighter remains a movie that I can always turn to in order to raise lowered spirits.

Share

Not a post

My schedule is scrambled so instead of my prattling enjoy to tremendously  talents Melody Gardot

 

 

Share

No Honest Critique…

… Can be wrong.

This is something I say quite often at the writers group that I attend and I fully believe that. Of course one of the key aspects is that it must be an honest critique, but that is neither here nor there for today’s essay. What does it mean when a critique or interpretation seems so very at odds with a common view of the work?

For example that was an on-line dust up some time back over the SF/Horror film They Live. Quite a few Alt-Right types were very adamant that the aliens in the movie were a metaphor for a world wide Jewish conspiracy and that the story in fact validated the alt-right and other anti-Semites terrible worldview. John Carpenter, who wrote the screenplay and directed the film, insisted that the metaphor was for capitalism, conservatism, and specifically Ronald Reagan’s brand of political thought. In the on-line postings we have clear authorial intent but presuming the Alt-Right and other are not lying, how can I suggest that their interpretation is correct?

The key to understanding this is that communication is never as simple as one agent creates a message and transmits it to another agent who then receives that intended message. The process is more like the sending agent encodes a message, transmits it, the receiver decodes the message and then looks to understand it, that encoding/decoding transformation it critical in how a message is interpreted.

In the case of They Live, Carpenter used alien to encode his metaphor but in the decoding process everyone uses their own set of symbols and lived experiences, including everything that they have been taught or believe to be true, as a lens to color the transmission. For the Alt-Right types that can include the anti-Semitic garbage in their own operating system, hence they decoded a message that was anti-capitalist and anti-conservative into a narrative palatable to their own prejudices. Their critique and analysis, if honest, is correct for them but only because their decoding process seriously distorts reality.

So when there is an interpretation of a work that is significantly out of step with both authorial intent, when it is know, and the general interpretation that outliers conclusions says much more about the filters and lens of the critiquing agency than it does about the work itself.

Share

The Need Argument

Often when there is a debate about prohibiting, restricting, or permitting an object or service someone will make what I call the ‘need argument.’ It is very simple, they will point out that the person against the new restriction doesn’t really need whatever it is that the proponent is calling to ban or restrict.

It is an insidious tactic that has as its base assumption that the person proposing the restriction has already determined the ‘need’ and found it wanting. I reject the need argument nearly categorically. It is an argument designed to trap the person debating for access into a box where they must attempt to meet an ill-defined criteria held by the proponent or surrender and since the criteria is not something mutually agreed to but is instead always defined by the proponent it is something that cannot be met.

The call comes over and over, it comes in taxations, ‘they don’t need that money,’ it comes in healthcare ‘they don’t need that transition,’ it comes in legalities ‘they don’t need that marriage,’ it comes in the arts and entertainment, ‘they don’t need that filth or that violent game.’

It does not matter where it raises its head the ‘need argument’ is always an attempt to impose the concept, I don’t want that thing so you do not get it either.

If you are going to push for prohibitions or confiscations get a better argument, and there are always better arguments.

Share

Movie Review: Annihilation

On Saturday after a trying cold and flu season I finally managed to find the time to get out to the theaters and catch Alex Garland’s latest film Annihilation. Based on the novel with the same name Annihilation was written and directed by Garland who also gave us the fascinating SF film Ex Machina. (Garland also penned the scripts for 28 Days Later, and Dredd.) I have not read the originally novel, though I understand significant changes were made in the adaptation process, and so I will not be commenting on the quality of the adaptation.

Annihilation is about an event called the Shimmer that originated with the impact of an extra-terrestrial object. The Shimmer is centered on a lighthouse and since the object’s impact has been expanding, consuming more territory within its borders. All devices and teams sent into the Shimmer lose communication and none have returned, leaving the zone a mystery. The lead character is Lena, a biologist who is pulled into the secret of the Shimmer when her husband mysteriously returns. In order to try to determine what has happened to her husband, Lena volunteers to accompany the next team being sent into the zone. This team, unlike all the others, is comprised entirely of women and represents a number of disciplines and skills. Inside the zone the women are confronted with a bizarre and difficult to understand environment as things living in the effect take on radically new forms. Cut off from communication and help, frayed by their own psychological issues, the team pushes deeper in the Shimmer towards the lighthouse and hopefully the answers to the mystery.

The cast of Annihilation is top shelf, Natalie Portman plays the lead Lena and she is supported by Gina Rodriguez, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and Tessa Thompson with Oscar Isaac playing Lena’s husband Kane. All of these actors are skilled and have played in some of the biggest films of the last decade. Tessa Thompson took people by storm with her portrayal of Valkyrie in Thor: Ragnarok. Her character here is very removed from the boisterous on top of things Valkyrie demonstrating a range that I think we have only begun to experience.

Annihilation is never going to be a mass-market success. Unlike many films this one requires active interpretation. Ex Machina left its ending open to audience interpretation but Annihilation the entire final act is more akin to something one might see in an art house film. It is more accessible than say a David Lynch movie this is not a movie that spells out for you what it means or what precisely has transpired. As such this is not a movie for everyone. I enjoyed it, I am glad I saw it in the theater, but it is unlikely to find a home in my library. More than most films you mileage may vary and if it works for you or not will depend greatly on your personal tastes.

Share

Movie Review: The Death of Stalin

This is a film my sweetie-wife and I have been looking forward to for a few months. From the creative mind Armando Iannucci, the man behind Britain’s The Thick of It and HBO’s Veep. The Death of Stalin is a fictionalized, partially farcical partly horrific account of the power struggle following the death of the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin 1953. As with all dramatic films based on historical events one should not aspire to learn history from a movie.

While the film possesses Iannucci’s distinctive farcical characterizations and sense of absurdity when dealing with powerful bureaucratic people it also has sense of totalitarian terror. Often these two disparate elements are separated by only a cut creating a juxtaposition truly worthy of Soviet film montage theory. This clash of the farcical and the terrible has been commented in other reviews and for many reviewers it was off putting. However I think that the effect Iannucci was striving for was an understanding and emotional reality of how the absurd becomes the terrible so easily. The whiplash of the competing tones keeps the viewer off balance and unable to emotionally predict the coming scenes much like how the people brutalized by such a reign of terror live in a constant state of anxiety.

The plot concerns itself with two man who are vying to take Stalin place following his fatal stroke, Nikita Krushchev head of the Communist Party, and Lavrentiy Beria, head of the NKVD, the regime’s dread secret police. Krushchev is presented as the reformed, the man who wants to stop the mass murders, the false imprisonments, the reign of terror, while Beria, in addition to being the man carrying out all the murder and torture, is portrayed as a ruthless figure with depraved sexual appetites. Like all worthy protagonists Khrushchev is fighting beyond his weight class, Beria has prepared for this moment and moves with ruthless efficiency as he consolidates the power into his hands. Given the brutal nature of the struggle this rapidly transforms the contest into one of survival.

Steven Buscemi plays Krushchev. He makes no attempt, nor for the most part does the other actors, to adopt a Russian accent and his portrayal is one filled with the anxiety of a man over his head. There is a passing reference to Krushchev’s service at Stalingrad so it is also clear that this man is no wilting flower. Simon Russell Beale plays Beria and it is about as far from his role of Falstaff in The Hollow Crown as is possible. Despite these powerful performances the scene-stealer in this movie is Jason Isaacs, possibly best know to genre fans as Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter franchise, as Zhukov, head of the army. Zhukov both historically and in the film is a larger than life character and one that dominates every scene in which he appears.

The final casting element I want to discuss is Foreign Minister Molotov. A man who is on the outs and destined to appear on one of Stalin’s dreaded lists, Molotov is played with nervous energy my Python alumni Michael Palin. In addition to a fine bit of casting, this also I think draws a direct connection between The Death of Stalin and it cinematic cousin, Brazil. There is no doubt in my mind that these two absurd dark films are speaking with one voice. Gilliam and Iannucci both seem to be concerned, and rightly so, about the abuses of power, the childish nature of those chasing it, and in the end the terror that promises for everyone under their heels.

The Death of Stalin is not a movie for everyone. The clashing of humor and horror is designed to be jarring but it is a film I thoroughly enjoyed.

Share

It’s Not Just the Person in Charge

I have finished watching the 10 episode documentary Hitler’s Circle of Evil and it was truly a fascinating journey. So interesting in fact that I look forward to seeing every episode again as I re-watch them with friends equally interested in history.

One of the aspects of the entire Nazi Germany history that this series had laid out in a clear manner is how important the people surrounding Hitler were to what happened.

From the very start of the movement through its transformation into a personality cult and onwards into a juggernaut of evil it was more than the hateful evil fuck Hitler responsible. Throughout the process he was surrounded by people who performed critical roles that shaped the ideology, energized the members, and brought the murderous cult to power.

What truly jumped out at me was how few of the people that held these powerful positions had any real competence or qualifications for their posts. To the man each chased individual ambitions, some petty and prosaic such as Goring’s looting of artistic treasures for his homes while others pursued their conspiratorial feats into mass murder. What not one of these men seemed to possess was a sense to duty to the country. Oh, they all professed a great love for their country, but their actions time and time again demonstrated their base, selfish, and evil objectives.

The fish rots from the head and Hitler was the center of the corruption. The inner circle was one of his own making and one that reflected his twisted views and hate filled perspective. For the members of the inner circle power flowed from their direct and personal relationship to Hitler, as those relationships waxed and waned so did their influence. I find it curious that these vicious, scheming, and treacherous men who moved so confidently against one another were simultaneously craven ‘yes men’ unable to tell their adored and feared leader ‘no.’

It is that relationship, cruel men who cower and bootlick; paying the source of their power for false flattery that fascinates me. It is the system that provided a platform for genocide and wars of aggression not simply the product of one madman’s maniacal delusion. Had there been strong institutions staffed by people not driven by personal, petty, purposes the entire Nazi government would have been impossible. Of course the Weimer Republic never had the chance to develop those deep institutional cultures and in the collapse of the German Empire the vacuum was filled with men and parties intent on power and money.

As a writer of fiction and a student of history the lesson that it is never just one man is a terribly important one. When I create worlds for my stories or when I look at governments around the world it will be important to keep it mind it is never just one person it equally vital to know who they surround themselves with, who is in their inner circle.

Share

Sympathy for the Devil

I have seen a few articles recently expressing how the villain of Marvel’s Black Panther is truly not a villain but a victim. These articles often call for Eric ‘Killmonger’ to be regarded with sympathy or even argue that the character may be justified in his objectives and methods.

(Minor spoilers for Black Panther will follow.)

I think in part this point of view is easier to arrive at if you are starting from a life history that echoes may of the ones that Killmonger experienced. (That is not to say you share the regal blood history but rather the one of prejudice and abandonment.) Over all having some sympathy for the antagonist is not a bad thing. An antagonist with a complex and compelling backstory is often relatable leading to a richer enjoyment of any narrative and often illuminating aspect of the human condition. There are also time when a less nuanced villain is required, when the character presenting the threat is more like an invincible force that a person with flaws and motivations. Killmonger is clearly deeply drawn character with very understandable motivations.

The fact that his motivations are understandable is not the same as saying that they are excusable. It is possible to understand with condoning and in fact that difficult balance is critical both as someone experiencing the world and as someone creating a fictional one.

Among the many non-fiction books I have read there have been several on the subject of serial killers. The history, study, and nature of serial killers is something I find fascinating and a subject that is often portrayed quite poorly in cinema. Serial killers do not simply wake up one day and start killing without ‘reason.’ (Reason here is a very loose term because what is compelling to them is often incomprehensible to those removed from their history.)

As the character, and monster Hannibal, said in The Silence of the Lambs, ‘Billy was not born a monster, but made one through years of systematic abuse.’ Is this not exactly the case with Eric Killmonger? Where Buffalo Bill’s abuse was heaped upon him by people close to him, and if you read about actual serial killers there is always a pattern of deep and prolonged abuse in their formative years, Killmonger literally was abused by the systems around him, both American and Wakandan.

I find Killmonger’s motivation fully understandable and I have sympathy for the character, but we must not confuse sympathy with excuse. Murder to sate a psychological wound is not admirable, not when performed serial killers, abused villains like Killmonger, and justifiably terrified ones like Magneto in the X-Men franchise. This to me is one of the defining difference between a hero and a villain; chasing their objectives a hero has lines that they will not cross while the villain is willing to make anyone suffer, no horror is too great, and their ends justify all means.

Killmonger was not wrong in the evils he saw in the world, but he was too blind to see that he himself had become that same evil. The character may not have understood the historical significance of one of his lines but the writer/director Ryan Coogler certainly understood the British Imperial echoes of ‘The sun will never set on the Wakandan Empire.’

Share

The Austin Bombings Appear to be Over

Over the past month Austin Texas has been subject to six bombings, killing and injuring several people. This morning news is reporting that the man responsible has died in an explosion as law enforcement closed in on him.

People in the area are warned to remain vigilant as the last couple of bombs had been sent via delivery companies and it is unknown if there are bombs currently in transit. The investigation is still on going and at this time there is no discernable motive.

Whenever these sort of random murders occur there is usually talk of mental illness but that is a conversation that starts in error and only progresses to greater and greater failures.

It is an understandable error. After all for most people conceiving the motive to lash out and kill strangers is incomprehensible and when we run into an incomprehensible act most people’s first impulse if to label the perpetrators as ‘mad.’

However they are not usually suffering from a mental illness, at least as defined by the current standard of the profession.

Motive is usually there but its incomprehensibility is usually a factor of the acts being several stages removed from the reasons. Like the mass shootings ultimately I think these things are reflections of a societal issues and how some individuals are finding it impossible to cope with our rapidly changing society.

That is not to say we should stop the changes in our society, even if such a thing were in out power. Standing athwart history and shouting stop doesn’t halt history it only gets you run over by it.

We may never understand the why and we do need to come to term with the limits of our understanding.

 

Share