Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Whatever happened to Science Fiction Anthologies?

   I don't watch much television anymore, at least new ones. I tend to watch Netflix shows on weekends, and I watch the occasional sitcom. However, mostly, I don't have the time to watch television, nor, in some cases, do I have the interest. However, I do follow the news somewhat infrequently, and I am aware of new TV shows. Some of the new shows include anthologies, such as True Detective, or American Horror Story. However, both of the aforementioned series are both season long anthologies, not episode based anthologies. What prompted this article was the announcement of "Scream Queens," another anthology produced by Glee's Ryan Murphy (The announcement included that Murphy hoped to create a new genre "Horror-Comedy", a genre which has existed since the Forties, and has even had modern examples, like "Scream," and "Cabin in the Woods," but that is neither here nor now.)  This one is said to be an episode anthology series, meaning each episode tells a different story. This got me thinking: What about science fiction? There haven't been any good science fiction anthology shows in a while. Could there be another sci-fi anthology on the horizon, given the recent interest in anthology shows.
      Science Fiction anthologies have been around since the 50's, largely shows like Science Fiction Theatre (remembered primarily for a reference in Back in the Future). However, the show that would forever codify the genre was Rod Serling's seminal 1959 series "The Twilight Zone." In the Twilight Zone, Serling used science fiction and fantasy tropes to comment on social or everyday ills. He made modern-day parables, using strange events to hammer the point. Another show to use similar devices was the 1961 show "The Outer Limits." Whilst never as good as the Twilight Zone, it nevertheless used a similar approach (albeit with monsters and aliens, and primarily sci-fi elements): use fantastic elements to give a moral to the story. And those are just the most famous examples. Britain had "Out of this World," and Journey to the Unknown," several short-lived shows of the 80's and 90's included "Amazing Stories," "Ray Bradbury Theatre", and "Masters of Science Fiction."
     So, could a science fiction anthology show be successful? Well, one might say that the Twilight Zone could be revived. That would work... except they already did that. Twice. One in 1985 (ran for three seasons), and one in 2002 (ran for only one season). Whilst neither of those were bad (I actually quite like them), reviving it again might ring out any sort of potential from the franchise. The Outer Limits was also revived in 1996 (and the revival actually ran longer than the original did.) So, instead of reviving old series, why don't we stick to creating new ones? Creating one shouldn't be hard: the effects for tv SF is not the greatest, so the budget can be kept low. The CW can create effects for supernatural tv shows on a TV budget, so a Sci-fi show should fare the same. Also, there are plenty of stories to adapt. There are many science fiction magazines, and fanzines, which publish great stories. So, given these facts, are new science fiction anthologies on the horizon. Well, SyFy is slowly returning to its roots (hopefully abandoning that asinine name as well), making a fairly hard science fiction show "Ascension." Perhaps they could create an anthology show. Or perhaps another channel looking for interesting material, like AMC or HBO. So, will there be another great science fiction anthology show? Only time will tell.

Saturday, October 4, 2014

Review: Gone Girl

   What makes a film good or bad? Well, that could be determined through quite a number of criteria. From basic cinematic elements to the enjoyment aroused by such a picture, to the ideas and themes that a film provokes. Now, we have films that are definitively good and bad based on those criteria, correct? Well, often, it isn't as clear cut. There are good films that have glaring flaws, and bad films with redeeming features. Some of my favorite films have flaws Now, my style of reviewing revolves around pointing out these benefits and drawbacks. Most films are conducive to this style of reviewing, as there is no such thing as a perfect film, merely one with less than noticeable, or subjective flaws. Perhaps no films exemplifies this than Gone Girl, one of the most frustrating experiences I have ever had watching a film. Not because it was terrible, but rather it had the potential to be great, but elements bogged it down, resulting in a film I can't love, but I can't hate.
There was so much potential in this, but potential doesn't equal satisfaction.
     Based on the 2012 novel by Gillian Flynn, and directed by David Fincher (of Fight Club and The Social Network fame), the film starts with Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck), a married bar owner, who finds his wife, Amy (Rosamund Pike) had mysteriously vanished one day whilst returning from said bar. They had moved to Nick's home state of Missouri due to Nick losing his job as a journalist. At first, there is an outpouring of sympathy, primarily due to Amy being an inspiration for a series of popular children's books. However, the police, primarily Detective Rhonda Boney (Kim Dickens) and Officer Jim Gilpin (Patrick Fugit), are suspicious of Nick, and slowly evidence begins to amount indicting him. Intercut with this is narration from Amy's diary, detailing the blossoms of first love slowly declining into abuse, and potential murder. Soon, the media turns on Nick, and he finds himself the subject of an investigation for Amy's murder. However, all is not what it seems, as twists to the story begin fudge the true details of the murder...
      Goods things: the direction and cinematography is fantastic. It is shot beautifully. It has the intensity a story like this requires. The acting (except for Ben Affleck) is very well done. The satire on the nature of crime culture, and of how the media tends to over exaggerate details about cases, and jump to erroneous conclusions. The story, at times, can be very brilliant. The major twist in the story is handled well. This is a major spoiler for the film, so I will black the text out in case you don't want to read it: It turns out that Amy had, in fact, faked her own death, after she had found out that Nick had cheated on her with a far younger woman. She framed her own murder in vengeance, and promptly flee.   This twist is unexpected, makes sense in the context of the film, and actually invests your interest in how the story will proceed after that, as most twists do. Where they do go with it...
       Honestly, the story should have been re-written one or two times before they filmed the final product, because the script, particularly the second half of the film, is full of useless scenes, and at the very end, completely loses momentum. More spoilers: At first, Amy settles with a group of rednecks, but two steal her money, forcing her to return to her old boyfriend Desi Collings (Neil Patrick Harris). Meanwhile, Nick and his sister (the bar's co-owner) Margo (Carrie Coon) find out about Amy's subterfuge, and with the help of celebrity attorney Tanner Bolt (Tyler Perry) try to expose her lie. After Nick makes an impassioned plea to his wife on national television, Amy decides to kill Collings (I didn't quite get why even after this) and returns to her husband, where upon they decide to hold mutual respect for each other (despite Nick's misgivings)(I think), and have a child, whilst they have their celebrity status. Nick ends bemused and defeated.  .  Honestly, after She returns, the film just loses steam completely. If it had ended there, I probably would have said this was a good film with minor flaws. However, it just keeps going and going. It becomes redundant, and you just want it to end. If I were to rewrite this, I would write it like this:  Nick ends up arrested and convicted of the crime, and is sentenced to death row. After that scene, the film ends with the reveal that she faked her death.. I don't know if that would have actually improved the film, but that's what I would have preferred. Still I did think the ending was handled. I did want it to end on a dark note, and it ultimately did.  Minor pet peeves included a lackluster opening credits (seriously, the credits just pop in and out), and it is filmed at times, like a TV movie built for film (the fact that book writer and screenwriter Gillian Flynn was a television critic perhaps plays into this. 
      It's hard for me to quite muster a recommendation for this film. It is a good thriller, and it did keep me intrigued for most of its running time. So, if you want to see that, I suppose this would be good film. It certainly attract a certain crowd who enjoys these sorts of stories, so I suppose they might like this, but maybe not the ending. Once again, this film had a lot of potential, and a lot of good elements, but sadly didn't maintain these qualities. I give the film a solid 50%. Thank you for reading.