temeres ([info]temeres) wrote,
@ 2005-10-16 18:15:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Serenity
Seeing films in the cinema usually reminds me why I like DVDs. DVDs have subtitles. They might not be totally accurate, but they do at least let me follow the dialogue. I must have missed at least a third, perhaps approaching half, of the dialogue in Serenity. Not so much that I missed the essential gist, but enough to dip out on many of the character-oriented nuances.

(This isn't a cinema thing, btw, but a basic hearing problem. I have the same trouble with TV soundtracks. And real-life conversation, though not quite so bad. But I can still pick out a Tree Pipit 300 feet overhead. Go figure.)

On the other hand, buying a cinema ticket reminds me of one advantage the big screen has over DVDs, or at least newly released ones. It's a lot cheaper.

From which you might deduce that I was not entirely impressed.

Fair's fair, I've never seen so much as half a second of Firefly and walked into the cinema knowing next to nothing about it. Buffy-meets-B7-via-the-Usual-Suspects seemed to be somewhere approaching the mark. And that's not far off, it seems. Only for B7 substitute Star Trek. And for the Usual Suspects, delete and replace with the Brady Bunch. Take a clutch of decent, morally upright middle class folk, dress them up in tatty clothes, and have them pretend to be amoral, cynical mercenary types who rob people and do nasty stuff like shoot unarmed people. They don't pretend very well. Under the swaggering tough talk and gun toting, they're Reservoir Hamsters. They don't have so much as a tenth of the amorality behind the Home Counties diction of the B7 crew, and even less in the way of charm.

In fact, they're a bog standard roster of stock spaceship crew. A ruggedly handsome captain whose chief talent seems to be getting people to follow him around for no readily explicable reason, a shapely female Number 2 (who in this case also doubles as the Token Non-Causian), a loudmouth roughneck in love with Very Big Guns, a pilot who's very very good at flying the ship and ... well, nothing else, an inner child in an adult body, and the obligatory emotional flatliner. Mark Harrison was ripping the shit out of half of these stereotypes in his Travellers strip in White Dwarf twenty bloody years ago. You'd think someone of Joss Whedon's (supposed) calibre might have noticed by now that they're long overdue for an unceremonious boot out of the airlock. Apparently not.

And there's an evil empire. Wow. There's a novelty. I forget what this one's called - the Alliance or something - but it doesn't matter. They're all the same. They're sleek and clean, faceless and bland, in stark contrast to the multi-coloured, multi-textured rough-edged trappings of the heroes. Perhaps we're meant to think they represent nasty Big Government, but they don't. They're just mass society, the post-Industrial Revolution urban bloat. The heroes of Serenity - and they are heroes, not one of them deserving even the smallest 'anti' prefix - might for a moment seem like champions of freedom and individualism, but really they're just another howl of existential anguish. We've got enough of those already. It says something, doesn't it, that by far the most interesting - indeed, the most sympathetic - character is the aforementioned evil empire's monomaniac assassin. (And a black baddie, too. Haven't seen one of those since Outland.) At least The Matrix took the time and trouble to identify the source of modern metropolitan angst, and if I was feeling charitable then I might assume that Serenity was using that as a springboard. But I'm not feeling charitable. Serenity feels like a film that doesn't even know it's banging its head against a wall, let alone what the wall might be made of.

What else is there? Oh yes, a pack of subhuman hyperpsycho cannibals. This is where my wonky hearing lets me down - I never did figure out if they were called Reapers, Reavers or Reefers. Doesn't matter. They're bad dudes, they're beyond all redemption, our noble good guys can slaughter as many as they like without so much as a teensy little smudge on their moral copybook. Talk about dehumanising the enemy. Yes, okay, we're told where the Reapers/Reavers/Whatevers come from (with a level of scientific plausibility that even Terry Nation would be ashamed of), but you don't have to be a Guardian reader to work out that this makes them victims of the evil empire. If Whedon's saying what I think Whedon's saying, then letting rip with all barrels blazing is a perfectly legitimate final solution to the chav problem. (I admit it can seem like an attractive solution at times, but it takes more than seeming attractive to legitimise something.) Expect a rave review from the Daily Mail.

Oh, and there's River. If Buffy was a displaced atonement of masculinity-guilt, then River is a life sentence of hard labour. In Virgin Goddess worship terms, River's been hoisted up on a pedestal so high she doesn't know what ground is. The sad thing is, Whedon probably thinks that this neutered, depersonalised combination of risible hyper-lethality and adolescent innocence really stands to earn him feminist brownie points. Hardly that, but it's probably worth a plastic pig or two.

Strip away the breakneck plot development, narrative cuts, impressive CGI and cultural richness (on which more in a moment), and you find Serenity treading very familiar ground. Motley crew of ragtag social misfits discovers big secret of nasty government and sets out to tell everyone else. You can fight City Hall and the Truth is really Out There. Well, that sounds jolly useful to know. Serenity is a chassis of cliches with a bolted-on melange of additional cliches, all wrapped up in cliche-flavoured clingfilm. It is utterly devoid of even one idea that I could pick out as genuinely arresting, or even particularly interesting. It has all the radicalism of the Famous Five and slightly less insight than the Teletubbies. Star Wars, even at its worst (and its worst is pretty awful), is disarmingly honest by comparison.

So, do I have a good word to say about Serenity? Yes ... sort of. Aside from the awesome quality of the SFX (which can so easily be taken for granted these days), there's obviously a lot of care been invested in crafting the universe in which the film takes place. I don't think I've seen any other space opera that goes to such lengths to convey the impression of a richly pluralistic society, albeit only on the fringes of the (allegedly) grey and characterless cultural monobloc of mainstream society. Considering the conservative bourgeois morality of the film's protagonists, though, this only emphasises the White Negro aspirations that the film ultimately embodies. The Serenity crew are all fucked up middle class college students who wanna be black, without having the faintest idea what being a nigger might really mean.

If this is SF, then the S stands for Shite. I'm feeling generous, so 4 out of 10.



(Post a new comment)


[info]mistraltoes
2005-10-17 01:25 am UTC (link)
If I had any respect left for Joss Whedon, I might be annoyed. As things stand, I think I love you. :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]temeres
2005-10-17 01:32 am UTC (link)
(a) Bloody hell that was quick I only posted five mins ago.

(b) I'm not particularly biased either way with regard to Whedon. What have you got against him?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]mistraltoes
2005-10-17 03:10 am UTC (link)
b)
1 - The last two seasons of Buffy
2 - The way he jerked around and insulted Buffy fans
3 - His oversized ego

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]matildabj
2005-10-17 10:37 am UTC (link)
Hello, I don't think we've met, but are you sure you're not my sister? (who is also a disillusioned Buffy fan...)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]mistraltoes
2005-10-17 12:14 pm UTC (link)
LOL. No, not unless you're journaling from heaven. I'm a big Yoda fan, though, and I love your icon. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]temeres
2005-10-17 06:43 pm UTC (link)
1 - The last two seasons of Buffy

Haven't seen them, though [info]lonemagpie told me that the series should have ended with season 5. Having now seen S5, I can see what he means. It's a good end point.

2 - The way he jerked around and insulted Buffy fans

In what way? I've not heard anything about this.

3 - His oversized ego

If he didn't have an ego, he probably wouldn't have made any headway in television in the first place. This seems particularly true of the US system, perhaps less so for the BBC. But ... ego, yes, irritating, but a necessary evil.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]mistraltoes
2005-10-19 10:33 am UTC (link)
There's healthy ego, and then there's hubris. When a sizable portion of your audience--including professional media critics and lit professors as well as the 'ordinary' audience--think that you're telling story A, and you're actually telling story B, the sensible response is NOT to call them names and accuse them of stupidity and moral deficiency, followed by lecturing and 'punishing' them in the text. Particularly when the story they think you're telling is more morally and thematically complex and well-thought out than the one you're actually telling. The sensible response--in a communications medium--is to wonder how you failed to communicate your story to such a large portion of the audience in the first place, and then consider attempting to raise your level of sophistication to match theirs. Fans who thought they were getting a greying up of the Buffyverse as Buffy matured into adulthood were ultimately insulted with the black-and-white moral of: womyn good, men & sex evil, good people are good no matter what bad things they do, bad people are bad no matter what good things they do, and people who are not us don't count.

I'm sorry I can't give you a more specific answer at the moment. I did promise [info]altariel last year that I'd try to write up something about why I'm no longer a Whedon fan, but I'm still too bruised from my foray into Buffy fandom to marshal my thoughts coherently. I haven't bought the DVDs, I haven't rewatched my off-air tapes, I've stopped reading the mailing lists and most fic, and I'm just beginning to have the urge to write fic--very AU fic. I've also avoided Harry Potter fandom like the plague because I have no desire ever again to be emotionally invested in a fandom with an open canon and a creator who thinks that s/he can do no wrong and that it's all right to ridicule the fans.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kalypso_v
2005-10-17 02:12 am UTC (link)
Phew, someone more negative than me!

(Reply to this)


[info]watervole
2005-10-17 06:59 am UTC (link)
I liked it, but only up to a point. I much prefered the series. A movie tends to concentrate too much on action and violence and they tend to bore me. The series was much better at character development. eg. Jayne really does have no redeeming features. There's normally a reallly big culture clash between the doctor and Kayleigh and although the film tried to convey this, it didn't have the time. The reason they never got into bed together is because he's from the sort of background where you don't make a pass at girls you really like and she's from a culture where you hop into bed as quickly as you can say "let's shag".

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]temeres
2005-10-17 06:38 pm UTC (link)
I thought the action quotient was about right. I don't mind action, even prolonged chunks of it, so long as it maintains narrative momentum.

A series does, naturally, have more time and opportunity (smaller budget = less CGI-festing) to concentrate on character development. As it is, the characters in the film came across as pretty uninteresting - from the POV of someone with no prior experience of them - and I didn't give a fig who lived or died (I knew a couple of them were destined to die). If I'd seen some or all of the series, I might have cared more.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sallymn
2005-10-17 07:09 am UTC (link)
Somehow the more I hear about it, the less enthused I am about going to see it... but I dunno, the things I fall in love with tend to be - unpredictable, shall we say? And it could just be (as, I'm sorry to say, with Farscape) being Told-with-a-Capital-T that "you're gonna love it," is just the way for me to perversely, unreasonably, refuse to (car salesmen don't love me at all).

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]temeres
2005-10-17 06:39 pm UTC (link)
As with all of these things, you can never really know what you think of it until you see it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]communicator
2005-10-17 09:07 am UTC (link)
Funnily enough altariel and I were talking about the racial and gender politics of the film only yesterday. However, of course this is in the context where you just get to like a bunch of people, and enjoy seeing them in the show.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]temeres
2005-10-17 06:33 pm UTC (link)
I am, of course, aware that I came to the film as a Firefly virgin, totally unfamiliar with the characters, and that someone already Firefly savvy would see a lot that I would inevitably miss. That's why I concentrated on the conceptual content rather than the character content.

As for the characters themselves, I found them generally unengaging and uninteresting, but I presume that was because the film was concentrating on building on material that the intended primary audience was already familiar with.

It would be unreasonable to expect the film to devote too much time to establishing characters that the intended audience already knew about. This did, however, mean that I had a lot of trouble sorting out who was who. I didn't find out the name of the pilot until after he'd been killed, which is pretty late in the movie.

And of course I didn't know what else in the film was lifted from the series. I could only approach it as a one-off stand alone piece of space opera, and most of what I saw sucked pretty bad. I can't help but wonder if Firefly was squeezed into a traditional goodies vs baddies scenario to make it more accessible to a mainstream cinema audience.

Basically, what I say about the film is relevant only to the film (and then only as I perceived it), and not necessarily to the series or Firefly as a whole.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]communicator
2005-10-19 09:10 am UTC (link)
Hope you didn't mind me citing you on my blog, thought your comments were itneresting.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]temeres
2005-10-19 05:05 pm UTC (link)
Not at all. A citation from you is an honour indeed!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ide_cyan
2005-10-17 10:36 am UTC (link)
Reservoir Hamsters

Bweee!

Smart review, there.

(Reply to this)


[info]spacefall
2005-10-17 11:56 am UTC (link)
Not related to the post exactly, but http://www.yourlocalcinema.com/ lists subtitled screenings of films. I usually hit these with deaf mates, and they're handy for those 'they said what? moments.

(Reply to this)


[info]zenith
2005-10-21 03:07 pm UTC (link)
What is "the chav problem"?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]temeres
2005-10-21 11:07 pm UTC (link)
Try here.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]zenith
2005-10-22 10:56 am UTC (link)
I'm familiar with the term.

So, do you think the Reavers are intended to be analogous to people who use derogatory class-based slurs?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]gair
2005-10-21 04:28 pm UTC (link)
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<lj-user="temeres">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<lj-user="temeres">, I posted a quote from this and a link on barbelith.com (the quote is <a href="http://www.barbelith.com/topic/21061/from/245#post508868">here</a>. Let me know if you want them taken down and I can do so, quick as winking.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…