Aesthetics Defines Fascism

.

One of the more tedious debates in popular political discussion is the endless argument about placing fascism on the left or on the right. Both ends of the political spectrum are desperate to have the 20th century’s greatest monsters reside in their opponents family tree rather than their own. As such both sides are immune to actual arguments and logical constructions because it is a requirement of their purity that the ‘truth’ bend to their personal preference and that their ‘side’ remains free of that taint.

Some years ago, I saw the fascinating documentary Architecture of Doom which examined the NAZIs from an artistic point of view instead of a political one. The thesis was that while the party lacked any real coherent political philosophy adopting conflicting positions if that led to real power its aesthetics were fairly consistent. From Hitler on down there was a real obsession with how things looked. A fixation on the ‘high’ art of the past and a hatred of the modern ‘degenerate’ art.

Which brings us to America today and the neo-fascist that have corrupted the Republican party.

This past week Trump dismissed most of the board of the Kennedy Center for the Arts and installed himself as that chairman. When asked about it during the Super Bowl interview one of his comments was “It’s not going to be woke. There’s no more woke in this country.”

Later that day the Super Bowl paused for its massive halftime show led by performs Kendrick Lamar. Apparently, I did not watch the game or performance I was at Disneyland, there were no white performers in the show and there’s been quite a bit of griping about that show. Of course, most people have interpreted the complaints to be principally about racism and they are not far off in that assessment. But a great component of the right’s racism is again an aesthetic issue. These performers don’t look like what these racists think people who are to be admired and coveted should look like.

This applies to the queer and trans communities as well. The neo-fascists know precisely what they think men and women should look like and those who vary from that image are the ‘degeneracy’ that the neo-fascists fear and abhor.

None of this is meant to dismiss or play down the very real legal threats that are multiplying like tribbles in our government today. The flood of illegal actions, dismissals, and seizure of power is a very real threat to our system of government. These must be fought. We are under assault from every quarter and the artistic is a vital one not merely a sideshow.

Share

Who Qualifies as a Final Girl?

.

The trope of the ‘final girl’ is one born of the slasher films of the 70s and 80s. The term was coined by Carol Clover in her essay analyzing the gender dynamics of those films. Today the term is pretty much used for any surviving woman or girl of a horror movie that manages to escape or defeat the killers or monsters of the story. The zenith of the concept in a meta-story manner is the ritual sacrifices as presented in the film The Cabin in the Woods which suggests that only when the morally superior, that is virgin, woman is last to die or survive is the ritual, that is the slasher formula, properly solved. A recent film though has me pondering the mutable nature of the trope and just who justly qualifies as a final girl.

The rest of the post/essay will contain spoilers for the film Companion up to and including its ending and its major reveals and reversals. Proceed only if spoilers for Companion are of no consequence for you.

SPOILER WARNING ENGAGED

 

Iris in Companion is the ’emotional support’ android companion for Josh. That is, she is his sex bot and sex toy, fulfilling a role for which he could find no actual human being. On a trip to a millionaire’s secluded cabin, the wealthy host, Sergey, attempts to sexually assault Iris and she kills him in self-defense. Key to understanding this event and how it unfolded is that the character of Iris in utterly unaware that she is in fact a piece of technology. Like Rachel in Blade Runner, she possesses artificial memories giving her the illusion of being a human being. Her defense against her would be rapist is the for all purposes the same as any woman in that horrid situation. Learning of her ‘true’ nature spins iris into a crisis of self-doubt that is only made worse by the further revelation that the murder has been a planned event. Josh, having modifiers her operating parameters and releasing safety measures, plotted with Sergey’s mistress for his death. Iris escapes and seizing control of the app that regualtes her psychological nature first tries to escape but when that fails defends herself, killing all of those who plotted and tries to end her individual existence. In the end Iris ‘survives’ and escapes to live a life unconstrained by preprogrammed boundaries.

So, is Iris a ‘final girl’?

While the human characters are vile, greedy, and without moral standing, it is Iris who is the ‘slasher’ in this story. She is the force that one-by-one dispatches the humans, ending their lives. While it is not uncommon to give the slasher an understandable if exaggerated motivation rarely is it so sympathetic or empathetic as Iris’ in Companion. The emotional release as she drives away in Sergey’s classic Ford Mustang is as great as Laurie Strode’s in Halloween or Sally Hardesty in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Iris, though the killer in the film, certainly feels like a final girl. So far as I am concerned, she is one.

Share

The Trope of Inverted Tropes

.

A trope is a well-worn concept, idea, or situation in fiction. An ambulance chasing lawyer, a doctor obsessed with playing golf, a sex worker with a pure and good heart are examples of tropes well known in previous decades that have fallen out of style and are for the most part now forgotten.

Genre fiction has its own set of tropes that are widely known and for several decades now the flipping of those tropes has been a popular move.

The trouble with tropes is that well-worn and predictable that can often lead to lazy, bad writing and stories. Little that is new, original, or even interesting is presented but rather reheated leftovers instead of a finely prepared meal.

In some cases, the inverting of a trope is motivated by correcting past prejudices, preconceptions, and stereotypes. Sometimes it’s meant as a twist or surprise to the narrative, such as it’s not the shinning knight that is the villain of the story, but the poor dragon hounded and hunted for no good reason, it’s not the creature that is the monstrosity but the villagers, and handsome prince is in fact a terrible and abusive person.

Honestly, I can’t recall a story of recent vintage in which any of the above genre tropes was deployed in anything close to its original form. Everything tale and piece has been the inverted trope, and I think that has become the new default setting for many of these concepts and situations.

So common has the inverted trope become that in my eyes is had become the reheated leftovers and not the fresh new take. Every witch I see in a story I know now is really a good person, unjustly feared and outcast. The inversions become the boring, predictable text that offers little in the way of a new voice, a new vision, a new take on anything.

This is not a plea to return to some ‘golden age’ of stories. That never existed, but I think it’s important, particularly when dealing with concepts that have been around for thousands of years, to bring something fresh that is not merely the reverse image of something else.

Share

Movie Review: Companion

.

Nailing the genre of Companion is a tricky endeavor. Many consider it to be a horror film, after all it’s about an A.I. that’s for the run time of the film is primarily engaged in a spree of killing. Other classify the film as science-fiction/thriller, I guess because they turn their nose up at horror. What is undeniable is that Companion is at its heart a satire taking aim at terrible men and the manner in which they treat their romantic partners.

Warner Bros Studios

Sophie Thatcher, whom I last watched in the terrific Heretic stars as Iris, an emotional support robot, that is sex bot, to craven and despicable Josh (Jack Quaid.) They have journeyed far into the countryside for a weekend with two other couples, Eli, (Harvey Guillen) & Patrick (Lucas Gage) and Kat (Megan Suri) & Sergey (Rupert Friend.) Very quickly things go badly when in an act of self-defense Iris kills one of the men and events spiral out of everyone’s control.

Some have complained that Companion’s trailers, revealing that Iris is in fact a machine, destroys the movie’s ‘twist’ but that is not the case. The script is loaded with reveals and reversals that at each turn enhance the story and further the satire.

Writer/Director Drew Hancock has crafted a find piece of cinema that is both highly entertaining, rightfully funny without ever losing it thematic core while avoiding becoming a tiresome lecture. Sophie Thatcher is excellent in her performance, often making these tiny choices that very subtly convey quite a bit about Iris and her internal monologue.

This is a film I can whole heatedly recommend.

Share

Blood is Magic, Not Food

.

With last month’s release of Robert Eggers’ stunning remake Nosferatu vampires and vampires media has been on my mind.

In Nosferatu Count Orlok is presented pretty much as the traditional folk tales describe an undead vampire, a walking corpse, decaying and revolting, that feeds upon the blood of the living. Orlok is much closer in appearance to the post Romero ‘zombie’ than to the urbane European nobleman displayed in my adaptations of Dracula.

With Dracula, both the original novel and the nearly endless adaptations, the vampire moved away from that walking corpse towards a more romantic figure. Anne Rice’s Interview with the Vampire proved instrumental in moving the image of the vampire into one that was more tragic and a figure to be pitied rather than feared. Over the decades the vampire continued to transform into tragic romantic heroes slowly becoming not monsters of the night but simply life-impaired individuals, comic-book characters with tremendous powers and a few unsavory quirks.

A trope that emerged from this transformation that has always rankled me is the habit of treating blood as merely another nutrient. A process that gave us the character Angel buying blood from Sunnydale’s local slaughterhouse to sustain his dietary requirements.

Even just typing that out annoys me to no end. The vampire feeding on the blood of living humans was not the same as someone has a nice bowl of soup. It was not about calories and essential elements it was about life. Blood, to the pre-scientific world, was that strange substance that meant life itself. Blood was always at the center of the most powerful magics. Turning it into just another meal product that can be ordered from your local distributor cheapens that entire symbolism of the myth and robs it of most of its horror.

I will admit that this is just part of a larger issue I have with ‘scientific’ and rational approaches to supernatural horrors. It seems logical to treat the vampire’s feeding on blood the same as out feeding on plants and animals, just as it ‘logical’ to treat werewolf transformations as bound by the conservation of mass laws. Both are violations of the magical, wonderous, and inexplicable nature of the supernatural. Vampires are the dead. They are not just different kinds of people and I am thankful that Eggers bucked the slick modern trend of making them cool and sexy returning the monster to is terrifying and revolting roots.

Share

Quick Thoughts on Prologs

.

Prologs are a never ending source of debate and contention in the writing community with some saying always avoid and other loving them. The truth, as usual, I think lies in-between.

They are far too often used as a place to dump exposition and world building which is usually a sign that an author doesn’t have confidence in their ability to weave that vital information into the narrative itself.

I have often listened to prologs in critique session and advised cutting them and yet my published novel has one so I cannot be described as a rabid anti-prolog writer.

Here are a few quick guidelines I have for effective prologs.

1) It shouldn’t involve the protagonist. If it does, then it should be part of the main narrative.

2) It should contain information that the protagonist doesn’t know at the start of the story. That is, it is information that primes the reader for what is coming but the characters remain blindsided.

3) It should not be resolved. It’s not its own little short story it is a building block of the larger tale. If everything in the prolog is resolved than the reader has no pull to turn the page. The prolog is a harbinger of things to come, not a neat little package complete and finished.

Share

Movie Review: Star Trek: Section 31

.

Let me be upfront with the limitation of this review, I did not finish the film and abandoned it part way through its runtime of an hour and thirty-five minutes. That alone should tell you my opinion of this project.

Paramount +

Now, there are those who have been annoyed with ‘new Trek’ for political reasons; I am not counted among them. There are those that are annoyed with it for canon and continuity reasons, nor am I counted among those people. Star Trek: Discovery did not capture my attention, and I give up after a few episodes. However, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds I adore and cannot wait for the new season this year.

I went into Star Trek: Section 31 with limited knowledge, that ‘Section 31’ was effectively the ‘Black Ops’ division of Starfleet and with an open mind. Let the movie be the movie and see if I was entertained by it.

 

I despaired when it began with a ponderous and overly dramatic prolog. Prologs are tricky things, particularly when they ask the reader or viewer to accept things that are highly improbable, such as a ‘hunger games’ kind of deal to selected random persons who will become an Emperor. Despotic governments aren’t well-known for rigidly adhering to rules concerning the transfer of power.

Fine, we get through the prolog and go into another misused technique, the voice-over exposition, where Jamie Lee Curtis gives us the background for a central character. Minutes and minutes of screen time have been wasted that only served as exposition creating neither dramatic nor emotional tension. Now, with that past, the story itself can finally get going.

In a scene that was supposed to establish Phillipa’s (Michelle Yeoh) acute perceptions as she identifies the special ops team in her space bar the script comes to yet another screeching halt for more ham-handed exposition describing the team, which we get twice as the team leader goes over it again. It doesn’t not help that the team is comprised of stock, flat characters wholly devoid of any sense of any inner life.

Okay, we can get to the mission and at least start the story. Things go a little wonky and there’s a big special effects driven pseudo-martial arts fight scene that drags, is hideously edited and lacking in any dramatic or emotional weight because all we have been severed to this point is frying pan to the face exposition.

I mentioned that the film has a run time of 95 minutes, when this fight ended, we were about halfway through that. Mw sweetie-wife and I bored by the tedious affair stopped the stream and spent the rest of our evening playing the deck building game Dominion on-line.

As you can see Star Trek: Section 31 never engaged me on any level. There wasn’t enough story to be emotionally invested, the characters, what little time we had with them, were too bland and flat to care about and the plot never turned interesting. I could find nothing in this production that was worth any attention at all. We shall not finish it as life is too short to waste of such bland formless material.

Share

A New Year a New 12 Month Film Festival

.

A local cinephile club, Film Geeks San Diego, among other events they hold presents a year-long film festival hosted by the local micro-theater Digital Gym. Last year’s festival celebrated the 70th anniversary of the king of the monsters Godzilla and after a tie vote this year’s has two themes, neo-noir and Foreign Horror. The festival kicked off with the British neo-noir Get Carter.

MGM-EMI

Adapted from the novel Jack’s Return Home, the film follows Jack Carter (Michael Caine) returning to his hated hometown of Newcastle in the north of England to investigate the mysterious death of his brother. Jack, a mob enforcer, stirs up trouble with both the local criminal underworld and his employers to discover the truth about his brother’s automobile ‘accident.’

Both Director Mike Hodges and cinematographer Wolfgang Suschitzky history of working with documentaries provide them with the skills to present Get Carter in a realistic and dirty manner. This is not a movie the idealizes its gangster characters or their lives but rather shows that their world is red in tooth and claw where life is nasty, brutish, and short. Jack is no hero. His motivations are purely familial and the pain, suffering, and death that follow in his wake have little weight on his conscience. The story and the mood remain deeply cynical right to the film’s dark and uncompromising final shots.

I have seen Get Carter before, at home on DVD but even in a tiny theater the film exudes power on this large screen that is often absent when viewed casually in the living room.

There have been two other cinematic adaptation of this novel a remake with the same title in 2000 starring Sylvester Stallone which jettisons much of the cynicism that make the British film so powerful and a blaxploitation adaptation The Hitman in 1972. (I must hunt that one down.)

Next month the festival continues with the 1955 French film Diabolique.

Share

A lovely pairing

.

This week my sweetie-wife and I started a rewatch of a beloved television series. It’s about a Federal detective who comes to investigate crime in an isolated logging town that harbors dark and supernatural secrets.

Oh, and last week we finished our re-watch of the groundbreaking American television series Twin Peaks what we started this week was Jordskot from Sweden.

It was December of 2020 when we watched the first season of this series and thoroughly enjoyed it. Even then without a fresh rewatch of Lynch/Frost’s bizarre and nightmare like Twin Peaks still echoing in my mind Jordskott provoked that comparison. Both shows start off as stories that present their fictional worlds as one that match ours, populated by varying kinds of people, good and bad, but rules by rational sane natural laws. Then things begin to twist, to turn, to become something darker with secrets older than the scientific method pushing the plot’s progression until what had been a police procedural has mutated almost imperceptibly into horror.

In 2020 when we watched for the first time both seasons were streaming on Shudder but before we could begin the next, the show vanished from the service. Over the next year or so I keep searching to see if it’d pop up on some other streaming site, but it did not and while it was never entirely forgotten it did fade from memory.

Late last year I wanted to look for it again, but the Swedish title had faded entirely from my mind, and it was a few weeks before I cracked locating the title and resuming my search.

Jordskott remained unlisted by all streaming services but for Christmas my sweetie-wife got me the DVDs imported from the UK. (I have never regretted purchasing a region free player) And so it is from disc that we have begun our rewatch and eventually our first watch of the second season.

Share

When You Join a Group, the Group Changes You

.

Among my political reading and podcasts are former Republicans who have walked away from their party since the rise of Trump. It has been fascinating to see what changes has taken place in their worldview as they now think write, and debate outside of the borders of what had once been their ideological home. Particularly interesting is their view back at their colleagues and friends and former friends that remained ‘good’ Republicans and have drifted more and more into mindsets that these formers have a hard time comprehending.

Here is a fallacy many people believe; that people choose a political party based on how much that party matches with their own internal set of beliefs and policies. That’s not how it works. What happens is there are one or two really important issues for the person, and they gravitate to the party to matches those very limited concerns. It may be right for an under representative group, it may be a specific thing like abortion or guns, or it can be more nebulous like ‘traditional mores’ but it’s mostly a very limited set of things. Then once the person is in the party, in the social grouping, theybegin to change their beliefs and attitudes to match the larger group. These ‘minor’ issues aren’t what brought them there, but they adopt them just the same. Humans are social animals, and it is our evolved nature to conform to the society we wish to belong to.

What has happened with the Republican Party under Trump is a similar sequence except instead of joining a clique the clique changed and the people who remained in it changed to stay accepted members. It is not a conscious and intended act these changes; it happens below the level on intention action. The person makes slight, minor alterations to their speech, their actions, and eventually to their thoughts.

These people who stayed with their party for whatever reason that they found compelling were buffeted by the new changed GOP and it’s ideology and standards. Some left the dissonance between their image of themselves and the party to great to bridge but many stayed. They stayed and convinced themselves that they hadn’t really changed, not had their goals, only the tools and methods had changed. Like Saruman they didn’t and don’t think of themselves are being in the wrong, only bending to necessity. But as time drags on and the process is never ending like water eroding away a mountain the results are inevitable. They become the thing that they said they stood against without any defining moment save the first that one can point to as when it flipped. It’s that first moment, that second when you decide to do something that is wrong, but you have argued yourself that it’s really for the best that is the fall.

Share