Science Fiction Comedy

[Phillip]

regardless of how the film is classified, it's first rate kubrick (who usually defied classification because he stretches the boundaries of whatever genre he's working in) and hilarious.

[Tom]

Yeah, it posits a device that does not yet exist and shows the consequences, but it isn't SF enough for me. More like a particularly black Swiftian satire with some faintly SF elements. Looks like I disagree with the entire population of attendees at the Boston SF Marathon. Love the movie, of course.

[Daniel]

It's very funny. For me the perfect example of irony is, "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"

[Phillip]

I'm with you Tom. Looks like it's two against the Boston contingent. Whatever. It's pure Kubrick (and you can catch the vintage Terry Southern writing in there as well). Peter Sellars is playing way over the bar in this film.

[Daniel]

Something can be science fiction (which it is), comedy (which it is) and "pure Kubrick" (which it is).

The categories aren't mutually exclusive.

[Alex DeLarge]

I've been reading some Terry Southern novels lately that I excavated from a local used book store. I also discovered a 1st printing of Fail Safe, the novel that was the thematic basis for STRANGELOVE and the film of the same name. Glad Kubrick went for satire and irony!

[Angie]

I too love Men in Black, the first one! I liked the teaming up of Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones.

[Kandice]

Angie wrote: "I too love Men in Black, the first one! I liked the teaming up of Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. "

I didn't like the second one as well as the first, but the post office... that was genius!

[Tom]

Nobody said the categories were mutually exclusive Daniel. It's all pretty subjective anyway. There are assorted films with technology that doesn't exist and their possible consequences that I wouldn't classify as science fiction, like the James Bond films and the Austin Powers franchise. Some of them veer a bit more closely to science fiction, like MOONRAKER and the AUSTIN POWERS THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME, but on the whole I wouldn't consider the films science fiction as such, but spy films with some slight science fiction elements.

[Daniel]

Tom wrote: "Nobody said the categories were mutually exclusive Daniel. It's all pretty subjective anyway. There are assorted films with technology that doesn't exist and their possible consequences that I wo..."

Whereas I have absolutely no problem including them as SF. I've even been on panels on spy films at cons. I guess I have a more expansive definition of the genre. To me "Frankenstein," "The President's Analyst," "1984" and "Colossus: The Forbin Project" are all SF, even if they may classified in other ways as well.

[Phillip]

i don't know how it is in film, but in music, categories/genres exist so record execs know how to market their product. i don't really have much use for them.

[Daniel]

I teach genre and I teach it not as an iron clad categorization process but as a useful tool. If you know a film is a "gangster movie" that tells you something about it. You bring in certain expectations, and the filmmaker is free to fulfill or play off of them. For example, from "The Godfather" films and "Scarface" we expect something when we hear it's a new gangster film with Al Pacino. Then when you see him as a small time shlemiel in "Donnie Brasco," it tells you this is going to be something different.

[Phillip]

of course, but those expectations that you bring can really keep you from enjoying something that exists on the margins of any said genre. this doesn't happen to me, but it seems to happen to a lot of viewers and listeners that don't have much imagination. genres seem to fence in their asethetics. there's nothing i or anyone else can do about that....but that's one reason i don't like categories. i suppose it's different with film - but with music there are a lot of things that don't fit easily into categories, and those things don't tend to get produced actually, i guess it's not so different with films. i know lots of filmmakers that can't get their projects to the screen because producers don't think they'll be able to market them...

but with regard to your most recent post, you wrote:

"Then when you see him as a small time shlemiel in "Donnie Brasco," it tells you this is going to be something different."

i may be confused, but there's nothing in the title of donnie brasco that tells me the movie is going to be "different". this is a good case in point. i liked donnie brasco quite a lot. but i know some folks went to see it (expecting scarface or the like) and hated it.

well, that, ultimately, is their problem. they have narrow views of what a "gangster" film is supposed to all about. but i think all this labelling creates those narrow-minded expectations.

[Daniel]

Phillip wrote: "'Then when you see him as a small time shlemiel in "Donnie Brasco," it tells you this is going to be something different.'

i may be confused, but there's nothing in the title of donnie brasco that tells me the movie is going to be "different". this is a good case in point. i liked donnie brasco quite a lot. but i know some folks went to see it (expecting scarface or the like) and hated it."

It's not the *title* that tells you it's going to be different, it's seeing Pacino in a gangster film as a low level guy who's never going to rise any higher that indicates it's different.

Yes, some people can use genre to constrict their appreciation of films, but I find if I know the rules of the genre and its history I can appreciate it more when the filmmaker does something extraordinary with classic elements or puts an entirely fresh spin on it.

[Jim]

Phillip wrote: "...but i think all this labelling creates those narrow-minded expectations. ..."

I think you have it the wrong way around. I think those with narrow-minded expectations create their own problems.

Often, the line is quite blurred between even fiction & fact. I've learned more history from fictionalized accounts than dry text books. I faced a similar problem shelving my philosophy, religious & mythology books. I settled it by putting them all on one shelf, somewhat separate from the fiction books & certainly not in with fact books such as computer programming, woodworking or tree/wood identification.

I try to take it for what it is & not pigeon hole it, because that way lies madness.

[Phillip]

daniel, i agree with your most recent statement, but that's not what it sounded like you were saying in your original post that i replied to...

jim,
we're actually on the same page. i too learn a lot from sources outside the prescibed places. that's kind of what i'm talking about. don't let yourself get hemmed in by expectations created by "idioms" or "genres".

[Jim]

Phillip, getting hemmed in & letting my expectations get the better of me has caused me disappointment in the past. "Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom" was one example. After "The Raiders of the Lost Ark" & the hype, the let-down when I saw the movie was extreme.

Not quite same, but it can be close when you're expecting gangster Al Pacino to kick butt & find his Brasco character. I think it says a lot for Pacino that he could play both so well. It's just those pesky expectations that kick you around.

[Phillip]

yeah, we all have to deal with them (our expectations).

donnie brasco is actually some of the only pacino i like. the first two godfather films are great...but i'm not such a fan of his work. i wanted to murder him after that pretentious piece of s*^t "finding richard" (a kind of exploratory documentary on richard the iii that was clearly a vanity vehicle for al).

i realize we've gone way off topic here - this is a sci-fi discussion and we're talking pacino. so, i'll drop it.

[Phillip]

i'm embarrassed to say i've never seen it.
ok, you all can start throwing tomatoes at me now.

so, should i rent that one, rob?

[Phillip]

damn, that tomato hit me right in the eye...good shot, rob!

&0

i tend to agree with you on the 70's being a kind of golden era for a lot of actors (and films in general - people were really taking chances then). i'll check it out - so many people really admire that film.

[Daniel]

And what about "Serpico?"

[Phillip]

never saw it. i know, i know. it's supposed to be a fine film. but i really don't like pacino, and i've avoided those films. i might loosen up my attitude and check them out.

[Tom]

SERPICO isn't nearly as good as the sublime DOG DAY AFTERNOON, I'd say. Of course, if you're not a Pacino fan neither one is probably your cup of tea.

[Daniel]

"Serpico" is one of Pacino's iconic performances along with "The Godfather" films, "Scarface" and -- of course -- "Dog Day Afternoon."

[Phillip]

ok, i'm going to rent dog day afternoon this week. i'll get back to you on it. if that goes well, we'll see about serpico. but i kind of already think i'm going to prefer the serpico that the kid directs in rushmore...

;)

[Phillip]

rob - yeah, with dirk in the nun's costume...hysterical.

well, once pacino hits the 1980's, he's much too full of himself. i know he adequately represents a personae that exists in america - and for that reason i kind of have to give it up to him - he's representin'! i just don't want to be reminded of that personae.

i do like things he did in the 70's, so it really is silly of me to have avoided those films all these years...but you know how it is - you have time for what you have time for.

[Jim]

The clip of the discussion with the bomb in "Dark Star" was posted in another group I belong to. It's a great scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjGRyS...

[Mawgojzeta]

Hi. Bringing this back, because I am new here, so it is new to me.

What about Black Sheep ? I could not believe how much I enjoyed this film about genetic engineering gone wrong. It was a hoot! It clearly was not meant to be comedic (sp??) horror; but not sure it people would call it sci-fi comedy.

[Tom]

I recently downloaded the original HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY radio series in two large parts from itunes, and have gotten a lot of very good laughs out of them both so far. A few dry patches, to be sure, and the story just kind of lurches along. But nothing can dim the brilliance of the best parts. The sequence at Milliways is a joy, just a pure bloody joy, and Anthony Sharp's glorious performance as the supercilious waiter is only one of the great pleasures in store.

[Phillip]

it was on the radio here in the early 80's and i remember the place where i worked had it blaring over the speakers and i caught a lot of it...i remember really enjoying it.