We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
I recently saw the latest instalment of the X-Men saga, named rather unambiguously X-Men 2. I rather liked the first X-Men, which was rather a surprise given that I think the history of translating comics into movies or TV is not a happy one.
Although Batman proved rather good in its first few outings, it then got progressively more dreadful… Judge Dredd was a travesty, I despised the entire Superman series, loathed Spawn, hated The Phantom and Daredevil had nothing to commend it other than the fact it had Jennifer Garner in it. Ok, The Shadow was almost rather good… almost, Tank Girl was in parts so surreal as to be fun and in other places so bad it was good, and Spiderman was really quite good indeed… but clearly the odds are that comic-based productions will prove to be turkeys.
So X-Men 2 would not have surprised me if it had been far less impressive than the first one, but that is far from the case. The excellent cast remained rock solid and the story, whilst hardly Tolstoy, was entirely adequate. Although like the first movie, Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine stole the show, it would be hard to fault anyone else’s performances. The whole thing sticks with what worked last time and adds some nice touches, such as an angst-filled German teleporting mutant who looks like the devil but turns out to be one of the good guys. And then there is the always superb Ian McKellen’s Magneto, who this time… ah, but then I don’t want to give away the whole plot.
Go see it… well worth your popcorn money.
On Thursday, February 06, 2003, Paul Marks of Northamptonshire wrote on Samizdata some views on the history of modern science fiction that I found very interesting (especially since they mentioned me). The following is not so much to correct him, as to add to what he said.
Modern science fiction began as little more than another way to popularize left wing socialism. Both H.G. Wells and Edward Bellamy wrote socialist Utopias, and Wells wrote allegorical attacks on capitalism and individualism. Ironically, they (and Ayn Rand) inspired me to do what I do.
I generally exclude Rand as a science fiction writer only because she didn’t know that Anthem and Atlas Shrugged are science fiction — and that science fiction is the “literature of ideas” that she erroneously believed detective fiction to be.
Anthem and Atlas Shrugged are science fiction, all right. But Rand — at least consciously — was not a science fiction writer. I realize I may be splitting hairs. For that matter, I’ve never been sure whether Kurt Vonnegut is a science fiction writer, more because of the way he’s marketed than anything else.
On the other hand, Frank Herbert was definitely a science fiction writer who, after many years of unspeakable struggle (after being rejected by every American house: Dune was eventually sold to an English publisher, for an advance of $1000) was finally published in the mainstream.
But I digress, as usual. → Continue reading: L Neil Smith responds
In the ‘classical age’ of science fiction, most American writers seemed to be limited or even minimal statists (Heinlien, Piper, “Doc” Smith and so on).
Most writers tended to support a strong military defence – but not very much more government (indeed they were hostile to welfare statism).
These days science fiction writing seems to have changed. A minority of writers (such as L. Neil Smith) are actual anarchist (real anarchists – not people who do not like the word ‘government’ but still want a collective power to control everything), but most other writers are welfare state – interventionists writing ‘feminist science fiction’, ‘environmental science fiction’, ‘psychological science fiction’ or even straight science fiction – but with the normal statist slant of main stream literature.
Perhaps the problem started when science fiction began to be ‘taken seriously’ (studied at universities, taught in writing classes and so on). Or perhaps the general statism of our culture just flows in everywhere eventually.
However, whatever the cause the old classical view of science fiction (fairly strict limited statism – tending towards minimal statism) is gone and has been replaced by a few anarchist writers and a mainstream of welfare statists.
This is even getting into fantasy writing. Again I am not referring to modern British writers (I do not expect much from writers beloved by the B.B.C. – such as Mr Pullman), but even best selling American fantasy writers seem to be coloured by statism.
For example Mr Jordan (of the highly successful ten book Wheel of Time series) seems to assume that good government involves all sorts of interventions (hence his hero, oddly enough called Rand, keeps ordering people about in their economic life), and there are the normal signs of mainstream literature – wealthy businessmen are dodgy, the utopian society of the ‘Age of Legends’ was an interventionist welfare-state and so on.
Actually modern fantasy writing in Britain started out as broadly anti-statist. Tolkien (for all his Catholic distaste for people who were obsessed with money making) was no statist – and neither was C.S. Lewis. And the American fantasy writers followed them in the their belief that a good government was one which protected the nation against other powers and did not do many other things.
In short there was similar political outlook among the fantasy writers and the science fiction writers.
This reflected itself in role-playing (when this grow up), the format of most role playing was an individual or group of individuals opposing evil (evil being defined as forces, human or other, who came to rob-kill-control). External invaders, internal corruption, tyrannical government – it was all basically the same thing (force attacking people).
People who were socialists in ‘real life’ never thought of setting up welfare states in fantasy or science fiction games – because that was not the nature of things (and games did have an effect on “real life” beliefs over time).
Sadly this all seems to be ending.
Not me, that is for sure. Even harder to figure out is the film going public… and after a chat with Hollywood film producer and blogger Brian Linse the other day, I get the impression from him that even Hollywood cannot figure out the film going public.
Take two movies, both based on computer games. Firstly, Tomb Raider, staring Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft.
Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft: striking a Lara-ish stance
The Tomb Raider series of computer games were massive and more or less redefined the genre. I thought they were all quite gripping and am very eager to get my paws on the latest episode of Lara Croft’s adventures, Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness.
Angel of Darkness: Lara Croft in all her pixellated glory!
As you might expect, I was rather keen to see Tomb Raider: The Movie, directed by Simon West. It had everything going for it: Angelina Jolie is an interesting looking woman and without doubt a technically skilled actress. Although she is not quite ready to challenge Gwyneth Paltrow for her crown as ‘Best-Yank-Actress-who-can-do-a-perfect-British-accent’, she is pretty damn good nonetheless.
The film clearly had a truly humongous budget, was adequately acted and tolerably directed in parts (with a couple startlingly bad scenes: it takes a certain perverse skill for a director to make a gratuitous shower scene with Angelina Jolie laughable for all the wrong reasons). Unfortunately the story line was weak, convoluted and confusing. Worst of all, the production was dire: it was almost as if it was three separate movies, casually spliced together, differently paced as if styled by three sets of completely unconnected film makers, then finally so badly edited as to make some parts of the story incomprehensible. Although Tomb Raider: The Movie was not utterly without merits, the overall effect was shockingly disappointing. 
And yet, due to the Tomb Raider/Lara Croft brand name and massive marketing, this clunker rode out the appropriately scathing reviews and was by no means a commercial failure in spite of costing a great deal to make. A sequel is in the pipeline.
And then let us look as the second movie, Resident Evil staring Milla Jovovich as Alice.
Milla Jovovich as Alice: about to demonstrate how unhappy she is with her ex-boyfriend
The game that the movie is based on, similarly called Resident Evil is a big name in the Playstation console world, but it does not have anything like the brand recognition of ‘Tomb Raider’ and ‘Lara Croft’ with the general public.
Killer pixels: Veronica from the Resident Evil – Code V game
The Resident Evil movie, directed by Paul Anderson, clearly has a far smaller budget, it was marketed poorly to put it mildly and with the exception of Milla Jovovich (Fifth Element, Zoolander, Blue Lagoon, Two Moon Junction etc.) had a cast of more or less unknowns. Resident Evil had a simple but nearly flawlessly executed story, was artfully directed, skillfully produced and very atmospheric. It was well cast and Milla was excellent as the killer amnesiac conspirator known simply as ‘Alice’… and unlike the jarring T&A scene in Tomb Raider, the opening shower sequence with dazed Milla worked perfectly, setting the deliciously ill-at-ease tone for the whole movie.
In short, this movie rocks… vastly superior to ‘Tomb Raider: The Movie’ on every level. It has no pretensions to be high art or intellectually challenging, but it does exactly what it sets out to do with considerable flair. 
And yet unlike the dismal Tomb Raider, Resident Evil almost immediately vanished off the screens and onto video/DVD. Fortunately, because it cost so little to make, the picture seems to have still made a profit and thus in this case too, a sequel is in the pipeline called Resident Evil: Nemesis (which will no doubt cause confusion with the impending Star Trek movie called ‘Nemesis’). Movie making is a very strange business.
Go out and buy or rent Resident Evil: The Movie on DVD or Video, it is destined to be a cult classic. Avoid Tomb Raider: The Movie like it was smallpox.
Update: The Resident Evil follow-up movie has been retitled Resident Evil: Apocalypse, presumably to avoid confusion with the recent Start Trek movie flop called ‘Nemesis’
Seeing a reference to the marvellous children’s programme Thunderbirds over on the Brothers Judd sent me off on a rare bout of nostalgia.
Thunderbirds was far and away my favourite programme when I was young and this was long before I appreciated the shows astonishing libertarian political message… These guys were like the real world RNLI only with guns and spaceships!
‘International Rescue’ were shown as a benevolent but armed covert high tech para-military search and rescue organisation, privately controlled and funded by a philanthropic American businessman’s multinational company (Tracy Construction and Aerospace Industries), run secretly by his family and loyal friends. IR was completely independent of any government! What is more, International Rescue’s ‘muscle’ was provided by British aristocrat Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward, cruising in a pink six-wheeled armoured Rolls Royce, capable of travelling at 200 mph complete with a hidden front grill mounted auto-cannon. No anti-capitalist or anti-private ownership of weapons vibe here!
Now that is a splendid role model for children rather than the usual dreary assortment of statist lawyers, severe cops and government spies who are trotted out to pass for heros!
Hooray for the new Star Wars film, Attack of the Clones. I haven’t seen it yet, it comes out in London on 16th May, but as a fan of the most successful film series of all time I already know that it will be about the increasingly cruel and devious Senator Palpatine, President of the Galactic Senate, who creates a false enemy – the clones – as an excuse to seize more power for himself.
This is excellent news for libertarianism. Why? In an age when classic fairytales, of the read-to-you-at–bedtime sort have become nearly extinct, the Star Wars trilogy, quite deliberately, filled that vacant space in the minds of children (and adults, I might add) with incredible success. The Star Wars films have been the most sociologically successful stories of all time – the characters, the underlying plot and the universe it depicted have become universally recognisable stereotypes of our age.
An entire generation has grown up, especially in the United States, taking much of their basic morality from these films. That morality, despite being simple and unoriginal, has become part of that generation’s meta-context. The new films are likely to be just as popular and influential with today’s children. This is the good news because any child growing up on the new “Star Wars films will absorb the basic idea that the most dangerous enemy of them all is a slick politician, who promises to make the world better by taking more power for himself, whilst being publicly apologetic about the necessity to do so. Years from now, when little Jimmy comes to cast his first vote, in the back of his mind will be the memory from the most powerful fairytale of his childhood – you can’t trust politicians, especially the ones who want more power. No matter what they say. And whilst that may not be enough to create a libertarian wonderland just yet, it certainly goes straight for the meta-contextual jugular.
And if that’s not good enough to make you love the new Star Wars film, let’s face it, Attack of the Clones is just too good a title to bash Britain’s New Labour with to resist.
It would seem that evil retreats when forcibly confronted.
– Yarnek of Excalbia, “The Savage Curtain”, stardate 5906.5
Hey, even that fountain of marxist science fiction, Star Trek occasionally gets it right
There is an interesting article about a meeting of libertarian science fiction writers over on Hollywood Investigator. The splits between libertarian thought (and libertarian ‘thought’) are made very clear by the views on parade at this dinner.
That careless person, Happy Fun Pundit, was so inattentive to the proper order of things as to post a lovely mini-rant on Star Trek & Socialism on his own blog rather than here on Samizdata where everyone knows such posts belong.
I do not know why I do it to myself. I watch Enterprise, the latest and by far the lamest of the Star Trek series and have to restrain myself from throwing things at the television. In the latest idiotic episode, the crew of a freighter starship which has been repeatedly attacked by non-human pirates finally captures one and tries to strong arm information out of the prisoner to gain a tactical advantage in order to retaliate effectively against their tormentors. However we are shown that the virtuous Star Fleet crew of Enterprise do not approve of this. Not just the fact the freighter crew are trying to beat information out of the captive but the very fact they are holding him at all, we are lead to believe, is bad. I wonder what Captain Archer of the Enterprise would have to say about Guantanamo Bay?
Many TV shows have fantastical settings and an implausible premise underlying them, but this is not in and of itself a bad thing. It is fiction after all. The socialist future for humanity posited by Star Trek is implausible but sadly by no means impossible. The technology theorised for the future is likewise as good a guess as any other. All that is okay. What is not okay is the fact that the human characters simply do not act like humans. They are utterly implausible as future examples of homo sapiens: people simply do not act that way when in life threatening situations. We are shown that tracking down and attacking the people who have been repeatedly attacking you is bad.
I wonder what Star Fleet would do if some alien species hijacked a starship and flew it into the 23rd Century equivalent of the World Trade Centre? Well they certainly would not a George Bush style “smash the Taliban” on them, that is for sure! Any culture that demanded such behaviour would simply not survive contact with less squeamish cultures or more rational disaffected members of its own culture. Star Trek is truly TV with rocks in its head.
Then look at Alias, the new spy-drama with the superb Jennifer Garner. It too has fantastical settings and a highly implausible underlying premise (a college girl/spy-commando).
And yet whereas the dismal Enterprise fails miserably to convincingly portray human interaction within its given premises, Alias does so triumphantly. Quite apart from the fact Jennifer Garner can act the socks off any of the current Star Trek cast, the show is superbly written and the characters plausibly drawn. Within the extraordinary fictional settings in which the show occurs, the people act like humans. They act the way you or I might act is suddenly plunged into the scripted situations. Jennifer Garner’s character, Sydney, was shown being tortured (none of the namby pamby crap of many shows… we actually see her being electrocuted and Garner makes it look very unpleasant indeed). Later in the episode, she escapes and in doing so takes an electro-prod from a guard. We see her standing over the man who had earlier presided over her torture and, if this had been Star Trek, we would have been treated to a brief sermon on the importance of non-violence or some disdainful grimace as she asserts her moral superiority as ‘New Socialist Woman’ over her ex-captor. But fortunately it was not Star Trek. Sydney steps over to the prone helpless man, jabs him with the electro-prod and as he screams says words to the effect, “Yeah, it hurts, don’t it?”
So which do you think makes for a more engaging story? Alias rocks!
Jennifer Garner as ‘Sydney Bristow’ in Alias
Ace bloggista Alex Knapp of Heretical Ideas points out that somewhere between the original Star Trek of Jim Kirk (23rd century) and the Star Trek of Jean-Luc Picard (24th century), something went horribly wrong… but it didn’t start out that way.
Now, it’s hard to defend the namby-pamby neo-liberal Federation of Star Trek:TNG, (though there’s a good case to be made from DS9 that the Feds aren’t as bad as TNG makes them appear to be), but I’m not concerned with them.
Let’s talk about real Star Trek. I’m talking about the NCC-1701, which cruised around the cosmos not only exploring new worlds, but finding new tyrannies – and crushing them. Is your world controlled by an over-intelligent super-computer? No problem–Kirk and co. will destroy it. Been trapped in a never-ending cycle of war because you fight by computer instead of the real way? Kirk and co. takes care of it. Are Klingon’s arming your rival clan’s? Not to worry–Kirk will give you guns, too, so you can protect your families. Benign interventionism, favoring democracy.
But hey, the original Trek wasn’t just about freeing enslaved peoples. It was about mutual tolerance–so you can make a few bucks. Case in point: “Devil in the Dark.” A strange creature is killing miners? Klingons would’ve just killed. Not the Federation. Kirk and Spock learn to talk to the creature, which ends up contracting with the miners–enabling them to make a greater profit. And the 23rd century Federation wasn’t cashless, either. It’s clear that Kirk and co. were paid for their work, and they spent their money in very non-PC ways. (My, I do love the green-skinned dancers…)
But in addition to bringing democracy to Third Galaxy worlds and making the universe safe for capitalism, the 23rd century Federation had a tough-minded foreign policy. When the Romulans developed a new cloaking device, did the Feds beg for a non-proliferation treaty? Did they impose economic sanctions? Hell no! They had the Enterprise go in and just steal the damn thing with a beautiful deception.
Somewhere between the 23rd and 24th centuries, maybe the Federation lost its way. But don’t forget that at the beginning, the Federation was composed of tough-minded freedom fighters who enjoyed the finer things in life (like alien babes) and appreciated money. But they weren’t just decadent–they were devoted to liberty. Don’t forget that Kirk gave up his one great love in order to prevent the Nazis from winning World War II. And, as the movies showed, they recognized the great truth of individualism–“The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.” Because only by focusing on the individual do you prevent him from being trampled by the demands of the mob.
Alex Knapp
Continuing in the same spirit of the last few posts, a tip of the space helmet to Samizdata reader Neil Eden for providing us with two excellent essays located on The Proceedings of the Friesian School website:
The Fascist Ideology of Star Trek: Militarism, Collectivism, & Atheism
Star Wars: Episode I, The Phantom Menace, A Response to Critics
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
