criterionforum.org

senseabove wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:23 pm Less a Sci-Fi List review and more of an accidental litmus test, it turns out: I watched Lizzie Borden's phenomenal Born in Flames tonight, which I've been meaning to watch for years and finally did because I wanted something short and I'd seen it mentioned as sci-fi before... but this is just not sci-fi? It's set in a relative, atemporalized, dystopian-ish "future"—10 years after a very loosely defined "peaceful political revolution" in the US that leads to a Democratic Socialist government, but we're never given a year, and diegetically, it is entirely aesthetically of its production year. Looking at it from now, it could just as easily be a realistic alternative history past. My first reaction is that it should be mentioned in the same breath as Battle of Algiers as a pseudo-document of radical leftist activism; and in spite of its gruff punk/no-wave/lo-fi aesthetic, it's breathtakingly deft at delineating strains of leftism and instra-movement squabbles that feel so absurdly relevant to the events of this year, you almost want to laugh to keep from crying—I've seen versions of damn near every conversation and monologue in this movie published somewhere online in the past three months. But this "future's" differences are entirely sociopolitical, not technological. There is no attempt to imagine new technologies that aid one "side" or the other, nor any to augment contemporary fashions in some "futuristic" way, nor any unexplained phenomena of any kind other than a mass political movement that is, admittedly, even more unbelievable with the full effect of Reaganism in hindsight. Given the impending explosion of the AIDS crisis and more prevalent access to computers that were to follow it, it's honestly more surprising for what the movie excludes from its future. It doesn't even try to extrapolate or play fast and loose and get things spectacularly wrong. So while I think it's a fantastic movie, I'm not sure why I ever saw it mentioned as sci-fi. And maybe it feels especially less like sci-fi now that a Democratic Socialist has actually been within shouting distance of the Presidency twice? Do other folks consider this sci-fi?

knives wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:09 am Watched the great and wrongly dismissed The Circle and it really has me wondering if the modern era makes science fiction in and of itself a redundant genre. Ponsoldt gives us a world not even five minutes into the future with it’s basically Facebook corporation. Yet it has all of the earmarks of the genre leaving me in a bit of a quandary.

bottled spider wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:47 am Marjorie Prime (Almereyda, 2017)
Chekhov with robots. A chamber drama, undisguisedly adapted from a stage play, set among holographic AI simulcra (or “Primes”) of departed family members and the bereaved humans they are designed to console. Whether these Primes really are a help, or ultimately a hindrance, in coping with loss remains an open question. The Primes mimic the personalities of their late originals according the information and feedback supplied them by those they companion. So these literal, physical projections may also be projections figuratively speaking (if not, indeed, travesties), and more than one character worries that interacting with a Prime amounts to talking to oneself. A rich piece. There’s no real plot, but there’s structure and a satisfying emotional arc.

I watched Under the Skin for the first time a couple days ago too. Not having liked Sexy Beast very much, I was going to give it a miss, but the seal of approval by my favourite Trump supporting critic changed my mind. My initial reaction to the film was that it was boring where it wasn't unpleasant or silly, but I started to warm to it about nine-tenths of the way through. The ending is phenomenal. One thing I liked about "The Female" was just how basic her pickup patter was. Nothing very seductive, but I could imagine being disarmed by it even as my suspicions were aroused.

She becomes increasingly mute toward the end -- does she lose her capacity for language altogether as she become more humanized?

Dr Amicus wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:15 pm Count me in as another THX 1138 admirer. Back when I taught the SF class, the existing syllabus had Radford's adaptation of 1984 screening alongside the Dystopia / 1984 week. I changed this to THX 1138 and added Brave New World as a reading option as the film seemed to me to have elements of both and was less likely to be a known quantity for the students. Most went for 1984 for the reading option (I soon realised a LOT must have read it at A Level) but there were a few more adventurous students who went for the Huxley. Actually, I just got a copy of the Blu Ray recently and am aiming to rewatch soon - I've only seen the original cut before and am interested (if wary) as to how much Lucas has changed.