Librari[d]an

I just saw The Strangers and honestly it’s a pretty solid film. How did this occur, with Liv Tyler as the heroine and a cast of models as the masked intruders? The answers are much (much much much) simpler than you’d imagine:

The strangers don’t have outlandish motives.

There was a time when an approximation of psychological realism in a murderer’s motivation was a breath of fresh air for horror, and has allowed films like Psycho to achieve canonical status. However, nowadays audiences feel either weighed down by too much psychology or cheated by motivations that tie up the film with a nice, neat ribbon. Rather than Freudian examinations of a killer’s life (for example, the lengthy scenes depicting Michael Meyers’ childhood in Rob Zombie’s reimagining of Halloween) or exotic psychological explanations (dissociative identity disorder in The Secret Window, Session 9, and countless others) they appreciate less complex motives.

Dissociative identity disorder (a.k.a. multiple personality disorder), popularized by Hitchcock’s Psycho, is not only trite, but lacking in realism. (”Real” cases of DID are quite rare).

The fact that the strangers are most likely “thrill killers” is understated, never articulated in the film. (When Kristen finally asks the baby-doll faced stranger why they’re victimizing them, the girl flatly and evasively responds “Because you were home.”) Compare this to Murder By Numbers, another film about kids who thrill kill, and you can see how a minimal focus on character motivation results in a tighter, creepier, and less clichéd narrative.

The actors are never required to display any emotional range.

The Strangers has only the sparest of narratives: James and Kristen arrive home after a party where Kristen rejected his marriage proposal. Strangers start to terrorize them. James accidentally shoots his buddy. Strangers continue to terrorize them. James admits that he lied about his father taking him hunting. Strangers overpower and kill them. So what are the emotions that are asked of Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman? Sadness, fear, anguish/regret. Pretty easy fare, considering how limited the dialog (much of which is delivered into mobile phones or vintage radios) is. They only have to look sullen or alternately terrified.

The really complex emotional work, when James realizes he has killed his best friend, is neatly avoided by focusing on Liv Tyler’s character’s imploring “What? James, what?” and James’ back (no joke). At the end, when the two realize that the strangers are really going to kill them, the scene is surprisingly brief and revolves more around the diamond wedding band Kristen decided to wear than their professions of love to one another. (Good idea, Liv. Let the rock do the acting for you!)

So why do these characters work? The answer is that James and Kristen are stand-ins for audience members: white, boring, middle class people with mundane interpersonal relationship problems. Also, a sense of realism is achieved when audiences don’t get the whole story in a few hours: I have included the fact that James lied about his relationship with his father for this very reason. It is one of the few overtures toward character development that are made in the film, and that’s what most of this stuff is, just overtures. All we really need are hints that these characters have emotions and inner lives beyond the few hours the audience spends with them. Beyond that, any explicit details of their lives clash with an audience members’ ability to identify with them.

Bryan Bertino, the writer/director, avoided stale subgenres.

Virtually every review of The Strangers mentions how it is not a splatter film (charmingly referred to as “torture porn” by non-professional reviewers) and how this simple fact is refreshing. When the horror genre is overly permeated with certain stock styles or narratives (like J-horror ghost stories) audiences swing like a pendulum to something different (in this case, tension). So it’s not that The Strangers is a masterpiece of suspense, but rather that it is light on gore and doesn’t have a 12 year-old female ghost with long, dark hair.

The Strangers is unremarkable for the most part. However, there are some redeeming elements to the film. It is interesting to see that Bertino and co. have accomplished a few goals in terms of cinematography, sound, and pacing:

1. The framing of several shots is rather impressive. I’m thinking specifically of one instance (pictured in a publicity photo to the right) where Liv Tyler is crawling through the back yard and the highly kinetic camera (something I usually deplore, but which in this case beautifully masks the impending jump scare) pulls out and pans up slightly to reveal one of the female strangers.

2. The soundtrack, diegetic and non-diegetic, is rather well done. One of my favorite parts was when the dissonance of a skipping record was put to good use as a jarring, disorienting device. (This isn’t exactly original, but the execution was spot on.) The only thing I felt it lacked were music cues when the strangers appear (à la the original Halloween) to heighten the mood. The filmmakers probably felt this would be over doing it, but I think when used discriminatingly such cues could really have enhanced the strangers’ appearances toward the end film.

3. Tension scenes are remarkably long, with the strangers walking into the background of the frame for extended periods of time. This in itself isn’t really impressive. What I was struck by was how Bertino was able to sustain suspense over these long periods of time, relying heavily on horror conventions (shadow and focus) but also less-used devices to do so. For example, when the male, bag-headed stranger first appears behind Kristen (who is in the kitchen) from a hallway, Bertino allows the camera to move away from the stranger and out of the shot. Although audiences can quite literally not see him, they still have a palpable sense that his menacing presence is still there. Thus, when the camera returns to the space that the stranger occupied, audiences hold their breath waiting for Kristen’s unwitting discovery of the stranger.

So, The Strangers did a few things right, but when the film didn’t do anything wrong it basically didn’t do much. Do I like it? I enjoyed watching it, but I’d like Bertino’s next film to have more substance.

:: Bibliography ::

• CelebrityWonder.com. The Strangers production picture. CelebrityWonder.com. http://www.celebritywonder.com/movie-pictures/2008_The_Strangers/002.html (18 June 2008).
• Emerson, Jim. Close-Ups: A free-association dream sequence. Scanners. http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/10/closeups_a_freeassociation_min.html (18 June 2008).

The prom has never preoccupied me. Many people have strong feelings about their’s, which is usually rooted in le teen angst. The only proms I concern myself with are of the horror variety. Yes, a re-imagining of a 1980 horror classic is being released today. It will be wretched, so I’m going to take a look back at the original Prom Night.

First, we have to get beyond this:

Clocking in at well under four minutes, the notorious disco dance sequence featuring scream queen Jamie Lee Curtis has made Prom Night the whipping boy of early ’80s slasher films. (This is compounded by having Leslie Nielsen in the film, and this clip, as JLC’s father.) Yes, it is filled with every cliché, every odious dance move imaginable. However, a dud dance sequence didn’t stop Carrie from garnering some acclaim.

So now that you’ve seen the shamefaced underbelly of Prom Night, are you wondering why you should watch it? Is it going to be as painful as attending (or not attending) your own prom?

The answer is, as far as slasher genre films go, Prom Night is much better than the average fair. The narrative is well-crafted, despite now being seen as straight horror formula. Characters, and the psychology that underpins their actions, are consistent and believable, if not exactly compelling. (And not hyper-Freudian, for a change.) The acting in general is not bad, with occasional bursts of proficiency. My father lauds the ending as Jamie Lee Curtis’ best performance ever. (I don’t recommend watching this video if you’re really interested in watching PN.) Although that isn’t saying much, I think most people will find the climax to be rather surprising and challenging. If you look back on the film and ruminate on the themes of family, justice, and guilt, I think you’ll find Prom Night a worthy addition to your horror arsenal.

P.S. The best Prom Night DVD is only $7 at Amazon. Nice.

:: Bibliography ::

• Simpson, Peter, Paul Lynch, Leslie Nielsen, Jamie Lee Curtis, Casey Stevens, Eddie Benton, Antoinette Bower, et al. 2007. Prom night. [United States]: Echo Bridge Home Entertainment.

Film genre is a particularly vexed issue, as the more rigorously critics define a term (such as “Science Fiction”) the more likely they are to exclude some canonical work. In an attempt to extricate the oft amalgamated genres of Science Fiction and Horror, Sobchack wrote “The Limits of the Genre: Definitions and Themes”. In the essay, the author differentiates between the two based on thematic grounds, including the nature of the conflict, threat, focus, and evocation of emotion within the film. The result of Sobchack’s efforts is a genre gradient, with some films utilizing elements of both genres. However, Sobchack’s model is complicated by the fact that thematic evaluations are subjective. For example, Fritz Lang’s Metropolis is often lauded as the most influential Science Fiction film of all time. The fact that it is an archetype of the genre is taken for granted. However, Metropolis is so rich in the thematic material associated with Horror films that it undermines the idea that a film could be defined as anything but a hybrid.

Sobchack explains that one of the most pivotal aspects of the horror genre is the manner in which the monster is portrayed, and how this informs the thematic elements of the film. One such theme is that of conflict between the individual (or an extension of the self) and society at large. (30) Sobchack clarifies that this dilemma arises from the fact that the double “is not other than Man; he is the darker side of Man and therefore comprehensible.” (32) Rotwang (Rudolf Klein-Rogge)’s Machine-Man acts in this capacity, as it is nearly an exact replica of Maria. Brigitte Helm takes on both roles. The audience can tell the two apart in a variety of ways: Helm’s movements and posture as Maria are usually smooth and poised while as the robot she jerks her body erratically and adopts angular poses. Costume design also distinguishes the two: Maria is seen in a simple frock, while the robot wears heavy eye makeup and ostentatious outfits. However, within the fabula world, all the characters are convinced that the two characters are one and the same. This inability to distinguish between the two reveals uneasiness about identity, as J.P. Telotte identifies in his essay “Human Artifice and the Science Fiction Film”. (57) Thus, the substance of the “Maria” character is split between an inherently good human and the evil robot. (An allusion to this concept can be seen in Helm’s performance when the robot adopts her visage. Maria remains motionless during the procedure. Thus, when it ends why does her head loll to one side, as if a part of her essence had been drained away?)

The latter of the two is then pitted against society, represented by the mob.

The monster of horror films must also be human – and to a certain extent sympathetic – as well. (Sobchack 31) The beginning of such a rapport between the antagonist (robot Maria) and the audience begins with the sheer amount of screen time dedicated to the robot. Sobchack asserts that in horror films “both Man and Monster must be given equal weight and equal time.” (31) After the Machine-Man is introduced in the middle of the film, the robot’s presence pervades the rest of the movie. Often times, lengthy scenes are devoted to following the robot without another main character to divert the audience’s attention. Examples of such scenes occur when she dances in the nightclubs at Yoshiwara, leads the mob in their destruction of the machines, and is finally destroyed. While Science Fiction creatures lack emotion, robot Maria has it in spades. Helm’s performance transforms the lifeless automaton into an insane woman. Sympathy is created for this monster when she ultimately undermines the dystopic metropolis. The robot breathes life back into the workers by inciting them to riot and break the machines that enslave them. No longer do the workers move like cogs. Robot Maria is then promptly destroyed as a scapegoat for Fredersen (Alfred Abel) and Rotwang’s crimes. In Telotte’s essay he remarked on the fact that audiences may begin to empathize with doubles. Here, the slightly humanized robot can be seen in a sympathetic light, as it is marginalized despite being the sole instrument of social change.

A second thematic element Sobchack ascribes to horror films is that the threat monsters pose is distinctly moral in nature. (30) This is most readily visible in the religious discourse of the film, although it is also associated with other elements such as the negative female traits embodied by the robot. A stereotype of women is that they are more easily disposed to insanity. Helm masterfully portrays this with her distinctly feminine performance. In close ups as the robot is being burned at the stake, she laughs psychotically and writhes as if in pleasure rather than pain.

This predisposition toward madness is a manifestation of “an alien potential that resides in man”. (Telotte 60) Another moral failing of the robot is her highly sexual nature. Maria is likened to the Virgin Mary via her name, Jesus when she appears amidst the children in the Eternal Gardens, and John the Baptist in her dialogue that stresses the imminent appearance of a savior/mediator.

The robotic Maria is an inversion of these religious figures. When Freder (Gustav Fröhlich) first sees the robot disguised as Maria, there are many quick cuts between close-ups of the robot and the Grim Reaper. In the nightclub the robot appears as the Whore of Babylon, perched atop a seven-headed beast in a lavish Biblical allusion.

This use of editing and set decoration links the monstrous woman with moral failings: death, rather than a mother producing life, and promiscuity in place of chastity. Later, the script reinforces this view. The Eternal Gardens, a thinly veiled Eden, are described as empty because the robotic Maria has drawn the masses to Yoshiwara (Hell). A final negative aspect of women is their subversive potential. Via her speech in the catacombs, robotic Maria effectively goads the workers into a fit of hysteria that turns the once pacific congregation of men into a violent mob.

The moral threats presented in the film – including the idea of religious corruption – are not limited to the robotic Maria. This theme carries over to the robot’s creator, Rotwang. (Rotwang’s profession is translated as that of a “wizard” in Giorgio Moroder’s 1984 version of Metropolis.) Many elements of the mise en scène associated with the character address paganism. For example, his home is a veritable treasure trove of pagan allusions. Pentacles are present on all of his doors; this symbol, inverted and enlarged, also hangs above the eerie dais on which the Machine-Man sits enthroned.

The implied idea of idolatry is accentuated by the bust of Hel, Fredersen’s dead wife. Viewers familiar with Germanic myth will also note that the name is an allusion to the Norse goddess/realm of the dead. The threat against religion is also manifested in the supernatural, which is achieved by the employing of special effects. For example, the doors in Rotwang’s house can spring open or magically lock without a human manipulating them. Similarly, mattes and fades are used throughout the film to give the impression that physical objects can appear or disappear. This occurs in the nightclub, when a lid-like structure in front of the robotic Maria fades away. The technique is most compellingly employed when the robot takes on and then sheds Maria’s “skin”. The ghostly, seemingly mystic nature of these changes later justifies the mob when they call Maria a witch and burn her at the stake. The argument could be made that audiences would take these special effects as indicative of unseen, advanced technology. However Sobchack asserts that, according to Arthur C. Clarke, “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” (56) Because the viewer cannot understand how or even if technology is involved, it retains a supernatural quality. Thus the threat to morality, especially in the religious sense, is appeased with the destruction of the robot and death of its creator.

It would be difficult to argue that events such as the burning of the robot do not concern all of society, a thematic facet of Science Fiction films. (Sobchack 30) However, conceding this point does not preclude another focus on a more intimate group, the family. At the heart of the film’s narrative is an emphasis on the family. This is exemplified by the love triangles present within the film. Several allusions are made to the tenuous relationship between Fredersen and Rotwang over the woman Hel. This thread is picked up with the robotic Maria. Freder rushes into his father’s office, only to see his beloved in a semi-embrace with his father. The close proximity and contact between Abel and Helm, as well as the fact that they’re centered in the frame, explains why Freder crumples to the floor; his family has been perverted when the father appropriates his son’s love interest.

The robotic Maria also threatens the family, albeit in a symbolic manner. After following her orders, the workers break their machines. However, their lives are not endangered. Rather, the lives of their children are threatened by a flood. Maria uses the gong in the worker city to summon Freder. When the children, Maria, and Freder are finally united in a manifestation of the nuclear family, the film cuts to their speedy escape up a stairwell. At the top, holding the children in their arms, the two stand side-by-side as a family unit. Because he is not a necessary part of the family, Josaphat is noticeably shunted to the background and periphery of the frame.

The clearest aim of the horror genre is to evoke a sense of intense fear within the viewer, whereas Science Fiction emphasizes wonder and awe. (Sobchack 37/38) Metropolis attempts to inspire fear in the audience in many parts of the film. Sobchack quotes Richard Hodgens as saying that the term Science Fiction is often misapplied to films that “suggest a throwback of taste to something moldier and more ‘Gothic’ than the Gothic novel”. (27) With such a stance, Hodgens would definitely list Metropolis as a horror film, because a sense of the Gothic pervades the work. As one of Rotwang’s dialogue cards reads, deep beneath Fredersen’s dual city are ancient catacombs. It is here that a Gothic scene first appears, when Rotwang corrals Maria. The lighting in the tunnels is nearly nonexistent. In the tradition of the Gothic heroine, Maria carries only a candle as she is stalked by Rotwang.

The scientist opts for a flashlight instead. The high contrast lighting created by the device allows him to visually dominate Maria, using its light to blind and terrify her.

When trapped by the beam, Maria casts grotesque shadows on the stone walls. Often times, the darkness is so complete that it, rather than Maria or Rotwang, dominates the frame. The interplay between light and dark is complemented by the set design. Taken out of context, the catacombs seem more likely to be found in a castle than beneath a Bauhaus-styled city. In one scene, Rotwang uses his flashlight to illuminate human remains within crypts.

In a clever move, the subsequent close-up is made macabre by the fact that the character’s face is flanked by two skulls of the same scale as his head.

The classic horror trope of a man stalking a woman is repeated several times in equally Gothic locales: A cell-like room with barred windows in Rotwang’s cottage and the belfry of the cathedral. In the first Maria is framed by the bars, reinforcing the image of her as a Gothic heroine in need of rescue. A similar device is employed atop the cathedral, when Rotwang scuttles up the roof with Maria in his arms like Hugo’s Hunchback of Notre Dame.

Reflected in the formal and narrative elements of Metropolis is a compelling argument that the film thoroughly aligns itself with the Horror genre (as defined by Sobchack herself). An equally persuasive argument that the themes of the film coincide with Science Fiction is accepted as a given. If more than one critical interpretation can be sustained by evidence from the film, how can Sobchack define a genre by “gladly recognizing these hybrid forms as part of a spectrum”? (63) In essence, she simply concedes that thematic elements between these two genres overlap. However, the ability to evaluate the “emphasis” and “lesser emphasis” of the themes of a particular genre is inherently subjective, necessitating that all films be defined as a hybrid of the many generic devices they draw upon. (63) Thus, while some critics err on the side of purity when defining genre, an extension of Sobchack’s conception of the term leads to dissipation.

:: Bibliography ::

• Metropolis. Dir. Fritz Lang. Perf. Alfred Abel, Brigitte Helm, Gustav Fröhlich, and Rudolf Klein-Rogge. 1927. DVD. Kino, 2002.
• Sobchack, Vivian. “The Limits of the Genre: Definitions and Themes”. Screening Space. London: Rutgers University Press, 1987. Pages 17-63.
• Telotte, J.P. “Human Artifice and the Science Fiction Film”. Liquid Metal. Ed. Sean Redmond. New York: Wallflower Press, 2004. Pages 57-63.

I am a pretty unabashed fan of the Indian Jones films. Yes–even that terrible one where they’re not looking for a Biblical relic. (That would be Temple of Doom for all you non-believers. Tut tut for not remembering it.) Something about banding together to defeat the Nazis has always resonated with me, especially if there are zeppelins and fancy period costumes involved. (I’m probably going to have to rent The Rocketeer one of these days, if only for the set and costume designs.) In my interview for my financial aid/internship, I actually talked at length about how this scene - in which Indy confronts Elsa at a book-burning - made quite the impression on me. (In all honesty, not the book burning itself, but the subtlety with which they were developing Elsa’s character.) For some reason, after this they still decided to give me a job and gobs of money. Bizarre.

So there’s a new one coming out: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Watch the teaser trailer for it here. This promotional peek is so jam-packed with action that I’m not sure what to think. (I know they’re just using it to sell the film, but it all seems too flashy and sensationally shot.) For me, Indiana Jones was never about the action. Dodging deadly, ancient booby traps in the grail temple in The Last Crusade was pretty awesome, but it was a lot more fun watching Indy puzzle out the solutions to these archaeological trials. Plus, Indy isn’t the spring chicken any more. I don’t want to see Harrison Ford gallivanting around, bull whip in hand, as if he was still 35 (or even 45). I felt myself wince every time I saw any stunt work in the trailer. Was this because I was afraid he’d get a hernia, or because it so unabashedly shatters our willful suspension of disbelief? (Funny, that I can handle ghosts making Nazis’ faces melt and a false grail dessicating a man, but can’t stomach Ford’s geriatric acrobatics.)

So, strike the plot stuff that I love: Nazis, Europe (apparently this one is set somewhere in Central/South America), Biblical artifacts. Insert stuff that I am ambivalent toward: that kid with the weak chin from Transformers (Shia LaBeouf), tons of action, tons of kinetic cinematography, tons of cgi, the Russkies. (Communism? Come on! It’s not evil. It can’t hold a candle to Nazis.) Now can you see why I’m a bit worried?

There are, however, two women who can save the film: Karen Allen and Cate Blanchett. Karen has a bunch of stuff going for her; her character from Raiders of the Lost Ark, Marion Ravenwood, is certainly the most plucky and popular of Indiana Jones’ love interests. However, she’s mainly coasting on nostalgia. (And did she get some plastic surgery? Or just get old? Her face looks different…) Cate Blanchett is just really, really good at acting. I know she’ll give a solid performance even if her character - Irina Spalko - isn’t particularly sexy or interesting. (However, despite her frump uniform costume and bob coiffure I think she may end up being both.) Happily she seems to be the main villain and is getting considerable screen time in the trailer. (Hooray for Communism! Equality of the sexes! Finally a villainess that isn’t subservient to a man!) However, the same can’t be said for Allen, who is only in a few shots.

So I guess I’ll just have to wait and see how it goes (on 22 May 2008). Mark your calendars, my little Short Rounds.

Others have tried - and failed - to recreate Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo: In 1976 Brian de Palma created the interesting, if poorly executed, Obsession–a thinly veiled Vertigo knock-off. Sixteen years later, Paul Verhoeven would emulate the film’s visuals to a surprising degree in Basic Instinct. (A visual comparison of Basic Instinct and Vertigo can be found here.) Attempts to recreate key scenes from the film have occurred as recently as 2005. Now, it’s time to add another to the list; Vanity Fair’s March 2008 issue will feature a photographic homage to Hitchcock’s films, including Renée Zellweger as Judy / Madeleine in the final tower scene from Vertigo! (Roy)

I never would have expected Vanity Fair to pick Renée Zellweger to fill Kim Novak’s shoes. Although I admit that she’s a talented actress, Zellweger has never been in a role that required the vulnerability, complexity, and emotional scope that Novak had to bring to her character. And of all the scenes to choose! You’d think they’d pick an easy “grey suit” episode, but instead they chose the climactic dénouement in the tower. It is perhaps the movie’s most emotionally charged scene. However, as you can see in the video of the shoot (also below), Zellweger has pretty much nailed it.

Zellweger’s performance at the shoot - described by Vanity Fair itself as “especially notable” - was both intense and impressive. (Windolf) This praise is pretty amazing, considering that there were five other Oscar winners and a huge amount of A-listers being photographed for Hitchcock’s other films. (Check out the article, cited below, for the full list and scans.) As you can see in the photo and video, everything in terms of the mise en scène was perfect: the coiffure, cosmetics, dress, earrings, tower interior… even Carlotta’s pendant.

At the shoot, Zellweger “was watching the scene over and over while getting her hair and makeup done, and when she came on set she started breathing really hard, almost hyperventilating. [...] She just absolutely exploded on the set and truly became that character like I’ve never seen before. We were in awe.” (Windolf) This method acting may explain why Zellweger’s performance lacked the subtle artistry that Novak brought to Judy’s character in both this and other scenes. (And in all fairness, it was just a photo shoot.) In addition to amplifying the emotions for a traditional camera, Zellweger herself may have been having an emotional reaction to Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak’s performances.

Revisiting Vertigo is something of an obsession for fans of the film. (Unfortunately, this Vertigo fanatic will not be close enough to visit San Fransisco when he goes to Anaheim, California this summer for the annual ALA conference.) Watch a YouTube video of the locations featured in the film here. Check out a stunning visual comparison of scenes from the film and contemporary photographs at Vertigo… Then and Now.

Special thanks to Joel Gunz, Hitchcock Geek for bringing Vanity Fair’s photo shoot to my attention and Deeda Blair for scanning and posting the article.

:: Bibliography ::

Roy, Norman J., photographer. “The 2008 Hollywood Portfolio.” Vanity Fair (March 2008): 370-71. Accessed 8 February 2008. http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/20148385.html.

Windolf, Jim. It’s the Hitch in Hitchcock. March 2008. CondéNet. Accessed 6 February 2008. http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/03/behindthescenes200803.

As a child, I would often have dreams about a mysterious blonde, blindfolded and all in white, silently calling out to me for help. She would appear framed in mirrors, reaching blindly towards me, or dead in a ruined coffin. When I related the dream to a friend, he assured me it was not mine at all. Rather, the girl was my misty memory of an obscure live-action Disney film, The Watcher in the Woods. The “dream” was in fact several suspenseful scenes from the science fiction/horror movie, which features a girl who was accidentally sent into another dimension - switched with an alien - during a solar eclipse. Why I came to think of it as a dream was clear: Karen’s costume design was theatrical and symbolic in nature, a softening filter made the images hazy, and little to no sound heightened the suspense of the scenes.

In “Prosthetic Memory: Total Recall and Blade Runner”, Alison Landsberg relates Herbert Blumer’s scientific finding that the mass media can implant memories into audiences via film. (LM 240) Audiences do not simply associate themselves with characters in the film, but incorporate the images and sounds fundamentally into the self. (LM 242) Landsberg views this as an extension of themes developed in contemporary science fiction films dealing with “prosthetic” (i.e. synthesized) memory.

In her essay, the author argues that post-modern film analysis privileges the time before audience’s relationships to events were not so mediated that people could not differentiate between the real and hyperreal. (LM 243, 240) Critics such as Fredric Jameson and Jean Baudrillard express nostalgia for this time – the “prelapsarian moment” – when it was still possible for viewers to experience and participate in true memory rather than inauthentic memory. Landsberg argues, however, that films such as Total Recall and Blade Runner work against this idea. The protagonists of both films don’t concern themselves with their past. This is because an authentic memory is not necessarily superior to a fabricated one, and because both memories exist. (LM 243, 244) Decker and Quaid forge their own identities based on the present moment. Thus, memory is less about the past than the present. (LM 244) A foil to this argument can be seen in the film Dark City. In the course of the narrative, John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) attempts to unravel his memories to escape the strange people chasing him. As it turns out, these aliens have scrambled memories into a “cocktail” and literally inject them into men and women. By repeatedly changing humans’ identities in this manner, the aliens can keep them ignorant of their captivity. Only with the help of someone with authentic memories (Kiefer Sutherland) can Murdoch learn the truth (via injection of authentic memories) and liberate the humans.

In the “Postfuturism” chapter of Vivian Sobchack’s Screening Space, she also identifies the importance of the coherence of identify. (SS 272) In the postmodern era, Sobchack feels that identity is shaped mostly by space and surface rather than the temporal. Landsberg also asserts that an emphasis on the surface typifies postmodernism. (LM 244) Thus, continuity of time is less important. Science fiction films are either nostalgic or celebratory in regard to this fact. (SS 273) In the first case, the films draw on the past in terms of plot and mise en scène (such as the antiquated fashions seen in Dune). In the second, the films glory in discontinuity editing that confuses the viewer’s sense of time. The Watcher in the Woods is of the first type, as it uses gothic horror and antiquated locales to cleverly mislead the audience into thinking the film is a ghost story (rather than science fiction).

Thus, postmodern memory and its repercussion on how films conceive of time/space can be added to a list of the elements of science fiction film. While critics readily discern the genre’s predisposition to look toward the future, they often neglect the just as conspicuous tendency for the films to look into the past.

I’ve included some screenshots from The Watcher in the Woods. I thought they might be useful in understanding why I subconsciously found the scene so gripping. If you haven’t seen the film, I would suggest it. (Annabel, at the very least, got some laughs when she revisited it.) I think it really embodies the generic tension between horror and sci-fi that Sobchack identified, even more so than Metropolis. (More on that later.)

:: Bibliography ::

Sobchack, Vivian. Screening Space. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1997.

Redmond, Sean. Liquid Metal. New York: Wallflower Press, 2004.

The Watcher in the Woods. Dir. John Hough. Perf. Bette Davis, Lynn-Holly Johnson, Kyle Richards, Carroll Baker, and David McCallum. 1980/1. DVD. Anchor Bay Entertainment. April 2, 2002.