|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A mixed bag, 30 May 2009
When I first got interested in movies beyond just watching them, the Rough Guides quickly became a favorite read. I own five of them by now, and each one of them is easily worth the investment: Outstandingly researched, brilliantly analyzing, and wittily written, they make for great evening reading and infallibly leave you with a shopping list of DVDs.
There is usually a chapter on the history of the genre, an analysis of the most important directors, actors, authors, etc; then the canon of 50 must-see movies, and a glance at this genre around the world, and everything else related.
The Rough Guide to Science Fiction by John Scalzi is no exception in any of these aspects; and yet it is a mixed bag - quite literally! Its major shortcoming derives automatically from the author's - or anybody's - attempt to define the genre: What do the following movies have in common?
A Clockwork Orange and Robocop
Blade Runner and Jurassic Park
The Matrix and Bride of Frankenstein
Godzilla and Mad Max II
28 Days Later and Tron?
From any perspective I can come up with: Nothing at all. Yet they all appear in the canon of 50 must-see SF movies. It is easy to assault this selection, but much more difficult to come up with a better one. If, for example, you suggest excluding horror movies to get rid of Frankenstein, out goes Alien, too - but only Part One. Also, dystopias (visions of a world gone mad, usually after an atomic war, a global viral catastrophe or an economic breakdown) are among the most interesting movies concerned with the possible future. Yet 28 Days Later and Dawn of the Dead have a literally identical plot. So where to draw the line(s)?
I find myself defending the author's choices, knowing I couldn't do better myself - but I still shake my head at Frankenstein's Bride. What we really have here, is (at least) three Rough Guides squeezed into one. The RG to Dystopias, the RG to Space Movies, and the RG to Horror Creature Movies.
There is an upside to this - which I will turn into a downside right away: The upside is that the variety included allows the author to be critical about each and every movie. If this had actually been the RG to Space Movies, no author could have afforded to point out that William Shatner (Captain Kirk) couldn't act his way out of a paper bag, or that only one Star Trek movie was actually any good. It would have been taboo to say that none of the three Star Wars sequels of recent years were good films. Yet all these things are quite simply true!
Now here is where this matter turns into a downside: The author probably looses at least half of his potential readers this way - or will at least fail to make them happy: This is not the kind of stuff a Trek or Star Wars fan wants to read!
The diversity of the material/films renders some chapters (Icons, Locations) so incoherent as to be meaningless.
Again, the mess couldn't really have been avoided. Any definition of SF allows for highly different films to be included, some of them among the most thought inspiring movies ever made - and a lot of it (and most of the really successful films) juvenile trash.
So here we are, with a book which is both a highly entertaining read, and an uncompromisingly objective study - and that really should have been made into three different books to satisfy its readers.
|