Movie Review: Oblivion (2013)

(This review is as spoiler free as I can make it.  In doing so, there are a lot of things that I'll say without context, as the particularities of certain characters or plot elements have not been revealed in the trailers and are rather important to the viewing experience -- mystery!)

Tom Cruise's new science fiction action adventure has been in theaters for a week-ish, and it has already opened the taste debate.  A great deal of "average viewers" have come out of Oblivion with positive feelings, remarking that, while far from a perfect film, it succeeds as entertainment with a sliver of substance.  Critics have not been so kind.  They've called the film self-serious, absent of self-awareness, a ponderous mess, and so on and so forth.

I couldn't disagree more.

While far from perfect, Oblivion is what Prometheus promised to be last year:  a high concept, thrilling exploration of the human condition through the lens of science fiction.  Where Prometheus failed to deliver (see here and here for my take), Oblivion has filled in the blank, offering the same visual awe of 2012's "big film" with a far more coherent and cohesive plot, consistent (though incomplete) characters, and a few decent twists and turns.  Most of all, Oblivion gives us a few answers, even if it never quite explains everything in the end.  All this combine to make a film that, in my mind, deserves a little more credit.  After all, it's not

How Not to Write a Review (or, "Oblivion isn't about Tom Cruise, dumbass...")

In a recent New York Times review of the SF action adventure film, Oblivion, Manohla Dargis opens with the following:

If only it were less easy to laugh at “Oblivion,” a lackluster science-fiction adventure with Tom Cruise that, even before its opening, was groaning under the weight of its hard-working, slowly fading star and a title that invites mockery of him and it both. The agony of being a longtime Tom Cruise fan has always been a burden, but now it’s just, well, dispiriting. You not only have to ignore the din of the tabloids and swat away the buzzing generated by his multiple headline-ready dramas, you also have to come to grips with the harsh truth that it no longer actually matters why and how Tom Terrific became less so. No one else much cares.

This opening paragraph is followed by another much like it, in which Dargis argues pretty much the same thing:  Tom Cruise is on the way out because he's nuts.  This train of thought makes up most of the review.  There's little time spent actually defending why Oblivion is lackluster or why,

Link of the Week: Strange Horizons' 2012 SF Count!

If you haven't seen it already, Strange Horizons recently released their assessment of the data for books reviewed and reviewers, divided by gender, at major SF review sources.  It's definitely worth checking out.

(Yes, I mentioned this in my post on gender normativity earlier today.)

Literary Explorations: Gender Normativity, Genre Fiction, and Other Such Nonsense

In a past episode of The Skiffy and Fanty Show, we (Paul, Liz Bourke, and myself) discussed, however briefly, the paucity of women among published science fiction authors in the UK.  Specifically, we were talking about their minority status in the present while acknowledging the existence of a long string of incredible female SF writers in UK SF history.  Though I am not an expert on the UK SF scene, my impression as an American peeking in has confirmed the notion that there is a great deal of sexism within the broader fanbase, and a systemic gender-bias problem in the publishing sphere.  The latter has been attributed to sexism (today); I am not convinced that this is necessarily true -- at least, not in the sense of a deliberate action.  The former is probably a reflection of who speaks as opposed to a true assessment of UK fandom as a whole, and it is certainly true that this perception is changing.  Perception, of course, is not everything.

I say all of this not because I want to talk specifically about the UK scene, but rather because the recent discussions surrounding the Clarke Award's all-male finalist list offers one of many

The Sequel We Deserve: Galaxy Quest...2 or the Show?

In a recent Flavorwire interview, Mark Johnson, the producer of Breaking Bad (a show I'm told is really good), offered this little gem:

I wish... It’s complicated. I can’t get into it because it only gets me angry, because I’m so proud of that movie… For a while there, and someday we may actually get there, we actually talked about doing a television show which would be sort of fun because it would be a TV show looking at a movie that’s looking at a TV show, something like that. So I wish I could answer you and I wish we did have a sequel or certainly a half hour comedy based on it. So we’ll see. It’s not over.

Needless to say, some of us are excited.  I've previously said that Galaxy Quest would make a terrific TV show.  I still believe that, though I certainly wouldn't complain about a sequel film if the

Academic Spotlight: Disability in Science Fiction: Representations of Technology as Cure edited by Kathryn Allan

(The title for this post is insanely long...)

While perusing Amazon.com earlier this morning, I came across this interesting edited collection.  There isn't a lot of information currently available about the collection, except this brief blurb:

In science fiction, technology often modifies, supports, and attempts to "make normal" the disabled body. In this groundbreaking collection, twelve international scholars – with backgrounds in disability studies, English and world literature, classics, and history – discuss the representation of dis/ability, medical "cures," technology, and the body in science fiction. Bringing together the fields of disability studies and science fiction, this book explores the ways dis/abled bodies use prosthetics to challenge common ideas about ability and human being, as well as proposes new understandings of what "technology as cure" means for people with disabilities in a (post)human future.

Kathryn Allan, the editor, is probably best known as @bleedingchrome on Twitter, and, in academic circles, is one of those rising new voices (she presented at ICFA this year and has one of those PhD things).  She is, apparently, one of the few science fiction scholars working in disability studies -- an interesting field I imagine.

I'll try to put together an interview with Kathryn in the relatively near future (the book doesn't come out until August).  For now, enjoy the blurb and the cover!

Retro Nostalgia: Gattaca (1997) and Framing the Multivalent Ethical Dilemma

Before Andrew Niccol's Gattaca (1997) begins in earnest, we are compelled to think about its underlying ethical dilemma:  is a meritocratic system based on (mostly pre-selected) genetic variables justified, even if that means denying some people equal access simply because their genes say there is something wrong with them?  If you have seen the film, then you know how the story ends -- the genetic "weakling" succeeds at doing the impossible, throwing into question the very notion that one's genetics are an absolute determination of one's potential.  Thus, one possible side question is:  without the aforementioned meritocratic system, would Vincent/Jerome have fought so hard to succeed?  Questions like this are why films like Gattaca, The Truman Show, The Minority Report and, to a lesser extent, District 9, Logan's Run, and