"I heard you were dead..."

As a kid growing up in Brisbane, there wasn't much science fiction to be found in the early 1980s. Fortunately for me, the local newsagent kept up with each new edition of Kerry O'Quinn's Starlog magazine. It was Issue 49 that caught my eye for a number of reasons. First was the striking pose of +Roger Moore as James Bond exclaiming 'Bond is back!' There was also a reference to +George Lucas and +George Takei, Star Trek's Mr.Sulu. So, for a 9 year old who loved Star Wars, Star Trek and James Bond, this issue seemed to have all the bases covered.

Issue Number 49 of Starlog.

The other thing that stood out on Issue 49 was a photo of a guy with an eye-patch and a machine gun. Underneath it read 'ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK Exclusive interview with Kurt Russell'. What the interview contained I can't remember, as I sold off my Starlog magazine collection several years ago. What I can say is that Escape From New York has stuck in my head ever since and it's one of those guilty pleasures that I indulge in every once in a while. I was travelling with my work recently and had stopped to have a cup of coffee. I noticed that the shopping mall's K-Mart had a sale on, so I went in to see if there were any cheap Blu-ray discs. Sure enough, I found a +John Carpenter Blu-ray triple pack featuring special editions of The Thing, The Fog and Escape From New York for $16!

 

I've always admired John Carpenter's films, especially his late 70s and early 80s work. Halloween, The Thing, Big Trouble In Little China and Escape From New York are all highly entertaining and, by comparison to today's films, were made with little money and a lot of film-making ingenuity.
 

So, what do I make of Escape From New York?
 

Escape From New York, like Blade Runner the following year, is set in the near future and is an action fiction that also makes some passing commentary on the the escalation of government in the United States. Set in 1997, the USA has become an authoritarian state embroiled in an ongoing war with China and the Soviet Union. New York has been turned into a maximum security prison with 50 feet walls surrounding the entire island. Any attempt by prisoners to leave is met with with lethal force.
 

The central character is Snake Plissken, a former soldier who has turned to crime, played by +Kurt Russell. A failed bank robbery has resulted in Plissken being sentenced to life imprisonment in New York. On the night Plissken is being processed into the prison, Air Force One is hijacked and the President of the USA, played by Donald Pleasance, is forced to use an escape pod to get off the plane before the terrorists crash it.
 

Unfortunately for the President, his escape pod lands in the prison and a rescue mission is sent in to recover the President and the retrieve a taped message that he intended to play to his Chinese and Soviet counterparts at a summit meeting. The initial rescue, led by Prison Warden Hauk, played by Lee Van Cleef, is unsuccessful. Hauk is told to get off the island by Romero, an underling of The Duke, played by Issac Hayes, who tells him that they have President and proves it by handing over his severed middle finger!
 

Returning from the island, Hauk, realising that time is running out, tells Snake that, if he rescues the President, he will receive a full pardon for his crimes and be a free man. To make sure he completes the mission, Hauk has Plissken injected with micro-charges that will blow a small hole in his arteries if he fails to complete the mission in time.
 

Once Snake is in New York he goes from one encounter to another, meeting an array of characters along the way; enlisting their help to get him closer to the President. This part of the film relies upon a number of coincidences to move the plot forward and it's at this point the viewer has to make a decision to suspend disbelief and go with the unfolding events.
 

Ernest Borgnine's Cabbie enters the story and becomes central to moving the story forward until close to the end of the film. Cabbie saves Snake from an encounter with the zombie-like Crazies who have taken over part of the city. He then takes Snake to see +Harry Dean Stanton's Brain, who he claims will know the location of the President because Brain works for The Duke.
 

I think the biggest challenge in this part of the story is to believe that Snake and Brain character have been partners-in-crime at some point in the past. Without the Brain character, the story goes nowhere, but the pairing of Snake and Brain is as an unlikely one as any. I am happy to suspend disbelief at this point because the preceding 40 minutes of the film has been setup so well that I want to see Snake get out alive.

 

Kurt Russell as Snake Plissken "asks" Harry Dean Statnton's Brain for some help ...

 

The action moves quickly once Snake, Brain and Brain's girlfriend Maggie, played by +Adrienne Barbeau, encounter The Duke and rescue the President. Their first rescue attempt ends up with the three of them being caught by The Duke's men, with Snake having the fight in gladiator-style tournament where the loser pays for his life. As The Duke watches on, Brain and Maggie manage to rescue the President again but leave Snake to fend for himself. Cabbie happens to be in the right place at the right time and gives Snake a ride as the two of them set off after Brain, Maggie and the President.
 

After a shoot-out on top of the World Trade Centre, Snake battles his way out of the building and heads to the 69th Street Bridge, with the President, Brain, Maggie and Cabbie all close behind. In pursuit is The Duke, who is determined to make sure the President doesn't make it over the 69th Street bridge to freedom. The finale on the bridge see the demise of Cabbie, Brain, Maggie and The Duke. One of the interesting story points is that Snake does not kill The Duke. That is left to the President, who uses an automatic rifle from atop the prison wall to take retribution for what The Duke has made him endure earlier in the film.
 

Once outside the prison, the President's attitude to what has happened seems glib and uncaring. This doesn't sit well with Snake, so instead of handing over the taped message for the summit meeting, he hands over a tape of Bandstand Boogie that had Cabbie had been playing in his taxi. After exchanging words with Hauk, Snake walks away a free man shredding the real tape in disgust and leaving the fate of the world in the balance.
 

John Carpenter has stated that Escape From New York was a reaction to what had happened with Richard Nixon and the Watergate Scandal. It's not allegorical, as this is not a thinly-veiled political film, but the theme of future government influence over the citizenry is a part of the back story. The film suggests that certain types of government emerge under certain types of conditions. In this example, escalating crime and world war have allowed an authoritarian government to emerge in the United States, allowing authorities to enforce the law with lethal brutality.
 

There's also the story point of the taped message for the summit. Richard Nixon's Presidential tapes were responsible for his resignation, so the emphasis on the tape throughout Escape From New York is a reminder to the audience of recent history for all the wrong reasons. Snake's unravelling of the tape at the end of the film demonstrates that in his opinion a lot is wrong with world he lives in and something has to change.
 

Snake's own back story suggests that Carpenter intended the film to raise the viewer's awareness of some social issues confronting the US at the time. Plissken is a decorated war hero, but at the start of the movie, he's being sent into prison for robbing a bank. Plissken is written as a mercenary, but there's a message in his back story relating to the treatment of war veterans. In 1981, Vietnam war veterans were still fighting for legitimacy, as public opinion was against what had happened and the war itself had only been over for 6 years. Perhaps I'm looking too hard, but I do feel that Carpenter is saying to the audience that the country needs to look after the men who fight for their country.
 

As far as the technical production goes, it's hard not to like the performances in Escape From New York. Kurt Russell embodies Plissken with minimalist-macho and does great justice to the term 'anit-hero'. Lee Van Cleef as Hauk is great. Van Cleef had experienced all the ups-and-downs an actor could have, but his work for Sergio Leone alongside Clint Eastwood had cemented his reputation for playing tough characters well. Ernest Borgnine, Harry Dean Stanton and Donald Pleasance all bring authenticity to their characters which, at the time, must have been difficult because the outrageous nature of the material. If there's one misstep, it's the casting of singer Isaac Hayes in the role of The Duke. The man has a distinctive voice but he doesn't have the physical presence of a real villain. Adrienne Barbeau is a breath of fresh air, as the tough but sympathetic girlfriend of Harry Dean Stanton's Brain. 

The question that I ask myself about Escape From New York is whether or not this is actually a science fiction film?

What makes me question the film's status as genuine science fiction is the time frame in which it is set. The film is set in 1997 and I'm writing this blog in 2013. The reality is that nothing like what is depicted in the film has taken place; not that I expected it to... As a piece of speculative near-future fiction, Escape From New York doesn't even come close to accurately predicting what was happening in 1997. It's an entertaining film; there's no doubt. It does have some social messages woven into its story; but nothing that's too 'on-the-nose'. Why then did Starlog, a magazine dedicated to science fiction & fantasy films, cover it so prominently in 1981? Despite it being more of an action film set in the future, Escape From New York does make the point that there will always be people who want to change for the better. Snake Plissken, for all his anti-hero machismo, turns out to be one of those people and, as much of the great science fiction that has come before and after it, it's Plissken's actions that make Escape From New York a worthy piece of near-future science fiction.



Blade Runner: The Final Cut - Retrospective Film Review

I just spent last weekend watching the Blu-Ray version of Blade Runner: The Final Cut, which was the 2007 version of Ridley Scott's film based on Philip K. Dick's novel Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep. I must admit, Blade Runner did not influence me upon its original release at the cinema. I was only 10 when it came out, so the prospect of a 10 year old getting in to see an M-rated film wasn't great. I was familiar with it, as Starlog had been covering it for months prior to its release and Fantastic Films did a great issue that featured both Blade Runner and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. I had insisted that my mum purchase me that particular issue, as it had so many great images from both films.

The film's 1982 theatrical release one sheet poster.

I didn't see the film until the following year on video. I remember hiring it during the school holidays and watching it on my own. Unlike many science fiction films around that time, I don't recall whether or not I really liked it. That's why, in retrospect, I say it didn't really have an influence upon me. As an 11 year old, I think the film's story was beyond my understanding.

From the first time I saw it to May 1993, I must have watched Blade Runner on video or TV broadcast about a dozen times. Over that 9 year period, I came to understand how important a film it had become. In May 1993, I was in Sydney at a Star Trek convention and I took the opportunity to see the first 'revised' Director's Cut version of the film on a cinema screen. This version was notable for the removal of the Harrison Ford narration and the insertion on the Unicorn sequence - implying that Harrison Ford's Deckard character was himself a Replicant. This version also removed the "happy ending" where Deckard and Rachel are seen driving through the wilderness supposedly living happily ever after.

Since 1993, I have purchased each new DVD and Blu-Ray release of the film if, for no other reason, to keep up with whatever new remastering technique has been applied to heighten the visual and audio experience of the film. In 2007, my wife and I went and saw 'The Final Cut' on the big screen at The Astor Theatre in Melbourne, where the film played for a very limited time to packed out sessions every day.

So, what do I make of Blade Runner today?

Blade Runner, in all its different versions, is a beautiful looking film. Each scene makes me feel that what I'm seeing is a real world. The film runs just shy of 2 hours and, not once, do I feel as though I'm not part of what's happening.The credit for this goes to the film's Director Ridley Scott. During this early part of his film directing career, Scott was already renowned as a Director who took his production design very seriously. I have heard some people describe Blade Runner as "filmed art". Watching some of the behind-the-scenes content on 'The Final Cut' Blu-Ray release, it's clear that Scott was totally committed to setting his film in a "world"; not just on a film set. On this level, all the different versions of Blade Runner succeed.

Blade Runner's narrative is harder to assess because the story's meaning changed when the "unicorn" sequence was included in the Director's Cut. Scott filmed the sequence after principal photography had been completed and two of the film's financial backers were pushing to have the running time reduced. Upon seeing the "unicorn" sequence they had it removed from the film because they felt it didn't make sense. So, what exists is the 1982 to 1991 version with all of its "Hollywood" conceits such as the narration and happy ending. This is a very straight forward story where Deckard hunts down the Replicants, does the job and ends up escaping with Rachel, who has been revealed to be a Replicant earlier in the film.

From 1991, upon the release of the Director's Cut, Blade Runner's story became less straight forward. Certainly, Harrison Ford character of Rick Deckard is fundamentally changed by the inclusion of the unicorn sequence, but this is not revealed until the final moments of the film. With this change, Edward James Olmos as Gaff becomes much more important to the story. From 1982 to 1991, Gaff seemed like a junior partner who didn't add much value until the delivery of his last line of dialogue. From 1991, his presence means so much more and, if Deckard is indeed a Replicant, Gaff is a legitimate presence ensuring that Deckard does the job that Captain Bryant has told him to do.

The removal of Harrison Ford's narration helps to make the recent versions of the film more enjoyable as thought-provoking near-future science fiction. As a viewer, I feel like I have to work harder to make sense of what is happening; but that's not a bad thing. Good science fiction, in any form, should make the audience think about what they are seeing, hearing or reading. Harrison Ford himself has stated that he disliked the narration and, as far as vocal performances go, the monotone delivery may well have been his protest against it being included. The removal of the "happy ending" also challenges the audience to contemplate where Deckard and Rachel may end up. At one point in the 'The Final Cut', Rachel asks Deckard whether he would come after her if she went on the run. He tells her that he wouldn't, but someone would. It's natural to assume that,beyond the film's final scene, somewhere in our imagination, Deckard and Rachel were chased down by another Blade Runner. Since the 1991 version, I've thought that the term Blade Runner may have more meaning than simply a description of the job. Perhaps, it's a term used for Replicants whose job it is to hunt down other Replicants and 'retire' them. It's this type of thought-process that makes the post-1991 version of Blade Runner a much better piece of science fiction.

'The Final Cut' also makes Rutger Hauer's Roy Batty character more sympathetic than earlier versions of the film. Some the character's dialogue is changed to make him seem misguided in his quest for more life, as opposed to resentful for having his life prematurely ended. His death scene, however, remains the same poignant, beautiful recital on life & death it's always been. Hauer's performance is one of the great supporting performances and, in reality, he's the film's co-star, as he has a huge amount of screen time and carries the film's story forward in every scene he's in.

It would also be an injustice not to mention the film's effects. At a time when effects were being used to "dazzle" audiences, the effects on Blade Runner exist to reinforce the environment Ridley Scott had created at ground level. In the same way that the opening effects shot of Star Wars set the tone for that film, the opening Hades-sequence, depicting a polluted smog-filled mega-Los Angeles, sets the tone for Blade Runner. The Spinners, the 'Off World' Blimp and the Tyrell Towers all help to reinforce what is going on down at street level. As with so many films form the 1970s and 1980s, effects pioneer Douglas Trumbull played a significant role in creating the film's effects. Brothers Richard & Matthew Yuricich were also significant contributors to the film, with Richard as one of the senior effects supervisors and Matthew creating some incredible matte paintings.

As science fiction, I think Blade Runner: The Final Cut is the best version of the film. It's the version that makes me think the hardest about what's happening in the story. My belief, in this version, is that Deckard is a Replicant. Reading the web forums dedicated to Blade Runner, there are many people who feel that it's a topic still open for debate. When it comes to the film's production design and supporting effects, no debate exists. The film is universally admired and is now considered a benchmark in these areas.

Is 'The Final Cut' the deepest? I believe it is. It is certainly the version I would recommend to my family and friends. It is the version that I would recommend to anyone. Unlike Gaff's parting words to Deckard, Blade Runner will live forever and that is something that will always bring joy to science fiction fans and film enthusiasts alike.

Into Darkness ... A touch of Khan?

I thought it may be time to jump forward and have a look at one of the big release film's for 2013, Star Trek: Into Darkness.

As you can see by my profile photo, I've had the opportunity to interview JJ Abrams, as well as many of the cast & crew from 2009's re-booted Star Trek. While it may not be Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, the 2009 film was a fast-paced adventure that took familiar characters and put them in an alternate timeline, allowing a different story to be told about how Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu & Chekov came to be the main crew of the Starship Enterprise.

I took the opportunity this week to have a look at the 9 minute preview attached to the front of the Imax version of Peter Jackson's new Hobbit film.

So, what do I make of this extended preview?

My understanding, from what I have read, is this is the first 7 or so minutes of the new film. The film opens with Noel Clarke & Nazneen Contractor travelling to the London Royal Children's Hospital to visit their terminally-ill daughter. Contemplating his daughter's illness, wracked with despair, Clarke's character is approached by Benedict Cumberbatch's John Harrison, who claims he can save the little girl's life. This first couple of minutes is fairly low-key to what comes next.

The story cuts to the planet Nibiru and a disguised figure being chased through a "red" jungle by the planet's native population. Mid-flight, the disguised figure runs into a clearing only to be confronted by a massive beast, which the figure, fearing for life, is forced to kill. The disguised figure is revealed to be Captain James T. Kirk. As the beast slumps, another disguised figure appears from behind the dead creature. As the figure rips off the disguise, we learn its 'Bones' McCoy, who is yelling at Kirk telling him that he's just shot their ride!

Kirk and McCoy start running as the unhappy locals and their spears start getting a bit too close for comfort. Kirk makes contact with Spock, Uhura and Sulu, who are in a shuttlecraft hovering above a volcano that is well and truly active. After an exchange between Kirk and Spock, via communicator, Spock is lowered from the shuttle into the volcano with a device intended to stop it from erupting and killing the very locals that have been chasing Kirk and McCoy.

The action then cuts back to Kirk and McCoy who jump from a cliff-top into the ocean below, where the Enterprise sits in waiting. Once inside the ship and back on the bridge, Kirk finds himself faced with a difficult decision, as Spock's connection with the shuttle has been severed. The Vulcan is now trapped inside the volcano with only a minute-and-a-half before the device designed to stop the eruption does its work. The problem for Kirk is that the device will kill Spock when it detonates.

The final part of the preview shows Spock inside the volcano closing his eyes and preparing himself for death ...

Like the opening of 2009's Star Trek and the crew of the USS Kelvin, this story does not waste any time in placing the crew of the  Enterprise in jeopardy. Kirk and McCoy's flight through the "red" jungle reminded me a lot of the opening to Raiders of the Lost Ark, where Indiana Jones is being chased by the Hovito natives after stealing their gold idol.

 There's also the direct nod to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, with the apparent "death" of Spock in the opening minutes of the film. In 1981, during that film's production, news of Spock's death was leaked in the press. Fans were outraged. As a red-herring, the opening scenes of Star Trek II see the entire crew - except Kirk - "die" in a cadet simulation. This disarmed fans, as they believed that Spock's "death" was dealt with early in the story, so were unprepared when he sacrifices himself to save the Enterprise and its crew at the end of the film. In the 2013 extended preview, once again, we see Spock apparently sacrificing himself to save the Enterprise and its crew - albeit in different circumstances. The dilemma with the 2013 version is that this scene is immediately followed by the film's theatrical teaser, which shows Spock from scenes later in the film.



The opening moments of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan saw Kirstie Alley's Saavik character manage to sacrifice the entire bridge crew in attempting to save the Kobyashi Maru.



As with last year's Prometheus, I was impressed with the 3D format in Imax. I have not delved into the technical process used to create a 3D film, but my basic understanding is that two kinds of 3D film exist. There are those that are filmed in 3D and there are those that are filmed in 2D and then converted in the post-production process. Star Trek: Into Darkness was filmed in 2D and will be post-converted to 3D. Along with the 3D, elements of the film have also been shot with Imax film. These two elements combined provided a great, immersive feeling and I actually flinched at one point as a Nibiru spear came whizzing past McCoy's head!

If this extended preview is anything to go by, Star Trek: Into Darkness is going to be in a similar vein to the 2009 film, with action and drama that caters for an audience far exceeding the Star Trek fan base. I was genuinely excited to see the 2009 film and, based on what I saw this week,  I can't wait for May 16, 2013 to arrive!