figure 1 - Ray Bradbury
figure 2 - JJB
Friday, February 8, 2013
Defining Science Fiction Post - Gabriel Rodriguez-Fuller
Of all the descriptions, I found myself agreeing mostly with the open-ended ones such as "Science fiction is what we point to when we say it." It ultimately is just a word, and recalling the discussion of "what is art?", it is clear that people will never unanimously agree on a definition. There is no objective science fiction. It is a genre, sure, but genres are loose and can overlap. Horror/sci-fi. Sci-fi/romance. Sci-fi/road movie (in space). The quote by Ray Bradbury (figure 1) treated the relationship between sci-fi and fantasy as equivalent to the relationship between realism and fantasy. The possible vs. the impossible. I don't think it's that clearly defined, but I do suppose that science-fiction can be fairly described as exploring or surrounding what is scientifically possible or fathomable, whereas fantasy can be described as exploring the impossible or the fantastic. The technology that exists in the movie Blade Runner, for instance, seems to be a realistic portrayal of the future given what we know about science today. On the other hand, in the newer movie Looper, time travel and telekinesis exist, stretching the limits of what we know to be feasible and thereby pushing the movie more into the realm of fantasy. The same goes for Star Wars, regarding "the force" and the unrealistic assumption that an alien can be as dumb and useless as Jar Jar Binks (figure 2). Ultimately, to place a movie or story on a spectrum between total sci-fi and total fantasy doesn't feel fair, but small (perhaps infinitely small) bits and pieces of stories could be categorized as such from the standpoint of our respective perspectives in time and space. The lines between sci-fi and fantasy blur even further when alternate universes and the vastness of time and such are taken into consideration.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So you seem to be saying science fiction exists as a spectrum, from semi-realistic to the more fantastic. I find your comparison between Blade Runner and Looper interesting though. While I agree with you that the elements of Looper like the telekinesis would push it more towards the fantastic side, I though the other ‘technology’ in Looper pushed it much more towards the realistic side. For instance, look at Looper’s depiction of a Kansas City housing project:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.imcdb.org/i557280.jpg
That’s pretty much what certain parts of the country look like today. I think it’s an incredibly realistic-leaning depiction. Compare Blade Runner’s depiction of Los Angeles:
http://www.imcdb.org/i012090.jpg
That was 1982’s estimate of 2019, while Looper is 2012’s estimate of 2044. Almost exactly the same amount of time in the future. But Looper keeps their future looking much more like today. I guess what I’m trying to say is that a spectrum from realistic to the fantastic might not be a good idea because some movies lean more towards realism in certain parts, and stray from it in others. So how do we determine where it goes on the spectrum?
Despite the other things you were saying your last bit was an interesting point. All generations have different depictions of what the future could hold. Back to the Future 2 tells us all sequels will most likely be disappointing, but also that we should get hoverboards/cars and terrible fashion senses by 2015. BttF 2 went for the more hopeful look of the future while Bladerunner went for the darker side. The point is those future days WERE the future at that time. Everything was changing so radically that it might have seemed like we actually WOULD have had that technology by now. I have gotten a little off topic, but the point is that no one is going to be happy with anything. There will never be a strict definition just like there probably won't be a woman president. Basically, it is fluid and changing. Anyone can see different parts as being different genres but the key point to fantasy is that they completely break everything we know to be normal and science fiction merely plays with our concepts of normal.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering if any film that deals with the future is automatically dealing in science and thus to some degree pushing the film into the realm of science fiction. Is science inextricably tied to depictions of the future?
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, Star Wars is set in the "long ago" past.