Documentary Review: In Search of Tomorrow: A Journey Through ‘80s Sci-Fi Cinema

Text © Robert Barry Francos / FFanzeen, 2022
Images from the Internet

In Search of Tomorrow: A Journey Through ‘80s Sci-Fi Cinema
Directed by David A. Weiner
CreatorVC
301 minutes, 2022
https://80sscifidoc.com/
@80sscifidoc
www.creatorvc.com

Science Fiction can run from the sublime, like 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) or Silent Running (1972), or it can fall into the B-level category of the likes of The Green Slime (1968) and It! The Terror from Beyond Space (1958; this was the basis for 1979’s Alien, as 1951’s The Thing from Another World was remade as John Carpenter’s The Thing in 1982). Despite some well-done classics such as the first two mentioned above, by the mid-1970s, Sci-Fi was a second-rate citizen as a genre, producing mostly cheese with bad effects.

This all changed in 1977, with the release of a little film called Star Wars, which reignited the genre aflame, giving rise to both big budget bonanzas and cheapie imitations, but the spark was set. In a perfect storm, this upswing came right on the advent of the VHS market, further spreading the fever. Please note that I am writing this intro before actually watching the film, so I am not sure it will reflect my sentiments. And so, it’s time to start the show. Cue Bugs and Daffy.

The focus of this all-star documentary is that period in the 1980s when everything exploded like all those ships in the film version of Battlestar Gallactica (1978).

After the initial introduction, which briefly goes as far back as Georges Méliès’ 1902’s A Trip tothe Moon, and various other highlights, with Wil Wheaton explaining how before Star Wars, most sci-fi was nihilistic and was a warning of things to come, such as The Day the Earth Stood Still (remember, sci-fi is not about the future or the past, but about the present of when the film was made).

This is followed by a host of hosts: interviews with actors, directors (such as Joe Dante, Paul Verhoeven, and John Carpenter), writers (both screenplays and critics), production crew, composers, and vloggers, etc. What is really nice is that the documentary does not only talk about the top-tier releases, but also the relatively smaller ones that did not raise as much of a blip as the multimillion-dollar mega-effects bonanzas. Year by year, they focus on film by film, so while there are the obvious ones like Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, E.T: The Extra-Terrestrial, and Blade Runner, I was pleased they went into detail about the likes of Saturn 3, Yor, Galaxina (RIP, Dorothy Stratton), and Spaceballs.  

One thing I hadn’t made the connection to before, while watching the segment focusing on Flash Gordon, is that the top effects in that film and many others of that period, are now in-reach and equal to numerous low budget Sci-Fi/horror film genres of the present day. In the less sophisticated CGI of the 1980s, it was a wow factor, but now one sees it compared to what the major studios are putting out, say the superhero releases, this was pretty basic by today’s standards. Sometimes modern films will try to purposefully look like the ‘80s as a “flashback,” but technology for indie and low-budget films have actually caught up to the ‘80s majors in their technology, especially with green screens. This is especially true with animated films discussed here, such as Heavy Metal, Tron, and the amazing anime Akira. I’m rambling a bit, so I hope this makes sense.

Among the looks back at particular films, between each year there are also segments of about 15 minutes each that give some grounding to the genre of the period, such as “Cold War Kids,” which talks about how people of that generation – especially kids – were immersed in the threat of the possibility of a nuclear bomb going off at any moment. As a child, I still remember the drills in elementary school where we would practice getting under our desks to practice in case of a regular bombing attack, and lining up in the hallways and crouching down in case of an atom bomb. Of course, in reality, neither of those would really do anything, but we heard about it all the time, including in the cinemas encased in the messages from the films we watched. Even those like Goldfinger (1964) had a big, scary bomb. Where’s McGruber when you need ‘im, right?

While not inclusive, some of the between-years other segments include how films were marketed in a pre-Internet world, visual effects, creature effects (among two of my favorite topics), and music scores. The last one is about the technological implications of the vision in the movies, very briefly focusing on the whole “the future in the story represents the now.” There should have been more about technological determinism, and perhaps throw in a bit of Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death when describing the likes of Cherry 2000.

Another interesting point the documentary more hints at than is explicit, is that Sci-Fi is almost always blended with something else, such as a Western (Outland; Star Wars), horror (Alien), war stories (Aliens, Enemy Mine, Predator), or social commentary (Final Countdown; Alien Nation), for example. I find it especially the latter, and the nuclear aspect or the rise of computers, robots and technological determinism (e.g., The Terminator) as expounded by the likes of Marshall McLuhan or Jacques Ellul. This “layering” is part of what makes Sci-Fi not only effective, but makes the future relatable. As I said, whenever it takes place, it’s about the present.

The only sort of repetition in the film, which is unavoidable and yet still enjoyable, is the number releases of a franchise, each of which are covered individually if they came out in the ‘80s. This includes Superman, Star Trek, and of course, Star Wars. Lot’s of “Return of…”, “Part II,” and “The Wrath…” to deal with, but these films are classic and pleasing to rehash, so it still goes relatively flying by.

Each release covered gets about five to ten minutes, and includes lots of clips of the film itself, backstage footage and bits from the trailer, and interviews, none very long (hey, there are a lot of films here). They switch back and forth between the present-day discussions (no historical interviews, happily) with the likes of Alex Winter, Barry Bostwick, Dee Wallace, Billy Dee Williams, Nancy Allen and multiple dozens of others, that it is easy to keep the viewers’ attention and interest, even over the extended time frame. I know I had to break up watching it over two days, which was no problem as it’s individual segments, rather than a narrative where plot points can easily be forgotten. Many of the anecdotal stories told by the casts and crews are especially compelling and often humorous, such as someone discussing the pomposity of Shatner on the set of Khan.

The film is not afraid to shy away from pointing out the flaws of some of the films, such as Howard the Duck and Dune, and glorifying those that deserve it, like The Fly and Back to the Future. And while the film is joyfully comprehensive, it is not inclusive. There are many films not selected for discussion, and yet clips are shown, such as Heartbeeps and Night of the Comet. But, considering the information presented and the immensity of the time, I find no fault in that regard.

This release is a follow-up to a three-part series of documentaries by the director titled In Search of Darkness (2019), In Search of Darkness Part II (2021), and the obvious In Search of Darkness Part III (2022). I have not seen these yet, but it is interesting that it is broken up into three, rather than one honkin’ five-hour extravaganza.

The whole film is a big, “Oh, yeah,” if you were a fan of the genre back in that timeframe. And seeing the people involved and what they look like now is a lot of fun, as well.  And if you are wondering, yes, I did sit through all five hours of the documentary, and smiled through most of it.

IMBD Listing HERE 

Documentary Review: For the Love of Spock

Text © Robert Barry Francos / FFanzeen, 2017

Images from the Internet

For the Love of Spock

Written and directed by Adam Nimoy

455 Films / FilmRise / Gravitas Ventures / MVD Visual

111 minutes, 2016

www.fortheloveofspock.com

www.mvdvisual.com

As I am assuming is true with most people other than die-hard trekkers who are bulletin-boarded to the pulse of all things Star Trek, I first heard about this documentary about Leonard Nimoy, the Prime (first) Spock, from an episode of Big Bang Theory, where Sheldon is interviewed by Leonard’s son, the director Adam Nimoy.

As for Spock and Leonard, I was 11 years old when “Star Trek” first started playing on television. Even though I missed the second season due to being banned from TV for a year thanks to lipping off at my dad, of course over the years I caught up to all the episodes. Back when they were first run, and I was a pipsqueak, I didn’t realize the social implications of the stories (e.g., “I am black on the right side… Lokai is white on the right side. All of his people are white on the right side!” from the “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” episode), so it was just as enjoyable a sci-fi show as “Lost in Space.” By my mid-teens, I knew better (but still liked both shows).

In 1972, thanks to then-new pal Bernie Kugel, we went to the very first Star Trek convention, held at the Hotel Pennsylvania (then known as the Statler Hotel). The doors were late opening and there was a larger crowd than expected by the organizers jammed in together at the ballroom door, testily held waiting. Bernie, being Bernie, out of nowhere and with lack of context (i.e., bored) turned to me and in a loud voice said, “What do you mean, ‘Nimoy, who?!’” I could see the heads of people turning in my direction with daggers. There was no harm, but I did get sharp glances the whole day. Now I’m completely amused by it, and Bernie remains Bernie and a BFF, I’m happy to say, and yes I still have the convention’s program in a box somewhere.

So, the point is that when I heard about this documentary on Nimoy was in the works, it made me happy. And now I get the chance to review it!

As the film starts, the launching point is Nimoy’s death in 2015, and works its way back to the beginning. A key component is the director placing himself into the story. I find this doesn’t always work in other films, as it tends to misdirect the attention away from the subject in an egotistical way (much like the beginning of this review), but in this case, Leonard is not just a subject that the director is focused on, being his son he is integrated into the story, and so it works.

The early part delves into the start of Nimoy’s career rather than his childhood (a good move), which includes an interview with his brother. Funny thing is, his brother bears a strong resemblance to his Spock friendemy, Dr. McCoy/DeForest Kelley. Most of the family, in fact is represented here, including Adam’s sister (though not Leonard’s widow/second wife).

Y’know, I’m not gonna go into super detail here, because even at nearly two hours, this kept my interest throughout, except for the exceptionally long list of Kickstarter contributors during the final credits, because I have a life, but it still made me smile knowing that so many people wanted to be involved with this project (i.e., hundreds of names).

But I’m getting ahead of myself. This incredibly inclusive film has tons of interviews, with previous cast members, writers, etc., of various “Star Trek”/Star Trek releases, from the television shows (including William Shatner, George Takei [aka the great Mr. Meme], Nichelle Nichols, and Walter Koenig) and films (such as Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg and of course Zachary Quinto). There’s also Jason Alexander, who is apparently a “Star Trek” expert!

There are lots of film clips, from public and private speaking engagements, and conventions (including by fans and cos-players). The production also wisely alternatives between the linear and themes, so we learn about how the iconic “Spockisms” came about, such as the eyebrow-raise, the Vulcan neck pinch, the mind meld, and of course the “Live long and prosper” Vee symbol. Also, Adam nicely mixes information of Nimoy the actor and Spock the character, showing how they intertwined.

There is room for another documentary here on things that were mentioned in passing, including his music career, his books (e.g., I am Not Spock; I am Spock; collections of poetry), his photography art (some of his images are shown, but as they are not Spock related, and due to time I’m sure, they are merely glanced upon, again rightfully so).

Personal information about the Nimoys abound that I did not know, such as Leonard being an alcoholic and a sometimes absent father, but by having a gentle and personal touch, Adam makes him out to be a human rather than a monster (see Mommy Dearest, for example of the latter), and is also willing to take some of the distancing between them upon himself.

While Shatner is the central character and lovingly ribbed in modern culture for his line delivery, Spock is arguable the most influential of the roles from the original program, and I certainly believed the most beloved due to his part-alien/part human “Other” nature. This is also well touched on in the documentary, as is his stimulus on some people in the present NASA space program and the likes of scientists such as Neil deGrasse Tyson (who also appears here).

Extras are legion here, starting with the basic chapters and captioning in multiple languages. Then there are the featurettes. It starts off with the 28:37 “Leonard Nimoy’s Boston,” also produced and directed by Adam. It had been recorded for PBS as part of a series. It’s a really fine annotation to the feature film, because where the main documentary is a bit shy of early pre-Leonard history, this certainly makes up for it in an interesting way. We follow Adam and Leonard as they walk around the city, especially the West End where Leonard was raised, and we see the before neighborhood through pictures, and the after of the urban renewal that just about wiped out the entire area. It’s both a great autobiographical history as well as a lesson on the culture of Boston and what happens when the government uses eminent domain, as New York and Robert Moses did with large sections of the southern Bronx. It was shot four months before Leonard passed.

Next is the 9:15 short “On the Set of ‘The Big Bang Theory,’” which intertwines the post-mortem-Leonard appearance of Adam on the television show. Interviewed are the cast and crew who discuss not only Adam’s role, but the influence of Leonard/Spock on the series writ large. Continuing this theme is the 15:25 “Tribeca Panel,” where Adam, Quinto, “Access Hollywood” producer Scott Mantz and the Nimoy film's executive producer David Zappone appeared for questions at the Tribeca Film Festival in 2016 after the showing of the documentary. Then there is a 4:24 “Trivia Time with Jason Alexander,” a fun piece of fluff as he answers trivia questions about all things “Trek” from both television and film versions (though mostly the original series).

The 5:54 “Kickstarter Gallery” is a series of pictures of people who contributed to the campaign. Following this are two trailers, for the Tribeca Festival and the Theatrical one. Last is the full-feature-length commentary by Adam, Zappone, and Mantz. It is one of the better commentaries I’ve heard in a while. The three participants are respectful of each other and the topic at hand, never talking over each other or trying to showboat, they discuss anecdotes about both the film and the original television show, talk about the personalities of the actors on the set, and little known trivia (outside of Trekkers, of course).

As a side note, I was noticing how much Leonard looked like David Bowie towards the end of Nimoy’s life, and how one of the songs over the final credits is Bowie’s “Spaceman.”

Adam did an amazing job with this “Spock doc,” as he calls it in the commentary, keeping the interest of the viewer by not sticking on a single style of theme, yet keeping it cohesive and sensible.

DVD Review: Bronies: The Extremely Unexpected Adult Fans of My Little Pony

Text © Robert Barry Francos / FFanzeen, 2014
Images from the Internet

Bronies: The Extremely Unexpected Adult Fans of My Little Pony
Directed by Laurent Malaquais
87 minutes, 2013    
www.broniedoc.com
www.mvdvisual.com

You know, we live in pretty amazing times. I remember going to the first ever Star Trek convention at the Hotel Pennsylvania in New York, back in the early 1970s. I’ve been to comic cons, rock cons, and horror cons. I’ve always been amazed at the dedication of fans for a particular topic.

As time has passed, the subject of cons has become more focused, including anime, porn (yep, the AVN in Las Vegas, and no, I’ve never been), and I have a cousin and aunt who used to go from Edmonton to New York to attend a con for a soap opera.

These kinds of cons are similar to trade shows and in some ways use them as a model. There are products to be tested and bought, meet with people in the same industry (or same interest), and make some backroom deals (I’ve saw an interesting mass buy of bootlegs in years gone by in the rooms, though for the life of me I can’t remember who was involved 30 years later). The difference is there is a larger element of talent. For example, at a plumbing show, they may hire a Kardashian to get the guys sweaty, but for a con, it’s more artistic and people who are actually associated in some aspect with product (for example, at a Beatles con, I saw a presentation by their limo driver, Alf Bicknell).

One socially interesting aspect of these cons I find is that most of the ones I’ve been to started out as mostly male fan boys, and as time went on, more and more women joined in (with the exception of the Beatles and Monkees cons run by Charles F. Rosenay!!! [sic] in Connecticut, which has always been pretty even). Sort of like how Penny is starting to quote Star Trek more on Big Bang Theory.

A more recent fixation that has laser focused into the form of conference loci is a show meant for the demographics of young girls, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. However, the die-hard fans of this show seem to be male, ranging from teens to full grown adults. And that is the focus of the film.

Right off the bat, the director, Laurent Malaquais, wisely addresses the core issues by presenting visual soundbites of people being interviewed who are not fans of the show, stating how if men like the series, they must be pedophiles, gay, or mentally ill.

It is on this question that we are introduced to a collection of Bronies (that’s a mixture of Bro and ponies, so it’s pronounced broh-nies not brown-nees) from all over the world, including the US (Maine and North Carolina), Germany, Holland and even Israel. We meet these guys (and in one case a girlfriend equally devoted to the show) and their families, who occasionally struggle to understand just what is the male fascination of a tween girl show.

It is interesting to see how these guys are outsiders who have found a single thing to be fascinated by that is just outside the accepted norm (remember when punk was like that before the jocks joined?). The most noteworthy to me is the gender blending. A question that is raised in the film at nearly the half-way point, which is the most germane to me, is that wonder of what it is about males enjoying a female show that other members of society find so scary; would it be the same if a girl would be fascinated by, say, GI Joe?

As for the female fans? This, too, is addressed in the documentary, in My Little Pony adapted cartoon form, stating that even though ‘bro” is used at the beginning of the term brony, it also applies to female fans, as well, and is not proprietary. Good to know.

Personally, I find the whole idea of this level of this type of obsession interesting. I mean, I have my own, which are varied (just look though this blog), but even my devotions pale in comparison. There are, of course, unhealthy fixations when something becomes too much of power thing (jingoism, some religious zeal, some sports fanaticism, the occasional star fandom), and then there are healthier ones that become outlets. In the case of the Bronies, their focus – at least the people in this documentary – is the same as the show: friendship can conquer anything, positive triumphs over the  negative, and the like. For some who are lonely, or are in need of something in their lives, this positive message is important, no matter where it comes from, and if it’s accompanied by music (remember the psalms?), it can go a longer way. When you are feeling like a misfit, a kinship is also an opiate of the masses. This can also work in other ways within culture, such as music.

The star of this documentary, and yes it does have one, is John De Lancie. You know, the guy who played Q on Star Trek: The Next Generation. Apparently, as a once forgotten gig, he voiced Discord, the “evil” character that is defeated by the positive energy of the ponies. Since then, he has been embraced by the Bronies (One of us! One of us!) and has taken the role as a symbol of the movement, helping to mentor the younger ones. Here, he comforts a conservative dad to help him see that being a Brony doesn’t mean his 16 year old son is not a man.

Most of the other voice actors are interviewed individually, but the main focus is on Lauren Faust, who created the show, and Tara Strong (landsman!), the Canadian who voices the central character. They swirl around the Bronies at the New York Brony Con, lighting up faces along with Lancie, who really seems to be enjoying himself. He even voices the animated wraparound musical pieces of this film.

But the New York con is not the only one we take a boo on. There’s also one in Manchester, and another in Stuttgart. The theme to all of them is peace, harmony, being good to one another. And buying plushies and posters.

The third act of the documentary is also about focusing outward, as well as in. We see how one of the aims of the cons is to raise money for charities, and to promote original art and music (with a Ponies theme). The viewer meets musicians, laser artists, and some with the talent to draw the Ponies in ways that make others very, very happy. People dance, they jump, they fist bump and hug, and mostly they let everyone be themselves, including the 60 or so Bronies from the US Armed Forces. In other words, everything Robert Bly was trying to accomplish in the 1980s.

The two extras are interviews with voice talents and an overview of the BUCK con in the U.K. (6 min.) and the Galacon in Germany (10 min.) Both are well paced and varied enough to keep it going.

While it may be a bit of a head scratcher as to why, especially as I am not a Brony myself (is there a My Little Ramonie?), this is definitely a feel good film from beginning to end. Yes, it could have been a bit shorter, but love is all around, and watching this may make you 20% cooler.

 

 

 

Musings on Broadcast Television in May 2009

Text © Robert Barry Francos
Images from the Internet

The 2008/09 broadcast television season is ending this month, and the collision of the new digital-only demand make a perfect storm of the best and the worst of what is out there. Due to this, I was having some random thoughts about the state of television. In no particular order:

• As a follower of Media Ecology, I found a particular point of interest in the last half hour of The Celebrity Apprentice, a show of which I’ve probably seen maybe two hours worth if you include all of its seasons. In the live finale, Donald Trump asked Clint Black whom he would fire if he had the power, and his response was, “The editor.” These two words say so much about what we know as Reality TV, but it was followed by the sounds of crickets as critics and talk shows ignored it, or missed its significance. It’s a perfect example of what Daniel J. Boorstin coined a “pseudo-event.”

• So far, since there are no other official candidates as of yet, we are being bombarded by commercials for Michael Bloomberg’s illegal run for a third term, even if his own board gave him permission. The people did not give him that, and in fact the voters have twice voted against third terms. It figures he would run though, because he has continually shown he does not care about the people of this city, except those few stockholders of corporate New York. He claims in the ad that he will fight against “special interests,” though he represents them. For example, we taxpayers paid for three stadiums in New York (one still to be built in a ruined historic neighborhood in Brooklyn), and yet we are charged exorbitant fees to attend them. When there was talk of him running for president, the first thing I said was, “Wow, just think of all the stadiums he could build across the country!” Another example of his being in bed with corporate greed was dealing with the closure of CBGB. There he was, in full photo opp mode as he stood there promoting the club, but when it came time to actually do anything for support, again, the sound of crickets. Sadly, he will probably win thanks to tall the people who believe his publicity, but I will not be one of them, as I was rightfully not twice before. Not my mayor, especially again.

• Also, I’ve had enough already with all the commercials for cable. Wonder where all high fees go each month? No commercial break, especially in daytime, passes without one of these better-get-it-or-else-if-you-want-television fear tactics. I just don’t want to see that bland guy in the blue sweater against the red walls in the background drone on, the whinny red headed guy with the beard, the three spinning hip-hop stooges, the gawd-awful Caribbean rap one, the one with the three women singing where the leader had bad make-up and looks like a clown-face, or the singing and conga-line dancing puppets, or any of the others. I now have to sit with the remote in my hand, ready to change the channel whenever these abominations come on.

• Who is that high-pitched Nathan Thurm look-alike guy who seems to be trying to hoodwink people on so many repeated infomercials? I turned on the television recently during the middle of the night when I had trouble sleeping and that half-hour ad was on four broadcast channels concurrently. Are really that many gullible or desperate people out there?

• Then there is Billy Mays, that guy with the beard who sells cleaning products by screaming. I’ve seen him interviewed on some infotainment show, and he was talking normally. Is he trying to replicate the guy who used to hock Crazy Eddie? Well, he doesn’t have the shtick or the personality. Talk normally or shut the hell up!

• For some reason, I do like the woman with tons of make-up who sells Progressive car insurance. Did you know actor Stephanie Courtney’s character has a name? It is Flo. Some of these ads are amusing, but it’s Flo who makes it interesting.

• A new show I like is The Big Bang Theory. While this season seems to be too focused on Sheldon’s neuroses and his companions’ fear of him rather than the group’s friendship, the show is still sharply written. I am hoping it does not become the Sheldon show, ignoring the other great characters, including some of the minor ones, like Leonard's rival from the comic store, the group’s competitor with the bad lisp, and especially Wallowitz’s unseen but definitely heard mother. BBT won me over when the foursome all dressed up as the Flash for a Halloween party, and Sheldon consequently went as the Doppler Effect. Also, they all have great comic genre t-shirts (though they are starting to repeat some of them). Some of my favorite moments from the season have included Penny’s shock when she uses a Star Trek metaphor, and when she matches Sheldon’s idiosyncratic door rapping rhythm back at him (both solo and in tandem). I am sorry they got rid of Sara Rule, though I realize in the story’s arc it was necessary.

• While I still like the original CSI (i.e., Vegas), I find Laurence Fishburne, though a fine actor, has really been slowing down the pace to a David Caruso drip. He’s a new CSI, yet he is already the authority on everything, going on solo cases, which makes no sense. That being said, there was an exceptional episode recently revolving around a “Solar Quest” convention (filling in for Star Trek. While they never mentioned any of the real characters or actors from the original show, during some fantasy sequences and the use of memorabilia, it was always obvious which particular episodes to which they were referring, even to a ST fan like me who is not a Trekker.

• Speaking of which, I recently turned on The View because Leonard Nimoy was going to be on to promote the new film, Star Trek. Seems a staff member of the show named Dave is a huge fan of all things Trek, but especially the original series. When Nimoy came on, he turned to him and said, fingers splayed, “Live long and prosper, Dave.” Dave, who gave the Hebraic-based sign back, was clearly in tears. It was a very nice and touching moment. By the way, did Nimoy get new teeth recently? His speech had a hard “shh” tone, like talking through some kind of dentures.

• Am I the only person who watches Reaper? The show has consistently been humorous, and a cast that keeps getting stronger. Yes, it is occasionally sophomoric, but it also has some thoughtful moments and themes. The introduction of Jenny Wade’s demon character, Nina, was a pleasant addition this year. I hope they don’t cancel it, when they keep all the other ‘tween romance bullshit on. This really is the only show on the CW I can stand.

• I am fully willing to admit that I didn’t appreciate Arrested Development, though I respected its work; however, the new animated show, Sit Down, Shut Up is just terrible. Hopefully, Cleveland will be better (I’m guessing it will fall somewhere between the exceedingly sharp Family Guy and the lukewarm American Dad).

• Someone should bring back The Uncle Floyd Show, already.