Saturday, 30 November 2013

strange_complex: (Cities condor in flight)
I've always meant to read this. I've read, listened to or watched everything else Douglas Adams ever produced after all, and this was the last remaining item of his which I hadn't experienced. Except that obviously, it isn't actually by him, so the urge was never quite strong enough to make me actually hunt it down. But then when I saw it for £1 on a book-stall at the excellent Swords, Sorcery, Sandals and Space conference in the summer, it seemed silly to pass it up.

I'm not going to be terribly complimentary about it, unfortunately, and for that reason if nothing else it's probably best to say a bit about its authorship before I start criticising. Basically, it is the novelisation of a computer game, Starship Titanic, which Douglas Adams produced in the late '90s. Adams originally intended to write the novel as well as the game himself, but as deadlines loomed and he decided that his primary interest was the game, he passed the work of producing the novel on to Terry Jones. So Jones was working with a basic scenario set out by Adams, and presumably some briefing notes about the characters and what ought to happen to them - but the details were down to him. I've never played the game, because I didn't have a computer capable of running it when it came out, so I can't judge how close the relationship between the game and the novel is, and therefore which aspects of the novel might have come primarily from Adams, and which from Jones. So I'll mainly just refer to the author as Adams / Jones, except when I'm explicitly commenting on which of them might have contributed particular ideas.

I thought the book was going to be crashingly sexist for the first 60 pages or so. These are set on Blerontin, the planet from which the Starship Titanic is launched, so the setting is utterly alien, and Adams / Jones could have imagined it any way they wanted. As it happens, the Blerontinians are essentially humanoid (except that they have orange eyes), which is fine and still doesn't make it necessary to import all of humanity's failings into the novel. And yet, nonetheless, their society is gendered in exactly the same way as ours, and while all the people with status and agency (the Blerontinian equivalent of a President, a Journalist, the ship's designer) are male, women appear only on p. 21, where we meet "a young cub reporter with a cleavage" who is there solely to act as an object for the ship-designer's lust, and on p. 29, where we learn that part of the reason why the Starship Titanic is in fact a floating disaster rather than a great triumph is that it was built by the Amalgamated Unmarried Teenage Mothers' Construction Units. By which time I was gasping in horror and wondering whether this could be any worse if Adams / Jones had deliberately set out to parody the sexism embedded in SF by writing an over-the-top exaggerated version of it.

Thankfully, on page 62, the setting shifts to Earth, and we meet four humans, two of whom are women, and the beyond-parody sexism drops away with the introduction of the more veristic characters. There is still some weirdness, though, like a great deal of comment on how one character called Nettie is incredibly hot and wears midriff-revealing T-shirts and so on, which doesn't do anything at all to advance the plot or her characterisation. In fact, character-wise, Nettie is extremely strong, resourceful and quick-thinking, so maybe all the "and she's really hot too!" stuff is about creating a wish-fulfilment super-babe character? Also, there is a very bizarre love-triangle thing between the other female character, Lucy, the Blerontinian Journalist, and Lucy's previous boyfriend, Dan, which basically involves Lucy and the Journalist suddenly and unexplainedly jumping each others' bones in a way that has no emotional plausibility whatsoever, or (again) any plot relevance either. In all honesty, it just comes across as the writing of someone who doesn't really understand a) women or b) relationships between men and women in any terms other than stereotypes and sniggers. I know Adams was never that good at writing women himself (cf. Trillian), but I feel like this bears more resemblance to Jones' Pythonesque world of women as sexy secretaries or mad housewives. Either way, though, it was weird and annoying.

The actual novel, plot, ideas etc are basically OK for a light read, but nothing particularly exciting or inspiring. There is one reason, though, why a Doctor Who fan in particular might wish to read it, and that is for its distinct resemblance to the Kylie Christmas Special, Voyage of the Damned. It isn't simply that they are both retellings of the real-world Titanic story. In both, the ship's owners are attempting to perpetrate a massive insurance scheme fraud, and have deliberately sent the ship out with the express intention that it should crash. The details aren't quite identical, because in Voyage of the Damned the owner (Max Capricorn) is actually on the ship himself, hidden in a protective chamber, with the aim of surviving the crash and bankrupting his former company in the process, whereas in Starship Titanic it is simply a case of the company owner and his chief accountant realising that the project will ruin them, and deciding to cut construction costs, scuttle the ship and claim the insurance instead. But a lot of the individual elements are the same - obstructive robots, loss of oxygen, a difficult journey though a damaged ship, people falling into a central engine shaft, and the fact that the planet which the ship either nearly or really crashes onto is Earth.

Presumably, this is very much the sort of stuff which also features in the game, and thus comes originally from Douglas Adams. So it's rather nice to know that long after The Pirate Planet, City of Death and Shada, Adams was still shaping Doctor Who stories from beyond the grave (and indeed not for the last time, either). As for the game itself, I would still like to have a go at it one day (if it's even still compatible with today's computers), but have a rather long list of things which are a higher priority than it, and also suspect that I've gathered much of its contents from the book. If anyone has ever played it, do let me know if it's worth tracking down.

Click here if you would like view this entry in light text on a dark background.

strange_complex: (Dracula Risen hearse smile)
Right then - time for my next Dracula sequels review. I may seem to be watching them in a completely random order, but in fact it is determined by a complex algorithm which takes into account a precisely-balanced combination of how long ago it is since I last saw each one, and how much I remember liking it. On that basis, Prince of Darkness is up next. I watched it only three years ago with [livejournal.com profile] ms_siobhan, so won't repeat what I said last time about the awesomeness of Klove, vampire!Helen (Barbara Shelley)'s lesbitious dialogue, or the canny use of bits of Stoker's novel which they hadn't bothered with in the first film. But there are plenty of other things to talk about, don't worry! (As if anyone was.)

Prince vs. Risen )

Prince's strengths )

Sexual morality )

Ludwig the book-binder )

Finally, I was thrilled and delighted yet again to discover that the DVD edition of this film includes another commentary track with Sir Christopher Lee, this time in conversation with fellow-stars Barbara Shelley (Helen), Suzan Farmer (Diana) and Francis Matthews (Charles). It's much the same as the one on Scars, really, in that no-one except Christopher Lee gets much chance to talk (especially Suzan Farmer, who barely says anything), and we mainly get him rambling on at length about his memories of promoting the first film, working on this one, and whether everyone he's ever met is now alive or dead. But Barbara Shelley does get a few anecdotes in, such as one about accidentally swallowing a fang during her staking scene (and drinking salt water afterwards in order to bring it back up), and she also very rightly points out how effective the lighting is for adding depth, atmosphere and realism to the sets (in stark contrast to Scars). And it's nice to hear Christopher Lee, too, clearly remembering the film quite fondly and having nice things to say about some of the plot details and the effects. These commentary tracks are definitely a good reason to replace my old VHS copies, as if I didn't have enough motivation from the picture quality and aspect ratio issues alone.

Click here if you would like view this entry in light text on a dark background.

strange_complex: (Cyberman from beneath)
I saw this on Wednesday with [livejournal.com profile] ms_siobhan and [livejournal.com profile] planet_andy at the Cottage Road cinema. Like Back to the Future a couple of months ago, although it was a classic film shown at the Cottage, it wasn't strictly a Cottage Classic (that was Destry Rides Again this month), but instead part of the Leeds Back In The Day series. I don't think I've ever seen it on the big screen before, as I would only have been eight when it came out, but I had certainly done so (presumably on video) by the age of about 12, as I remember doing a parody sketch scene based on it with school friends around then as part of some kind of class performance.

I enjoyed it a lot, but wasn't perhaps quite as blown away as by Back to the Future. It relies a little bit too much on standard-issue corny lines, like the goofy character who has just been in a massive explosion and is staggering around semi-consciously going "A little help, here?" The race and gender politics are also pretty appalling. All the clever sciency guys in the Ghostbusters team are white; there is a black team member, but he's the dogsbody they hire because they have too much work on, not a brainiac or a charm-merchant like the rest; and of course the women are all there to play victims, secretaries and love-interests.

That said, it does have a lot of genuinely funny situations and dialogue as well as the standard-issue corniness - like the Sedgewick Hotel staff desperately trying to cover up the fact that there's a violent ghost-hunt going on in their ballroom to their guests, or the interactions between the Ghostbusters and their crowds of adoring fans. Plus it offers some good oblique commentary on scam business practices (essentially what the Ghostbusters are engaged in, though with the twist that their ghosts are real), blinkered bloody-minded bureaucracy (total chaos caused by a city official who insists on closing down the power supply to the ghost containment unit without understanding the consequences of his actions), mass hysteria, public spectacle, celebrity culture and consumerism.

It was also nice to recognise locations which I've been to from my trip to New York - especially the New York Public Library and its Rose Reading Room, where I sat and absorbed plays and newspaper articles about Augustus from the 1930s just this April. And I could relate to the team of academics (who go on to become the Ghostbusters) getting unceremoniously kicked out of their University at the start of the film in a way I couldn't have done when I first saw it. Plus it pulled in a good audience, with several people dressing up for the occasion (one Ghostbuster on the door and two Mr. Stay Pufts wandering about the place), which is always pleasing. I definitely have a very strong interest in the ongoing success of a cinema only ten minutes' walk from my house which regularly screens classic films like this one.

Click here if you would like view this entry in light text on a dark background.

Profile

strange_complex: (Default)
strange_complex

January 2025

M T W T F S S
  12345
6 789101112
131415161718 19
20212223242526
2728293031  

Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Friday, 29 August 2025 23:35
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios