March 2015

SF/F Commentary

Movie Review: Hot Tub Time Machine (dir. Steve Pink; 2010)(A SFF Film Odyssey)

The first time I saw Hot Tub Time Machine (dir. Steve Pink; 2010), I wasn’t sure how to take it.  So much of the film made me uncomfortable because the characters seemed, for the most part, painfully unlikable.  That fact became clearer as I began comparing HTTM to other films of its type, leaving me to wonder:  why would I root for anyone in this movie when I’d rather each of them got hit by a bus instead of the one-armed Phil (Crispin Glover)?  Here lies a film that I’m sure even a teenage version of myself would find impossible to stomach — bereft of redeemable characters, excessive for shock value, and overall a perfect storm of the worst raunchy comedy tropes.  It’s a film best avoided so you can spare your brain the scrubbing. HTTM is another take on the raunchy teen comedy, albeit one which uses time travel so its adult characters can relive the glory days of their teen years.  The story follows Adam (John Cusack), Nick (Craig Robinson), and Lou (Rob Corddry), former high school friends who reconnect after Lou attempts suicide because he can’t let go of the past.  Together with Adam’s nephew, Jacob (Clark Duke), Adam and Nick try to raise Lou’s spirits by taking him on a trip to the fictional Kodiak Valley, where the three them used to party in their youth.  The problem:  like their lives, Kodiak Valley is quickly falling apart.  But surprise…their hot tub moonlights as a time machine, and soon all four of them are whisked away to the 1980s, reliving their glory days all over again.  Only this time, they’re going to do things a little differently.  OK, a lot differently. Like most raunchy teen comedies, HTTM is about a few things:  partying, sex, drugs/alcohol, and friendship.  It also happens to be about a group of almost ne’er-do-wells striving to fix their past mistakes in what is best described as hypermasculine wish-fulfillment.  One of my favorite examples of this subgenre is American Pie (dirs. Paul and Chris Weitz; 1999), which on its surface is just another “teens trying to get laid” story, but upon closer inspection becomes a comedic critique of the subgenre’s tropes and an amusing tale of young men on the cusp of actual adulthood — mediated, of course, through a narrative primarily focused on sex.  It’s far from a perfect film, in part because it relies, at times, on too many of the cheap sexist gags that continue to plague raunchy teen comedies, but it is a film that, at its core, is about something beyond the simplistic “fucks and friends” stories that lazier raunchy teen comedies present. HTTM’s narrative, however, is exhausting primarily because it is so unlike American Pie in its vulgarity.  Where American Pie attempts at a correction of its high school dickery by making most of its characters realize the absurdity of an anti-virginity pledge, HTTM flips everything in the other direction by trying to convince us that the only real answer to the world’s problems is for the sex-crazed, drug-addled, lazy troublemaker to have unprotected sex with his friend’s sister.  It doesn’t temper its vulgarity to support its narrative of friendship, either; it relishes in the excess of its validated crude “hero.”  Lou repeatedly cries out “semen” and other vulgarities as he knowingly impregnates Adam’s sister, all so we can watch Adam cringe, as we rightfully should, at what is happening.  It is a film awash in its own bodily fluids, unsure how to paddle out of the kiddy pool.  Every crude act, mistake, and horror is validated in this film as appropriate male behavior. Worse, where American Pie shows its characters actually working toward a future, almost all of the characters in HTTM are essentially thieves who either literally steal from the hard work of others, as in the case of Lou (a girlfriend who “gets him”) and Nick (a music career), or who steal time to make up for past mistakes, as in the case of Adam (who uses his future knowledge to screw over the Google creators by making Lougle).  Because ultimately, all of the protagonists are losers with no perception of the future, no plan, no hope, no dream.  Their dreams have died with their youth.  In this stark atmosphere — which can only lead us to Idiocracy (dir. Mike Judge; 2006), not the conclusion the film actually gives us — we’re also smacked over the head by the fact that the younger generation is resigned to a similar fate, as Jacob’s future is practically forfeited from the moment we meet him.  The young, like the old, have no dreams at all — as Adam says to Jacob while castigating him for spending all his time playing Second Life:  “You’re twenty years old. You’ve never made an important choice in your life.” This would be brilliant if it were an intentional satire of what we might call the new Lost Generation of men — if the comedy was at their expense, not as a reinforcement of their values.  But HTTM is none of these things.  It is a male power fantasy whereby self-disenfranchised 40-somethings can drink, fuck, and steal their way back to success.  That makes its comedy all the more irksome and all the more less palatable than something more honest with its narrative.  American Pie, for example, is a mostly successful comedy about young men learning what it is to be men (and sometimes (often) failing, learning the wrong lessons, or becoming mockeries of themselves); HTTM is a comedy about the men who never learned the right lessons and never will.  One of these stories is funny.  I’ll let you guess which one. About the only thing I can praise the film for is its soundtrack, which contains such classics as Motley Crue’s “Home Sweet Home” and Salt-n-Pepa’s “Push It.”  That’s what I’ll choose to dwell on for the next few hours. —————————- This post was selected by voters on my Patreon page.  To get your own

SF/F Commentary

The Fictioning: I actually wrote something! Ahaha!

If you missed it on Twitter, I actually wrote some new fiction last night for the first time in months.  I’ve been fiddling with the idea for a YA space opera featuring a wheelchair bound combat expert and his tech-savvy sibling.  I won’t ruin the plot, but I will say this:  there will be a mecha wheelchair, space battles, and good old adventure with a healthy side of character development. And if that sounds of interest, here are the first few paragraphs in rough draft form (click to view a larger version): Now back to writing stuff…

World in the Satin Bag

On Agency: Strong Female Characters, the Myth of Non-Action, and Jupiter Ascending

By now you’ll have heard the “Jupiter Jones doesn’t have agency” criticism of Jupiter Ascending (dirs. the Wachowskis; 2015).[1]  The gist of the argument, as far as I can tell, is that Jupiter doesn’t have agency (or enough agency) because she does not become a “strong female character” until the last possible second.  Andrew O’Hehir, for example, wrote in his Salon.com review that Jupiter has less female agency than any character ever played by Doris Day. Compared to this movie, the Disneyfied feminism of “Frozen” and “Brave” and “Maleficent” feels like Valerie Solanas’ “SCUM Manifesto.” Peter Debruge wrote in Variety that [although] clearly conceived as an empowered female heroine, poor Jupiter spends most of the movie being kidnapped and shuffled from one unpleasant situation to another, whether that’s being nearly assassinated during an egg-donating operation or pushed into a marriage with a two-faced Abraxas prince. Sam Maggs wrote in The Mary Sue: When I hear “Mila Kunis black leather space princess,” I want to see her bulked the hell up, Emily Blunt style, kicking ass and taking names. We don’t get to see Kunis looking really cool until the very end of the film, at which point I wanted way more of that. Which, I guess, means I would pay for a sequel. The most damning claim about Jupiter’s agency, however, comes from Tim Martain’s review for The Mercury: There’s a little test I like to apply, where you try to describe a character without reference to their physical appearance or occupation. If you can come up with three clear character traits, then you may have a well-crafted character. If not, well, you have a cardboard cutout.  Jupiter is a big ol’ flat piece of nothing.  She is a name and a device, nothing more. Her character is not developed in any way beyond “special girl who everyone is fighting over”. She is Cinderella with even less motivation or personality. In other words, Jupiter isn’t even a person.  She’s a thing.  Because she is passive.  Because she doesn’t fight (until the very end).  Because she is manipulated by others.  Because she is a toilet cleaner.  Because she is everything other than a “strong female character.”  One must ask:  why does Jupiter need to take names?  Why can’t she just be a space princess?  Why can’t she simply get sucked into a world where space princesses are real and people like her (like us) have to learn to navigate the absurd bureaucracy of space royalty?  Why can’t she be a confused, naive person like, well, a real person might be?  Why isn’t that enough for her to have agency or for her to escape the charge that her agency is nearly absent?  Why can’t this also be a story about someone discovering or developing a different kind of agency?  Isn’t that enough? Frankly, I’m not sure these individuals understand what “agency” means.  At its most basic, “agency” refers to one’s ability to take action to affect their own lives; as such, agency exists on a continuum that is affected by social status, culture, upbringing, economics, and so on and so forth.  The degree to which we all have agency, in other words, depends on how well equipped we are to affect our daily lives.  Agency can be individual, collective, immersed within or isolated from a specific dominant culture, and so on.  In other words:  agency is pretty damn complicated, as is clear when you start to look into the sociological, psychological, and feminist struggles to adequately define the concept in a way that incorporates the full range of social interactions.  For women, agency has been a key component of the feminist fight for equality.  Since the world has historically (and still is to a large degree) favored men in nearly every avenue, women’s access to “choice” in its broadest conception has always been curtailed.  Worldbank notes that “across all countries women and men differ in their ability to make effective choices in a range of spheres, with women typically at a disadvantage” in the avenues of control over resources, free movement, decisions about family formation, freedom from violence, and freedom to have a voice in society and politics. Oppression does not necessarily mean that one loses all agency, though.  Indeed, how one exerts influence can take myriad forms, including subversive actions within an oppressive situation.  Women in violent, patriarchal societies do not lose agency simply by being oppressed; their abilities to affect their own lives, however, do change, limiting the degree of agency they might have, or, in some cases, simply changing how agency is perceived.  Lest you think only overt oppression can steal one’s agency, remember that we are all to varying degrees limited by social, economic, and other factors.  Some of us, such as myself, just have more advantages — in my case because I am white, male, American, and educated.[2] But in a world where pop criticism often stands in for professional criticism, the buzzword definitions are replicated ad naseum.  Women who punch bad guys or take direct action against oppression or in some way “act” in a manner that makes them visibly opposed to a system or individual or in a position to “make things happen” are women who have “agency.”  Every other woman?  Well, she might have “agency,” but not enough that her agency is worth talking about, except to note that she doesn’t have any (or very little).  If she subverts the system, her agency is only valued if her subversion is aggressive.  Passive subversion won’t make her “strong.”  If anything, “passive” is just another word for “worthless” or “oppressed.” These limitations on “agency” are so pervasive that they affect how we even talk about female characters, particularly when the term “strong female character” crops up.  Sophia McDougall’s essay in the New Statesman (“I Hate Strong Female Characters”) points out that the phenomenon of the “strong female character” seems particular to women: No one ever asks if a male character is “strong”. Nor if he’s

SF/F Commentary

The Worldcon 2017 Site Selection Process: A Simple Step-by-Step Guide

Recently, one of my friends confided in me that she found the process for voting for the Worldcon site complicated to the point of being off-putting.  So I decided to make a simplified template to follow for this year’s site selection process.  For a far more detailed version, I strongly suggest you read Crystal Huff’s excellent post on the subject. I will update this page with when additional information (links, dates, etc.) becomes available. 1) Buy a Membership to Sasquan 2015 In order to vote for the 2017 Worldcon site, you must have a supporting or full membership to the 2015’s Worldcon. 2) Wait for the Site Selection Ballot to Be Announced The Sasquan 2015 Site Selection Ballot is currently available here.  Follow the instructions on the document to vote, especially if you plan to mail in your ballot or submit it via email.  Candidates are also listed on that document. 3) Pay Your Site Selection Ballot Fee The fee to vote is $40 and can be paid online via Sasquan’s Site Selection page (the payment system is NOW open!).  You may also pay the fee at Sasquan or via Check or Money Order (in US funds) with your paper ballot (see address below). This fee automatically transfers into a supporting membership for the winning bid.  The winning bidder may also extend additional deals for full memberships after the selection process is over. 4) Download the Print Ballot OR Go to the Site Selection Booth During Sasquan 2015 Worldcon does not currently allow electronic voting, so all ballots must be submitted at the 2015 convention OR by mail or email. The print ballot is available here (as noted above). 5) Submit Your Ballot If you are not attending Sasquan 2015, then you must print, fill in, and mail your ballot to the address provided by the deadline OR email your ballot to ballot2017siteselection@sasquan.org (for those who pay their fee online). To mail your ballot, send it to the follow address: Worldcon 2017 Site Selection c/o Joni Brill Dashoff PO Box 425 Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006-0425 U.S.A. All mailed and emailed ballots must reach the site selection crew no later than August 10th, 2015 at 24:00 PDT.  Send it well in advance if you are concerned about delays. That’s it.  Pretty easy, right?

SF/F Commentary

On the Raging Child of Science Fiction Neo-Snobbery

On a foundational level, the most visible element of SF awards discussions concern subjective assertions about literary quality.  I have participated in some of these discussions over the years, podcasting about nominees I disliked for whatever reason and otherwise raging against what I perceived as the absence of taste within certain award-giving communities (mostly the Hugos).  The further away from those first instances I become, however, the more I realize how foolish these discussions really are.  Why rage against a difference in literary tastes?  I can no more tell someone what they should like than they can me.  At best, I can make a case for what I consider to be “good,” but even then, the most effective arguments are those that explain why a text is interesting, not why it is qualitatively better, since the latter is, for the most part, impossible.  What we consider “of quality” could make for a very confusing, intersecting Venn diagram.

Scroll to Top