posted
I confess to not seeing how Memento falls anywhere near science fiction unless we define it incredibly broadly. Which I'm usually in favor of, but consider: Leonard's condition is real, if exaggerated for cinematic effect. If Memento falls under the auspices of science fiction, then so does The Silence of The Lambs (psychology) or nearly any police procedural (forensics).
There is a rather curious limbo that exists between films that everyone agrees are science fiction (Say, Zardoz, or Killer Klowns from Outer Space) and films that are explicitly about science and scientists, but aren't science fiction in any of the ways we usually think of the term. Is Gorillas in the Mist science fiction? Or A Beautiful Mind? I don't know.
Having said that, I think Memento is one of my favorite movies of all time, and is a beautiful piece of work from finish to start.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
"It has a slight sci-fi feel to it" is what I said. I didn't say it was science fiction. I am fully aware that Memento is film noir.
To me Apolcalypse Now also has a slight sci-fi feel to it. That's not science fiction either.
It has that feeling to me because both films are as much about Ideas as they are about the Plot.
Science Fiction is the literature of Ideas.
On the other hand, if I wanted to say that it IS science fiction, it would work. This is a story that deals with a real life condition, and that uses it as a plot device to examine issues of perception.
Sounds science fictiony to me. Gorillas in the Mist and A Crowe Mind were true (albeit dramatized) stories, hence you lose the "fiction" part.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
A literature of ideas is a great catchphrase. Ray Bradbury uses it, I believe, and Ray Bradbury is the best writer who has ever lived. But it's ultimately rather meaningless, because a literature without ideas is called a shopping list. There isn't anything humans do that doesn't contain ideas.
Having said all that, I do think I know what you mean by "science fictional feel," but I'm not satisfied with the definition.
Mind you, elsewhere I've argued that the vaguely defined "genre" of magic realism falls under the SF umbrella. So why make I distinction here? I'm not entirely sure.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I am a savage, uncultured, ignorant pile of human waste, it seems. Not only do I not know the difference between Manet and Monet, I seem to have no taste in film. I submit, therefore.
Also, because I am so uncultured and purile:
"There isn't anything humans do that doesn't contain ideas."
Pooping.
I giggle. I am also a heathen.
[ May 27, 2002, 16:00: Message edited by: The Ulcer Mongoose ]
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
This Oxford fellow wrote an interesting article about science fiction being Idea Heavy once. I was thinking about it in some vague way when I wrote the above. But the article was really boring unless you're in the mood for that sort of thing, and I'm not...
But apparently the snotty high-brows have a decided that science fiction shall be called "fibril literature" due to it's specific kind of Ideas. Hard to explain without the book sitting here, and I read it quite awhile ago, so maybe tomorrow I'll see if I can find some worthy links on the subject.
Or not. Like I said, it can be pretty dry and boring.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
