Once more. With feeeewing.

Once again, I find myself posting a farewell on this blog. The end? I don't know. But I'm switching my focus to my new "official" website, matthewjconstantine.com. You'll be able to read the same amazingly on-point ranting about how great Star Trek is, how terrible the 90s were, and how handsome Jason Statham is (Jason, you gotta get back on the horse, man. Do Crank 3, already!).

In the Mouth of Dorkness has been an amazing outlet for me for several years. Brad has moved on to One Perfect Shot (and the ITMODcast, of course). I hope to continue to engage folks through my new site. So, please come join me. I've got some big stuff planned in the near future. Well, it's big to me. See you there.

-Matt

Book Review: The Broken Cycle

    After his many misadventures in “The Hard Way Up,” John Grimes is given a mission nobody wants with a ship captained by a guy who really doesn’t want John around. But things go off the rails pretty quick, with John and a tough lady cop stuck together in a dilly of a pickle.

A. Bertram Chandler published “The Broken Cycle” eight years later than the stories in “The Hard Way Up,” and it’s clear tastes had changed a bit, or the author had become a bit more untethered. There is some strong language and some semi-graphic sex. Where earlier Grimes stories would have been solidly PG, this book roves into more R-rated territory. And the sexism is still there, even if it’s been tempered a bit by modernity.

    The story is fast paced and mostly unexpected. There was a point where I could tell there wasn’t much left of the book, and I had NO idea how things could possibly wrap up. Often, I had no idea where Chandler was taking me. One of the strengths of these Grimes stories is they read fast. That helps to gloss over some of the shortcomings. In the case of this book, there really isn’t much story or seemingly much point. It’s just some stuff that happens. It’s kind of like a filler episode from a TV series. I don’t feel like anything of note was advanced, but it’s still perfectly enjoyable to read it while waiting for a better story (hopefully) in the next book. Had the book been longer or less readable, with no more content, it might have become a grueling slog.

    I’m taking a break from John Grimes now that I’ve finished the first omnibus in which I found this. Baen published “To the Galactic Rim” a few years ago as the first part in their complete reprinting of Chandler’s Grimes stores. Fans of classic science fiction should go get these. While I didn’t love this particular book (I enjoyed it just fine), the omnibus in general is great stuff.

-Matthew J. Constantine

Book Review: Ice Crown

In rediscovering my love of Andre Norton, I got particularly interested in her “Forerunner” series, a set of novels sharing a ‘future history,’ like Alan Dean Foster’s “Humanx Commonwealth,” or Larry Niven’s “N-Space.”  However, things get a bit challenging.  That I’ve found so far, there is little scholarly work on Norton, and no definitive guide to the Forerunner stories. Ice Crown, the book I’ve just read is not listed on several sites I’ve found as being part of it, yet it is clearly set in the same universe, building on some of the same ideas.

Set on a restricted world where local humans live in a medieval style society, it features Roane, a young woman in the Service who has come to the world to investigate the possibility of Forerunner technology. Instead, she gets tangled up in local power struggles, breaks the Service’s rules about interference, and stumbles upon something from a dark time in Human space exploration, the time of the Psychocrats. This book is the first time I remember hearing references to this era of rule by mind-control masters. I’ll be curious to see if they feature in other stories.

On the one hand, I like that Norton gets more into character development in this book than in some of her earlier work. On the other, I find Roane to be a bit dull. There is a story reason, perhaps, for her being a bit of a void. I suppose. But considering the book does start to drag, in spite of its barely over 200 page length, I think, perhaps the character development wasn’t so great.

Norton churned out a ton of novels in her day, and maybe not all of them are winners. This one is OK. If they ever turned her Forerunner stories into a TV series, this would probably serve well as the basis of an episode. Beyond that? Eh. 

-Matthew J. Constantine

Star Trek VS Star Wars

While I’ve written about Star Trek and to a lesser degree Star Wars before, I thought I’d revisit it for a few reasons. First, the recent success of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, a movie that I thought was OK and much better than the previous three films, but not all that great. Second, the recent announcement that a Star Trek TV series is in development. And third, the aftermath of Star Trek Into Darkness (worst Trek film ever?) and the build-up to Star Trek Beyond.

I read an article (see here) that compared Star Trek and Star Wars a while ago, which bothered me. In it, the author postulated that the major difference between the two was that Star Wars was about fighting the Man, and Star Trek was about being the Man. I disagree. Getting past various categorization squabbles (science fiction vs. science fantasy, blah, blah, blah), there are some pretty big differences that separate the two. I’d argue the target audience, for one, is different. Also, the nature of the two is profoundly different. One started as a weekly TV series in the 1960s, while the other started as a blockbuster theatrical release in the 1970s. That difference alone is profound. And when I think of Star Trek at its best, I think of the original series and some of The Next Generation. I don’t tend to think of the films, which from Wrath of Khan on (with the exception of Star Trek IV) are very much more in the Star Wars, summer blockbuster, action film camp.

Star Wars is generally marketed for children. It’s enjoyable for adults, but rarely deals with particularly deep themes or complicated issues. It often relies on gross caricature when presenting characters, so that everyone is on the same page. Good guys are obviously good guys. Bad guys are obviously bad guys. Typically looking at them is all you need to do in order to know what sort of person they are. And the general theme is about as simple as they come, and roots back at least to Zoroastrianism and the duality that would help to form three of today’s major religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism). It is the conflict between Good and Evil.

While still frequently marketed toward younger viewers, Star Trek often presents more complicated issues. There are absolutely ham-fisted attempts (see: most episodes actually written by Gene Roddenberry, for example), but there are occasionally subtle ones, too. With Star Trek, the viewer is frequently presented with a moral question. Unfortunately, as was the style of the day, they were then given the answer to that question. But the questions were often serious, sometimes deep questions of morality, philosophy, and meaning. The question wasn’t “do I submit to the horible forces of Evil?” but rather “is it right to do this evil thing for the greater good?” Or, “do I need to make peace with the evil within me in order to better the good?”

Star Wars never grew out of its simple nature. It remains a story of Good vs. Evil. Even as it distanced itself from its Flash Gordon, pulp roots, it moved deeper and deeper into a universe of constantly warring sides in a battle between ultimate Light and ultimate Dark. Villains rarely seem to have any motivation beyond cruelty and the hunger for power.

Star Trek has changed and evolved many times over the years. Unfortunately, more often than not, this seems to have moved it more in line with the Star Wars tradition. Though not going so much for the Good vs Evil line, it has frequently fallen into the trap Batman & Superman have, the “let’s make it darker” trap. Star Trek was a semi-Utopian setting...so let’s show how the Utopia of the Federation is actually corrupt and evil (Deep Space 9). Star Trek was about brave people who faced the unknown of space for the pure joy of it. So, let’s make the characters hate their jobs and be forced into it (Voyager). Star Trek was about big ideas and moral questions. So let’s make action movies that must be solved by the hero punching the villain (the theatrical films). And as time went on, folks behind Trek tried to make it more ‘sciencey’ by throwing in lots of buzzwords and technobabble which muddied the dialog and provided too many opportunities for technological deus ex machina rescues.

But when Star Trek was at its most Star Trek, it wasn’t about ‘being the Man.’ It was about being the best we could be, then striving to be better. Star Wars, for better or worse, was and is about Good vs Evil. Star Trek made young Matt think about what choices he might make, about what it was to be a good person. Star Wars made young Matt say, “AWESOME!” I loved both. And while Star Wars has lost a lot of its charm over the years, thanks to terrible prequel movies and some other issues; and later expansions of the Star Trek universe seem to have lost the thread; I still have fond memories of both. I just find myself going back to Star Trek, watching the original TV episodes, even popping in the original films (the first four, anyway), far more than I do with Star Wars. Star Wars doesn’t give me the same thrill it once did. Though I enjoy the heck out of the first two films. I’m a Science Fiction nerd, and I have a lot of room in my heart. But when it comes down to it, Star Trek at its best is better than Star Wars. There. I said it.

-Matthew J. Constantine

Contemporary Heroes VS Classic Heroes

(So, it's been a while. But here's a new post, where I'm trying to work out some ideas. I'd welcome feedback, as I'm not sure I've got a coherent point yet.)

After recently revisiting the Star Wars universe with The Force Awakens, then going back to the works of Robert E. Howard, and finally watching some of the so-called adaptations of that author’s work, as well as the Edgar Rice Burroughs adaptation John Carter, I was struck again by something I’ve been pondering for some time. Contemporary heroes, those typically in fashion in the literature and film of today, are not like heroes of old. There seem to be two distinct and different types of heroes (I’m sure there are more), the self-driven, self-made, self-motivated hero on the one side, and the externally driven, pawn of fate/the gods hero. And, as I’ve been thinking about this, I’ve noticed that some popular fate-driven heroes of today got their start as self-driven heroes of the past. Batman and Superman are two very well known examples of heroes who were once masters of their own fate, but are now frequently portrayed as slaves to it. And then you have John Carter and Conan the Cimmerian. While Carter is transported to Mars (Barsoom) against his will, he then quickly becomes the master of his own fate, taking up arms and winning the hearts and swords of a kingdom. Conan sets out to experience the world for no other reason than his personal desire to learn and experience new and exciting things. But in film adaptations of both characters, fate seems to have picked each for their appointed task. They have destinies. In the Conan films, this is most egregious, featuring Conan’s family being slain and him being driven/stolen from his home and forced into slavery, then destined to rise up and become king. He does not choose to go, he does not choose to become king. These things are chosen for him by the whims of ...of the gods?

In the cases of Superman and Conan this seems to spit directly in the face of the meaning of the characters. Both are Nietzschean Ubermensch, self-made heroes who stand apart and stand as something for others to aspire to. But in later works, they become more Christ-like, meek servants, who are ultimately slaves to greater forces; pretty much the opposite of the Nietzschean ideal. And Batman now becomes a crime fighter not because he was a man of means who saw that he could do something to help people, but because he was tortured by a crime perpetrated upon him. This seems to say that without the death of his parents, Bruce Wayne would simply have been the care-free playboy he pretends to be. His morality, in this scenario does not come from a personal sense of right and wrong, but from a sense of guilt, shame, and revenge foisted upon him by fickle fate. Much like the argument that without the gods there is no morality. I’ve always been somewhat upset by the idea that some people believe that without religion, they would murder, steal, and rape at will. Without someone forcing their will upon you, you have no will of your own? That idea upsets me. But it seems to be at the root of many contemporary heroes, who are only heroic because fate, god, or someone else forces them to become so. Without an outside force acting upon him or her, he or she would either remain unexceptional. Or worse, would be amoral (ala Bruce Wayne’s persona).

And this brings me to contemporary hero avatar, Luke Skywalker. In a film with self-made heroes like Han Solo and Princess Leia, Luke is the ultimate tool of fate, and this becomes more and more pronounced as the series goes on and we learn more about him and his family. He has nearly no agency, no will of his own. In fact, one of the only things he seems to do on his own, by his own will is go to his room and sulk. Otherwise, he is constantly pushed, directed, prodded, and dragged from hick farm boy to galactic hero. Could there be anyone less like Conan? Could there be anyone more emblematic of the contemporary concept of hero? I recently skimmed (I honestly couldn’t bring myself to read it closely, as I got too annoyed) an article comparing and contrasting Star Trek with Star Wars, which essentially boiled down to Star Wars was about fighting the Man, and Star Trek was about being the Man. But was Star Trek about being the Man? Kirk was constantly standing on his own, his crew was constantly going outside the bounds of law and status quo. To me, Star Trek was less about being the Man, and more about bettering oneself, then giving those below a hand up. Star Wars seemed more about lashing out after allowing cruelty to win for too long; essentially fighting back only after there was literally nothing left to do but die. I mean, they didn’t even give the Empire a real bloody nose until AFTER millions and millions of people had been enslaved and murdered. Fate forced the hand of Luke and the rest of the Rebellion. Only when there was absolutely nothing left to do but something, did they do anything.

So when did the change happen? Why? Am I just off base on all of this? And as a fan of Robert E. Howard’s Conan (and other characters), Edgar Rice Burroughs’s John Carter (and other characters), and other self-made heroes (The Shadow, Allan Quatermain, Beowulf, etc.), is there any hope of them being translated to film or TV without first being sifted through the more modern, meak, fate-driven fashion?

-Matthew J. Constantine

The Passing of Leonard Nimoy

Though not surprised (he had been experiencing serious health issues for some time), I was still saddened to hear of the passing of Leonard Nimoy today, at the age of 83.  Watching Star Trek is among my earliest and fondest of memories.  The morality of the show was key to my development as a human, and Nimoy will always be a part of that.  He will be missed.  

-Matt

Dork Art: Cinerama Star Trek

This week Star Trek celebrated its 48th birthday.  I've seen a lot of the usual LOVE thrown around online (why not, it's the most influential show ever, right?), but nothing as nifty as what Nick Acosta has accomplished here.  The concept artist snatched several HD screencaps from Trekcore, and morphed the original 4x3 TV ratio into Cinerama - the epic frontier the show so rightfully deserves.  In the modern era of widescreen television sets it can sometimes be distracting to watch the old box frame.  One of the worst DVD atrocities I've encountered was the Anchor Bay Evil Dead box frame stretching done a few years back - don't muck about with ratios cuz you just can't unboil the spaghetti!  However, seeing these gorgeous Cinerama stills, I can't help but dream of a universe where William Shatner got a little extra room to Kirk Fu.  These are beautiful, and true Trekkie wonders.  I love the internet.  Thank you, Nick Acosta.

--Brad

Dork Art: Richard Davies PosterPalooza

Just spotted this amazing collection of poster art over at Crome Yellow.  Artist Richard Davies seems to be a busy bee, knocking out illustrated posters for some of the most popular flicks of recent years.  My favorite is certainly the Guardians of the Galaxy as it perfectly captures the 80s Album Art vibe of the film.  I appreciate the work done for The Raid 2, as much love as the first film got online, I feel like I haven't been hearing enough about it since it was released earlier this year.  And it's absolutely nice to drop some Django Unchained art on the blog.  It's been too long since we've had an opportunity to admire Tarantino's Southern.  I need to watch that soon.

--Brad

Matt’s Weeks in Dork! (7/13/14-7/19/14 & 7/20/14-7/26/14)

    Due to a technical difficulty, I present two weeks…


(7/13/14-7/19/14)

    On Sunday, my lady and I headed in to DC to see the National Building Museum and its human sized maze.  An informative tour and a nice exhibit on House & Home.  But darn it, that maze was cool.  Mazes have always been a fascination, and getting to go into one was a treat.  Part of me would love to do one much, much larger.  From there we went to The Hamilton (where I felt distinctly under dressed) for a nice brunch, and then to E Street, where we saw Life Itself.  A good day in DC.

Life Itself:  This portrait of the famous populist movie critic Roger Ebert does a fine job of showing the man behind the face.  Not all one thing or another, a character, and a great ambassador of film.  His story feels like one of those old time movies, where a plucky young kid gets a dream job and has a meteoric rise, with the usual pitfalls of wine and women, and the eventual triumph.  But there’s more to it than that, as there always is.  And telling his life story, intercut with the story of his death, the ravaging cancer that would claim him, bit by bit, until it finished him off, was poignant and heartbreaking, but also uplifting and dare I say it, a bit inspiring.  A colorful character with an interesting life.  And a documentary well worth seeking out, especially (but not exclusively) for movie buffs.

The Lego Movie:  This cute CGI film is a lot of fun, occasionally very clever, and perfectly enjoyable.  It’s not amazing.  But it’s good.  I like the story, I like the voice work, and though heavy handed, I like the message.  If you have kids, this is a good one, as there’s plenty for an adult to enjoy, too.

    Friday night we met for the graphic novel club, where we discussed Aya: Life in Yop City.  I think only one person hated it, nobody seemed to love it, but a few enjoyed it enough to want to read on.  I didn’t hate it, but certainly have no plans to read any more.

    On Saturday evening, Brad and I headed over to Wolf Trap to see 2001 with live music.  This was my second time to the venue, which I’m not in love with.  But it was certainly better than I remembered.  I suppose I can see the charm of sitting on the lawn, though I don’t think I would be well suited for it, with my gimpy legs.

2001:  Just a darned amazing film.  I’ve written about it many times before.  What I’ll say this time is that seeing it, projected on a big screen, with live orchestral accompaniment was a whole new experience.  Because so little dialog happens, and when it does, it’s not with music, this movie is sort of like a silent film, witch lends itself to live music.  When I saw Casablanca with live music, there were issues because of the constant score and the original mono recording.  This was much better.  And seeing it with a thousand or so people…really something.  People nervously or knowingly laughing when Hal starts to crack.  Kinda amazing.

(7/20/14-7/26/14)

    So, on Sunday, my computer had some rather profound technical difficulties, taking me not just offline, but off writing in any serious way.  I got some more reading done, and some more movie watching, but I also had kind of a busy week.

In the Mood for Love:  Gorgeously shot, wonderfully dreamy, this romance doesn’t play the way one would expect.  It feels like you’re constantly watching surreptitiously, voyeuristically as two people come together, expressed in brief moments, looks, and seemingly innocent encounters.  Where some of Wonk Kar Wai’s films have a frantic, hand-held feel to their cinematography, this is shot wonderfully still and painting-like.

Under the Skin:  Upon second viewing, my problems with the film’s finale abated somewhat.  I think I get the idea more, so it doesn’t bug me as much.  Whatever the case, this is a fascinating film, a science fiction/horror movie with no exposition.  At no point does the script give you any information.  You just watch as things happen and are forced to make up your own mind.  There are some beautiful moments, some haunting scenes, some surreal and some wonderful things.  It’s not going to be for everyone.  But I really like it.  The closest thing I can compare it to is the rather obvious The Man Who Fell to Earth, but I was reminded of recent weirdly quiet films like Only God Forgives, too.

Fanfan La Tulipe:  France’s answer to Errol Flynn’s Robin Hood, this light hearted swashbuckling adventure film is charming and fun.  Nothing too serious.  Nothing too heavy.  Pretty women, handsome men, daring-do, and some humor for color.  Good times.

    I read the second volume of Prophet, which continues to amp up the Dune-type insanity.  I’m really loving how crazy this book is.  Can’t wait to see where it all ends up.

How to Train Your Dragon 2:  There are some bits near the end that I wasn’t enamored of, but overall, this is a pretty good sequel to the surprisingly good How to Train Your Dragon.  I like the cast of characters and the setting created.  The animation is quite good.  And they do a fantastic job of giving the dragons, particularly Toothless, a great deal of personality.  These are the kinds of fantasy films I’d have gone absolutely mad for as a lad (and still dig as an old man).  And the comic relief doesn’t suck.

The Innocents:  A well shot and creepy horror film that adds little to the genre, The Innocents is perfectly watchable.  If you’re in the mood for something like The Haunting, this is a good option.  The performances are good and the mood is thick.  The story is a bit blah, but what do you expect.  Ghost stories, especially haunted house stories, all pretty much play out the same way.

Bluebeard:  If it wasn’t for the totally exploitative use of hunting footage, where we’re shown real animals of various types really getting shot and killed, I would be singing this film’s praises.  Excepting that, it’s campy fun of the highest order.  Richard Burton is so far over the top you have to wonder if he even knew there was a top.  The women are pretty, the clothes are optional, and the comedy is weirdly good.  Again, if it wasn’t for the real animal killing footage, I think I’d have run right out and bought a copy.

    On Friday afternoon, I read the new humorous book, Fun with Kirk and Spock, a parody of the old Dick and Jane books.  It's very cute and funny.  I love me some classic Trek.

The Golden Goose:  Not one of the better German folk tale adaptations I’ve seen, this one is more annoying than good.  There are some good bits, and it teaches (as fairy tales do) some valuable lessons.  But the songs kind of suck, and the constant laughing gets creepy quick.

Elena and Her Men:  I’ve liked several Jean Renoir films, and I love Ingrid Bergman.  But this movie never got my attention.  I didn’t connect.  I suppose it’s cute, and there are some good scenes.  However, I never became invested in the characters or the story.  And honestly, I didn’t really like Bergman in it.

Demetrius and the Gladiators:  Possibly more ham-fisted than The Robe, and sadly lacking in Richard Burton, this OK sequel does feature a good performance from William Marshall and some gladiator fighting.  Not much else, sadly.

    Co-Dork Brad is at the San Diego Comic Con, sending reports back.  So far, the two most interesting tidbits to come out of the con are about the Godzilla sequel that’s going to feature Mothra, Rodan, and my favorite all time kaiju, King Ghidorah, and that there are plans to do a Skull Island film.  My hope is that this is a return adventure to the birthplace of King Kong, and not some kind of prequel or reboot.  There’s no reason the story shouldn’t be a straight-up sequel to 2005’s Kong.  And one of my complaints about that movie (which I love) was that they didn’t spend nearly enough time exploring the island and its history/mythology.  Fingers crossed.

Godzilla Against Mechagodzilla:  I like the story of the disgraced soldier who redeems herself through piloting Mechagodzilla.  And this one has some pretty cool fighting.  But anyone who’s survived trashy 80s sci-fi/horror films knows, you don’t use the body parts of killers when you make your killing machines.  Don’t do it.

    I didn’t finish it, as it’s kind of like reading the Bible (or worse, 1960s Marvel comics), but I’ve plowed through a good deal the first volume of Jack Katz’s First Kingdom.  I like it a lot.  There’s something magical about it, like golden age science fiction, classic myth, and some nameless something.  Very cool.

-Matthew J. Constantine

Dork Art: Mondo Returns To Stark Trek

Wow.  I thought Mondo was done with the Star Trek license (their last collaboration was way back in August of 2012 with Todd Slater's The Corbomite Maneuver), but come tomorrow afternoon at some random time they'll be releasing not one, but TWO prints for rabid Trekkies everywhere.  My favorite is the above Matt Taylor print showcasing probably the most iconic Star Trek episode, "Arena."  It doesn't get much more entertaining than William Shatner vs The Gorn Captain, aka the second coolest rubber suited lizard man (even Trek must bow before Godzilla).  The Arena poster measures 20 x 36, is limited to 175 copies, and runs $45.  Good luck scoring one tomorrow; I fear I may have to buckle down and tackle the secondary market for this one.  The other print is from Kevin Dart and involves possibly one of my least favorite episodes, "What Are Little Girls Made Of." No matter how many stone dildos that ep features, I cannot get excited about Nurse Chapel's condescending tone.  The print measures 18 x 24, is limited to 175 copies (varient is 85 copies), and runs $40 (variant is $60).  Hopefully, this is just Mondo gearing up for a second wave of Trek goodies.  I'm still waiting on posters for The Search for Spock & The Final Frontier - come on, you know you want a Tyler Stout "Row Row Row Your Boat."

--Brad