At last, Serenity

3. October 2005

After much anticipation, I finally got to see Serenity a few hours ago. I’m going to discuss it, and some of the libertarian commentary I’ve read about it, and there will be spoilers aplenty, so if you haven’t seen the movie yet, I have one recommendation to share:

Watch the series first. The 13 episodes are available on DVD, and if you’re worried you won’t have time to view all of them before the movie goes away, at least watch the 2-hour pilot first. The movie does relate who the characters are, their backgrounds, and their relationships, but in some cases does so briefly enough that if you sneeze at the wrong time you’ll miss it.

Hereafter there be spoilers, so if you don’t wish to be spoiled, go away now and come back after you’ve seen the movie.

You’ve been warned.

While “mainstream” reviews of the movie were largely favorable, I saw some negative responses from certain “hard core” libertarians, such as Clair Wolfe. This surprised and somewhat puzzled me, at first, and then I ran across a spoiler which I think provides part of the reason for this negativity — two principal characters, Hoban “Wash” Washburn, the jocular pilot, and Shepherd Book, the wizened preacher, get killed by badguys.

Both of these characters were very likeable, and provided a relaxed counterpoint to the tightly-wound Captain Reynolds, his faithful and nearly-as-tightly-wound second-in-command Zoe, and the nihilisticly-brutal Jayne. I think Claire and the other critics took these deaths as a personal affront. (In fact, one critic later backed off a bit and allowed as how this is exactly what was bothering her.)

(Secondary spoiler alert — if you haven’t read L. Neil Smith’s Pallas or The Crystal Empire, but plan to later, skip the next paragraph.)

Such a reaction is not surprising. El Neil told me that he received death threats for killing off the character of Gretchen Singh in Pallas. (I told him this pissed me off, too. I haven’t told him yet I was also pissed off when he killed both the first and second loves of Sedric in The Crystal Empire. )

But as Neil also noted in his space-swash-buckler Bretta Martyn, when you go into combat (or a dangerous adventure), you’re going to take damage. In many cases this means people you care about get killed. Purportedly, writer/producer Joss Whedon made a similar point in response to the criticism. He said, essentially, that it was necessary to kill some of the central characters to make the story “real,” and not just a light-hearted romp.

I think most of the “awake” libertarian activists understand that as the real world gets more dangerous and difficult, some of us are going to die, too. And it won’t always be heroicly, the way Book died. It will be seemingly unnecessarily, the way Wash died.

That is, we understand it on a dispassionate, intellectual level. When it actually happens, it will rip our hearts out.

When I think about this, I think perhaps writer/producer Joss Whedon has done us a service, giving us a bit of an emotional innoculation against the grief we have coming.

But aside from the deaths, I think another aspect of the movie that disappointed the aforementioned critics, is that the movie was not a TV series episode writ large. It was darker, and faster-paced. It was more centered on the character River Tam — her development into something like a Buffy-style battle-babe was hinted at in the TV series, but it’s realization in the film took some people aback.

(Actually, I had anticipated this and rather liked it. At the point where the blast-doors open and we see River standing over the two-dozen dead and dying Reavers, a blood-drenched blade in each hand, her busom heaving in the afterglow of battle, I turned to Neil and told him half-seriously, “I think I’m in love.”)

So did I like the movie? Yes I did, very much. It’s not the greatest libertarian flick of all time — that has yet to be produced. (I have hopes for the screen adaptation of Robert Heinlein’s The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress now being penned by sometime Whedon partner Tim Minear.)

But Serenity makes some very strong statements about the evils of a powerful central government. It makes a statement about the evil that can happen when “do-gooders” try to improve humanity. It makes a statement about the evil that can happen when, as the unnamed Alliance agent/assassin shows, one suspends one’s own sense of responsibility for one’s actions, and places his moral agency in the hands of a collective.

An aside about the Alliance assassin. This has got to be the most — I’m sorry, but this is the best word — serene badguy I’ve seen in a long time. He goes about his business with a Zen-like calm, without any anger or rancor whatsoever, and sometimes even showing a mild sympathy for the people he murders. Because he’s not doing it for personal reasons, he’s doing it for the Alliance. He doesn’t know or want to know exactly why he’s been told to do the things he does, he places his absolute faith in the wisdom of the Alliance “Parliament,” that they are only seeking the greater good. This has got to be the most truly selfless villain in moviedom. Ayn Rand herself couldn’t have done better.

And it does all this in an action-packed space adventure with intriguing characters, top-notch production values, and first class scripting. It’s hard to expect better than this.

Early reports are that Serenity earned a bit over $10 million in box office during its first weekend, coming in second place behind the Jodie Foster thriller, Flightplan, which earned $15 million the same weekend, and just ahead of Tim Burton’s The Corpse Bride, which earned a little under $10 million.

Not exactly Lord of the Rings numbers, but good enough that I think we’ll be seeing more of Captain Reynolds and the Serenity crew on either the large or small screen, in the not-so-distant future.

And that will be a very shiny thing, indeed.

Kategorie Posts |

18 Kommentare zu diesem Beitrag »

  Frank schrieb @ October 3rd, 2005 at 9:38 am

$10.1M is too low. In todays hollywood, if a movie doesn’t at least make its budget in the first weekend ($40M for Serenity), then it’s considered a loss. However, some movies can pull a profit over time in a slow burn domestically, and with world wide release and DVD sales. However, that’s too slow for return on investment. Odds are low there will be more films unless the numbers can be repeated consistantly over the next few weeks. So, go see it a few more times. I will.

  Anders schrieb @ October 3rd, 2005 at 9:47 am

Alan Tudyk, the actor who portrayed Wash, even thought that Wash would make a “sympathetic kill” some time later in the series. I’ve seen thoughts elsewhere that Book was a retired Operative, which makes sense. The religious aspects of Book mirror those of the Operative, who accuses each person he kills of one sin or another. I had avoided spoilers before seeing the movie (although I knew that two actors were not signed for sequels, but not which actors not why), so the deaths had some impact. I’m glad Whedon did not write Serenity with sequels in mind, but left everything on the field.

  Sunni schrieb @ October 3rd, 2005 at 10:32 am

Interesting take, Scott. Most of my quibbles with the movie stem from River’s development, but not so much the Buffy angle. You pegged the Operative nicely, too (that’s what the Alliance badguy is called at the imdb page for Serenity) — he shows how horrific blind faith can be. He’s the typical, believing gov-crat writ large …

  Mary Lou schrieb @ October 3rd, 2005 at 7:54 pm

I liked Serenity too, Scott … but I understand Claire’s POV, also … it was a GOOD movie, just not a “great one”, and unfortunately, we were all hoping for “great”:-) … and I HATED River turning into Buffy, cause I’m really really tired of the cliche warrior ninja girl saves the day … but the other female characters are very well done, so that makes up for it. Mal is just too gorgeous for words, BTW, from a ladies’ POV. But my main disappointment was … the theme song, my favorite thing about the series, wasn’t SUNG at the closing credits. Boo….. they “took the sky away from me”.

  Steve schrieb @ October 3rd, 2005 at 9:18 pm

Scott - you nailed it, especially the considerations of how Whedon took on even the “googoos” and the utter amorality, collective-conscience approach of the Operative. I also like the speculation from Anders about whether Book might have been one himself (wondering what other state secret HE found out that would have turned him, as exposing the truth about Miranda had its effect on the current Ops-dude? Now THERE is a sequel idea, and a reason to use Ron Glass again, in a recent past portion of HIS story, played by a younger actor most of the time!) Wonderful review, dude!

  Tom Ender schrieb @ October 3rd, 2005 at 11:28 pm

Occasionally box office numbers rise when word spreads about a good movie. I think that could happen with Serenity. #2 on opening weekend isn’t bad.

Like you Scott, I didn’t mind the development of River’s character. Looking back on her story, it seems almost inevitable. I’ve not followed Buffy (or Angel) closely, although the rest of my clan are big fans, but isn’t Buffy the “leader of the pack” ? I find it very hard to believe that River is going to assume that role on Serenity while Mal is Captain.

I expect the next Firefly project will have more on Mal and Inara. It seems to be hinted by events at the end of Serenity. However, that’s really getting too speculative, too soon. Right now, I’m still savoring my second viewing of Serenity. I was able to catch more dialog this time, less noise in the theater on Monday.

  Sunni schrieb @ October 4th, 2005 at 9:55 am

Tom wrote: ” I find it very hard to believe that River is going to assume that role [leader of the pack] on Serenity while Mal is Captain.”
No doubt! Mal doesn’t appear to ever cede control easily. The gripe I had with River is how easily/quickly she “got better”. Although, given her super-intelligence, perhaps that’s to be expected … but it still seemed facile to me.

  Scott Bieser schrieb @ October 4th, 2005 at 2:37 pm

I think the principal drawback to the movie was that there was too much crammed into it. As if Whedon was figuring, “This is probably my last shot to get this story told, so I’d better get it all in.”

I don’t think River is another Buffy. She does carry the Whedon theme of strong warrior/woman in an unexpectedly petite form, but there are many possible variants on that theme. In the final scene, River does assert her position as the new pilot, but then also shows her admiration for Mal as a moral leader.

If there is a continuation of this story, I would expect some new characters to be brought into the ensemble, and possibly some tension between the maturing River and the peak-of-her-form Inara. (After all, now that her brother Simon has found a mate, who is River going to look for?)

One story line could deal with the scarred psyche of Zoe, and either her eventual ruination or redemption.

  Tom Ender schrieb @ October 4th, 2005 at 5:06 pm

Sunni wrote “The gripe I had with River is how easily/quickly she ‘got better’. Although, given her super-intelligence, perhaps that’s to be expected … but it still seemed facile to me.”

I understand that. Joe (my son, for those who don’t know) still doesn’t regard River as “better” (he missed that nuance to which you refer). However, Simon had been treating her during the time of the later Firefly episode’s and presumably also during the intervening time.

The truth about the people of Miranda had finally been discovered, which probably had been plotted by Mr. Whedon as the cause of River’s nightmares. Even though that truth had not yet been spread, for River, it may have been solved.

  The Metropolis Times schrieb @ October 4th, 2005 at 5:30 pm

Meddling

I saw the film Serenity earlier today. There are some minor spoilers in this blog, but nothing that will ruin any suspense or give stuff away, don’t worry. It’s pretty sci-fi standard- the evil empire is trying to tie up some loose ends in their inte…

  Matt schrieb @ October 5th, 2005 at 5:01 am

My #1 complaint was Book dying before we got to learn any of those secrets about his past that have been dangled before our eyes like a cat toy since he was first introduced. I’m only slightly more curious than is sane, but I think a lot of great storytelling opportunities went out the window when he got killed. (Yeah, he might indeed have been an ex-Operative…I wondered about that possibility on my way out of the theater. But I didn’t pay $9 for a ticket and $2 for parking just to get stories about the characters that I have to make up for myself.)

  Sunni schrieb @ October 5th, 2005 at 8:31 am

Scott, I agree with you that River isn’t another Buffy, in many ways. And there are lots of interesting directions future stories could take. Matt, I think some of them will include flashbacks to show more of Shepherd Book’s history. Wasn’t it announced somewhere that all nine cast members had signed for … another movie, or something?

  Anton Sherwood schrieb @ October 9th, 2005 at 1:08 am

Given that River was a gifted dancer and that she reads minds, “Ninja River” is hardly out of the blue.

  Anders schrieb @ October 12th, 2005 at 11:15 am

Given the drastic box office dip on the second weekend for Serenity, I doubt strongly that we’ll see more stories from Whedon’s sf world. That’s a shame, but it won’t be the first time good stories died from lack of attention.

  Scott Bieser schrieb @ October 12th, 2005 at 11:26 am

Probably not on the big screen, I agree.

However, the demonstration of a dedicated following offers a possibility that it _could_ be revived on the Sci-Fi Channel, if contractual issues with FOX can be worked out reasonably.

And if not, well, that’s okay too. Just getting the movie made and released is a huge victory for our cause. Worldwide box office will make back the investors’ nut, and there will almost certainly be DVD sales, and the memes of the story will continue working their way through the culture.

  Powell Gammill schrieb @ October 13th, 2005 at 9:42 am

Killing Wash as an aside manner was great. I still love hearing audience members gasp, and occasionally cry.

By killing Wash the audience begins to seriously wonder if any of them (especially Jayne;) are going to get out of there alive in the final climax.

My only major quibbles are some poor sound in spots, and River not covering both herself and the room with blood and parts. But I guess PG-13 might be endangered. Seeing blood running off of her face while she is doing the math when the Alliance soldiers showed up would have been an even more creepy River (and been more “realistic”).

I have some optimism that the movie will hold a $5 million 3rd week. People have been getting co-workers and family, not otherwise possessed to go see the movie, to go see the movie. Word of mouth gets its final test this weekend to see whether Serenity hangs around, or hits the bargain theaters.

I am guessing there is a fair chance for renewed interest in a TV series by producers. How many cast would return to the small screen, after Hollywood got a look at them, and the fact they can act is a question. I really don’t see a sequel unless Serenity picks up word of mouth steam.

http://noonalljudges.com

http://freedomsphoenix.com

  Fran Van Cleave schrieb @ October 16th, 2005 at 7:01 pm

Though we both felt that the pace was too fast, Kent and I enjoyed the Serenity movie. The dialogue in the series may have been a tad sharper, but overall it was very well done — I especially liked the albatross metaphor. The subplot with Simon & Kaylee was great, and River’s backstory was wonderful. Didn’t hurt at all that it made the Libertarian message the central theme!

  Megan schrieb @ October 18th, 2005 at 12:58 am

Most of the actors Whedon has worked with and killed off in the past have returned to their series. It’s a common joke that you aren’t secure on one of his shows until you’ve been killed off. I wouldn’t worry about Book’s story being over yet.

Dein Kommentar

Folgende HTML-Tags sind erlaubt:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>