I could have chosen one of hundreds of quotes from various Whedon interviews over the years to set this brief (and somewhat random) rant off, but this is particularly apt:
“I love genre. I love fantasy. I love science fiction. I love horror. I love musicals. I love finding a different way to express what I want to say. And I think, ultimately, it works best for me—because otherwise, it would be boring and didactic and I wouldn’t know what the hell I was doing. Genre helps me with structure, and structure helps me get through the day.”
— Joss Whedon, creator of “Buffy The Vampire Slayer” and “Firefly”
It says a lot about the state of the arts and of intellectual life in the West that, in the past couple of years, two of the most powerful critiques of the Bush doctrine have been campy space operas: The Chronicles of Riddick, which I reviewed back here and Serenity, which I recommend you watch after having seen the DVDs of the cancelled TV series upon which it is based. The latter I saw a week or so before I left Cambridge and was the best fun I’d had at the cinema in ages and—unlike most of the stuff that claims to do so—it really does make you think. As a writer for the screen Joss Whedon is up there with Billy Wilder and David Mamet—and I am not exaggerating. (Apparently Whedon is the third generation of scriptwriters in his family.)
Interestingly, Salon.com’s review of Serenity (cheekily reproduced from behind a pay-only barrier here) describes the TV show (as opposed to the movie) as being like a good novel. Current metropolitan opinion of what constitutes a good novel is John Banville’s The Sea and, unusually, I think if I read it I would agree. Even now, years afterwards, I think The Book Of Evidence is one of the finest contemporary novels I have ever read. I suspect this one is even better. But it’s so rare that I agree with “current metropolitan opinion” on any assessment it makes of what is “good” art. So much about the serious novel, or “fine” art, or contemporary music or art-house cinema isn’t just bad, it’s monumentally stupid. Why is high art so dumb these days and low art so exhilaratingly smart? Does the talent follow the money? Or are the offspring of the rich and dull who tend to make (0r decide what qualifies as) the former just congenitally slow?
Can we hold Whedon responsible for the actions of all his leading ladies too?
http://www.westminstervillage.co.uk/pivot/entry.php?id=71
Am I the only one who thinks this smacks of a PR campaign?
And a crap one at that.
Actually I found Serenity to be quite a powerful criticism of nanny-statism and the lefty impulse to “improve” others, which, in the memorable words of Captain Mal, I don’t hold with. Plus a healthy dose of individualism, the recognition that you sometimes need to use violence against the bad guys, and one of said bad guys being very enamoured of a “means justifying ends” argument.
Anyway, one piece of art that I’ve been enjoying lately that hasn’t been shortlisted for any High Art prizes is Neal Stephenson’s Baroque cycle. So broad agreement with the theme, then.
Hardly a ‘leading lady’ – guest role in one episode.
Good spot Steve, I’ve never watched the programme – but you are clearly an expert. 😉
If that’s true then I’m happy to state that it’s an even crapper PR campaign than I had previously suggested.
🙂
Whedon rocks. Though I think your comparison with Wilder and Mamet is somewhat forced – his lines can sometimes grate on the ear, and although I think he has the potential he has yet to prove himself a bona fide genius in the league of Wilder. Script-wise.
I aim to misbehave…
Yeah, I agree with the last comment. Mamet writes the best dialogue to be heard on film — or at the theatre. Dynamic.
Wilder has to be judged for his work as a whole. Some Like it Hot is pretty well a perfect movie.
Whedon is not yet — and may never be — fit to sit at the same table.
I’ve liked all Neal Stephenson’s work up to Cryptonomicon. The Baroque trilogy started out promisingly but soon you could almost hear him muttering “Must be longer! Not enough pages yet.” I gave up a quarter of the way into the second one. His two main characters just aren’t all that.
If you liked Serenity, you’ll love Firefly. I found the entire series online (aired versions).
http://meatheadedlibertarian.blogspot.com/2005/10/serenityfirefly.html
Is my post, just click on the link.
I’m trying to get people to link to the Firefly series because it’ll drive up the box office an increase the movie’s market share. And Josh Whedon does rock.
– It’s important to reward good work.
Agree almost 100%
Saw Serenity last week and was hugely entertained.
In contrast just watched the last episode of Heimat 3 on TV and was bored, irritated and disappointed almost beyond measure.
If that is the best high culture can do give me low culture any day.
But Whedon another Mamet or Wilder? – God no – he’s been responsible for way too much dross (watch the whole of the misbegotten last two series of Buffy and the third series of Angel on DVD and then try that comparison again).
However keep him away from open-ended TV series and let him make some more films and maybe he could end up as sort of harder-edged Spielberg (or even better a Lucas who can actually write dialogue).
Rereading the Baroque cycle now – I’m a Stephenson groupie – it’s just beautiful.
Must go out and see Serenity – Firefly never made it to my TV screen.
[…] fiction movies that could be interpreted as commentaries on the war in Iraq and the War on Terror: Serenity (itself explicitly modelled on the classic westerns) and The Chronicles of Riddick. To summarize […]