TV Shoutout: Marvel's Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D

Review: Captain America: Civil War (2016)

Rating: 9.5 out of 10

2016 is indeed the year of superhero battles. So I can’t really do this review without first mentioning Batman v. Superman: Dawn Of Justice (reviewed here), which was previously released this year, because one is a masterclass of what not to do, while the other is a prime example of how to do it right. While BvS shat all over the characters in an overwrought and boring plot, Captain America: Civil War let all 12 of the characters shine and treated them with the utmost respect.

Respect is one thing that jumped to me the most. While having major disagreement in their opinion, Steve Rogers (a.k.a Captain America, played by Chris Evans) respects Tony Stark (a.k.a. Iron Man, played by Robert Downey Jr.) so much, and vice versa. Differences aside, they and the rest of their team genuinely considers each other as friends, and it pains them that they’re not on the same side. It’s a difficult situation to be in, and as unlikely as it may sound, Civil War succeeded not just as pandering of epic fight sequences; it’s also a character-based drama.

Civil War does have its trademark Marvel quick quips and fun moments, but for the most part, it’s an emotionally heavy film. I was almost emotionally exhausted after the end of the film–but for good reason, it was something you only feel after a really good film. Avengers movies (let’s be honest, Civil War is practically an Avengers movie) have always had big stakes, but they always had lighter feel to it, primarily because they usually have clear-cut victories. Civil War, though, typical for these “versus” kind of films, have a largely Pyrrhic victory that leaves both sides kinda broken. I repeat, which is a good thing, because that means the filmmakers treated the story with the gravity it deserves. Hat-tip to Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely as writers, and Russo Brothers as directors (all also worked in Captain America: The Winter Soldier), my favorite MCU film.

If I made it sound like it was an excruciating movie, I’m sorry, it really is not! It was still a really fun film that made me laughed out loud quite a few times. Spider-Man especially was one of the highlight of the movie. While I was initially unsure with the decision to de-age Peter Parker and the casting of Tom Holland, eventually it worked so well within the movie. The amateurish vibe of Spider-Man contrasted so well against our veteran heroes who carry the weight of the world on their shoulder. Also, the comments that come out to and from Spider-Man are just gold (”Remember that really old movie Empire Strikes Back?”). Black Panther also made memorable first appearance. In the limited screentime that he has, Chadwick Boseman played the character with such grace, dignity, and power definitely fit for a prince and a superhero–with enough glimpse of his backstory to get us excited for his upcoming solo movie.

The fight scenes are downright amazing. Its street fights are as amazing and as inventive as the ones in The Winter Soldier, but the superhero fights are on another level. Remember the ballet-like final fight in The Avengers? Civil War definitely rival that with 100% more excitement because they’re not fighting faceless minions, they’re fighting each other with each of their own “gimmick” and style.

But as much as Marvel tries to make each movie accessible to new filmgoers, Civil War is definitely more geared towards the people who’ve followed Marvel Cinematic Universe (particularly the Captain America and The Avengers movies) for a while. New viewers definitely would understand the plot, but they wouldn’t necessarily understand the gravity and details of the whole situation.

The plot is as simple and as difficult as you make it to be. The backbone of the story is simple: after the destruction of the town Sokovia (in The Avengers: Age of Ultron), United Nations wants to take lead of The Avengers because they deem the heroes dangerous if they go unchecked. Some of The Avengers agrees, some don’t. Even now, I’m not sure who I’m siding with, and the movie itself does not tell you which side is right one. Honestly, as much as I love Steve Rogers as a character, I’m more inclined to siding Stark (though I’m sure it’ll backfire one way or another in the future), and it pains me so much that Rogers couldn’t agree with him. Also, I’ve been wanting to tell you about a specific scene, I might as well put it here: In a scene that mirrors his first appearance in Captain America: The First Avenger, with the last of his strength, Rogers stood up from the ground against Iron Man–all in his Captain America glory–and says, “I could do this all day.” (If you’ve watched the first Captain America, you’d understand the significance.) It was a heartbreaking scene that floored me, but that’s a testament of how much the filmmakers understand the characters that they created.

TL;DR Not your run-of-the-mill superhero movie, Captain America: Civil War is a dense character-based drama with a whole lot of action. Heads up though, while this is a Captain America film, due to the nature of the story it really has an equal screentime between Rogers and Tony Stark, in case you have different expectations about it.

Review: The Spectacular Now (2013)

Rating: 9.0 of 10

Sutter Keely (Miles Teller) was a party boy who met and fell in love with plain, average girl, Aimee Finicky (Shailene Woodley). The plot just writes itself, really, but it was what happens between them and how they happen that makes the movie shine above others. First and foremost, what makes this movie unique for me was the portrayal of high school that was devoid of the typical high school stereotypes. Cliques weren't in wars against other cliques, people actually treat others nicely, girls don’t get makeovers, the ex weren't an insufferable b*tch, and Sutter—one of the most popular kid in the school—could still be a joke. Basically, the kids were portrayed as human beings. The Spectacular Now has the courage to let story and characters be the drama the movie needs, instead of milking cheap stereotypes.

The Spectacular Now really is not teen movie (it's actually R-rated), rather it's a well-made drama that is incidentally set in the teenage years. While it has an assuring amount of sweet scenes, for me The Spectacular Now is mostly just a coming-of-age story instead of a full-on love story. The film was mostly told from the perspective of Sutter and how his life changed throughout his time with Aimee. We don't really see Aimee's life or her point of view (what's up with the drinking?), and for once I'm actually okay with that. Aimee is definitely not a one-dimensional character though—we certainly have a firm grasp of what her character really is about—we just don't get to see the details of her life and that's okay. This is Sutter's story, and that's enough.

The thing that propels this movie is definitely the rich, sweet chemistry between the actors. Miles Teller's Sutter exudes this good-natured charisma and relatability, with equal amounts of effervescence and anguish, and self-destruction, while Woodley's Aimee was pure, unconditional, and unrestricted—that was actually the bane of their relationship. Even the supporting characters were perfect, giving the right amounts of pathos to each of their characters: Brie Larson, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Kyle Chandler, and Bob Odenkirk. They were all understated but memorable, especially Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Sutter's older sister with a mysterious tumultuous past with the family. The movie itself was pretty slow with relatively little drama, but layers and layers of characterization like that makes a worthwhile viewing experience.

TL;DR A teen-focused movie like no other, The Spectacular Now provides lovely, tender antidote to our otherwise cynical lives.

Mini-Review and Rant: Monsters University, Anti-femininity, and Some Other Stuff

So, this time I am going to have a little rant. I always think that feminism is important, but I usually try not to hit my readers over the head about it. But not today. Because oh boy, I have a lot to say about Monsters University.

I am not sure why Monsters University particularly irritated me. Probably because it’s Pixar, and I do expect better from them. Pixar is famous for producing high-quality, critically acclaimed children’s animation movies, some of which are my absolute favorites. They are also usually excellent at handling femininity and masculinity, and the majority of their movies are non-gendered (neither a girl’s film or a boy’s film). The second reason is probably because I just finished Pop Culture Detective’s thoughtful video essay about “The Complicity of Geek Masculinity on the Big Bang Theory”, so the topic about masculinity and femininity is fresh in my mind.

Anyway, let’s review Monsters University! (Includes spoilers for Monsters University and Monsters Inc.)

Monsters University (or MU for simplicity in this review/rant) is a prequel to Pixar’s Monsters Inc. (or simply Inc). MU tells the story about how Mike Wazowski and James P. “Sulley” Sullivan met in university, way before they worked for Monsters Inc. In MU, Mike is not a scary monster, but he is determined to be a Scarer and works hard for it. Sulley, on the other hand, is a preternaturally gifted Scarer and serves as Mike’s rival for most part of the film.

MU, on its own, is a good film. It has good set up, a definite arc, and satisfying conclusion. It has characters we care about, and it’s pretty funny too. But it’s when we think beyond the scope of the film that things start to get… shakey. First of all, the story arc of MU is immediately undermined by Inc. MU is about how Mike works to achieve his dream to be a Scarer in the company, but we know in Inc that Mike does not even get to be a Scarer. In Inc, Mike serves as Sulley’s partner, which is basically an assistant. So during MU’s runtime, we already know that all of Mike’s hard work in MU eventually will never pay off and he will forever live in Sulley’s shadow.

Also, Inc’s whole premise is about how Mike and Sulley revolutionize their industry by retiring Scream Energy and switching to Laugh Energy instead, because they met Boo. But instead, all of MU is about glorifying the act of scaring. I know, the events in Inc happens after MU, so Laugh Energy is not a thing yet, but there are ways to incorporate a more cohesive theme throughout the two movies. Probably one of their friends from Oozma Kappa could make an off-hand remark about how they wish there’s another energy source other than children’s scream–just something to foreshadow what will happen in Inc. But there’s no such thing in MU, instead MU is laser-focused at idolizing the scaring industry. Which, again, is fitting when we think about Mike’s arc in just MU, but completely falls apart once we consider the broader theme from Inc. 

And that’s all I can say about MU, from the filmmaking standpoint. From here on out, I want to discuss about the representation of social themes in MU. Let the rant begin!

Our protagonist is Mike. Kind, small, with big round eyes, and is underappreciated for his whole life. While the antagonists, the fraternity brothers of Roar Omega Roar or ROR (pictured above)--and also Sulley to a certain degree--are big and muscular, cocky, aggressive, and intimidating. I think it’s safe to assume that ROR is meant to represent the ultimate form of masculinity (they’re fraternity bros, for starters), and, as a consequence Mike and the Oozma Kappas (pictured below) represent a more feminine form of masculinity. You might accuse me of “reading too much into it”, which I think is fair assessment if every other little thing does not reinforce my point.

I also know what you’re thinking: Isn’t it a good thing for feminism, that our protagonists (Mike and the Oozma Kappas) are the more feminine of the bunch? Not in MU, because their whole arc is that they really, really want to be like Sulley and ROR. Also, the movie is relentless at making fun of characters for their femininity. In fact, baking and hospitality, which is usually viewed as a part of femininity, was literally spelled out loud as “L-A-M-E” by the movie. When the movie wants to make fun of a character, they used glitter, flowers, stuffed animals, heart signs, and dream journals with unicorn and golden stars.

The message of Monsters University is clear: masculinity is coveted, while femininity is viewed as lesser and deserves to be made fun of.

I think it’s no coincidence that there’s no notable female character in MU, aside from Dean Hardscrabble. Hardscrabble is one of the good things in MU–she’s legitimately scary, firm, but kind. Other smaller female roles are Squishy’s mother (who is mostly used as comic relief), and sorority groups HSS (the goth one, pronounced “hiss”, who I don’t even think has any speaking role) and PNK (pronounced “pink”, because they’re girls. GET IT??). PNK consists of six non-descript, identical cheerleader-type girls, because…. GURRLS, am I right?

In a comedy movie, it’s important to ask ourselves, “Who do we laugh at and, and who do we laugh with?” Answer: We laugh at the Oozma Kappas. Always. So eventhough Oozma Kappa eventually wins the Scare Games, the takeaway is that they won despite their more feminine form of masculinity, not because of it.

Which is a shame, because none of that animosity towards femininity exist in Inc. No character in Inc is outright masculine or feminine, except the ultra-feminine and flirty Celia (Mike’s girlfriend) but she’s never shown in a particularly negative light. Sulley in Inc is not even particularly masculine. In fact, his defining characteristics in Inc are his kindness and his paternal relationship with Boo.

And I want to emphasize that even though I am here to talk about the portrayal of femininity in MU, it is not about the women. It is about the men. With MU as example, it is clear that feminism is not just a woman’s fight–it’s everybody’s fight. Look at how miserable Mike’s life is in MU. Even though he is kind, smart, and works hard, he is belittled because he does not fit the standard definition of masculinity. Mike is only miserable because of the arbitrary societal rule of “how men should be like". So it is clear that misogyny not only affects women, it affects men too. As Emma Watson once wisely said (paraphrased) about feminism, we can only be truly free if women are allowed to be strong and men are allowed to be sensitive. But even in the end of MU, Mike and the Oozma Kappas still end up conforming to the idea of toxic masculinity.

There’s another thing that I want to discuss about MU. I did point out that the entire plot of MU is about glorifying the scaring industry, which is fine in itself because it fits Mike’s arc (a Scarer is not a real career choice anyway). But the movie also goes out of its way to depict other geekier career choices like scream-can architect, or more creative ones like dancer, as–for lack of better word–lame. So MU basically teaches children who watches the movie that a career in STEM and in Arts is neither an important nor fulfilling career choice (Direct quote from the Dean, “Scariness is a true measure of a monster. If you’re not scary, what kind of a monster are you?”). That’s totally not cool, Monsters University, not cool. (I could add a paragraph’s worth of rant about how MU depicted Scarer as an ultimate “masculine” career choice, but I digress. The article is as long as it is.)

So… yeah. This rant/review is all over the place because I have a lot of things to say, but I hope this will give you a new perspective. Pixar, you could do better.

Web Shoutout: Actors on Actors

Welcome to Web Shoutout, a series highlighting interesting places in the interwebs about movies and filmmaking! (Check out the previous Web Shoutout here).

This time I want to talk about Variety’s Actors on Actors series on Youtube. These days, I think most people seem to forget that acting is an art--and a very challenging one at that. It’s easy for us to forget about that and get lost in the glitz-and-glam part of a celebrity life, because they don’t really get to talk much about the craft of acting. Most interviews that we see are either promotional interviews or a 5-minute conversation in a talk show (that undoubtedly will include a cute random trivia). Which, they’re not inherently bad but they always leave me wanting more

Distinguishing itself from those kinds of interviews, I find Actors on Actors incredibly delightful to see, if only because it brings me so much joy to see a conversation between two people that relate and respect one another. Obviously, we also get to hear in-depth stories about their experiences as an actor, the roles that they picked, and how they do their craft. I’ll just leave you a with several videos to enjoy, and also don’t forget to take a look at their channel and Actors on Actors playlist.

1. Ryan Reynolds and Taraji P Henson - Full Conversation

2. Andrew Garfield and Amy Adams - Why Playing Spider-Man Broke Andrew Garfield’s Heart

3. Octavia Spencer and Dev Patel - Full Conversation

4. Benedict Cumberbatch and Edward Norton - Full Conversation

Subscribe to Variety’s channel.

TV Shoutout: Continuum

Another underrated series of recent years, Continuum.

What it is about: A cop (Rachel Nichols) from the year 2077 gets stranded in present time--making her the only one who can stop future terrorist group Liber8, with no way to go back home.

Why you should watch it: 

Kiera, and basically every other supporting characters

We have Rachel Nichols in cat suit. Need I say more??? Actually, yes, because Kiera Cameron (Nichols) herself is a very interesting character. She’s a very skilled and determined policewoman, but born in a time a lot different than ourselves so she does have different values. She’s also a mother and a wife, and that makes temporal separation from her original time a little problematic, to say the least. She’s not perfect, but she’s perfectly relatable no matter what crazy situation she’s in.

But the rest of the characters are incredible too--both in terms of the actors, or the way the characters’ stories are handled. Throughout its 4 seasons, all of the characters changes and grows a lot, and it’s a beautiful thing to watch. Alec Sadler (Erik Knudsen), the tech-wiz kid who helps Kiera out with her gadgets, has the single most interesting character trajectory ever written, but that’s like picking your favorite child. All of the characters are worth watching for.

No one’s a “good” guy

We thought we knew who the bad guys are, but we actually don’t. I don’t mean it in a doom and gloom sort of way, or in the “anti hero” sort of way--it’s just with Continuum, nothing has an easy answer.

Curveball, curveball, curveball Oh boy, those curveballs. Continuum has this amazing ability to give us twists that NOBODY SAW COMING. Repeatedly. They’re the kind of twists that don’t cheapen the story at all, instead enrich them. It’s damn good storytelling.

Those sweet, sweet tech Obviously, with Kiera and Liber8 coming from the future, we get to see some cool gadgets. Bulletproof suit? Cloaking device? Continuum got it all. We also get to see the future quite a bit, and learn why 2077 isn’t all fun and games.

But in the end, it’s all about humanity I might be a broken record, but I always say that the best science fiction are the ones that are, in its core, about humanity. This is one of those stories. Continuum never stray from the characters, never stray from how our decisions shape us, and never stray from the repercussions of time travel.

Who should watch it: Unfortunately, this is one of a few shows that I could only confidently recommend to those who are familiar with genre or science fiction. Not because it isn’t “good” enough for anyone else, but because it does necessitate the viewers to have a high level suspension of disbelief, a tolerance for timey-wimey plot, and willingness to be challenged about characters, plot, and even politics. I never want to be limiting about genre, it’s just that sci-fi fans are the ones I reliably know would love those qualities in their entertainment, but if it sounds interesting to you, definitely go for it.

Where you should start: It started out as a procedural, so I think anywhere in season 1 is okay. If you start too far into season 2 you’d miss a lot of its worldbuilding so I wouldn’t recommend that. But as with any show worth watching, I’d definitely recommend starting from the very beginning although the second season, for me, is when the show started to gel a lot better.

Status: Just ended last season. It had 4 seasons total, with the final season being a shortened season (only 6 episodes).

TV Shoutout: Black Mirror

Honestly, I originally intended to write this TV Shoutout in time for the Christmas Special, but I foolishly thought that it airs on the 25th instead of the 16th. But that's okay, because now I can tell you that the special was full of usual Black Mirror greatness. And here it is about the show:

What it is about: Black Mirror is a British dystopian anthology miniseries. The stories for each episode varies but the running theme is humanity and technology, usually set in an imagined 5-or-10-minutes-into-the-future. And for lack of better word, Black Mirror is exactly what the title suggests: our dark reflection of who we are as human being.

Or in shorter words, it's The Twilight Zone for today.

Why you should watch it: Because it is a brilliant satire. It is scifi-esque, but definitely everyone can enjoy it because most times the technologies are incorporated seamlessly into its world, just like ours. In it's heart, Black Mirror is less about flashy gadgets and more about social commentary. What it's not though, is safe or comforting, in the way that some art should not be. It is intended to be shocking and eye-opening. I doubtlessly would not recommend a few episodes (like The National Anthem) for the faint of heart, but it is absolutely worth it. Black Mirror is lovely and funny at times (Charlie Brooker the creator actually did award-winning comedy work), but equally terrifying and heartbreaking, in the best way. Most people who've watched it agree that Black Mirror is one of the best TV series they've encountered, and for good reason. If that does not convince you yet there are more trivial reasons, like the fact that it is beautiful to look at and beautifully directed, and it features familiar brilliant actors from Mad Men, Captain America, Game Of Thrones, etc.

Who should watch it: Those who like great storytelling, sci-fi or not. Those who thought that there's something missing in today's television and demand "more" from their entertainment. Those who think that underneath the flashy and happy exterior, the world is dark and full of terrors. And whether it sounds like Black Mirror is your thing or not, I wholeheartedly encourage you to at least try to watch one of the episodes, because otherwise you might miss one of the masterpieces of modern TV.

Where you should start: It is an anthology (a collection of short stories), so basically you can start at any episode because each episode is self-standing. But if you're squeamish or less tolerable for more "racy" stuff, I do advice you against The National Anthem (season 1 episode 1) at least until you get the hang of the show.

Status: Black Mirror had 2 full seasons (each had 3 episodes) and one Christmas Special (listed as season 3). A full season might be coming in 2015.

Lastly, if I had not succeeded in explaining what Black Mirror is all about, Charlie Brooker the creator/writer might. Here he is talking about the concept and the meaning of Black Mirror:

Rant: Why Is There No Science-Fiction Culture In Indonesia?

The recent release of two Indonesian science-fictional movies made me think: what happened to Indonesian science-fiction (SF) culture, or the lack thereof? The movies in question are, of course, Supernova: Ksatria, Putri, dan Bintang Jatuh which was based on popular novel of the same title and Garuda Superhero, an original Indonesian Batman-esque superhero. I reviewed Supernova and intended to review Garuda Superhero (I ended up just writing a first impression of the trailer). For my failure to fulfill my promise regarding the latter, I'm sorry. I know it may look like I'm a hypocrite, but by the time I found the time to watch it, it had vanished from my chosen theater and before the end of its second week it disappeared completely from all theaters in Jakarta except for one single viewing. I read other people's reviews and the bottomline is that Garuda Superhero is more or less as atrocious as my first impression and apparently is almost as terribly received by moviegoers. Most of the reviews states that aside from being extremely derivative, Indonesia isn't ready to make this kind of film. The question is, why?

To answer, we have to understand what is SF and where did it come from? So in this article I'd discuss the history of SF as we know it (namely Western SF, the biggest SF culture in the world) and also in other parts of the world especially Asia and Indonesia.

Disclaimer: I did read some sources regarding the topic, but by and large this article is absolutely non-academic and might just be the ramblings of a misguided, naive, ignorant 24 year old girl, but I try to do this article justice. Discussions are more than welcome, of course. And brace yourselves, it will be a long post.

SF, with a "science" modifier to its "fiction", is defined by the existence of "novum" of the scientific kind in its stories. Novum literally means "new thing"; that twist that differs it from a tale about ordinary life. So a man in love with a woman is not SF, but a man from 2400 that time-traveled to 1958 and then fall in love with a woman is SF. That example is a crude classification, and there are always some works with arguable definition of novum or science (James Bond and his gadgets sit nicely in the fringe of SF), but that is the general idea.

Hearing the word "science fiction" most people would picture complicated technology and unintelligible conversations about quantum physics and buzzwords about melting positrons. Deriving from that alone, it's not hard to imagine why Indonesia seemingly have no SF culture. Indonesia isn't and never was the cradling bed of science and technology. Not to belittle the work of great Indonesian scientists and engineers (BJ Habibie, Sedijatmo, Warsito Taruno are the famous ones, among many others), but scientific attitude is never part of the building blocks of Indonesian living.

The thing is, in actuality SF (as far as it is from gods and demons) had its roots deep in mythology. You can still see it to this day as SF and Fantasy are frequently classified together (and sometimes collectively called as "genre", which I admit is weird. A genre called genre.). Many people are a fan of both and both are usually featured in the same ;cons, and writers sometimes jump from one genre into the other. Stephenie Meyer, for example, who wrote the notorious vampire love story Twilight series, went on to write The Host about alien invasion (or for more hardcore SF fan: Ursula K. Le Guin wrote both The Left Hand of Darkness and the Earthsea series). SF and Fantasy are both very similar because they both have nova, although one in scientific sense and one in the supernatural. So the question is: how can Indonesia, that is forehead-deep in mythological nova, is so poor of SF? Why hadn't it evolved into SF?

The origin of Western SF can be traced back to "voyage extraordinaires" stories in Ancient Greece. Those are stories about adventures to new and foreign lands, sometimes even to the sky or the moon and stars. Of course physically they were unreachable at the time but they saw the moon etc and thought, what if? What if we could go there? In Indonesia, an overwhelming amount of folk and ancient stories were about good vs. evil and cautionary tales, but there were extraordinary voyages too like the wayang story of meeting Dewa Ruci deep into the ocean. Not only that, there were also other fantastical, marginally SF stories like the folk tale of Timun Mas, which for all we know might actually involve genetically modified infant. We even have Gatot Kaca, who is basically the ultimate superhero before superheroes.

But then Copernicus "emerged" in Europe. The history of western SF was a bit incredible to me because of how specific its development was, sometimes even (roughly) traceable down to a single person. In the 16th century it was Copernicus, with the outrageous (and accurate) Heliocentric theory. The church held the believe that the earth is the center and the only significant body in the universe, but with Copernicus's new theory came the realization that we are just a fraction of whole universe, and an insignificant one at that. Voyage extraordinaires stories still existed, but changed. Before Copernicus, the sky and the moon were usually portrayed in the divine or spiritual sense (as the extension of heaven or the heaven itself). But after, they became material—in the sense that they became an actual place protagonists could visit and meet wacky new creatures. That paradigm change was important in igniting true SF.

There were similarly important figures throughout the years who paved the road for today's SF: Mary Shelley ("Frankenstein" unified contemporary scientific advancement, fantastical elements, and realism to create the first real SF work), H.G. Wells (of The War Of The Worlds fame, whose primary influence is grounding/connecting SF to "the mundane and the present"), Hugo Gernsback (who popularized SF with the rise of pulp magazines), and..... George Lucas (whose Star Wars had HUGE impact in cinematic SF—or cinema, period.). And here is my reminder for readers that those are oversimplication in the most absolute sense. There were TONS of other influential people that I didn't mention like Jules Verne, Isaac Asimov, John W. Campbell, George Orwell, Philip K. Dick, Ursula K. Le Guin, William Gibson, Douglas Adams, the list could go on and on.

I am absolutely tempted to say that the reason Indonesia developed no SF is because we have no Copernicus, but that is cheating. Plenty of other regions developed SF from a separate branch than the west. Voyage extraordinares also existed in the middle east, and the Arab world had identifiable proto-SF work as early as the 12th century. Now middle eastern SF is still not as popular as the western, but genre work in Arabic language is said to be on the rise, although back in 2009 there was an op-ed lamenting the lack of Arabic SF (much like what I do now).

There were several notable SF-esque Japanese old tales like The Tale Of The Bamboo Cutter, but 1900s saw one of the first true SF work in Japan. After the world wars, Japanese SF were more influenced by American fiction but they were distinctively Japanese. Gojira (or Godzilla), for example, were conceived as physical portrayal of nuclear attack--an unfortunate but uniquely Japanese experience. Today, SF theme is very big in Japan and there are countless and countless Japanese SF work in the form of live-action, manga, anime, or even game. Many of them reached high recognition in the SF world, like Akira (the poster child of SF anime), Ghost In The Shell (definite inspiration for The Matrix movie), Paprika, Gundam/Macross/Evangelion franchises (oh yeah I had just lumped those into one!), 20th Century Boys, 1Q84, Battle Royale, Casshern, The Girl Who Leapt Through Time, etc.

Basically, SF emerged all over the place like a natural evolution, and that made the lack of it in Indonesia is all the more stark. "Everything not forbidden is compulsory" is a "rule" in quantum physics, and I believe it applies to literature too. People throughout history had always incorporated fantastical elements in their stories, some of them by rule must be of the scientific nature. There is a space or even need of SF in Indonesia, and somewhere, someday that niche will be filled. And, for reasons I'll explain, I'm actually optimist that it will be soon.

I must elaborate that when I say there's no SF culture in Indonesia, I don't mean there is absolutely no SF. There are recorded works, but they are patchy or hard to find (sometimes even with questionable quality). Djokolelono's Jatuh Ke Matahari (Falling Into The Sun), published in 1976, is regarded as the first Indonesian SF novel (which I observed is 100 years too late than others). If there was ever SF before and not long after 1976, it completely fell into the cracks of cultural history and I'd argue is therefore insignificant to its development. SF only regained its life again in 2000s, when novels like Supernova (Dee, 2000), Area X: Hymne Angkasa Raya (Eliza Handayani, 2003), Anomali (Santopay, 2004), etc. were published. To this day, Djokolelono also wrote several SF and Fantasy books for children, young adult, and adult. There were actually quite a lot of SF works in 2000s if we try to list them all, but few of them reached significant popularity or longevity and I'd argue the SF culture is still practically non-existent. Case in point; there is no SF section in the bookstore that makes browsing the bookstore painstaking, confusing, and likely result in no SF bought. I can't remember the last time we had local SF movie and it felt forever until we eventually have Garuda Superhero (and some still say that "we're not ready for it"). Also, aside from few enthusiasts like me, basically no one's talking about SF. Maybe I just hang out with the wrong set of friends, I don't know.

That said, Indonesia is not special in its stagnation. Several other SF culture in other countries struggled too. India's SF, despite its popularity, is regarded as "mediocre and derivative". Chinese radio, TV, and film authority issued guidelines to discourage, among them, time travel stories. And don't forget the aforementioned arabian essay.

But the 100 year gap of SF in Indonesia (only first emerged in 1976) compared to other regions is curious, to say the least. Provided that were true and there were no significant SF work of that period that fell into obscurity, SF in Indonesia have no direct line to the rest of Indonesian literature history (Jatuh Ke Matahari's author Djokolelono is actually a working book translator too, and it seems reasonable to say he was rather influenced by western literature). Lacking real sources about this matter, I resorted to wild guesses. In 18th and 19th century—a significant time of SF history in which it branched out to a notably distinctive genre—Indonesia was under the colonism of Netherlands (actually, Indonesia was colonized way before that by the Portuguese and Spain, since early 16th century). I know it's fashionable to blame things on the colonials (we do like to blame things on them colonials, don't we?), but I figured something must have happened around that time that made situations inconducive for the birth of SF. Proper education for native people were limited only to the elite and therefore, science were too. The development of science and technology is crucial to the emergence of SF, for obvious reasons. Science and technology eventually came to us, but they came fully formed from the west. We never had that anxiety of invention, which is important for the heart of SF. I'm just armchair-philosophing here, but that reasoning seemed probable enough for layman me. Although one might think that the influx of western literature especially during the time of VOC, combined with insurgent situation at the time should be a fertile ground for SF, but hey, apparently not.

Now that we've understood the history of SF here and in the rest of the world, it's time to ask: what should we do next? Quite a few of Indonesian SF lifted elements from Indonesian mythology, which is a great effort to make them "ours" and I hope people would keep tapping on that endless resource. But selfishly I'd like to see something that are more contemporary and speak more loudly (in a true SF fashion) about our condition now, because for me SF are best when they speak with social resonance (if you have a recommendation for Indonesian work, let me know). Poverty, gap of the rich and the poor, corruption, religious anxiety—mixed in with a little alien or dystopia—might be a recipe for truly compelling SF. I kept thinking something akin to Lord Of The Flies, which is weird because it's not SF but it could have been (it certainly is speculative fiction), would be awesome for us. In the realms of movies, I'd like to see more script-based SF (instead of pure visual spectacle), from independent and commercial filmmakers alike. There's no reason we can't produce lowkey projects like Pi, Safety Not Guaranteed, Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World, Timecrimes, 28 Days Later, etc (yes, I'm basically spitting out every title that comes into my head).

But the truth is, we may not realize it but SF in Indonesia is slowly and surely rising. Even now, there are two superhero movies slated for release in the next couple of years (Volt and Gundala Putra Petir remake, if fate permitting), and superheroes Bima Satria Garuda and Nusantaranger are gaining good grounds. Hopefully, other subgenres will follow. I hope the next time I write about the state of Indonesian SF, it will be in a completely different circumstance (possibly raving about The Golden Age that Indonesian SF were having).

Sources: The bulk of western SF's history is from Adam Roberts' book The History of Science Fiction. Other sources can be found through the link.

Edited to add (6/02/2015): So I had a trip to the bookstore today and gave myself time for a thorough browse. I found 5 seemingly-SF books (if not, then certainly speculative fiction): Zombie Aides (Satria Satire), Bumi (Tere Liye), Spora (Alkadri), Gerbang Trinil (Riawani Elyta), and Time[s] (Aya Swords). So SF lives, but some genre savviness (knowing the kinds of title and cover SF usually comes in) definitely help to pick them up from the rest. I bought 2 of them, Bumi and Gerbang Trinil, and maybe I'll give them a shoutout if they're good.

Review: Gone Baby Gone (2007)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Gone Baby Gone tells the story of Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck), a young private detective, who along with his partner (Michelle Monaghan) were asked by a confused and angered couple to help the police finding their lost young niece. Amanda MacCready, the missing child in question were already missing for a few days. The detectives working on the case could not have been more reluctant on letting him in on the case, and so was Helene (Amy Ryan) the drug addict mother. That is the general synopsis but more importantly, Gone Baby Gone tells the story of flawed people in a bruised and battered city, stuck eternally in less than ideal situations.

Ben Affleck, formerly famous as an actor and had just found a new renaissance in directing, put his little brother in this flick and thereby delivered one of the highlights in both of their filming career. Ben Affleck handled the story like a painting; carefully with a swift but firm hand that was only loud when he needed to. He showed incredible restraint as a newbie director, and I think that showed incredible talent. Meanwhile, Casey Affleck was able to give not only a very specific form of authority and dignity, but also a dash of naivety that could only come from a young age and sensitivity that clearly came from strength of character. Casey was able to put those traits into a blender and made a living breathing person, one that is flawed and compelling. Due to its amazing cast, similar praise can be said for the rest of the characters too, from Amy Ryan's Helene to Michelle Monaghan's Angie and Ed Harris' Detective Bressant. Writing-wise, the plotting is tight and unpredictable, and the amount of pathos in this movie is incredible, adding only to its richness.

TL;DR Gone Baby Gone is a gripping drama; is a tense thriller/mystery; is a story of questionable morality and of people lost in conspiracy. And in the end, it is the sort of movie that you'll never forget because it shares with you an unanswerable question: what is a good deed in a bad world?

Review: Freaky Friday (2003)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

Today, we’ll talk about modern day classic, Freaky Friday (and ain’t nobody going to convince me that it’s not!) which I happened to rewatch on a lazy day. I was surprised, and I realized I shouldn’t have been, at how well it held up. Okay, it’s not groundbreaking by any means. I gave it a score of 8, which means it’s firmly in the “good” category but not particularly great--but that doesn’t mean it’s not awesome or entertaining, especially for a family-friendly comedy that it is.

The story was about mother (Tess, played by Jamie Lee Curtis) and daughter (Anna, played by Lindsay Lohan) who had their bodies swapped for a day because of a spell. So on a fated Friday before Tess’ wedding, Anna literally walked in her mother’s shoes and vice versa. Naturally, all interesting things happen.

The charm of Freaky Friday was a nebulous one: basic premise is novel but simple and plot is predictable, but the execution is top-notch and it’s funny as hell. Most of it, I think, boils down to great casting. Jamie Lee Curtis had a hint of rebelliousness in her that it didn’t seem jarring when Anna (in Tess’ body) had her ears pierced and then rolls off with a motorcycle; and Lindsay Lohan actually acted reliably as an overly-responsible mother.

Freaky Friday, I think, was also great at treating its characters like a human being. The movie, as with most family movies, showed to great lengths at how the fight between Tess and Anna was basically because of misunderstanding, and there’s a scene that I really, really like. It was when Jake (Chad Michael Murray), that Anna had a huge crush on, actually offered Anna (while being herself) a ride home on his motorcycle, and she refused. It was established that she’s a rebel and she even considered not going to her mother’s rehearsal dinner for a band audition, but that scene alone showed us that she loved her mother and actually cared about what she thinks. The little brother was cute as the comic-relief type, but in a way that didn’t diminish his intelligence as a character. Ryan (Mark Harmon) was also a great, albeit under-appreciated, character as the considerate future-stepfather.

If there’s anything I’m not completely on board with, is the Jake/Anna-as-Tess subplot. Not so much about how it looks and the apparent age difference (I couldn’t care less), but about how fast he moved-on from apparent-Tess to actual-Anna that maybe happened in less than 12 hours. Apart from that, it was all great.

TL;DR Freaky Friday is an infinitely watchable family movie that worked better than the sum of its parts.

Music Shoutout: Whilk and Misky

So I've been arguing with myself for a few days whether Whilk and Misky is worth writing about, especially for a predominantly non-music blog, but I've given up: there's no escaping it, they've earned it.

The band is a London-based duo, namely of Charlie and Nima. Which one of them is Whilk and which is Misky, I have no idea. (Their chosen name, obviously, is a play of words milk and whisky, and once you heard it you know the name just made perfect sense.) Their sound is new, unique, and sounds exactly like an old wooden pub with ceramic tiles and black wooden chairs. Relaxed low voice, steady beat, and gentle Spanish guitar is apparently a recipe for musical goodness.

Here's their infectious, irresistibly hand clap-py single:

They've released their EP The First Sip and you can find, listen, and support them on their website, Youtube, Spotify, Soundcloud, iTunes. The rumor is they're going to release full album in 2015.