For decades I thought without thinking about it that this movie was based on James Herbert's book of the same name, which was published five years earlier. Since I hadn't seen the film in a very long time, I decided I wanted to read the book before seeing it again for review. So whenever I happened to be in a second-hand bookstore, I'd take a look. Fortunately, not too long ago, I happened to mention the book and the film together to a fellow reader who quickly corrected my error: the book and the film -- two completely separate entities. Habit is habit-forming, however. I still look for the book occasionally. And it still eludes me.
What does Hilton's most well known novel have in common with Isaac Asimov's most famous work, The Foundation Trilogy? The answer is Shangri-La, which is mirrored in Asimov's books by the Foundation. Both serve the same stated purpose -- to preserve knowledge and human accomplishment through a period of barbarism -- but there is one significant difference: while Hilton specifically mentions the preservation of art, music, history, literature, and pure mathematics, he omits science entirely. Asimov's Foundation, by contrast, leaves nothing out; after all, it was formed by scientists. But it wouldn't be quite fair to say that Hilton forgets about science: science, he implies, is a large part of the problem, making possible the ever-increasing destructiveness of war. Asimov sees it differently: science, for him, is a unifying force, capable of bringing our entire species together, even when spread out across an entire galaxy.
From the novel:
"Someday, perhaps, the whole mountain would split, and a half of Karakal's icy splendor come toppling into the valley. He wondered if the slightness of the risk combined with its fearfulness might even be found agreeably stimulating." This immediately made me think of the Cold War, when the (remote) possibility of nuclear war with the Soviet Union managed to make life (and especially art, or stories of spies and international intrigue) just a little more exciting. What a shame this movie wasn't made in the last year or so. Or the opening sequence anyway. It features Chase, in drag, being propositioned by an old man in a restaurant bathroom. Goes absolutely nowhere in this film, but the possibilities today are endless.
Imagined conversation:
Me: Man, that poster is something, isn't it? A real feminist nightmare. Johnny PC: Feminist? It's a human nightmare. What are you, a misogynist? Me: You know what I mean. Johnny PC: I know what you said. Me: You know, when you have to get that literal to make your point, odds are the point either isn't worth making or it's just plain wrong. The cover art looks like something out of China: girl child = bad. Also interesting for the juxtaposition of this particular child, who is completely without psychological nuance, with a black and white title. One could even argue that the divide -- girl on one side, title on the other -- is significant, in a split personality kind of way.
It's always fun when you find convergences between older books and films with the present day. Watching or reading Death Wish, for instance, and noting the arguments concerning gun control (which haven't really changed much in the last 30 or 40 years). But seldom do you run across anything as remarkable as the convergence to be found in Stagecoach. Watching this movie now, during the Presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton and particularly Donald Trump, you can't help but be struck by the following speech, given by one of the people aboard the stagecoach.
"I have a slogan that should be blazoned on every newspaper in the country: America for Americans. The government must not interfere with business. Reduce taxes. Our national debt is something shocking. Over one billion dollars a year. What this country needs is a businessman for President." Amazing. Well, it is at least comforting to know that this speech is given by a scoundrel and a thief. I was in college when I discovered MTV, the game show Remote Control, and...Kari Wuhrer. The debate about women earning as much as men, when applied to Hollywood, strikes me as misguided: that is, the person, of either sex, who is drawing the box office should pull the highest salary. It may say something uncomfortable about our society, but in most cases, I think, that person is a man. But here was a case where, so far as I was concerned, Miss Wuhrer, who doubtless was making much less than Ken Ober and Colin Quinn, deserved more, for without her, I wouldn't have been watching.
This novel sort of backs into an interesting question of high school and high school friends. While it never really captures any sense that these girls share a four-year history, it does make the point that each of them grows apart (and quickly) after moving out on their own. Personally, I'm in contact with exactly zero of my high school classmates today, though I did room with a couple briefly at college, and maintained a friendship with another into my thirties.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |