I had completely forgotten that A-ha, in what is still one of the cleverest music videos ever produced, that for "Take on Me," pays homage to this film at the very end. You can see the video here.
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that Sputnik's launch ushered in a new wave of UFO sightings. This movie certainly seems to imply that it did. What's interesting, though, is the fact that while the term "satellite" is used several times, "UFO" isn't mentioned once -- despite being a more appropriate term, given how the "high fliers" are characterized. Of course, this lends credence to the idea that the film was specifically geared to exploit Russia's accomplishment.
A little fashion trivia. The bikini was named after Bikini Atoll, the site of early atomic bomb testing (since it was thought that its effect on the male psyche would be similarly explosive); the stiletto heel was named after the dagger; and the babydoll nightgown was named after the costume worn by the child bride in this film.
Dumb as it is, authors do it all the time, and King proves that he isn't above doing it himself. I'm talking about that scene when a woman (often naked) is in peril or even dying and her lover pauses to ogle her. It happens here when Jake has to haul his librarian friend under a cold shower where, I suppose, having confirmed her desirability, he can then proceed to save her life.
It's interesting to note how this scene is handled in another book reviewed here, The Seventh Secret. This time, the woman is already in the shower when her would-be paramour shows up. Just in time, too, because he finds a man outside the shower door, a man clearly intending either to rape or kill the woman. The perp yanks the door open and the hero pounces. Then this: "About to spin and grab the man, Foster's eyes held momentarily on Emily in the shower. He saw her naked and dripping wet, falling against a side of the shower, eyes closed, choking with fear, trying to keep her balance." Now, this book was written by Irving Wallace, a man well known for his sex scenes, yet his take on this scene comes off as much less offensive than King's. Foster takes in Emily's nakedness, but he takes in a great deal more besides, almost making us believe that his purpose is what is implied by the next line, "Assured that she was unhurt..." 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.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |