American Films of the 70s: Conflicting Visions

Chapter 10: Whose Future? Star Wars, Alien, Blade Runner

Chapter 10 Whose Future? Star Wars Alien Blade Runner The science fiction film, as a construction removed from everyday reality, is a privileged vehicle for the presentation of ideology. Because it is less concerned than other genres with the surface structure of social reality, science fiction can pay more attention to the deep structure of what is and what ought to be. In practice, this means that science fiction films vividly embody ideological positions and that comparing science fiction films of the same era becomes an analysis of conflicting social visions. Such visions cannot, however, be reduced to a simple, discursive message. Instead, the total semiotic output of a film—images, sounds, textures, relationships—is a carrier of ideology. As a test of this hypothesis, consider three popular films from the years around 1980: Star Wars (1977), Alien (1979), and Blade Runner (1982).1 These films have much in common. All three are key moments in the renaissance of science fiction film, which stretches from the late 1970s to the present. And all three films are renowned for the quality of their visual design and special effects. However, Star Wars creates an ideologically con- servative future, whereas Alien and Blade Runner create futures linked to liberal and socially critical ideas. What factors account for Star Wars’s overwhelming success with the public? Certainly the film’s narrative provides a partial answer. Star Wars is a modern quest narrative, blending such sources as Arthurian legend, Paradise Lost, Lord of the Rings, the Western, The Wizard of Oz, and the metadiscourse of Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces.2 Young, naı̈ve Luke Skywalker sets out on an adventure both physical and spiritual, which involves saving the princess, defeating the Evil Empire, and establishing a more just government. The story has a mythic or fairy-tale dimension, but also a lightness of tone; Luke (Mark Hamill), Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher), and Han Solo (Harrison Ford) wisecrack their way through difficult situations. There are some weak points to the narrative. One is a problem with character development, particularly apparent in the minor roles—e.g., Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru. Another is the lack of emotional response to destruction of an entire inhabited planet! 3 However, the quest narrative of Star Wars has proved sufficiently compelling and resilient to support three film sequels (with more in process), numerous authorized novels, and a great deal of fan activity. A second explanation is that Star Wars owes much of its popularity to a richness of audiovisual invention that is rare in science fiction or any other genre. From spaceships and space wars to planetary ecology and alien beings (not one species of intelligent aliens, but perhaps a dozen), George Lucas and his collaborators deserve much credit for creating such a sweeping and detailed science fiction universe. John J. Pierce calls this level of invention ‘‘world creation’’ and notes that it is a prized aspect of science fiction novels but hard to find in science fiction films. Such world building requires a sweeping imagination that is also disciplined and thorough.4 An example from Star Wars would be the distinctively realized look, sound, and behavior of the two droids, R2-D2 and C-3PO. These two robots are original, detailed, and consistent; they may be the most interesting characters in the film. The created world in Star Wars is both packed with audiovisual information and given an imperfect, lived-in quality. For example, the sound effects generally start from complex natural sounds (e.g., a movie projector as the basis for the hum of the light sabers) rather than simpler, cleaner synthetic audio. Ben Burtt, the film’s sound designer, explains that ‘‘The 166 american films of the 70s sounds of the real world are complicated and kind of dirty. They simply cannot be duplicated on a synthesizer.’’5 John Seabrook, writing in the New Yorker, gives a more technical explanation of Star Wars’s success. According to Seabrook, the film’s ‘‘secret’’ is its control of the kinetic aspects of moviemaking: ‘‘The first Star Wars movie is like a two hour image of raw speed.’’ Lucas is not a particularly gifted director of actors, but his control of ‘‘editing and pace’’ creates a feeling of ‘‘pure kinetic energy which has become a part of the world’s visual imagination .’’ ‘‘Every time a studio executive tells a writer...