Embodied Genetics in Science-Fiction, Big-Budget to Low-Budget: from Jeunet’s Alien: Resurrection (1997) to Piccinini’s Workshop (2011)

• Authors: Andrea Virginás
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The article uses and revises to some extent Vivian Sobchack’s categorization of (basically) American science-fiction output as “optimistic big-budget,” “wondrous middle-ground” and “pessimistic low-budget” seen as such in relation to what Sobchack calls the “double view” of alien beings in filmic diegesis (Screening Space, 2001). The argument is advanced that based on how diegetic encounters are constructed between “genetically classical” human agents and beings only partially “genetically classical” and/or human (due to genetic diseases, mutations, splicing, and cloning), we may differentiate between various methods of visualization (nicknamed “the museum,” “the lookalike,” and “incest”) that are correlated to Sobchack’s mentioned categories, while also displaying changes in tone. Possibilities of revision appear thanks to the later timeframe (the late 1990s/2000s) and the different national-canonical belongings (American, Icelandic-German- Danish, Hungarian-German, Canadian-French-American, and Australian) that characterize filmic and artistic examples chosen for analysis as compared to Sobchack’s work in Screening Space.1

Keywords

EN

science-fiction; genetic mutations; aliens; Vivian Sobchack

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Film and Media Studies
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 8
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 149-166

Dates

published

2014-09-01

online

2014-09-25

Contributors

author

Andrea Virginás

• Sapientia Hungarian University of Transylvania (Cluj-Napoca, Romania)

References

• Eleftheriotis, Dimitris. 2002. Global Visions and European Perspectives. In Aliens R Us. The Other in Science Fiction Cinema, eds. Ziauddin Sardar and Sean Cubbitt, 164-180. London, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2002.
• Katherine, N. Hayles. 1999. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and Informatics. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
• Jameson, Fredric. 2005. The Alien Body. In Archaeologies of the Future. The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions, 119-141. London-New York: Verso.
• Kimball, Samuel A. 2002. Conceptions and Contraceptions of the Future: Terminator 2, The Matrix, and Alien Resurrection. Camera Obscura vol. 17 no. 4 (50): 69-107.
• Piccinini, Patricia webpage, http://www.patriciapiccinini.net , accessed on the 15th of August 2014.
• Ramadanovic, Petar. 2010. The Non-Meaning of Incest, or How Natural Culture Is. Postmodern Culture vol. 20 no. 2 (January): Project MUSE. http://muse.jhu. edu/ Last accessed at 27. 07. 2013.
• Roof, Judith. 2007. The Poetics of DNA. Minneapolis-London: University of Minnesota Press.
• Silva, Vesta T. 2005: In the Beginning Was the Gene: The Hegemony of Genetic Thinking in Contemporary Culture. Communication Theory vol. 15 no. 1 (February): 100-123.
• Sobchack, Vivian. 2001 [1987]. Screening Space: The American Science Fiction Film. New York: Rutgers University Press.
• Sobchack, Vivian. 2004. Carnal Thoughts. Embodiment and Moving Image Culture. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: California University Press.
• Telotte, J. P. 2001. Science Fiction Film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/ausfm-2014-0031