Ender's Game
Tonight I went to see "Ender's Game." Because it's a movie based on a classic, and because I enjoyed the hell out of it when I read it years ago, I wanted to see how it was realized. It's about as good an adaptation of the novel as we're likely to get. And it was realized very, very well indeed. Asa Butterfield is terrific as Ender; Ben Kingsley rocks the house as Mazer Rackham. Harrison Ford is pretty one-note, and I wish they'd given Viola Davis more to do than be the Voice of Human Conscience. Nevertheless, I recommend this flick. I had a blast. I suspect that it will be nominated for a Hugo Award--it deserves it--but, for political reasons, I'd be surprised if it won. Very surprised.
I know that a lot of folks are boycotting the film because of Orson Scott Card's virulent homophobia and his support of an anti-gay agenda. I chose not to boycott the film. I have always been and always will be an ally of the gay community; this doesn't change that.
Does seeing this movie damage my ally cred? I don't think so. I hope it doesn't with my gay friends; I love and value them all. I'm not endorsing Card. I'm endorsing a work of art. And I kind of hate that seeing this film creates this automatic defensiveness in me because the author is an asshole and his politics have turned the movie into a political football and litmus test in some quarters.
Given the peculiarities of Hollywood accounting, it's unclear whether or not Card will get some percentage of the money I paid for my ticket (John Scalzi speculates on this matter pretty thoroughly over at Whatever); he absolutely did get a percentage of what I paid for my copy of the book years ago, and he's already been paid handsomely for the movie rights. He's already profited from the property's success to an uncountable degree. Whether or not I see the film has little effect in the end. There are millions of people who aren't engaged in the political discussions surrounding the film--in fact, they're probably unaware of the discussions at all; it will be successful whether or not I chose to boycott it.
David Gerrold, over on Facebook, talked about why there's been such a kerfuffle about the movie and whether or not to see it. He said, "The kerfuffle exists precisely because Card is one of our own. He's a member of the SF family. We respected and admired his work, we gave him awards. We saluted his successes. For him to make such abhorrible statements about LGBT people -- and there are a lot of LGBT people in fandom -- feels like a betrayal of an SF trope: respect for diversity. The SF community, to a large degree, feels betrayed by Orson Scott Card's anti-gay statements." And he's right.
My question is, do we separate the artist from his art? Is the message of the art reduced by the artist? In this case, the artist's politics have so overshadowed his work in this community that there's little way to separate them, which I rather think is a shame, because "Ender's Game" is a powerful work. My memory, frankly, sucks, and the fact that the book has stayed with me in the way that "Forever War" and "The Sparrow" and "Among Others" have says something to me about its effectiveness.
I saw the movie, I enjoyed it, and I recommend it. Does that make me a bad person? No. It makes me a science fiction fan. I think it should be nominated for a Hugo. I don't think we live in a world where it will win, but I think there are two arguments in favor of it:
1) It's one the best SF films released this year. One of the best. I don't know if it is the best, but it's one of the top five. It's rare that the movies get science fiction right, and I think this one really does. As a film, it deserves the honor.
2) If we recognize the film on its own merits, we are recognizing the work of everyone who participated in the film, from the writer who adapted it to the actors who performed in it, from the FX people who realized the vision to the director who shaped it. They all deserve that recognition. Depriving them of it because the author is an asshole just feels wrong to me.
Card's an asshole and a bigot and I abhor his politics.
"Ender's Game", the movie, is really good and I recommend it.
I know that a lot of folks are boycotting the film because of Orson Scott Card's virulent homophobia and his support of an anti-gay agenda. I chose not to boycott the film. I have always been and always will be an ally of the gay community; this doesn't change that.
Does seeing this movie damage my ally cred? I don't think so. I hope it doesn't with my gay friends; I love and value them all. I'm not endorsing Card. I'm endorsing a work of art. And I kind of hate that seeing this film creates this automatic defensiveness in me because the author is an asshole and his politics have turned the movie into a political football and litmus test in some quarters.
Given the peculiarities of Hollywood accounting, it's unclear whether or not Card will get some percentage of the money I paid for my ticket (John Scalzi speculates on this matter pretty thoroughly over at Whatever); he absolutely did get a percentage of what I paid for my copy of the book years ago, and he's already been paid handsomely for the movie rights. He's already profited from the property's success to an uncountable degree. Whether or not I see the film has little effect in the end. There are millions of people who aren't engaged in the political discussions surrounding the film--in fact, they're probably unaware of the discussions at all; it will be successful whether or not I chose to boycott it.
David Gerrold, over on Facebook, talked about why there's been such a kerfuffle about the movie and whether or not to see it. He said, "The kerfuffle exists precisely because Card is one of our own. He's a member of the SF family. We respected and admired his work, we gave him awards. We saluted his successes. For him to make such abhorrible statements about LGBT people -- and there are a lot of LGBT people in fandom -- feels like a betrayal of an SF trope: respect for diversity. The SF community, to a large degree, feels betrayed by Orson Scott Card's anti-gay statements." And he's right.
My question is, do we separate the artist from his art? Is the message of the art reduced by the artist? In this case, the artist's politics have so overshadowed his work in this community that there's little way to separate them, which I rather think is a shame, because "Ender's Game" is a powerful work. My memory, frankly, sucks, and the fact that the book has stayed with me in the way that "Forever War" and "The Sparrow" and "Among Others" have says something to me about its effectiveness.
I saw the movie, I enjoyed it, and I recommend it. Does that make me a bad person? No. It makes me a science fiction fan. I think it should be nominated for a Hugo. I don't think we live in a world where it will win, but I think there are two arguments in favor of it:
1) It's one the best SF films released this year. One of the best. I don't know if it is the best, but it's one of the top five. It's rare that the movies get science fiction right, and I think this one really does. As a film, it deserves the honor.
2) If we recognize the film on its own merits, we are recognizing the work of everyone who participated in the film, from the writer who adapted it to the actors who performed in it, from the FX people who realized the vision to the director who shaped it. They all deserve that recognition. Depriving them of it because the author is an asshole just feels wrong to me.
Card's an asshole and a bigot and I abhor his politics.
"Ender's Game", the movie, is really good and I recommend it.