Ten Books With Context - The Warlock Of Firetop Mountain

Here we go - having decried these lists last time for largely ending up wallowing in safe nostalgia arthur than picking something fresher, today we are going to wallow in safe nostalgia. Look, I think that I’ve established that the only real rule around here is “my blog, my rules” so, in that respect, we’re well within the accepted blog tolerances.

Today’s choice is a book that I’m not sure that I’ve read all the way through (in fact, the format pretty guarantees that you’re unlikely to read the whole thing).

The Warlock Of Firetop Mountain
By Ian Livingstone & Steve Jackson
First published:- 1982

What’s It About?
Is it a book? Is it a game? It’s a little of column A and a little of column B. You are an adventurer attempting to find the treasure of Firetop Mountain with a little bit of help from dice, pencil and paper.

Background
The '70s saw the emergence of a new type of game - the roleplaying game - and thus were the lives of nerdy indoor kids transformed (at least until video games came along to make them even more indoorsy). Alongside that, the '70s also saw the beginnings of the Choose Your Own Adventure book - books that gave you options to follow at the end of each paragraph to unlock the next part of the story. Ian Livingstone and Steve Jackson decided to combine the two to create a role-playing experience that could be played in those times when you didn't have a full set of friends around. And thus was the range of Fighting Fantasy books born with this, the first of many… *

What’s It Good?
Because it’s a book you can play. It’s also weirdly a book that you’re pretty expected to never read all of, depending on the path that you chose through (I certainly haven’t read the whole thing; I;m not even sure if I managed to complete this one without cheating and mentally justifying stepping back and ignoring a fight after I’ve been killed). It’s the ideal introduction into a wider world of gaming as the rules are simple and easy to follow but there’s enough there to make it feel more interactive than the more straightforward Choose Your Own Adventure style gamebook. The fact that they are still publishing new adventures some 40 years after the first one came is testament to the sticking power of the format.

(Small Note For Collectors:- If you’re thinking of grabbing a full set of them, be prepared for that to set you back a pretty penny. Some of the rarer books can sell on eBay for £200-£300. If you've got some tucked away in the loft, it might be time to dust them off and check out the prices…)



*Which are still being published today. Charlie Higson has written one in the last few years and there’s a new one due out in October written by Rhianna Pratchett (daughter of Sir Terry).

Ten Books With Context - The City We Became

So I started off this little strand back in June and I’ve just realised that I only did six books. So I can read but I can't count. Let's do a little housekeeping and get this one finished off.

One of the things that I find with these lists is that you end tending to prioritise older books, books you've had time to get nostalgic over. Well, let’s balance that out a bit with a book that only came out in March this year…

The City We Became (The Great Cities Trilogy Book 1)
By N.K. Jemisin
First published:- 24th March 2020

What’s It About?
Cities aren’t just the places where we live; at a certain point, they become living breathing beings. New York’s birth is fraught with danger and the five human avatars who represent must come together to protect it from The Enemy…

Background
I’ve talked about Jemisin’s books before - I read her Broken Earth Trilogy a while back and was completely drawn in by it.* Jemisin has a refreshing take on sci fi and fantasy that utilises her perspective on race and gender to create something fresh in genres that still tend to be dominated by white men. As well as race and gender, there’s a strong sense (at least in the Broken Earth series; I’ve yet to read her other two series of books) of the geographical and geological, of utilising the locations to be as much a part of the story as the people.
She’s relatively prolific as well, having published nine novels and a collection of short stories in the last ten years, in addition to currently writing a monthly Green Lantern spin-off comic, Far Sector, for DC Comics.

Why’s It Good?
Jemisin has an immensely readable style that, in some respects, puts me in mind of Neil Gaiman or Stephen King and has a facility for drawing a string mental picture to convey concepts that are not necessarily easy to visualise, particularly in describing how the human avatars of the individual boroughs of New York visualise both our world and the wider world they perceive. As before, race and gender play a strong role in the book, especially in representing the multiple cultural identities that denizens of New York contain within them, both as New Yorkers but also with a broader cultural heritage.
Naturally, geography once again plays a part, given that the books deals with living cities. Jemisin clearly has a strong affinity for her adopted city in a warts-and-all kind of way and that shines through here. (I was also surprised to find  mention of my own home town in there, especially as I live not in New York but in South East London.)
There’s a small element of risk here - this is only book one of three and there’s every chance this could go off the rails before the end (a trap that Stephen King certainly fell into with the curate’s egg that is The Dark Tower series). Given her previous form, though, that really is a small element and I’m already champing at the bit to get into the next part of the story...


*Side note - Jemisin is the only person in its sixty seven year history to win the Hugo Award (the most established award for science fiction and fantasy writing) for three consecutive years for the Broken Earth books. Given that previous winners include Isaac Asmiov, Arthur C Clarke, Kurt Vonnegut, JK Rowling and Neil Gaiman among others, that’s not an achievement to be sniffed at.

Thirty Five Years Ago - Back To The Future

Yeah, come on, it was always going to be leading up to this one. A film for which I had a frustratingly 99.99% complete Panini sticker album (one sticker missing). A film for which I have (somewhere) an “OUTATIME” number plate and used to have a “What are looking at, butthead?” T-shirt. Oh, and this one I did very much watch at the cinema (although we were late and I didn’t see the first 5 minutes until it came out on VHS).

(Brief Note:- Some of you may be thinking, “Hang on, there’s one notable film from 1985 that he hasn’t covered.” And you would be right. I do like The Goonies but it’s one that my obsession for faded very quickly and it’s not one that I ever really have a desire to rewatch for some reason. Not sure why, I just don’t.)

Back To The Future
Dir. Robert Zemeckis / Dur. 116 minutes

What’s It About? Weird old man who inexplicably hangs around with a teenager accidentally sends him back in time so his mum can try to get off with him.

Why’s It Good? It’s Back To The Future.




Oh, fine, I’ll give you a bit more than that. This, along with Ghostbusters, is probably of the pinnacle of a genre that very much feels like it hit the peak in the 80s and 90s but seems to be somewhat in decline these days - the family friendly high concept comedy which is actually still genuinely funny. It’s smart, it doesn’t talk down to its viewers, it’s got some slightly risque stuff hidden in plain sight (so the kids won't notice it but the adults will get it) and it bears up to repeated viewings. It’s got a main and supporting cast that doesn’t really have a weak link (OK, Claudia Wells as Jnnifer is pretty underwhelming but you do get the far superior Elisabeth Shue for the sequels). Michael J Fox and Christopher Lloyd have a natural easy going chemistry, Crispin Glover’s George is suitably nerdy and a bit off-kilter and Thomas F Wilson’s Biff is a powerhouse comic supporting role* (with a special mention to James Tolkan as the strict and seemingly ageless Principal Strickland). 

It’s tightly plotted and has a number of nice details that reward multiple viewing (for example, the mall where Marty meets Doc at the beginning of the film is the Twin Pines Mall whereas, following his destruction of one of the pines as Marty arrives in 1955, the mall at the end is now called Lone Pine Mall). It also builds nicely on the “rule of three” style repetition and subversion of events across the subsequent sequels.

There’s a sense of joy and urgency that sweeps you long for the ride. Plus, impractical though it may be, the DeLorean with its flux capacitor is one of the coolest time machines around. (I said “one of” - we all know that the TARDIS is the coolest.)

So there you go - a brief nostalgia fest through the films of thirty five years ago / thinly disguised attempt to wring some blog posts out of nothing. You just know that there’s likely to be more of these on the way at some point...


*So synonymous with the role is Wilson that he carries around a business card of Biff FAQs to hand out to people to avoid having to constantly answer the same questions, which includes such facts as "Michael J Fox is nice. I'm not in close contact with him", "I made less money than you'd think" and "I don't talk about the movies much because I'm busy with standup comedy and music performances."

Thirty Five Years Ago - Weird Science

Again, like yesterday’s effort, not one that I watched when it came out at the cinema - it would have been a few years later when it came out on VHS or had been shown on the telly (hey, remember that? Waiting years for something to come out for rental then retail and then eventually having a much hyped TV premiere? Crap, wasn’t it? It’s much better now). As with Pee-wee, though, it’s a 1985 film so it goes on the list…

Weird Science (1985)
Dir. John Hughes / Dur. 94 mins

What’s It About? Two nerds use this apparently mystical device called a “computer” to create the ultimate woman and then this is a very much a film to which the description “hijinks ensue” could very much be used.

Why’s It Good? Ah, the 80s. A time when computers could do anything - you could be accidentally zapped into them, try to stop a world war by playing chess with them or use them to create the perfect woman, Kelly LeBrock. (Small side note here:- I probably saw this for the first time when I was about 12 so was perfectly placed to be utterly obsessed with Kelly LeBrock; I even watched the not-very-good-despite-having-Gene-Wilder-in-it film The Woman In Red solely on the basis that she was in it - ah, the late 80s/early 90s...) Weirdly, I’m not really a big fan of John Hughes - Planes, Trains and Automobiles is great but I didn't watch the Breakfast Club until the late 90s by which point it already felt somewhat dated and Home Alone can absolutely get to fuck. This film, however, despite not being an objectively good film, manages to be one that I do enjoy.

Sure, the whole thing is problematic nowadays but there’s still much to enjoy. LeBrock’s performance is actually a lot of fun (and her delivery of the line “there's going to be sex, drugs, rock-n-roll... chips, dips, chains, whips...“ always makes me chuckle) but you’ve also got an early appearance from Robert Downey, Jr as a (not particularly threatening) bully and an absolutely spectacular turn by Bill Paxton as the much more threatening bully of a brother Chet. 

Weirdly, this had a relatively successful spin-off series in the 90s which ran for four seasons(!) and I don’t think it made it over to the UK (or, if it did, it was buried somewhere in the depths of the Sky schedules). Seems strange to me that would still work in the 90s given that the “magic genie” powers of a computer-created woman would have been looking even more ludicrous by then.

Is it still worth a watch? Harder to judge through the filter of “today”. If you want a silly, crude and crass example of a textbook 80s teen comedy then this will definitely hit those notes.

Thirty Five Years Ago - Pee-wee’s Big Adventure

This wasn’t a film that I was necessarily into when it came out - it was more when I started getting into Tim Burton’s films and wanting to get into his back catalogue that I found this one. It did, however, originally come out in 1985 into the mix it goes…

Pee-wee’s Big Adventure (1985)
Dir. Tim Burton / Dur. 91 mins

What’s It About? Pee-wee Herman’s beloved bike is stolen and he will leave no stone unturned in his cross-country efforts to find it…

Why’s It Good? What you’ve got here is a distinctive director at the start of his career flexing his muscles and seeing what he can get away with when he’s been given  a bit of budget to play around with. You’ve got elaborate Heath Robinson-style contraptions, stop-motion animation, a dance sequence, a film within a film - all examples of playing around and seeing what can be got away with in a live action film. It’s also a melding of two very offbeat sensibilities, both of whom have come from children’s TV and film (Pee-wee creator Paul Reubens having obviously portrayed the character on TV before this and Burton having been a Disney animator earlier in his career) and both of whom want to push what they can get away with. It’s also the beginning of a long association between Burton and composer Danny Elfman; an association that includes such films as Beetlejuice, Batman, Batman Returns, Nightmare Before Christmas, Mars Attacks!, Sleepy Hollow and more…

It doesn’t quite have that distinctive Burton visual style that would become apparent from Beetlejuice onwards (and is slightly toned down in Batman before being dialled back up again in Batman Returns) but there are touches of the director Burton will become throughout.

It’s a joyous and silly film with a number of sequences that have always stuck in my head since I first saw it - Large Marge and the Tequila dance in particular (I can't help but picture the tiny back and forth hand movements whenever I hear that song). Admittedly, Herman is the sort of character that I can appreciate could be somewhat Marmite-y but I very much am on board with his particular brand of weirdness. Does it stand the test of time? Yes, in large part because Pee-wee Herman exists in his own slightly skewed, childish reality anyway so it stops it feeling like it’s particularly tied to the 80s. If you’re looking for a dose of camp and naive silliness, you could do worse than give this one a go.

Thirty Five Years Ago - Return To Oz

It’s fair to say that there was a period of time where I was obsessed with this fim. I compulsively rewatched the few clips we had of it in a taped-off-the-telly episode of Disney Time; my drawings were all of The Gump, Jack Pumpkinhead and Tik Tok and my reading list began to include the original set of books by L. Frank Baum (all being republished to coincide with the release of the film). Oddly, despite this fervent obsession, it’s never really stood out with many of the other 80s films that I have in my head as defining my childhood film love. It was only in looking at the films of 1985 that suddenly this one came back into my head.

Return To Oz (1985)
Dir. Walter Murch / Dur. 113 mins

What’s It About? In this belated sequel to The Wizard Of Oz (based upon elements of two of the sequel books). Dorothy and her chicken Billina find themselves back in the Land Of Oz only to discover that the Land is now under the control of the villainous Nome King…

Why’s It Any Good? First things first - this is pretty terrifying stuff in places for a kids film. It opens in the real world with Dorothy essentially being tortured in an asylum for all the “lies” she’s been telling about Oz, features creepy Wheelers with grotesque face masks on the top of their heads and has a witch who not only changes heads but at one point runs around without a head at all. Fortunately, as a child with the fondness for the macabre and the grotesque, this was right up my darkened alleyway.*

This is the only feature film (to date) to be directed by Walter Murch, famed amongst film geek for the sound design work he did upon such films as The Godfather and Apocalypse Now (the latter of which earned him an Oscar for Best Sound). A combination of the experience itself (Murch was briefly fired from the film by the studio before being reinstated thanks to the intervention of George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola) alongside poor box office were strong contributory factors in this being his only directorial effort.

It’s a shame really as the darkness (for the most part) works on this one and there is some lovely character design, in particular for The Gump and Tik Tok. While not strictly a Henson film as the puppetry was provided by Lyle Conway, it is Henson-adjacent as Conway was one of the original founders of the Jim Henson Creature Workshop before breaking away to form his own company and Brian Henson came on board to provide voice and puppetry for Jack Pumpkinhead. Added to that, the stop motion work for the Nomes and the Nome King is excellent and still looks good today. While the open scene may be a little too grim, there’s something appealing about this darker version of Oz. It’s probably more of a fun curiosity than a genuine classic but it’s definitely worth a watch for anyone with an interest in Baum;s world of Oz beyond the 1939 musical version.


* Not a euphemism, don’t be dirty.

Thirty Five Years Ago - Brazil

Admittedly there are still some films coming out this year (and I’ll get on to those at some point) but, compared to your standard non-pandemicy year, they are definitely fewer and farther between this year. So given that a fair chunk of this here blog-type thing is given over to unnecessary wallowing in unprovoked nostalgia, let’s carry on that on as a theme for this little run (a quite frankly not surprising or unexpected follow up to the recent Forty Years Ago thread) because, let’s face it, it’s just pretty easy, innit?

Brazil (1985)
Dir. Terry Gilliam
Dur. 142 mins (unless you’re watching the 92 minute TV version with the happy ending)

What’s It About? In a nightmarish dystopian alternate ‘80s, a fly in a teleprinter sets off a chain of bureaucratic events that leads Sam Lowry on a quest to find the woman of his dreams while trying to avoid inadvertently becoming an enemy of the state.

Why’s It Any Good? For me, this is Terry Gilliam as co-writer and director at the height of his powers. There’s the gleeful obsession with the ludicrous absurdities of everyday tedium combined with the sweeping dreamlike fantasy visions that powered his cartoons and animations. It’s a film that very nearly never saw the light of day as he intended and was to become the first of many occasions where Gilliam would battle the studio over what he saw as unjust interference with an artists trying to deliver his vision (not something that the Hollywood is overly geared up for unless said artist has already proven themselves as a mighty draw at the box office). The resultant battle and indeed has filled a book - The Battle of Brazil: Terry Gilliam v. Universal Pictures in the Fight to the Final Cut by Jack Mathews is a great account of Gilliam’s struggles to get the film as he wanted out there (which, at one point, included taking out a full page ad in Variety asking the studio execs when his film would be released).

It’s got a great cast - Jonathan Pryce holds the whole thing together as Sam Lowry, the man who just wants to be part of the dystopian machine but finds himself increasingly drawn into unwilling insurrection, but the supporting cast are great too including Katherine Helmond (of Soap fame) as Sam’s plastic surgery addicted mother and fellow Python Michael Palin as a chillingly avuncular torturer. The design is, as you would expect from a man with an eye for look and feel, also striking in  horrifying bleak way; said bleakness also extending out to the ending which, in its original form, it’s not the sort of ending you’d expect in an 80s Hollywood film.

Being set in alternate 80s but with a kind of 50s aesthetic gives it a sort of timelessness that means it holds up well today; depressingly more so as the bureaucratic dystopia seems just as, if not more, plausible at the moment.In some ways, it’s often not an enjoyable film but it is a film that I love very much.

Hard to believe that this came out in the same year as some of my next choices...