130
Populär Culture Review
distinction between flction and criticism, Chapman and CulPs position
appears remarkably well-balanced, for it allows them to treat different
sub-genres o f Science fiction without losing either focus or direction.
Similarly, the fact that all twelve feature films the authors chose
to analyze are Anglo-Saxon might seem controversial: as post-colonialist
theory triumphs, affording us a comfortable manner to alleviate the guilt
inherited ffom our imperialist ancestors, Chapman and Cull do take some
risk by remaining within the White, Occidental Anglo-Saxon canon and
expose themselves to the attacks o f the politically self-righteous critics.
W hat is at stäke here could be described as the Opposition between
scholarly integrity and superficial political correctness; the authors make
abundantly clear in their introduction why and how Anglo-Saxon cinema
and the Science fiction genre are intrinsically related, both historically
and culturally, and convincingly argue the legitimacy o f their selected
corpus o f study. It should be pointed out as well that the authors are very
conscious o f the contribution o f non-Anglo-Saxon Science fiction cinema
and include Godard’s, Alphaville or Tarkovsky’s, Solaris in their
discussion o f the genre; beyond fashions and trends, Chapman and Cull
let the empirical evidence do the talking, and their choice o f corpus
reflects the coherence o f their endeavor rather that the ideological
opportunism that pervades so much o f today’s cultural criticism.
Chapman and Cull are not only teaching us about how we
projected tomorrow through twelve key populär Science fiction films:
they are themselves projecting what the future o f cinema and cultural
studies ought to be.
Daniel Ferreras Savoye, W est Virginia University
I