

The following was printed in the St. John's Express, St. John's,
Newfoundland, Canada.
All views are the authors, but copyright is held by Robinson-Blackmore,
1998.

Movie Review
by Mikel J. Koven

 I think that saying that The X-Files is one of this summer's most
anticipated films is safe.  For five years, "The X-Files" television
show has developed a dedicated fan culture, whose rabid devotion to the
series rivals that of "Star Trek" fans.
 The premise of both the movie and the television series is two FBI
agents who investigate the paranormal; Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) is
the avid believer whose quest to find the truth about extraterrestrial
life borders on the paranoid, and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) is the
scientific skeptic trying to find a rational explanation to Mulder's
flights of fancy.
 Outlining the plot of The X-Files movie is virtually impossible, since
to be general would result in confusion, yet to be specific would give
too much away.  Nevertheless, I will try.  "The black ooze," and
extraterrestrial, virus-like substance is threatening Earth.  A "shadow
government" is aware of this, but tries to cover-up the alien
existence.  Mulder and Scully know "the truth is out there," and so try
to expose both the invasion and the cover-up.
 There are three central questions I have heard asked about this movie:
 1.  Will those who don't watch the series be able to understand the
movie?  Yes.  Isolated as an individual text, The X-Files can stand
alone.  They have given enough background for anyone, familiar with the
show or not, to understand the movie.  Although some of the secondary
characters' histories may confuse the uninitiated, those characters are
not essential to the film.  This is a major problem: they trot out token
secondary characters from the series out for an appearance and then
disappear just as quickly.
 Why bring Superintendent Skinner into the picture in the first place,
and then have him sat silently on an FBI internal affairs committee?
Why bring in "The Lone Gunmen," three computer geek conspiracy
theorists, for an even briefer appearance?  These characters are
recurrent on the series, and their appearance in the film was met with
whoops from the audience (suggesting their popularity among fans -
actually most of the audience could pass for "the Lone Gunmen").  Still,
then they vanish just as quickly.
 2.  The television show never gives us any answers.  Will the movie
actually explain some things?  Yes.  In The X-Files we get a fairly
complete history of "the black ooze," what it is and what it wants.  We
finally get some understanding of the motivations behind the "shadow
government."  There are even some subtle tie-ins with contemporary
UFO-ology, including the "greys" and the Roswell Crash of 1947.
 3.  Is the movie any good?  No.  The X-Files is a dreadful movie and
shows some fundamental problems with writer/creator Chris Carter's
talents and the relationship between cinema and television.
 First off, the screenplay by series creator Chris Carter is sloppy and
cliched.  After approximately forty-five minutes (the length of a
television episode minus the commercials), the pace drops to a snail's
crawl.  Not long after that point, when Carter attempts to answer some
questions we have had about the series, we wish he had not.  The
explanations are so trite and ridiculous that one would have preferred
it had Carter not explained quite so much.  I am willing to suspend my
disbelief a fair bit, but the absurdity Carter wants me to swallow was
just too much.  Breaking the suspension of disbelief destroys the movie
- and listening to other fans leave the cinema, maybe the series too.
 The explanations are not only absurd, they are tired and unoriginal.
The extraterrestrials breed and gestate like those from the Alien
series, and their craft looks like a leftover set piece from
Independence Day.  Note that the Alien movies, ID4, and The X-Files are
all from 20thCentury Fox - a studio that is beginning to cannibalize
itself I think.
 The X-Files is noteworthy for being the only movie based on a
television series to be produced while the series was still running.  In
comparing the movie and television series certain aspects of the
respective media emerge.
 The avoidance of the series to answer the questions it raised annoyed
and frustrated many people.  However, I rather liked that about the
series.  Television allows you to impose as much, or as little, meaning
on a show as you want.  It is the proverbial "blank screen" which we
project our minds on.  Meaning on television is open and ambiguous; it
is the nature of the medium.
 Cinema, on the other hand, is the opposite.  It projects onto us the
filmmakers mind.  We can, in some films, fill the textual gaps
ourselves, but that almost never happens in an American film.  Meaning,
in cinema, needs to be self-contained and determined.
 So, when The X-Files made that jump from small to big screen, Carter
needed to take into consideration the differences in the medium as
well.  He did not.  By making explicit, what the television show left
implicit, Carter reveals the limits of his creativity and skill.
 When they say that "fans" make a TV show, it is not far from the
truth.  On television, fan culture must impose its meanings on the text
because there is nothing there.  How true that is when we see the
"explicit" X-Files - there is nothing there.

Rating: * (out of four)

--------------C6203DBE2EE2D65EFCC41C3B

<HTML>
<B>The following was printed in the St. John's Express, St. John's, Newfoundland,
Canada.</B>
<BR><B>All views are the authors, but copyright is held by Robinson-Blackmore,
1998.</B>
<BR>&nbsp;

<P>Movie Review
<BR>by Mikel J. Koven

<P>&nbsp;I think that saying that The X-Files is one of this summer's most
anticipated films is safe.&nbsp; For five years, "The X-Files" television
show has developed a dedicated fan culture, whose rabid devotion to the
series rivals that of "Star Trek" fans.
<BR>&nbsp;The premise of both the movie and the television series is two
FBI agents who investigate the paranormal; Fox Mulder (David Duchovny)
is the avid believer whose quest to find the truth about extraterrestrial
life borders on the paranoid, and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) is the
scientific skeptic trying to find a rational explanation to Mulder's flights
of fancy.
<BR>&nbsp;Outlining the plot of The X-Files movie is virtually impossible,
since to be general would result in confusion, yet to be specific would
give too much away.&nbsp; Nevertheless, I will try.&nbsp; "The black ooze,"
and extraterrestrial, virus-like substance is threatening Earth.&nbsp;
A "shadow government" is aware of this, but tries to cover-up the alien
existence.&nbsp; Mulder and Scully know "the truth is out there," and so
try to expose both the invasion and the cover-up.
<BR>&nbsp;There are three central questions I have heard asked about this
movie:
<BR>&nbsp;1.&nbsp; Will those who don't watch the series be able to understand
the movie?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; Isolated as an individual text, The X-Files
can stand alone.&nbsp; They have given enough background for anyone, familiar
with the show or not, to understand the movie.&nbsp; Although some of the
secondary characters' histories may confuse the uninitiated, those characters
are not essential to the film.&nbsp; This is a major problem: they trot
out token secondary characters from the series out for an appearance and
then disappear just as quickly.
<BR>&nbsp;Why bring Superintendent Skinner into the picture in the first
place, and then have him sat silently on an FBI internal affairs committee?&nbsp;
Why bring in "The Lone Gunmen," three computer geek conspiracy theorists,
for an even briefer appearance?&nbsp; These characters are recurrent on
the series, and their appearance in the film was met with whoops from the
audience (suggesting their popularity among fans - actually most of the
audience could pass for "the Lone Gunmen").&nbsp; Still, then they vanish
just as quickly.
<BR>&nbsp;2.&nbsp; The television show never gives us any answers.&nbsp;
Will the movie actually explain some things?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; In The X-Files
we get a fairly complete history of "the black ooze," what it is and what
it wants.&nbsp; We finally get some understanding of the motivations behind
the "shadow government."&nbsp; There are even some subtle tie-ins with
contemporary UFO-ology, including the "greys" and the Roswell Crash of
1947.
<BR>&nbsp;3.&nbsp; Is the movie any good?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; The X-Files is
a dreadful movie and shows some fundamental problems with writer/creator
Chris Carter's talents and the relationship between cinema and television.
<BR>&nbsp;First off, the screenplay by series creator Chris Carter is sloppy
and cliched.&nbsp; After approximately forty-five minutes (the length of
a television episode minus the commercials), the pace drops to a snail's
crawl.&nbsp; Not long after that point, when Carter attempts to answer
some questions we have had about the series, we wish he had not.&nbsp;
The explanations are so trite and ridiculous that one would have preferred
it had Carter not explained quite so much.&nbsp; I am willing to suspend
my disbelief a fair bit, but the absurdity Carter wants me to swallow was
just too much.&nbsp; Breaking the suspension of disbelief destroys the
movie - and listening to other fans leave the cinema, maybe the series
too.
<BR>&nbsp;The explanations are not only absurd, they are tired and unoriginal.&nbsp;
The extraterrestrials breed and gestate like those from the Alien series,
and their craft looks like a leftover set piece from Independence Day.&nbsp;
Note that the Alien movies, ID4, and The X-Files are all from 20thCentury
Fox - a studio that is beginning to cannibalize itself I think.
<BR>&nbsp;The X-Files is noteworthy for being the only movie based on a
television series to be produced while the series was still running.&nbsp;
In comparing the movie and television series certain aspects of the respective
media emerge.
<BR>&nbsp;The avoidance of the series to answer the questions it raised
annoyed and frustrated many people.&nbsp; However, I rather liked that
about the series.&nbsp; Television allows you to impose as much, or as
little, meaning on a show as you want.&nbsp; It is the proverbial "blank
screen" which we project our minds on.&nbsp; Meaning on television is open
and ambiguous; it is the nature of the medium.
<BR>&nbsp;Cinema, on the other hand, is the opposite.&nbsp; It projects
onto us the filmmakers mind.&nbsp; We can, in some films, fill the textual
gaps ourselves, but that almost never happens in an American film.&nbsp;
Meaning, in cinema, needs to be self-contained and determined.
<BR>&nbsp;So, when The X-Files made that jump from small to big screen,
Carter needed to take into consideration the differences in the medium
as well.&nbsp; He did not.&nbsp; By making explicit, what the television
show left implicit, Carter reveals the limits of his creativity and skill.
<BR>&nbsp;When they say that "fans" make a TV show, it is not far from
the truth.&nbsp; On television, fan culture must impose its meanings on
the text because there is nothing there.&nbsp; How true that is when we
see the "explicit" X-Files - there is nothing there.

<P>Rating: * (out of four)</HTML>

--------------C6203DBE2EE2D65EFCC41C3B--