Review: Inside Out (2015)

Review: Cek Toko Sebelah (2016)

Rating: 7.0 out of 10

Cek Toko Sebelah is the second feature film from Ernest Prakasa, an Indonesian stand-up comedian turned writer/actor/director. Cek Toko Sebelah tells the story of Erwin (Ernest Prakasa), a succesful young man on the verge of a promotion, his screw-up brother Yohan (Dion Wiyoko), and their father Koh Afuk (Chew Kin Wah) who leaves Erwin with his small business.

Cek Toko Sebelah has a simple but powerful premise, and it has a promising start. It establishes characters pretty well, filled with witty dialogue including some laugh-out-loud moments, but everything seems to go downhill from there. Ultimately, Cek Toko Sebelah is a typical Indonesian movie, played out in a typical Indonesian fashion: very linear, unimaginative storyline with one dimensional characters. In Cek Toko Sebelah, the story writes itself, and not in a good way. Everything plays out basically exactly like you'd expect with little to no surprises, especially during the first and second act. The characters' storyline does not intertwine in any meaningful way, with minimal character development. The movie does offer good laughs, but everything else is not enough for me. Fortunately on the third act, things started to get a little more exciting, and it does slightly redeems itself.

What's frustrating is, Cek Toko Sebelah has the potential to be an extremely good character-based family drama/comedy. Instead, it only reaches for the easy low hanging fruit, and is either unwilling, or unable to aim higher. Erwin's character is ripe for conflict, but ultimately, he has given nothing to lose. The writer thinks that everything that's being thrown at Erwin is conflict, but Erwin is not given time to process it--and neither was the audience--so ultimately they did not become conflict. They were just stuff. Stuff that happens. Cek Toko Sebelah is a film that does not dare to hurt the characters, therefore it becomes a relatively uncompelling viewing experience. Yohan's dark past is hinted, but is wholly unexplored, and the movie is afraid to put obstacles in front of him. Natalie (Gisella Anastasia), Erwin's girlfriend, has exactly one purpose in the movie (being the nagging girlfriend), and the only attempt to give Ayu (Adinia Wirasti), Yohan's wife, a dimension besides being, y'know, "Yohan's wife", falls flat. The only compelling character is Koh Afuk, largely because of Chew Kin Wah nuanced portrayal. This father figure is not perfect: reserved, cynical, stubborn, but he cares deeply about his family and his employees. He does not say much, but Kin Wah was able to carry it all with authenticity and wit, that we could not help but to fall in love with his character.

Aside from family, there's another theme explored in this movie: living as a Chinese-Indonesian in Indonesia. On that account, Cek Toko Sebelah is very successful in showing the nuances of their everyday lives. Ernest Prakasa himself is Chinese-Indonesian, and he frequently talks about it back from his stand-up comedy days, so it's not surprising. Diversity overall, is a win here. But there are also some problematic social treatments in this movie. I was really hoping that this movie would be above resorting to male gaze for jokes, but with how the males treat Anita's (Yeyen Lidya) character repeatedly, apparently not. In general, the female characters in this movie are uninspired at best. It also features typical Indonesian representation of an LGBT character (a comic relief that other characters laugh at), which while it is funny, only cements the stereotype.

I hope I do not come across as mean or nitpicking, or unsupportive of local films. I really, really do hope for quality filmmaking in Indonesia and this is my way of supporting it. TL;DR Cek Toko Sebelah offers good diversity, some pretty funny moments, but serviceable characters.

Review: Crimson Peak (2015)

Rating: 8.5 of 10

In its barest bones, Crimson Peak is about a young American woman, Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska), who falls in love with a British aristocrat, Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston), with his own complicated relationship with his sister (Jessica Chastain) and mysterious heritage. Things aren't as straightforward as it seems, of course, and in Crimson Peak, it involves secrets and ghosts in the opulent house of Allerdale Hall.

Crimson Peak is gorgeous. Del Toro's (Pacific Rim, Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth) movies are always exquisite in its visual, but Crimson Peak is the most outright beautiful. Rich in color and complex in its texture, the whole of Crimson Peak is a marvel to behold, most notably is their costume and the house of Allerdale Hall. The house itself (a three-storied house, built in a full 7 months, and has 2 complete sets of furniture of varying sizes depending on which scenes they shoot) is a real set built in Canada specifically for the film, and the little details put into it are mindblowing.

All that trouble paid off, thankfully (tenfold, if you ask me). The house has a deep, haunting atmosphere--magnifying its macabre. Despite not being a proper horror movie, Crimson Peak has imageries that haunt you for days if not for how eerie it was, then for how beautiful, or both. Honestly, it’s more than I can say for most horror movies.

One major flaw of Crimson Peak is that it’s not a horror movie, despite the fact that it looks like one and is marketed like one. Instead, it’s a love story that is not particularly scary, but is definitely on the creepy side.

Tom Hiddleston is effortless in playing the many sides of Thomas Sharpe--the dazzling lover, the struggling business man, and the ominous villain. I’m not usually a fan of Wasikowska, but here she is a perfect blend of everything Edith represents and I wouldn’t have her any other way. I was, however, underwhelmed by Jessica Chastain performance for most of the movie excepting maybe the final act. She’s the only chip on my shoulder that makes Crimson Peak isn’t perfect for me, but she doesn’t negate all the things the movie got right. In short, I honestly don’t get why people don’t seem to love it as much as I think it deserves.

TL;DR Creepy and weirdly sensual, Crimson Peak is a hauntingly beautiful piece of art.

TV Shoutout: Mr. Robot

Mr. Robot is a fresh new show, but it quickly captured our attention and we don’t want you to miss it!

What it is about: Elliot Alderson (Rami Malek) is a socially-challenged cyber-security engineer who moonlights as a hacking vigilante, and discovers a hacking group with a mysterious endgame.

Why you should watch it: Plenty of things, from big to small details, set Mr. Robot apart from other courses we usually have on TV. Firstly, it is one of very few shows on TV that accurately portrays hacking—and the life and technology around it (Sam Esmail, the creator, was a coder I believe). For the ones who care, it is a very big deal since the portrayal of technology in most TV and movies has generally been... questionable.

Secondly, Mr. Robot explores the ongoing, and very relevant, fight between 99-percenters vs 1-percenters. Which might sound too vague and nebulous for some, but Mr. Robot smartly keeps the focus small—focusing on Elliot and the people he encounters instead. To keep things short, I’d just say Elliot himself is also a very interesting character, brought to life by Rami Malek’s intense talent.

Mr. Robot is also a very beautiful show to watch with a cinematic flair, and there are little touches that makes the show feel inherently progressive. Although definitely not in any significant roles (except one, for now), an Indian man, a Chinese, a gay, and young woman with hijab had all been portrayed during the total 2 episodes that had aired. It also recognizes the presence of misogyny in the tech world, and in general Mr. Robot is a very prescient show.

And it’s a damn good thriller.

Who should watch it: The ones who enjoy psychological thriller—especially Fight Club in regards to Elliot’s psychological state and Mr. Robot’s nihilism (and fans are calling it, there might be Tyler Durden-esque twist coming!)—or just general thriller, really. The techies. The paranoids, the secret anarchists, and just general TV/movie lover.

Where you should start: It’s been only a couple of episodes, so yeah, from the start. You can jump ahead to whatever episode airing, but you’ll miss the brilliant, movie-like pilot.

Status: 2 of 10 episodes already aired, and second season has been greenlighted due to strong buzz!

Bonus: The first 4-minute clip of Mr. Robot, watch!

Review: Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

In terms of Marvel’s universe, Avengers: Age of Ultron is pretty decent. Because Marvel has been pulling things off left and right throughout these years, any small dip downward will always be felt like a dip. For me unfortunately, Age of Ultron could not reach the heights that was Iron Man, The Avengers, or Captain America: The Winter Soldier, although thankfully it did not rise low like Thor or Iron Man 2.

In Avengers: Age of Ultron, after the fall of SHIELD, Avengers Initiative was continued by Maria Hill under the wings of Tony Stark. They were looking high and low for Loki's Sceptre that was left on earth, and found it in a HYDRA base in Sokovia. They attempted to retrieve it, but they also faced something more: two "enhanced" people, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch (although no one's calling them that). But wait, they're not the villain! The villain was an Artifical Intelligence called Ultron, almost unknowingly built by Tony Stark, who was hellbent on destroying the world like how ultrasmart AI sometimes do.

The movie was fun and exciting, for sure. There were plenty of action to be found in this film, as you would guess from a movie that has Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hulk, Black Widow, and Hawkeye together. After all, you can't really accuse a movie that had Hulk vs Iron Man's Hulkbuster Armor to be lacking action. The sequences were big and beautiful as always, and one thing I particularly liked was how determined the heroes were to keep civilians as far as possible. I even liked how they protrayed Scarlet Witch's mind-altering powers visually, she never looked out of place at all.

Despite all that, the movie's strong suit was always when the action stopped. The personal moments were incredibly the best in this film. Hawkeye, who was mostly mind-controlled in the first Avengers, had a lot of screentime dedicated to him and his (surprise) family, and it was sweet. We got to see a whole new side of Natasha and Bruce Banner as they found solace in each other. And Tony Stark? We found out that he was still an arrogant and a genius, as expected. It was always fun to see them hangout over nothing too, like how they did in the party with Thor's hammer (not a euphemism).

Unfortunately, I found the villain kinda meh. Ultron was a very powerful villain, and his very existence was supposed to change the world or something, but he was too strong, too fast, and too vague that it was hard to feel any particular emotion towards him. Mostly I was like, "What's with this guy?" wondering why he got so crazy and ended up with no satisfying answer other than a single Tony Stark's off-handed remark. Ultron was an underdeveloped villain, but the movie itself was already clocking at 2,5 hours that it was an understandable decision. The Vision was pretty cool, though!

And I am excited for the new generation of Avengers!

TL;DR With serviceable villain, Age of Ultron could not be an instant Marvel classic, but it was a spectacle like none other with excellent dramatic moments.

Review: Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

I've never really admit it before but I've always loved kid-becomes-spy movies like Spy Kids (2001), Agent Cody Banks (2003), and Alex Rider: Operation Stormbreaker (2006), even if quality is sometimes secondary. For me they're the ultimate wish-fulfillment: to be young with a very cool secret, gadgets, weapons, the ability to kick ass and escape from our boring lives, and maybe even get a pretty girlfriend along the way. And in Kingsman: The Secret Service, we could be very, very British too—which is always a code for being damn classy.

Before we start, although I did mention the (family-friendly) movies above, I have to remind some audiences that Kingsman is in fact closer to Wanted (2008) and Kick-Ass (2010) (fun fact: all three were based on Mark Millar's graphic novels but I won't open that can of worms), with the latter also directed by Kingsman's and X-Men: First Class (2011)'s director, Matthew Vaughn. If you are not familiar with those films, basically what they have in common is that they all have genuinely fun, inventive—borderline wacky but definitely cathartic—action and violence. It's not overly bloody or anything (most of them consist of quick-cuts or scenes that are so stylized they're beautiful) but it does require you to at least crack a smile when people's heads are blown off, otherwise you're missing half the fun. But don't worry, they're the bad guys.

The kid in question is Gary or Eggsy (Taron Egerton), whose father trained to become Kingsman but died when he was little. Agent Galahad (Colin Firth) is grateful of Eggsy's father for saving his life and wanted to return the favor by taking Eggsy into Kingsman too. And hence began young Eggsy's training to become a proper British spy.

And when I say British, I really do mean British. I don't know what it is about England (maybe a leftover from the popularity of James Bond), but the best fictional spies are frequently from that side of the pond. With Kingsman it's easy to see why. There's something reassuring (and effortlessly cool) that our hidden saviors are good-mannered gentlemen in exquisite suits with respect for top-shelf bourbon and impeccable gunwork. They have Arthurian code-names and weapons disguised as umbrellas, it doesn't get much more British than that. Colin Firth, our resident dapper Englishman, is surprisingly badass as Agent Galahad. Egerton is also brilliant as a working class kid trying to survive in the streets of London—also quintessentially British, in another way. 

The movie (and Matthew Vaughn himself) states its love to "old" spy movies before the dark, grim, and gritty era: back when those movies actually had fun and less tortured, complete with its trademark crazy villains with crazier plans. The villain in this movie is Samuel L. Jackson with a lisp and name like Richmond Valentine, accompanied always by his false-legged killer butler/bodyguard. If that's not an old-Bond movie logic, I don't know what is. While expressing its love to old movies, Kingsman always felt new and shiny. It doesn't bow down to tropes and it really is a testament to the strength of the script that I never once felt like anyone is save, ever (and people do die in this movie). The action sequences are as exciting as they are beautiful, and they also have good use of music in action scenes, not unlike Kick-Ass whose soundtrack I loved.

TL;DR All in all, if you like good action movie, or just plain fun movie, you owe it to yourself to see this film. Just look at those gifs (or trailer). They're glorious.

Review: Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Finally, it's time for Star Wars: The Force Awakens (TFA for short)! I'll try to keep this review vague because I don't want to delve into any spoiler, but first, let's talk about how this is an actual NEW Star Wars movie! I was meh for the prequels (and did not see them on the theaters either), and wasn't alive yet for the original trilogy so I never experienced what the hype felt like. When I went for TFA, I couldn’t shake a jarring feeling when the theater darkened, the stars and the title font appeared, then the crawl text came into view and I read it and it's a text I haven't read before. My mind couldn’t comprehend that it was a new Star Wars movie I was watching, and I can't imagine I'm the only one who felt that way, so it goes to show how important it was for this movie to be good (arguably we could also say that about the prequels, and we lived through them, so take that as you will). Of course, there were the Expanded Universe and animated series, and while they're good (I particularly kept hearing about how good The Clone Wars was), they're not the same. This time, it's a cinematic movie, and everyone is excited.

One thing I could say about TFA is that it's definitely a Star Wars movie. It wasn't like how JJ Abrams tried to "translate" Star Trek from the 60's to 00's; TFA is Star Wars. It's more Star Wars than what the prequels ever hoped to be. I might even go as far as saying that it does have all the good, but also bad, of the originals, but for the most part it's a very entertaining and well-executed movie.

TFA is basically a homage to the originals, and that's the only way for any Star Wars sequel can be done, honestly. The cast and crew are fans too, and they can't just ignore the huge legacy of the franchise. And they did it brilliantly, I say. In TFA, Jedi had evolved into a myth, in the same way that Star Wars had lived and grown in cultural conciousness throught these years. However, TFA very obviously drew its DNA from the original trilogy. Depending on the person, it could be a good thing or a bad thing. Nostalgia is abound (not in a bad way) and you could basically pin point which traits in each new characters are like Han, Luke, Anakin, etc. I myself didn't mind, because it wasn't like A New Hope (or as some others would call it, simply Star Wars) had the most original story ever. But what’s most important for me, all the visual spectacle and world building that made the franchise so famous, were there too. The various aliens, the lived-in technology, the dog fights, the visually cool villains--even down to the cantina, and also the appearance of sand (not Tatooine), and ice (not Hoth), and green (not Endor) planet. There's a shot that I particularly liked; it was about the first time we see new character Rey (Daisy Ridley), in a long shot near a spaceship wreckage, and it was both beautiful and had amazing sense of scale. It was the moment I knew the movie wouldn't disappoint me for being Star Wars.

Rey, Finn (John Boyega), and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) are the new additions to this movie, and viewers won't have problem falling in love with them. Kylo Ren is especially interesting, psychologically, and I'd like to know more about him. The old characters too, namely Luke Skywalker, now General Leia Organa, and Han Solo are also worthy and natural addition to the story. And BB-8! I was a fan of R2-D2 and BB-8 is an excellent progeny of R2-D2, and an even cuter one. And oh, the movie is extremely funny. It had great comedic timing that don't interfere with the actual movie and it's very fun.

TL;DR A fun, hearty movie with great worldbuilding unique to Star Wars, this movie won't disappoint newly introduced viewers or old fans.

Review: Whiplash (2014)

Rating: 9.8 of 10

A story about how one young ambitious jazz drummer Andrew Neyman (Miles Teller), captured the attention, and then some, of a talented but ruthless teacher Terence Fletcher (JK Simmons), Whiplash is one of the most electric and intense film about music.

Partly inspired by its writer and director's, Damien Chazelle, own experiences as a jazz drummer at school, the movie defies every stereotype one might expect from such film. Pursuit of greatness is such a prevalent theme in movies about music/dance/sports/whatever to the extent that the trope becomes boring, but Whiplash managed to find a fresh new angle to the trope with refreshing complexity. As we see Fletcher barking orders to his scared students, and as we see him encouraging a little girl to keep playing music; as we see Andrew practicing his beats over and over again through the night, and as we see him having dinner with his loving but unappreciative father, we understand them better as we see different sides of them, and we appreciate them as morally grey characters that they are. JK Simmons stole the show as Fletcher--but with every smirk, every twinkle, and every glance, Miles Teller successfully conveyed Andrew's drive, his humiliation, and his ambition through silence. He also played a convincing drum on screen (for non-drummer like me) too, which always help elevate a movie.

Whiplash is also an extremely intense movie, like you wouldn't believe. With tight shots, sweat, blood, pure determination, strive for perfection and no tolerance for anything less, watching Whiplash is like an endurance sport for your heart. TL;DR Filled with more thrill than any of recent action movies combined (okay, maybe not Mad Max: Fury Road), Whiplash is an experience like no other--and with good jazz music, too? You can't lose.

Review: Beck (2010)

Rating: 7.5 of 10

Yukio "Koyuki" Tanaka's (Takeru Sato) was an ordinary—somewhat a loser — high school student but his life soon changed when he met Ryusuke Minami (Hiro Mizushima), a fellow teenager determined to build a band and make it in the rock world. Beck, also the name of the band (after Ryusuke's dog), follows the band’s story and their rise to fame.

Beck is a live action adaptation of a critically acclaimed and highly popular manga and anime series of the same name. In case you pay attention to the actor's name above, I won't lie that partly the reason I'm interested in it was because it also had Takeru Sato who I loved in Rurouni Kenshin. The other reason, was because my boyfriend recommended me the story many times but I had never made up my mind which version I'd go into first. The actor just tipped the scale a bit into the live action.

That said, while I thought Sato was cute as the shy Koyuki (and I definitely see proto-Kenshin in his character), I found the other actors inhabit their characters much more fully. Mizushima had his swagger dead-on as the charismatic but volatile guitarist Ryusuke (with almost perfect English, too), Osamu Mukai as the cool blooded bassist Taira, Aoi Nakamura as happy-go-lucky Saku, Kenta Kiritani as the unsheathed Chiba, and Shiori Kutsuna as the somewhat-annoyed-but-supportive sister Maho. And from the images I saw, they actually look a lot like their manga and anime counterparts too, which is always a big bonus. They also have incredible chemistry with each other, and immediately felt like brothers from the get go.

The first part of the film felt a little bit clunky as it tries to accommodate both Koyuki's and Ryusuke's sides of life, but immediately gelled after the band formed. It really was a delight to see the band coming and playing together, and it wasn't only because of their chemistry but also because their music was genuinely good (especially for movies). The storyline could be more focused as it tries to fit in various subplots, as is often the case with a lot of adaptation from serialized material, but that is pretty minor.

But the biggest mistake, in my opinion, is having KOYUKI NOT SING AT ALL. Koyuki was billed as the one with angelic voice, capable of silencing thousands of people with awe in their shows, but the movie actually muted him out focusing instead on the instruments. I understand the director's decision to make him not actually sing because whatever they showed might not be on par with what we imagine, but for me it was downright annoying. If you're not familiar with "Chekhov's gun" rule, it is basically a "rule" in storytelling in which, for example, if you introduce a gun in the first act, then by the third act you really should have made them go off. Don't make promises or teases something you can't keep. In my opinion Koyuki really is worse than Chekhov's gun! Especially once I found out that Sato actually did some singing in the past, but like that mattered anyway. They could've easily hire a proper singer to do the singing part if he were not up to par. The movie actually ended in a pretty satisfying climax with the band performing in front of a big crowd, but with Koyuki not singing it was quite hard to not feel at least a bit disappointed. This "little" detail is actually what brought the movie down from a possible 8.0 into a 7.5 for me.

TL;DR In conclusion, Beck is a pretty charming, pretty benign live adaptation —if you could get over from the absence of singing in Koyuki's part.

Rant: Why Is There No Science-Fiction Culture In Indonesia?

The recent release of two Indonesian science-fictional movies made me think: what happened to Indonesian science-fiction (SF) culture, or the lack thereof? The movies in question are, of course, Supernova: Ksatria, Putri, dan Bintang Jatuh which was based on popular novel of the same title and Garuda Superhero, an original Indonesian Batman-esque superhero. I reviewed Supernova and intended to review Garuda Superhero (I ended up just writing a first impression of the trailer). For my failure to fulfill my promise regarding the latter, I'm sorry. I know it may look like I'm a hypocrite, but by the time I found the time to watch it, it had vanished from my chosen theater and before the end of its second week it disappeared completely from all theaters in Jakarta except for one single viewing. I read other people's reviews and the bottomline is that Garuda Superhero is more or less as atrocious as my first impression and apparently is almost as terribly received by moviegoers. Most of the reviews states that aside from being extremely derivative, Indonesia isn't ready to make this kind of film. The question is, why?

To answer, we have to understand what is SF and where did it come from? So in this article I'd discuss the history of SF as we know it (namely Western SF, the biggest SF culture in the world) and also in other parts of the world especially Asia and Indonesia.

Disclaimer: I did read some sources regarding the topic, but by and large this article is absolutely non-academic and might just be the ramblings of a misguided, naive, ignorant 24 year old girl, but I try to do this article justice. Discussions are more than welcome, of course. And brace yourselves, it will be a long post.

SF, with a "science" modifier to its "fiction", is defined by the existence of "novum" of the scientific kind in its stories. Novum literally means "new thing"; that twist that differs it from a tale about ordinary life. So a man in love with a woman is not SF, but a man from 2400 that time-traveled to 1958 and then fall in love with a woman is SF. That example is a crude classification, and there are always some works with arguable definition of novum or science (James Bond and his gadgets sit nicely in the fringe of SF), but that is the general idea.

Hearing the word "science fiction" most people would picture complicated technology and unintelligible conversations about quantum physics and buzzwords about melting positrons. Deriving from that alone, it's not hard to imagine why Indonesia seemingly have no SF culture. Indonesia isn't and never was the cradling bed of science and technology. Not to belittle the work of great Indonesian scientists and engineers (BJ Habibie, Sedijatmo, Warsito Taruno are the famous ones, among many others), but scientific attitude is never part of the building blocks of Indonesian living.

The thing is, in actuality SF (as far as it is from gods and demons) had its roots deep in mythology. You can still see it to this day as SF and Fantasy are frequently classified together (and sometimes collectively called as "genre", which I admit is weird. A genre called genre.). Many people are a fan of both and both are usually featured in the same ;cons, and writers sometimes jump from one genre into the other. Stephenie Meyer, for example, who wrote the notorious vampire love story Twilight series, went on to write The Host about alien invasion (or for more hardcore SF fan: Ursula K. Le Guin wrote both The Left Hand of Darkness and the Earthsea series). SF and Fantasy are both very similar because they both have nova, although one in scientific sense and one in the supernatural. So the question is: how can Indonesia, that is forehead-deep in mythological nova, is so poor of SF? Why hadn't it evolved into SF?

The origin of Western SF can be traced back to "voyage extraordinaires" stories in Ancient Greece. Those are stories about adventures to new and foreign lands, sometimes even to the sky or the moon and stars. Of course physically they were unreachable at the time but they saw the moon etc and thought, what if? What if we could go there? In Indonesia, an overwhelming amount of folk and ancient stories were about good vs. evil and cautionary tales, but there were extraordinary voyages too like the wayang story of meeting Dewa Ruci deep into the ocean. Not only that, there were also other fantastical, marginally SF stories like the folk tale of Timun Mas, which for all we know might actually involve genetically modified infant. We even have Gatot Kaca, who is basically the ultimate superhero before superheroes.

But then Copernicus "emerged" in Europe. The history of western SF was a bit incredible to me because of how specific its development was, sometimes even (roughly) traceable down to a single person. In the 16th century it was Copernicus, with the outrageous (and accurate) Heliocentric theory. The church held the believe that the earth is the center and the only significant body in the universe, but with Copernicus's new theory came the realization that we are just a fraction of whole universe, and an insignificant one at that. Voyage extraordinaires stories still existed, but changed. Before Copernicus, the sky and the moon were usually portrayed in the divine or spiritual sense (as the extension of heaven or the heaven itself). But after, they became material—in the sense that they became an actual place protagonists could visit and meet wacky new creatures. That paradigm change was important in igniting true SF.

There were similarly important figures throughout the years who paved the road for today's SF: Mary Shelley ("Frankenstein" unified contemporary scientific advancement, fantastical elements, and realism to create the first real SF work), H.G. Wells (of The War Of The Worlds fame, whose primary influence is grounding/connecting SF to "the mundane and the present"), Hugo Gernsback (who popularized SF with the rise of pulp magazines), and..... George Lucas (whose Star Wars had HUGE impact in cinematic SF—or cinema, period.). And here is my reminder for readers that those are oversimplication in the most absolute sense. There were TONS of other influential people that I didn't mention like Jules Verne, Isaac Asimov, John W. Campbell, George Orwell, Philip K. Dick, Ursula K. Le Guin, William Gibson, Douglas Adams, the list could go on and on.

I am absolutely tempted to say that the reason Indonesia developed no SF is because we have no Copernicus, but that is cheating. Plenty of other regions developed SF from a separate branch than the west. Voyage extraordinares also existed in the middle east, and the Arab world had identifiable proto-SF work as early as the 12th century. Now middle eastern SF is still not as popular as the western, but genre work in Arabic language is said to be on the rise, although back in 2009 there was an op-ed lamenting the lack of Arabic SF (much like what I do now).

There were several notable SF-esque Japanese old tales like The Tale Of The Bamboo Cutter, but 1900s saw one of the first true SF work in Japan. After the world wars, Japanese SF were more influenced by American fiction but they were distinctively Japanese. Gojira (or Godzilla), for example, were conceived as physical portrayal of nuclear attack--an unfortunate but uniquely Japanese experience. Today, SF theme is very big in Japan and there are countless and countless Japanese SF work in the form of live-action, manga, anime, or even game. Many of them reached high recognition in the SF world, like Akira (the poster child of SF anime), Ghost In The Shell (definite inspiration for The Matrix movie), Paprika, Gundam/Macross/Evangelion franchises (oh yeah I had just lumped those into one!), 20th Century Boys, 1Q84, Battle Royale, Casshern, The Girl Who Leapt Through Time, etc.

Basically, SF emerged all over the place like a natural evolution, and that made the lack of it in Indonesia is all the more stark. "Everything not forbidden is compulsory" is a "rule" in quantum physics, and I believe it applies to literature too. People throughout history had always incorporated fantastical elements in their stories, some of them by rule must be of the scientific nature. There is a space or even need of SF in Indonesia, and somewhere, someday that niche will be filled. And, for reasons I'll explain, I'm actually optimist that it will be soon.

I must elaborate that when I say there's no SF culture in Indonesia, I don't mean there is absolutely no SF. There are recorded works, but they are patchy or hard to find (sometimes even with questionable quality). Djokolelono's Jatuh Ke Matahari (Falling Into The Sun), published in 1976, is regarded as the first Indonesian SF novel (which I observed is 100 years too late than others). If there was ever SF before and not long after 1976, it completely fell into the cracks of cultural history and I'd argue is therefore insignificant to its development. SF only regained its life again in 2000s, when novels like Supernova (Dee, 2000), Area X: Hymne Angkasa Raya (Eliza Handayani, 2003), Anomali (Santopay, 2004), etc. were published. To this day, Djokolelono also wrote several SF and Fantasy books for children, young adult, and adult. There were actually quite a lot of SF works in 2000s if we try to list them all, but few of them reached significant popularity or longevity and I'd argue the SF culture is still practically non-existent. Case in point; there is no SF section in the bookstore that makes browsing the bookstore painstaking, confusing, and likely result in no SF bought. I can't remember the last time we had local SF movie and it felt forever until we eventually have Garuda Superhero (and some still say that "we're not ready for it"). Also, aside from few enthusiasts like me, basically no one's talking about SF. Maybe I just hang out with the wrong set of friends, I don't know.

That said, Indonesia is not special in its stagnation. Several other SF culture in other countries struggled too. India's SF, despite its popularity, is regarded as "mediocre and derivative". Chinese radio, TV, and film authority issued guidelines to discourage, among them, time travel stories. And don't forget the aforementioned arabian essay.

But the 100 year gap of SF in Indonesia (only first emerged in 1976) compared to other regions is curious, to say the least. Provided that were true and there were no significant SF work of that period that fell into obscurity, SF in Indonesia have no direct line to the rest of Indonesian literature history (Jatuh Ke Matahari's author Djokolelono is actually a working book translator too, and it seems reasonable to say he was rather influenced by western literature). Lacking real sources about this matter, I resorted to wild guesses. In 18th and 19th century—a significant time of SF history in which it branched out to a notably distinctive genre—Indonesia was under the colonism of Netherlands (actually, Indonesia was colonized way before that by the Portuguese and Spain, since early 16th century). I know it's fashionable to blame things on the colonials (we do like to blame things on them colonials, don't we?), but I figured something must have happened around that time that made situations inconducive for the birth of SF. Proper education for native people were limited only to the elite and therefore, science were too. The development of science and technology is crucial to the emergence of SF, for obvious reasons. Science and technology eventually came to us, but they came fully formed from the west. We never had that anxiety of invention, which is important for the heart of SF. I'm just armchair-philosophing here, but that reasoning seemed probable enough for layman me. Although one might think that the influx of western literature especially during the time of VOC, combined with insurgent situation at the time should be a fertile ground for SF, but hey, apparently not.

Now that we've understood the history of SF here and in the rest of the world, it's time to ask: what should we do next? Quite a few of Indonesian SF lifted elements from Indonesian mythology, which is a great effort to make them "ours" and I hope people would keep tapping on that endless resource. But selfishly I'd like to see something that are more contemporary and speak more loudly (in a true SF fashion) about our condition now, because for me SF are best when they speak with social resonance (if you have a recommendation for Indonesian work, let me know). Poverty, gap of the rich and the poor, corruption, religious anxiety—mixed in with a little alien or dystopia—might be a recipe for truly compelling SF. I kept thinking something akin to Lord Of The Flies, which is weird because it's not SF but it could have been (it certainly is speculative fiction), would be awesome for us. In the realms of movies, I'd like to see more script-based SF (instead of pure visual spectacle), from independent and commercial filmmakers alike. There's no reason we can't produce lowkey projects like Pi, Safety Not Guaranteed, Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World, Timecrimes, 28 Days Later, etc (yes, I'm basically spitting out every title that comes into my head).

But the truth is, we may not realize it but SF in Indonesia is slowly and surely rising. Even now, there are two superhero movies slated for release in the next couple of years (Volt and Gundala Putra Petir remake, if fate permitting), and superheroes Bima Satria Garuda and Nusantaranger are gaining good grounds. Hopefully, other subgenres will follow. I hope the next time I write about the state of Indonesian SF, it will be in a completely different circumstance (possibly raving about The Golden Age that Indonesian SF were having).

Sources: The bulk of western SF's history is from Adam Roberts' book The History of Science Fiction. Other sources can be found through the link.

Edited to add (6/02/2015): So I had a trip to the bookstore today and gave myself time for a thorough browse. I found 5 seemingly-SF books (if not, then certainly speculative fiction): Zombie Aides (Satria Satire), Bumi (Tere Liye), Spora (Alkadri), Gerbang Trinil (Riawani Elyta), and Time[s] (Aya Swords). So SF lives, but some genre savviness (knowing the kinds of title and cover SF usually comes in) definitely help to pick them up from the rest. I bought 2 of them, Bumi and Gerbang Trinil, and maybe I'll give them a shoutout if they're good.

Rant: What prevented Glee from being a truly great television.

I have a love/hate relationship with Glee. It's one of my only guilty pleasure in the true guilty-feeling sense (I also love some non high-brow TV shows like Teen Wolf, but my love for them is always unashamed), but Glee is the only show which I might feel like scrubbing my brain afterwards and just pretend I didn't watch them.

I think Glee had bad reputation just because it's set in high school and it features singing pop songs (or in some cases, butchering songs) in ubiquitous environments. It just seemed so uncool for people above 20 y.o. who are finally capable of making well-reasoned decisions in life (unlike 100% of the characters in Glee), but Glee's downfall for me is not even about trademark Ryan Murphy's lightning fast nonsensical plots and antics—I've taken it as part of Glee's charm even though it is an acquired taste—but because for me Glee was always just so damn close to being truly compelling television. In its heart, Glee is about outcasts finding their way in the world, following dreams, overcoming odds, tolerance and equality. And Glee was always great at telling compelling teenage-related stories when it remembered its heart. When it’s bad it’s bad, but when it’s good it’s really good and I think a lot of people missed it because of the stigma that the show carries.

First season was generally loved by critics and fans, and it remained its best season. It was a unique blend of a teenage dream—a dream that we can all fit in, and we can reach greatness—and a brightly-lit, tounge-in-cheek satire. Rachel was the epitome of Glee: talented, driven, and misunderstood. Others fit in nicely too, from a jock who struggled to not be the mean bully that everybody expected him to be, a stuttery gothic girl, a church girl overlooked but destined for stardom, a kid in a wheelchair, a closeted gay, and even jocks and cheerleaders who eventually found home in Glee club and in each other. The interactions between the losers and the popular, and how they later overcame their differences was what Glee is all about. They felt like family and it was all that mattered. Glee was never without its more questionable aspects however, like Will's wife faking her pregnancy, but hey it's Glee we're talking about so it comes with the territory. Things got rocky later on, as second season rolled and it started to pay more attention to elaborate popular songs, and less on actual storylines. It never quite reached the heights of season 1 again, but Glee always had its moments of brilliance. And then sometimes it threw it all away, then found them again, and lost it again, then it came back—you get the gist. Glee always trailed the line between greatness and awfulness, and maybe there's no place it rather be.

Disclaimer: I do watch Glee from time to time but I am in no way religious about it, so I haven't watched every single episodes of Glee but I watched quite a lot of them. And yes, sometimes I skip some episodes on purpose because some of them are just bad and I just can't with it. And I critic because I love them, so please don't be mad at me for being passionate! These opinions are my own, and this rant is always intended to be a mere opinion piece. Also, spoilers ahead.

I have a list in my mind of things that prevented Glee from reaching its true potential. I try to keep them broad and general, because there were always a thousand plots going around Glee at any one time (good and bad) and it's just counterproductive to complain about them all. So here it is:

1. The Rachel Berry Problem. Glee loves Rachel Berry. I have no idea why. I did say that Rachel Berry is the epitome of Glee, and at certain level it was true, but it quickly went out of hand. Glee gave Rachel everything. She was selfish, and everybody shone a spotlight on her, said she was special, pat her in the back, and handed everything to her in a silver platter just because she demanded for it. It happened over and over again it was not even funny, and in the last season she was only worried about her future for a few minutes and guess what: eventually the only choice she had to make was between accepting a Broadway part that she forgot she auditioned for, or coming back to NYADA that accepted her again just because she asked for it. In the end, I don't even think Rachel learned anything at all aside from how amazing she is and how she deserves everything in life.

2. The Asian Girl Problem. I feel sorry for Tina. Remember that storyline in season 2 in which Tina wanted to be the lead but everybody's like, "Let Rachel have it. She's in senior year and she needs it more than you, you can have it next year," but guess what? The time never came. She was always sidelined in favor of the other girls until the end. It always seemed odd to me because she seemed to have, "I'm not gonna put up with your s**t," attitude. She's a true team player and the show rarely rewarded her for it. There was also rarely an episode in which her ethnicity isn't mentioned in one way or another, that you start to think that maybe it's part of why.

3. New kids of season 3: The Glee Project winners a.k.a extras. There was a show called The Glee Project and yes, I watched 2 seasons of them. It was a reality-show/competition type spin-off series that aimed to find the next star to appear on Glee. They were told that the winner would get 7 episode arc on Glee (that's A LOT) and maybe a gateway to stardom. It was not. Technically they weren't wrong, because they pointed out that the show wasn't technically a competition but rather televised casting process. And they get their prizes alright, but they never got the chance to really shine on Glee. Most of their roles involving being a walking label who spouts one or two sentences each episode and smile while other people sing. You definitely started to feel sorry for the winners because they were basically glorified extras. Other non-winner new kids on Glee were also treated barely as part of the group that it becomes useless fare to talk about them.

The reason I talked about The Glee Project was because they quite made a big fuzz about finding new kids but ended up not using them as much at all. Also, by that time I was a bit frustrated with Glee that the thought of having fresh infusion of blood excited me, but sadly I was misguided. It was such wasted opportunity.

4. Old kids of season 3: Living In New York Watching the series finale, it was pretty clear that the show was always about the original kids (unless you're Blaine, because Glee loves them Blaine too). At season 3, it wasn't extremely clear to me what the show was trying to be after the big shake-up of graduating kids. To be fair, I guess the show itself wasn't sure either. I'm pretty sure the only reason we get to NY was because the show was afraid of letting Rachel Berry go.

I think the show suffered because it tried to tell 2 stories at once: the new kids (the ones haven't graduated) and the old kids. The fact that it couldn't choose hurt its chances at telling great stories on either of them, and left me disappointed with both.

6. New kids of season 4: What's up with the triangle? Glee came back with 4 new kids: Marley, Ryder, Jake, and Kitty. Three of them were in a love triangle (or love "square" if you count Kitty's deviousness as real love), and it was unengaging. I shouldn't complain about the new kids when I crave for them in the previous season, but the problem was that these kids weren't very good characters and were downright boring by Glee's standards. I quite like Ryder (played by Blake Jenner, winner of 2nd season The Glee Project) and his dyslexia, but for the most part they were normal kids pretending to be outcasts (trapped in a boring love triangle) and they never really gelled with the show.

7. New kids of season 6: Too little too late, The disappearence of Jane Hayward, and Are we a team with The Warblers? If there was one thing that Glee season 6 pulled off, it was the new kids. They embody the wide-eyed hopes and dreams that the original kids of Glee used to have, and it was fun to watch it all unfold all over again. The only regrettable thing was that we only had such a short time with them (6th season is a shortened season of only 13 episodes, and even then the kids didn't get legitimate storyline until halfway into the season). Roderick-Spencer bromanship was nice, so was Mason's coming of age and Madison's blessing and serenity, but it was a little bit too little too late, especially when we talk about Jane! Jane started off the season with guns blazing and winds blowing: she fought her way into Dalton Academy and The Warblers, lost, but rose again and get herself transferred to McKinley to join the New Directions.... only to not be heard of again. She was such a fighter in the first episode, but she was never given her own storyline to showcase herself in later episodes, not even when The Warblers joined New Directions (her reaction was limited to a quick one-sentence remark).

And speaking off The Warblers, the joint New Directions-Warblers came soooo far from the left field that it had not one iota of believability. If it were given time to build up and develop across several episodes of the season, it would be a marvellous arc, but the actual execution was pretty bad. It took place in exactly one episode, I believe? The Warblers were even barely in frame whenever they were in a group together, that it never felt real that they actually joined. And are we pretending that no former members of The Warblers sang anything at Sectionals and were okay with it? I know that the show is about New Directions, but the show just threw any sort of believability out of the window by that point. The heart was in it in season 6, but the execution was lacking that it left me wondering how a perfect season would be like.

8. Old kids of season 6: We never let go of anything. I was tired of the old kids by this time, I even skipped the wedding episode because I just don’t want to see them again. For me, their arc already ended and there were not much that can be gained by revisiting them. It was only by the time its 2-part finale aired that I understood that the show was never about the new kids, or even the club. It was about several kids and one teacher who happened to find their way to each other's life, and changed each other's life. The finale was pure nostalgia and wish fulfillment, but by that time it wasn't even a negative. It was perfectly sweet and bookended the series nicely. Glee is the world where the people you meet in high school are the only people of worth you'll ever meet in your life: it maybe not the most realistic, but it was the world that it lived in. In Glee, nobody’s ever has to let go, and who doesn't want to live like that?

Glee may have lost its steam. By this time, most people maybe don't know or don't care that the show has shown it last episode (it actually has the lowest rating of Glee's season finales), but for me Glee will always be remembered as that show that was always almost on the verge of greatness. Farewell, and good riddance (I never know which one to choose).