Sensuality, Shakespeare and Stranger Things

Where the hell has Winona Ryder been?

Like half my friends, I just finished binge-watching Netflix’s Stranger Things, an eight-part sci-fi/horror series that’s partly a homage to the 1980s. Overall it was very good, both addicting and entertaining, once I was able to slide into the story.

strangerthingsthumbjpg-6ab191_1280w

A lot has been made of the fact that Stranger Things is set in 1983, and the directors took great pains to ground the series in that time frame. The senses are constantly distracted by elements from the early ’80s — from music to the clothes and hairstyles to the decor of the houses.

I appreciate the effort, but it was overkill, too much of a good thing, and it distracted from the story. Having been alive and aware in 1983 I kept finding myself questioning how accurate it all was, and it seemed too dated.

Luckily, in a stroke of brilliance, they cast Winona Ryder as the lead. She played against type — the woman who made her name as a quirky everywoman played a worried, desperate, and unstoppable mother.

Winona

Winona Ryder is about my age, and when I was younger a lot of guys I knew had crushes on her. But to me she always seemed unformed. She a girl, not a woman. I didn’t get the attraction, and I never followed her career.

Winona_RyderIn these intervening years she’s had some not-so-secret difficulties, as we all have. And when I look at pictures of her now — she’s hot. She’s a woman now, a fully formed adult with all the complications that brings.

In Stranger Things Ryder was effective not just for her acting, but because, in contrast to the set, she was not stylized. She was gaunt and frail. Ryder’s pixie quality was a strength here, as we saw a woman who’s been beaten down by life in many ways but keeps fighting.

Coincidentally, last week I saw Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida in Central Park. One of the actors listed in that play was David Harbour as Achilles, a rambunctious warrior torn between his fellow soldier/boyfriend and a woman he pines for back home.

Harbour, unfortunately, dropped out two days before I saw the play. He tore his Achilles tendon during a performance (you can’t make that up). However, when I started binge-watching Stranger Things the next day, whose name pops up in the credits?

David Harbour, as Chief Hopper.

david-harbour-stranger-things

Like Winona Ryder, he brought a physicality that rooted the show. In one of his earliest scenes he’s outside shirtless smoking a cigarette after a hard night of drinking. He’s pale with a paunch. He’s tired. He’s hung over. And he’s real in a fully relatable way.

Watching Stranger Things was a totally different experience than watching Troilus and Cressida. Compared with television, it’s harder for me to lose myself while watching a play. I’m hyper aware of the fact that it’s fake. Troilus and Cressida was hard-charging. The actors were loud and physical. There was constant movement — touching, scrapping, fighting. The play used these sensory elements to draw me in.

Stranger Things, while fun, was using the sensory elements of 1983 (or a close approximation) as a wink to the audience, and it was distracting. Luckily they cast Winona Ryder and David Harbour as their leads. They were natural, and by using their physicality to ground the show, they ended up saving it.

 

Read this book: Rendezvous With Rama

The beauty of fiction is that when it’s done right, it is timeless. Think of books ranging from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, to Raymond Chandler’s hard-boiled noir novels. Both writers are coming from very different worlds, yet their works contain a human element that transcends their eras.

Science fiction writers including Philip K. Dick, Ursula LeGuin, Octavia Butler, and Ray Bradbury also transcend not only their genres, but the times in which they lived and wrote.

RamaAnother writer to add to that list would be Arthur C. Clarke. I started reading him early, but somehow I missed Rendezvous With Rama.

This book is brilliant in the sense that although it was written in the early 1970s, it reads pretty fresh to someone living in 2015. What it lacks is the modern trend for hyper plotting (yes, there is too much of a good thing, in my view). What contains is a blueprint for hard sci-fi done right.

The basic plot: in 2131, an erratic asteroid is detected by astronomers, This asteroid, named Rama, turns out to be not an asteroid but a spacecraft of some sort. The manned ship Endeavour, helmed by Bill Norton, is sent to approach Rama with the intent of studying it. What they find is an immense, mysterious craft, mind-bogglingly large and packed with unexplained features.

If there is one fault with Rendezvous With Rama, it would be that the characterizations are on the thin side. But Rama is the main character, not Bill Norton or his fellow explorers. And Clarke makes Rama shine. What he gives us is a beautiful portrayal of a ship waking up. Clarke deftly describes the many facets of Rama, always giving just enough information to keep the pages turning.

rendezvous with rama

Surprisingly, Rendezvous With Rama doesn’t come off as dated in any significant sense. There’s ethnic diversity, though he never lingers long on any one character to develop this further.that seem even more ahead of our times. For instance, Clarke describes a stable three way marriage between two men and a woman.

Aside from rendering Rama beautifully, Clarke also shows us a human race that has colonized not only the moon and Mars, but also Mercury and the outer moons of Jupiter and Saturn. He explains these societies briefly, though complete enough to paint a vivid picture.

rama-inside2

Rendezvous With Rama is simple in the best sense. It is a timeless adventure tale that will fill you with wonder. Check it out.