Make this my home page
More buttons
Best of the Day
Page
Turn off that Wi-Fi network - it's disturbing our chakras.
Video

Hot For Words: Lollipop

Blog
Innocent Spam
Game
EA SPORTS Complex on PlayStation Home
Art
Kinetic sculpture is a cross between art and engineering.
Cool tools
Hot links
Dadaist deconstruction of new media, as a flash game.
Everything you need to know about microscopic water bears
News for nerds
For lovers of the Green Fairy
Stories and art from Australia's Yolgnu people
Australia's best science fiction author
Did the earth just move?
Don't discount journalism
Novelist and comic book legend's homepage
Searchable history of the internet
Exposing systematic torture in Iran
Museum of science fiction, utopia and extraordinary journeys
The real story of christianity
Image bookmarking
Developing tech to get the internet to its full potential
Who Stole My Volcano?

Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Dematerialisation of Supervillain Architecture. by Matt Jones

I saw Sir Ken Adam, production designer of numerous Bonds, Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang and Dr. Strangelove amongst other movies, interviewed by Christopher Frayling at the V&A last Friday, as part of their current Cold War Modern exhibit.

As a result, Frayling concentrated the conversation on those iconic Cold War images of the war room in Dr. Strangelove, and the numerous lairs for Bond Villains he had designed.

Frayling described these lairs with a lovely turn of phrase, paraphrasing Corbusier's "houses are machines for living in" - that they were "Machines for being a meglomaniac in".

Adam responded that his intention was to make the Bond Villain a contemporary creature. They should embedded in the material culture of the times - albeit with the resources of a meglomaniac millionaire or billionaire - and also able to reach a little bit beyond into a near-future as those resources allow.

Although rather than maintaining a purely high-modernist aesthetic, Adam's villains were ostentatious, status-seeking magpies, with their old masters from a daring heist, siberian tiger rugs and priceless antiques on display next to their Eames recliners and Open-plan freestanding fireplaces.

"Gantries and Baroque" might be the best name for the look though, as this finery was, of course, all inside the 'sanctum-sanctorum' of their lair - generally they would have maintained such a well-appointed apartment somewhere within a more massive and industrial death-dealing facility staffed by uniformed private armies.

Frayling pointed out this repeating formula in the 60s and 70s Bond movies to the audience. A hidden fortress, that had to be discovered, infiltrated and destroyed with a girl/goddess as guide - but not to be destroyed before we could take in some of the fine lifestyle touches that supervillainy gave as rewards.

But then in an almost throw-away aside to Adam, he reflected that the modern Bond villain (and he might have added, villains in pop culture in general) is placeless, ubiquitous, mobile.

His hidden fortress is in the network, represented only by a briefcase, or perhaps even just a mobile phone.

Where's the fun in that for a production designer?

3016568179_028e4f9d40Maybe it's in the objects. It's not the pictures that got small, but the places our villains draw they powers from.

Perhaps the architypical transformation from gigantic static lair to mobile, compact "UbiLair" is in the film Spartan, where Val Kilmer's anti-heroic ronin carries everything he needs in his "go-bag" - including a padded shooting mat that unfolds from it to turn any place into a place where he holds the advantage.

Move beyond film and I immediately think of my favourite supervillain of the year, Ezekiel ‘Zeke' Stane from Matt Fraction's masterful run on the comicbook Invincible Iron Man.

As Fraction puts it:

Zeke is a post-national business man and kind of an open source ideological terrorist, he has absolutely no loyalty to any sort of law, creed, or credo. He doesn't want to beat Tony Stark, he wants to make him obsolete. Windows wants to be on every computer desktop in the world, but Linux and Stane want to destroy the desktop. He's the open source to Stark's closed source oppressiveness. He has no headquarters, no base, and no bank account. He's a true ghost in the machine; completely off the grid, flexible, and mobile. That absolutely flies in the face of Tony's received business wisdom and in the way business is done. There are banks and lawyers and you have facilities and testing. Stane is a much more different animal. He's a much smarter, more mobile and much quicker to respond and evolve futurist.

Zeke has no need for specialised infrastructure beyond commodity gear than he can improvise and customise. He doesn't need HeliCarriers or giant military-industrial infrastructure like Tony Stark. He just needs his brain and his hate. As Fraction says in an interview:

I was trying to figure out what a new Iron Man would look like, and I figured, well, there wouldn't be a suit anymore. The user would be the suit. I just started to riff on that, on cybernetics and riffing on weaponized bodymod culture stuff. Tony's old money, old world, old school and old model manufacture. So where would Stane, a guy that had no manufacturing base and no assembly facilities, get his tech? Everything would need power sources, so how would that work? Where would the surgeries be performed? How would he pay for it? What's his ideology? I started reading up on 4G war and warfare. And on and on until I understood Stane's reality, and how Stane would wage war on Stark Industries and Tony both.

So - for a "4th generation warfare" supervillain there aren't even objects for the production designer to create and imbue with personality. The effects and the consequences can be illustrated by the storytelling, but the network and the intent can't be foreshadowed by environments and objects in the impressionist way that Adam employed to support character and storytelling.

But - what about materialising, visualising these invisible networks in order to do so?

Dan Hill just published a spectacular study of his - into the ‘architecture' of wifi in a public space. They make visible the invisible flows of the network around tangible architecture, and the effect that has on how people inhabit that tangible space.

Interesting, deeply-interesting stuff.

 

Me, I just think that's what's fluxing and flexing around the 4th Gen Bond Villain.

That's what could telegraph to us, the audience their bad intentions. That's what communicates their preference, and their potency. Could it do it as effectively, immediately, seductively as Sir Ken could with Cor-Ten and Cashmere?

Probably not. Yet.

The visualisations he's made Dan freely admits make more than a nod to Cedric Price's Aviary at London Zoo. Price himself being no stranger to creating intangible, mobile, flexible architectures - I bet he would have been bursting with ideas for 4th Gen Bond Villain UbiLairs...

In the mean-time, in the real world of all-controlling superpowers, we seem to be coming full circle, architecture professor Jeffrey Huang has been investigating the all-too-tangible architecture of what we rather-wishfully call the cloud: server farms.

These hydropowered, energy-guzzelling megastructures seem to have all the ‘Gantry' but not a lot of ‘Baroque' panache to qualify as good old-fashioned Bond Villain SuperLairs.

But, perhaps Larry and Sergei are working on it...

This summer, Google put a patent on floating data centers cooled and powered by the ocean.

3017537440_3ed42d2066

Sir Ken was always ahead of his time.

To read more click the view button below.

View the pageGo back to previous pageLeave some feedbackPrint this pageEmail link to friendsBookmark in del.icio.usAdd to Stumble ThisAdd to your favourite bookmarksDigg this article

Tags

 

Related Stories

   
Next

So, I read today that the designer of Mattel's Barbie doll was obsessed with sex. Seriously? We need a book-length study to tell us that?

We in the land of feminist academics have been teaching the pernicious sexual politics of Barbie for years. The breasts that defy gravity, the hair, the long, long legs and of course the cruel, nipped in waist. Oh, don't forget the tiny clothes, the f*ck-me pumps, not to mention the well-equipped kitchens in every Barbie Dream House. The message of Barbie seems unambiguous to me.

Still, many students (and not a few colleagues) consistently resist seeing Barbie as a miniature sex toy, claiming instead that the doll was a good role model for little girls. (One could, after all, purchase a Barbie doll dressed as a doctor.) Or claiming, equally untenably, that toys had no impact on their ideas about gender roles or their own sexuality.

These students, mostly women, want to rescue Barbie, to protect their own childhoods from academic interrogations of pop culture and what those interrogations might reveal. That's understandable. Yet, many of these same students sit in my class pouring out of tank tops, squeezed into low-rise jeans, or tugging on mini-skirts so short they are nearly impossible to sit down in. That is, dressed like Barbie.

It's an experience I regularly have as a feminist critic of popular culture: a media event, book or news story demonstrates that I'm not wrong, my ideology is not based in "over analyzing," "hyper sensitivity," or "reading too much into things" (the three most common criticisms feminists tend to encounter). It's disappointing, frankly, to stumble so often upon evidence of society's sexism and to keep having to explain that it's there. Disappointing that Barbie was so obviously a sexed-up, misogynist, bad idea for little girls and to realize how thoroughly our culture embraced the toy anyway.

So, here we are again. Feminists were right: no one but a sex-obsessed man with a perverse idea of female anatomy would create a female toy like Barbie. And, as is too too often the case for feminists, being right isn't something to celebrate.

Dr. Bean is an Associate Professor of English at Marshall University, specializing in Gender Studies, Film and Drama. She is the author of "Post-Backlash Feminism: Women and the Media Since Reagan/Bush" (McFarland & Co. 2007). She hosts a blog on mid-life and feminism at kelliebean.com.