Popular Culture Review Vol. 24, No. 2, Summer 2013 - Page 134

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