Alongside a basis for the dystopian nature of the society portrayed in a film, they need the heroic human narrative to go a long with it. This semester we've seen no shortage of those, from Theo in Children of Men to Truman in The Truman Show, there's definitely a very broad spectrum of savior protagonists. Although their traits and characteristics may differ greatly, and even sometimes so severely it creates multiple characters in the same film (Tyler Durden, Fight Club), their objective is usually quite uniform. The goal is often to break free from the controlling nature they exist in, to fight for their freedom and/or the freedom of the citizens with whom they are being oppressed. We've seen success, like in THX 1138 where the protagonist makes it out alive, and we've seen the polar opposite in 1984 where the protagonist fails, and ends up conforming to the totalitarian regime he once hated so passionately.
Friday, July 11, 2014
Article Analysis #6 - Future Almost Lost
Throughout the semester viewing science fiction dystopian cinema, there have been quite a few common tropes that run throughout the genre, and they are summarized in "Future Almost Lost" by Sean Redmond. First and foremost he discusses technological extremism, and with good reason, as this is certainly one of the most prevailing themes in the dystopian genre. As I've discussed before, science and technology are by no means inherently bad or evil in any way, it's how they're used that can be dangerous, and thus creating countless avenues for it to be used as plot material in science fiction dystopia. As stated by Redmond, it can rear it's head "in all its hybrid variations and incarnations, including the medical, domestic, and military". These are perfect for the genre, as the exponential growth we see in the real life fields of science and technology grant realism and believability to these types of themes in films.
Film Analysis #5 - The Truman Show / Gattaca
The common theme this week are films that have societies that intend to create a utopia, but end up developing dystopian attributes in the process. These films are both fine examples of how utopias and dystopias can exist within incredibly close proximity to eachother.
Out of all the scientific ideas we've viewed in the dystopian films viewed this semester, the genetic engineering in Gattaca just might be the closest to being actually possible in the real world we live in today. After all, many of the themes involved in dystopian cinema pull from real life matters, ideas, and situations, and Gattaca is no exception. The film was released in 1997, 5 years before the Human Genome was successfully sequenced. From then until now, the methods of doing so have been becoming more accessible, and costs less on a yearly basis. As our understanding of DNA increases, the idea of genetically engineering children in the womb becomes even more of a real possibility, one that may be achievable within the lifetime of the current generation.
The main character in the film, however, is not a child born through the scientific feats of genetic engineering. According to society, his natural birth seals his sub-par fate. In this scientifically advanced world, class is set based purely upon genes, and unfortunately for our protagonist Vincent, he is dealt a less that preferable hand. With "defects" such as myopia, and the more serious predisposition for heart failure, Vincent's future is very limited, and it's difficult for him to be accepted as a regular member of society as an "invalid". Due to the issues with Vincent, when his parents decide to have a second child, they choose to go the route of genetic engineering. Growing up as boys, they obviously have their instinctual brotherly rivalry, however in this case it's fueled by their genetic variance as well as pure instincts. As kids, they play a very symbolic game of "chicken", where the object is to swim as far out as you can, and the first to turn back for land loses.
Setting the tone for the rest of the film, Vincent finally defeats his brother Anton. As it turns out, a person with a more perfect set of genes is not superior in every aspect of life over somebody with "inferior" genes. Unfortunately this is not the way the Gattaca agency sees things, which is the only way that Vincent can achieve his dream of becoming an astronaut and going to space. Luckily for him, a process exists in which an invalid can assume the identity of somebody with a more perfect gene profile, and this is exactly what he does to assume the identity of Jerome Morrow. As Jerome, being accepted into Gattaca was as easy as taking a DNA test (with somebody else's DNA, of course).
The dystopia in Gattaca exists within society's discrimination towards people with "lesser" genes, even though time and time again it is proven that a more superior genetic basis does not always lead to superior outcomes. This is seen when Vincent beats his genetically advanced brother in their game of chicken, and even ends up having to save his life. Also, even though he doesn't meet Gattaca's strict gene policy, he still climbs the ranks and is able to achieve his dream of becoming an astronaut with a mission to Titan, one of the moons of Saturn. He will only be able to carry out this mission, of course, if he is not discovered as being what they call a "de-gene-erate". It honestly surprises me how much of a persons merit, character, and ability society places on a preferable gene setup, when in many life situations, it makes absolutely no difference. This is solidified in the film's ending, when doctor Lamar reveals he's known about Vincent's lies all along, but let it slip by. He has a son with genetic defects of his own, allowing him to look past the social stigma, and see that those types of people can have the same amount of potential as those with genetically engineered beginnings.
As we've seen before in previous dystopian films, there can often be a fine line between utopia and dystopia, or there even might exist right alongside each other. The Truman Show is a case where it's truly all a matter of perspective. As far as our protagonist Truman Burbank knows, his life is an absolute utopia. The cheerful suburban neighborhood, white picket fences, lovely polite neighbors, and nice people all over town kind of utopia.
In Truman's "utopian" life, he is safe and secure, and everything literally revolves around him. This is good enough for him for roughly about 10,000 days, where a string of odd occurrences causes him to question his "perfect" existence. When starting to act upon his suspicions, he remembers a red sweater he got from a girl named Lauren, whom he met at a library. She, like everybody else around Truman, was and actor, and was not supposed to interact with Truman unless the show called for it. Even though she was not allowed to, she gave in after Truman pursued her, and they ran together to a beach where she tried her best to quickly blurt out the truth to Truman so that he would know that everything he sees, everything that goes on around him is fabricated, and just for him. The next day, Truman won't give up until he finds answers, and begins his quest to find the truth.
In today's modern society, there are very few things that can be kept private anymore, Mix that with the ever-growing desire to become a celebrity, and you get room in the media world for people such as "reality stars" and the like. People who are completely willing to let camera crews into their life and film their every waking moment. If there is a real life parallel to draw from the themes expressed in The Truman Show, that is where it would exist. However there are two very distinct differences, in that Truman did not choose this life. He was chosen as an infant to be the star of this show, and was brought up inside of it his entire life. Also, Truman of course does not know that he is even on a television show, as everything that happens around him is presented to him as the real goings-on of everyday life. This is where the film turns to a dystopia. Every part of Truman's life is a manufactured lie. He has no real relationships, and no genuine accomplishments. Unbeknownst to him, he also has absolutely no privacy at any moment, and hasn't since the day the show began when he was just a baby. They even killed off Truman's father by having him drown, thus creating his fear of open waters, and circumventing his ability to escape. This, however, proves to be the final challenge Truman faces. At the end of the film, he finally makes it to the edge of the studio. After one final please from the shows director to keep Truman there, using common tactic of fear, Truman gives a final farewell in the form of his infamous line pictured above, "In case I don't see you, good afternoon, good evening, and goodnight", and takes his last triumphant steps out into the real world.
Out of all the scientific ideas we've viewed in the dystopian films viewed this semester, the genetic engineering in Gattaca just might be the closest to being actually possible in the real world we live in today. After all, many of the themes involved in dystopian cinema pull from real life matters, ideas, and situations, and Gattaca is no exception. The film was released in 1997, 5 years before the Human Genome was successfully sequenced. From then until now, the methods of doing so have been becoming more accessible, and costs less on a yearly basis. As our understanding of DNA increases, the idea of genetically engineering children in the womb becomes even more of a real possibility, one that may be achievable within the lifetime of the current generation.
The main character in the film, however, is not a child born through the scientific feats of genetic engineering. According to society, his natural birth seals his sub-par fate. In this scientifically advanced world, class is set based purely upon genes, and unfortunately for our protagonist Vincent, he is dealt a less that preferable hand. With "defects" such as myopia, and the more serious predisposition for heart failure, Vincent's future is very limited, and it's difficult for him to be accepted as a regular member of society as an "invalid". Due to the issues with Vincent, when his parents decide to have a second child, they choose to go the route of genetic engineering. Growing up as boys, they obviously have their instinctual brotherly rivalry, however in this case it's fueled by their genetic variance as well as pure instincts. As kids, they play a very symbolic game of "chicken", where the object is to swim as far out as you can, and the first to turn back for land loses.
Setting the tone for the rest of the film, Vincent finally defeats his brother Anton. As it turns out, a person with a more perfect set of genes is not superior in every aspect of life over somebody with "inferior" genes. Unfortunately this is not the way the Gattaca agency sees things, which is the only way that Vincent can achieve his dream of becoming an astronaut and going to space. Luckily for him, a process exists in which an invalid can assume the identity of somebody with a more perfect gene profile, and this is exactly what he does to assume the identity of Jerome Morrow. As Jerome, being accepted into Gattaca was as easy as taking a DNA test (with somebody else's DNA, of course).
The dystopia in Gattaca exists within society's discrimination towards people with "lesser" genes, even though time and time again it is proven that a more superior genetic basis does not always lead to superior outcomes. This is seen when Vincent beats his genetically advanced brother in their game of chicken, and even ends up having to save his life. Also, even though he doesn't meet Gattaca's strict gene policy, he still climbs the ranks and is able to achieve his dream of becoming an astronaut with a mission to Titan, one of the moons of Saturn. He will only be able to carry out this mission, of course, if he is not discovered as being what they call a "de-gene-erate". It honestly surprises me how much of a persons merit, character, and ability society places on a preferable gene setup, when in many life situations, it makes absolutely no difference. This is solidified in the film's ending, when doctor Lamar reveals he's known about Vincent's lies all along, but let it slip by. He has a son with genetic defects of his own, allowing him to look past the social stigma, and see that those types of people can have the same amount of potential as those with genetically engineered beginnings.
As we've seen before in previous dystopian films, there can often be a fine line between utopia and dystopia, or there even might exist right alongside each other. The Truman Show is a case where it's truly all a matter of perspective. As far as our protagonist Truman Burbank knows, his life is an absolute utopia. The cheerful suburban neighborhood, white picket fences, lovely polite neighbors, and nice people all over town kind of utopia.
In Truman's "utopian" life, he is safe and secure, and everything literally revolves around him. This is good enough for him for roughly about 10,000 days, where a string of odd occurrences causes him to question his "perfect" existence. When starting to act upon his suspicions, he remembers a red sweater he got from a girl named Lauren, whom he met at a library. She, like everybody else around Truman, was and actor, and was not supposed to interact with Truman unless the show called for it. Even though she was not allowed to, she gave in after Truman pursued her, and they ran together to a beach where she tried her best to quickly blurt out the truth to Truman so that he would know that everything he sees, everything that goes on around him is fabricated, and just for him. The next day, Truman won't give up until he finds answers, and begins his quest to find the truth.
In today's modern society, there are very few things that can be kept private anymore, Mix that with the ever-growing desire to become a celebrity, and you get room in the media world for people such as "reality stars" and the like. People who are completely willing to let camera crews into their life and film their every waking moment. If there is a real life parallel to draw from the themes expressed in The Truman Show, that is where it would exist. However there are two very distinct differences, in that Truman did not choose this life. He was chosen as an infant to be the star of this show, and was brought up inside of it his entire life. Also, Truman of course does not know that he is even on a television show, as everything that happens around him is presented to him as the real goings-on of everyday life. This is where the film turns to a dystopia. Every part of Truman's life is a manufactured lie. He has no real relationships, and no genuine accomplishments. Unbeknownst to him, he also has absolutely no privacy at any moment, and hasn't since the day the show began when he was just a baby. They even killed off Truman's father by having him drown, thus creating his fear of open waters, and circumventing his ability to escape. This, however, proves to be the final challenge Truman faces. At the end of the film, he finally makes it to the edge of the studio. After one final please from the shows director to keep Truman there, using common tactic of fear, Truman gives a final farewell in the form of his infamous line pictured above, "In case I don't see you, good afternoon, good evening, and goodnight", and takes his last triumphant steps out into the real world.
Article Analysis #5 - A World At Risk
"The BBC in Children of Men, BTN in V for Vendetta, ties citizens to the ubiquitous
screens of the city, located inside and outside double-deck buses, in trains, at
home, in cafés, at work and on the huge screens of Piccadilly Circus" writes Martin, in response to the ever-present tactic of fearmongering in dytopian films such as Children of Men and V for Vendetta. The term "ubiquitous screens" is an interesting one, as that is the delivery system for such propaganda in not only these films, but in real life as well. In the past decade, the number of "screens" one has access to, or is able to view, has increased tenfold. Even the smart phone parked in the pockets of vasts amounts of people is a screen that can easily be used to stream mainstream media. Along with an increasing number of "ubiquitous screens", comes an increase in the pervasiveness of media, and consequently a stronger ability to use fear tactics to their advantage. In a post 9/11 world, we are especially familiar with this type of technique. A golden example would be the color coded threat level that was released after the attack on September 11th. With the changing of an arbitrary color, the reasons behind which always shielded from public knowledge, people would feel that they are in an increased amount of danger at all times. Even if there had previously been some sort of distrust in one's government, fear can be used a a magic eraser, allowing them to once again feel that they need their government in order to remain safe. This makes such fearmongering tactics a perfect device for use in dysotpian literature and cinema.
screens of the city, located inside and outside double-deck buses, in trains, at
home, in cafés, at work and on the huge screens of Piccadilly Circus" writes Martin, in response to the ever-present tactic of fearmongering in dytopian films such as Children of Men and V for Vendetta. The term "ubiquitous screens" is an interesting one, as that is the delivery system for such propaganda in not only these films, but in real life as well. In the past decade, the number of "screens" one has access to, or is able to view, has increased tenfold. Even the smart phone parked in the pockets of vasts amounts of people is a screen that can easily be used to stream mainstream media. Along with an increasing number of "ubiquitous screens", comes an increase in the pervasiveness of media, and consequently a stronger ability to use fear tactics to their advantage. In a post 9/11 world, we are especially familiar with this type of technique. A golden example would be the color coded threat level that was released after the attack on September 11th. With the changing of an arbitrary color, the reasons behind which always shielded from public knowledge, people would feel that they are in an increased amount of danger at all times. Even if there had previously been some sort of distrust in one's government, fear can be used a a magic eraser, allowing them to once again feel that they need their government in order to remain safe. This makes such fearmongering tactics a perfect device for use in dysotpian literature and cinema.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Film Analysis #4 - Children of Men / Minority Report
Minority Report is another film that dances across the line between utopia and dystopia. In a technologically driven future, psychics called "pre-cogs" are used to look into the future and identify violent crimes before they happen. This allows the Precrime division to apprehend the criminals before the crime is committed, thus preventing the incident entirely. On paper, this seems like a great system, ensuring the safety of this society's citizens. The pre-cogs lie in a pool of liquid, hooked up to machines that allow the Precrime division to see what they see, and "scrub" their visions for the time and location of these crimes.
Most dystopian films draw from some type of idea or concept that exists in reality, and stretch it to a fictional extreme. As science and technology grow faster and faster by the year, the techniques used in this movie become less and less of a fictional extreme. As the science of neurology begins to understand the brain better, we might not be too far off from actually being able to monitor and visualize the thoughts or sights of a person based purely off of their brain activity. In this sense, the movie pulls from a realm of absolute possibility.
So where do the dystopian themes come in? Firstly, in any dystopian film, the public must be controlled into thinking something, or believing something, under the direct order of the elite or ruling class. This is usually done through some sort of propaganda, and such is the case in Minority Report. The Precrime division does everything in it's power to convince the citizens that it is the way of the future, a flawless way to keep them safe and protected. As this movie is a dystopian film, this is of course not the case. When dealing with matters of this magnitude, and mistake or discrepancy is monumental. As depicted above, there are three pre-cogs who work in conjunction to produce the visions necessary to fuel the Precrime division. When they do not agree on something, this is what causes the film's namesake, a minority report. With this type of situation even being a possibility, it shows a fault in the system, and it cannot be trusted with absolute certainty. Beyond these happenings, there is an even more serious issue with the precrime system, and that is that it can be beaten. Even though the availability of Precrime is used to portray a perfect utopian world, where violent crimes are no longer existent, the director of the department himself, Lamar Burgess, abused the system to commit murder. Oddly enough, he did so to actually save the Precrime system itself. Burgess killed Ann Lively, the pre-cogs mother, in order to gain back custody and continue their position in the Precrime system. Even the film's protagonist, who is also supposed to be the picture of justice and safety, uses illegal drugs, and is eventually himself predicted of killing a man. It's through his eyes (eyes being a very common theme in this film) that we slowly start to see the flaws in this system, tipping the balance from utopia to dystopia.
The premise of Children Of Men is somewhat similar to last weeks film The Handmaid's Tale in that it's based around fertility issues. However, in Children of Men, things are much more serious. The entire world has gone sterile, and when the movie begins, not a single child had been bored in the previous 18 years. Right away, this is not the typical set up for a dystopian society. In the film, the scientists of the world are unable to explain why the world has gone sterile. The first dystopian domino that fell was not pushed by any one person or organization, nor totalitarian government. It apparently fell on it's own, without the assistance of any outside causes. This is a creative set up for a dystopian story because society did not manufacture it's own circumstances. Civilization did not construct it's own dire situation using science, or technology, or military prowess. Instead, Children of Men shows a reactionary situation, in which the world must adapt to happenstance that's out of it's control. In most cities around the world, chaos reigns. Britain is supposedly the last viable city standing, and as such, people from all over the rest of the world want in, and they want it bad. Obviously Britain cannot accommodate the world's population, so this is what sets the stage for the dystopian-esque government to arise. People trying desperately to enter Britain are held in cages, and are treated like subhuman creatures.
The inability to conceive children has had a profound effect on society, and it's very intriguing to see how this is portrayed in Children of Men. When watching this film, I considered how this would effect every aspect of human existence. The entire education system would become useless, leaving all people employed at elementary, middle, and high schools without jobs (principles, teachers, assistants, even janitors). Babysitters, Nannys, and day-cares would no longer be necessary. Children's books and television would no longer be produced. Almost every facet of the global economy would be directly effected. Displayed more in the movie are the psychological effects. It seems the main the thing that disappeared shortly after the children did was hope. Without the continuance of the human race, people began to lose faith in the future altogether. If after the current generation of people are gone, there will be nobody left on the planet, what point is there to anything anymore? It's an incredibly heavy issue that you can see weigh down on the characters of the film in many different ways. You can also see how strong of an effect the sound of a crying infant had on people who were literally in the middle of a gunfight killing each other, as they all stopped and listened in unison. Our senses are directly tied to our memories, and it was apparent that hearing that child cry brought each person on that battlefield to a special place in their minds, so much so that the gunfire was halted until Kee and Theo had completely cleared the building. After a very dark a grim movie without giving the viewer a whole lot to go on in the way of optimism, that's what we are left with, the cries of a newborn child.
Article Analysis #4 - When Science Fiction Writers Used Fictional Drugs
The use of drugs and the oppressive nature of a dystopia go hand in hand. This can be seen in the film we previously analyzed, THX 1138, where drugs are used to sedate the population into easily controllable subjects. The article also talks of a novel called "This Perfect Day" in which a fictional drug called LPK is used. This drug is similar in nature to that used in THX 1138, as it "dampens the basic passions, including joy, sexual desire, and physical aggression". These effects work perfectly if the subject being administered the drug is meant to placed under control of authority.
As previously discussed, dystopian science fiction is in fact fiction, but it can play into our fears about possibilities in the real world we live in. The United States has a very powerful and influential pharmaceutical sector that can certainly assist in pushing these fears along. This can be seen in how effortlessly drugs are prescribed for a host of various reasons, whether they warrant drug therapy or not. Kids who lack proper attention skills in school are slapped with an ADHD diagnosis and fed handfuls of Adderall and Riddlin, and that's only a small example. There's other drugs they could be given for mood issues, anxiety, sleeping, eating, basically if it's a part of daily life, there is a drug for it. It also seems as if doctors are becoming less and less hesitant to start prescribing drugs to children at very young ages, starting them on a medicated path that could last the rest of their life. It's easy to see how these types of real life situations can spawn a darker dystopian work of fiction.
As previously discussed, dystopian science fiction is in fact fiction, but it can play into our fears about possibilities in the real world we live in. The United States has a very powerful and influential pharmaceutical sector that can certainly assist in pushing these fears along. This can be seen in how effortlessly drugs are prescribed for a host of various reasons, whether they warrant drug therapy or not. Kids who lack proper attention skills in school are slapped with an ADHD diagnosis and fed handfuls of Adderall and Riddlin, and that's only a small example. There's other drugs they could be given for mood issues, anxiety, sleeping, eating, basically if it's a part of daily life, there is a drug for it. It also seems as if doctors are becoming less and less hesitant to start prescribing drugs to children at very young ages, starting them on a medicated path that could last the rest of their life. It's easy to see how these types of real life situations can spawn a darker dystopian work of fiction.
Film Analysis #3 - Fight Club / The Handmaids Tale
In the two films being analyzed this week, there isn't much in the way of similarity, but more in the way of contrast. In terms of contrast, the most apparent difference between them is that of gender roles. The Handmaid's Tale is full of strong feminist themes (or lack of feminism altogether), whereas Fight Club is concerned with a male's trip through dystopian society. The interesting connection to be drawn here is an idea mentioned in "Totalitarian Technocracies", in that utopias and dystopias can coexist. The surprisingly fine line between the two can be crossed by a simple switch of perspective. For example, in The Handmaid's Tale, the men would be very hard-pressed to call their current situation dystopian, whereas the women would have a much different opinion.
The story of A Handmaid's Tale takes places in the republic of Gilead, formerly the United States, in which warfare and pollution have left a majority of the population sterile, and reproduction rates at an alarmingly low level. This is the setting off point for the necessity of "Handmaids" to bear children for the elite. The main character, Kate, is captured after viewing her husbands violent death before her very eyes. She, like many women, is reduced to nothing more than a method of creating a child for her assigned commander. As stated in Totalitarian Technocracies, dystopian films often "project exaggerated models of current political and socioeconomic trends into the future, frequently in order to inform, warn, or advise readers". This came to mind in a scene where a woman spoke of how she was raped, and her peers proceeded to shame her, saying how it was solely her fault, how she led the men on, and how she is to be classified as a whore. I've heard this issue come up in political and debate settings over the past decade, and unfortunately, that type of thought is certainly a possible conclusion from the way things have been discussed recently. In this film, it doesn't matter that this demeaning coercion takes place, as women are treated as objects. The objectification is also not a new thing, but it comes to an absolute zenith in The Handmaid's Tale, as these women "objects" are even color coded according to their purpose.
The strange thing is, which sterility skyrocketing, and the ability to reproduce becoming more and more of a challenge, the importance of these women grows. At one point, they are even claimed to be the "most precious resource", although they are absolutely not treated as such. It seems strange, or even counterproductive, to strip all rights and even dignity away from the group of people who alone hold the ability to maintain the population and continuation of their society.
Fight Club, unlike any of the other dystopian films we've viewed this semester, does not begin in some alternate society foreign to our own. There is no thought police, no technologically superior ruling class, not even an apparent oppressive totalitarian elite. Fight Club begins in a world absolutely indistinguishable from our own, separating it right off the bat from other dystopian cinema. This film also sets itself apart from other films of the genre in the way it's story is fed to the viewer. It's not your typical narrative, as much of the content is convoluted by the mind of the narrator, who for most of the film in not ever named. This nameless narrator does not exist in a society where he is being force-fed pills to numb his senses, or where he is forbidden to read or think certain thoughts. He exists is a mundane world of commercialism and materialism. This is, of course, until he meets a man on a plane who will forever change his fate, Tyler Durden. In all of the dystopian films we have watched, the protagonist rebels against the ruling class, some successful, some not so much. The only thing they've all had in common thus far is that they've had to hide everything from everyone else, as they are always being watched, observed, monitored. Fight Club takes a beautifully creative route by letting the narrator manifest all of his rebellious attitude into an entirely new character. Tyler is a collection of all of our narrators true desires, and his ticket out of his boring monotony he finds himself in at the start of the film.
This is because, as we find out, the narrator is Tyler Durden. It's not that Tyler Durden does not exist, which is commonly proclaimed in any discussion of this movie. Tyler Durden most certainly does exist, it's just that he exists within the mind of our narrator. All of the traits that Tyler has, all of the actions he is capable of committing (and does commit), all exist within our previously nameless narrator. As this dynamic "duo" proceeds to create the Fight Club, and subsequently Project Mayhem, we experience a lesser known side of dystopian cinema. The claim that this film is making can be interpreted as the world that we currently live in is a dystopia of sorts. People are held captive by their materialistic needs, and the "things" that rule their lives. In destroying the credit records buildings at the end of the movie, we see the death of this society, and the birth of a new beginning.
The story of A Handmaid's Tale takes places in the republic of Gilead, formerly the United States, in which warfare and pollution have left a majority of the population sterile, and reproduction rates at an alarmingly low level. This is the setting off point for the necessity of "Handmaids" to bear children for the elite. The main character, Kate, is captured after viewing her husbands violent death before her very eyes. She, like many women, is reduced to nothing more than a method of creating a child for her assigned commander. As stated in Totalitarian Technocracies, dystopian films often "project exaggerated models of current political and socioeconomic trends into the future, frequently in order to inform, warn, or advise readers". This came to mind in a scene where a woman spoke of how she was raped, and her peers proceeded to shame her, saying how it was solely her fault, how she led the men on, and how she is to be classified as a whore. I've heard this issue come up in political and debate settings over the past decade, and unfortunately, that type of thought is certainly a possible conclusion from the way things have been discussed recently. In this film, it doesn't matter that this demeaning coercion takes place, as women are treated as objects. The objectification is also not a new thing, but it comes to an absolute zenith in The Handmaid's Tale, as these women "objects" are even color coded according to their purpose.
The strange thing is, which sterility skyrocketing, and the ability to reproduce becoming more and more of a challenge, the importance of these women grows. At one point, they are even claimed to be the "most precious resource", although they are absolutely not treated as such. It seems strange, or even counterproductive, to strip all rights and even dignity away from the group of people who alone hold the ability to maintain the population and continuation of their society.
Fight Club, unlike any of the other dystopian films we've viewed this semester, does not begin in some alternate society foreign to our own. There is no thought police, no technologically superior ruling class, not even an apparent oppressive totalitarian elite. Fight Club begins in a world absolutely indistinguishable from our own, separating it right off the bat from other dystopian cinema. This film also sets itself apart from other films of the genre in the way it's story is fed to the viewer. It's not your typical narrative, as much of the content is convoluted by the mind of the narrator, who for most of the film in not ever named. This nameless narrator does not exist in a society where he is being force-fed pills to numb his senses, or where he is forbidden to read or think certain thoughts. He exists is a mundane world of commercialism and materialism. This is, of course, until he meets a man on a plane who will forever change his fate, Tyler Durden. In all of the dystopian films we have watched, the protagonist rebels against the ruling class, some successful, some not so much. The only thing they've all had in common thus far is that they've had to hide everything from everyone else, as they are always being watched, observed, monitored. Fight Club takes a beautifully creative route by letting the narrator manifest all of his rebellious attitude into an entirely new character. Tyler is a collection of all of our narrators true desires, and his ticket out of his boring monotony he finds himself in at the start of the film.
This is because, as we find out, the narrator is Tyler Durden. It's not that Tyler Durden does not exist, which is commonly proclaimed in any discussion of this movie. Tyler Durden most certainly does exist, it's just that he exists within the mind of our narrator. All of the traits that Tyler has, all of the actions he is capable of committing (and does commit), all exist within our previously nameless narrator. As this dynamic "duo" proceeds to create the Fight Club, and subsequently Project Mayhem, we experience a lesser known side of dystopian cinema. The claim that this film is making can be interpreted as the world that we currently live in is a dystopia of sorts. People are held captive by their materialistic needs, and the "things" that rule their lives. In destroying the credit records buildings at the end of the movie, we see the death of this society, and the birth of a new beginning.
Article Analysis #3 - Totalitarian Technocracies
In George Orwell's 1984, Winston certainly lives in an oppressed society in Oceania. However, the dystopia itself is his. From the eyes of the ruling class, from the throne of "Big Brother", it sure wouldn't seem like such a terrible place then. There are always multiple angles to be seen in a dystopian film, and the view most often seen by the audience is that of the oppressed. It's interesting to think that a dystopia and a utopia can exist simultaneously in the same place, it just depends who's shoes you put on. As Horan points out, "Few would trade our world for the one described by Orwell, but part of the reason we feel this way is because the story is artfully presented so that we identify with Winston".
He also speaks of the common use of scientists as political figures in the genre of dystopian science fiction. However the label of scientist hardly narrows the spectrum of people fit for political power. Take doctors for example. Just because somebody is a doctor, says basically nothing more about them than the fact that they have a degree in medicine. They could use their training to save lives, or they could use their position to lie, cheat, and steal for their own benefit. Science, and the scientists who do it, are the same. Whether a scientist would use a political position for better or for worse lies in the content of a persons character, separate from their designation as somebody who studies science.
He also speaks of the common use of scientists as political figures in the genre of dystopian science fiction. However the label of scientist hardly narrows the spectrum of people fit for political power. Take doctors for example. Just because somebody is a doctor, says basically nothing more about them than the fact that they have a degree in medicine. They could use their training to save lives, or they could use their position to lie, cheat, and steal for their own benefit. Science, and the scientists who do it, are the same. Whether a scientist would use a political position for better or for worse lies in the content of a persons character, separate from their designation as somebody who studies science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)