Week 3

Week 3

V for Vendetta

     The exploitation of tragedies, pandemics, and the like is something that is seen too often nowadays. Many unjust policies and laws that have been passed have been stated to be "for national security" or "for the children". The way the media covered events such as 9/11 has led to the Patriot Act, which costs U.S. citizens some of their social freedoms. The only real difference here between V for Vendetta and real life is that in V the government is actually responsible for the events that they exploit, and in real life our government merely exploits yet doesn't plan them (as far as we know).  

     In A World at Risk: Unreliable Media and the Culture of Fear, by Monica Martin, some good points are made. An oppressive government doesn't have to focus its people's fears and/or anger at another country. She states, "after the... world of identifiable adversaries was over, [we went] 'from a world of enemies to one of dangers and risks' within a new global order." This rings true in V for Vendetta. Adam Sutler's Norsefire party couldn't really use any foreign countries as an enemy figure, as the US was in ruins and Europe was dealing with a plague. Instead they used America and Europe as a cautionary tale for what could happen in the UK, and several well placed epidemic crises in their own country to highlight the reality of the "dangers and risks" that could occur without the aid of the Norsefire party.

     The way the media in V for Vendetta portrays and manipulates the news is very smart, because it's a very "down to earth" approach that mirrors our own world, as Monica puts it. Nationalism, religion, and discrimination of immigrants are all mentioned in the opening scene's news sequence.

     In addition to its portrayal of the media's/politician's exploitation of tragedies, V for Vendetta also has some Very powerful visuals. For one, the Norsefire Party's banner resembles a cross merged with the Nazi swastika banner. Adam Sutler is very reminiscent of Big Brother in his appearance and of Hitler in his speeches. I do however, think that one on the best visuals in the movie is more related to the plot than to criticism of today's society.      

     A very important scene, both visually and plot wise, is when Evey emerges from V's home after believing she was imprisoned. She walks into the rain, raises her hands in the air, and laughs. At the same time the movie cuts to V emerging from the fire at the Larkhill concentration camp and yelling. Obviously the scenes parallel one another, showing how both characters were essentially reborn. However, there are some key differences that have implications as to what happens after the movie ends. Where V is reborn in fire, which is a single entity that brings destruction, and Evey is reborn in the rain, which gives life and is composed of many small parts.

     I believe that the meaning behind this is that the elimination of corruption in the UK isn't enough to end its dystopia. After everything is brought down, a new system must be rebuilt again. Both V and Evey are symbols of revolution and change for the better, but whereas V embodied the idea of change through anarchy and destruction, Evey will embody the idea of change through creation and cooperation. The phrase she says, "God is in the rain," serves to cement this point. God is a creator and, in a way, a teacher. This will probably be similar to Evey's role at the end of this movie. That's one of the reasons that she doesn't take V's mask when taking up his mantle. The Gunpowder Plot and Guy Fawkes' face are associated with V's destructive goals, not Evey's new ones. In this way, V is very much like Tyler Durden from Fight Club, who had similar anarchist ideals, only V realizes the need for someone else to fill the role for the next stage.

     

"God is in the rain"

     On a final note, I thought it was an interesting idea to use the actor who was the protagonist in 1984 (John Hurt) as the "Big Brother" type figure in V for Vendetta. I didn't recognize him when I saw the 1984 movie earlier this semester.

Children of Men

     Contrary to V for Vendetta, Children of Men uses much bleaker colors, or as Monica Martin puts it "a pallet of grays." This movie is similar to V for Vendetta in that the UK seems to be the only stable country. Public surveillance is rampant, the media distorts reality, and immigrants/foreigners are discriminated against. However, the difference is that in Children of Men the main antagonists are the resistance group (the Fishes), not the government itself (although its also an antagonist). Also, the main character isn't a genetically enhanced killing machine. 

     Theo has a role similar to that of Evey in V for Vendetta. Like her, he's not sure which group to trust and which group is the moral one. Throughout the movie he comes to realize that change can be brought about, and like her he becomes an agent of creation by protecting Kee and her newborn baby.     Something interesting with this movie was the naming of certain things. For example, calling the oppressive policy in this film the "Homeland Act" drew parallels to the Homeland Security Act.

I also liked that the ship in the end is called the Tomorrow, symbolizing hope for a better future.

     One of the most powerful scenes in this movie was during the firefight between the Fishes and the Military. Everyone that saw the baby stopped firing, and let Theo and Kee pass. This, more than the ending scene with the Tomorrow, gives the viewer hope. It shows that humanity hasn't lost its common sense in this dystopian world, and that everyone could recognize the importance of Kee's child. 

     Lastly, I have to say, I loved seeing Michael Caine play a drug dealer. I've never seen him in a role that wasn't "gentlemanly" and seeing him as a joke-cracking hippie was a lot of fun. That guy is one of my favorite actors, and everything he did in this movie was hilarious. With all these depressing movies, it felt good to laugh a bit, seeing him dance to weird music. But then, of course, he died and the movie got depressing again.

The Road

     As bad as an oppressive government can be, total anarchy can be just as bad. John Hillcoat's The Road, based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy, explores a dystopian world where there is no government rather than an oppressive government. Most dystopian films, especially ones as bleak as 1984, make its viewers think that nothing could be worse than the current system. A movie like The Road will make the same viewers think twice. It shows what can happen during total anarchy, and why the idealistic plans of figures such as Tyler Durden or V are imperfect unless they involve more than just the elimination of the current social structure. 

     I think that in a way it comes down to physical oppression vs mental oppression. In a society like the one portrayed in The Road (if that could even be considered a society) the physically strong and well equipped survive, and the weak are killed or hurt. However, those with power have no interest in manipulating their victims' thoughts, only in taking tangible things (and in eating them). So one could say that even though you are likely to meet a gruesome death, at least your mind will be free. On the other hand, in a government like the one in 1984, while you are essentially a slave, your life and death are likely to be relatively painless, and even if you are tortured for thoughtcrime it couldn't be worse than being kept in a cellar while slowly being eaten alive. So, when all is said and done, is no government really better than an oppressive one?

    In this movie we see, in incredibly visceral detail, the atrocities that men commit on other men. The scene that stands out the most in my mind is the one where they discover the cellar full of half eaten people. It was very disturbing, and they almost looked like zombies. Whoever was in charge of visual effects did a very good job. The old man that they came by was very well done as well. The makeup artist managed to make him look even more pathetic, weathered, and downtrodden than the main characters. It really made you feel bad for him, and I almost cheered when Viggo Mortensen's son convinced him to share food with the old man. 

     Of all the films I've seen in this class, this was by far the most tense, the most gruesome, and the most emotional one. 

    

Week 2

Fight Club

          Fight club has always been one of my favorite movies. I can only think of a few other films that blew my mind like this one did, and even less that I repeatedly watched as many times. However, I never even considered it to be a dystopian movie. After watching it again with the theme of dystopia in mind (and after reading Naturalism and Dystopia in Fight Club), my mind was blown again. In Fight Club, modern day life is portrayed as dystopian.

          The main criticism of this movie is America’s consumerist culture. As Tyler Durden describes it, we’re all “working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don’t need.” People tend to define themselves based on their material possessions, as the main character in Fight Club used to do until his apartment was destroyed. When Edward Norton tells the police officer that everything in his apartment was who he was, we are told that his character is materialistic, but also that he is now on the path to being reborn, in a sense.

          Losing his apartment and his possessions brings the main character one step closer to rock bottom, which is where his alter ego Tyler Duren wants him to get. At that point he can reach the enlightenment that Tyler was talking about during the chemical burn scene (and which I believe he reaches in the end after shooting himself and exorcising Tyler Durden).

          In some ways, this movie is similar to 1984. Edward Norton’s character is trapped in the middle class, being told what to do by advertisements and his employer rather than Big Brother, and secretly hating it. He even meets a girl who feels the same way he does and despises her at first. When he loses everything he’s freed from the shackles of society and he (as Tyler Durden) rallies the members of his Fight Club (who are much like the proletariat in 1984; nameless people who are always in the background) to join Project Mayhem.  This is where his philosophy comes in; “It’s only after we've lost everything that we’re free to do anything.” Tyler believes that if enough chaos is caused they can bring about temporary anarchy. He doesn't want to change society, he wants to break it down and rebuild it, because fixing a broken system is only a temporary solution.

           Personally, I’d have to agree with that philosophy. I've noticed many problems relating to how our society is focused on consumerism and material possessions (like I’m sure many people have) but I don’t really plan on doing anything about it. I like living comfortably, and when I graduate I plan on looking for a well-paying job rather than a job I’d enjoy. I can see the problems with my way of thinking, but I can live with it, and the only way of making people like me agree to give up this way of thinking is by forcing us to do so.

          Although the themes of this movie are very important, I’d also like to mention the cool visuals briefly. One thing I always loved about this movie was all of the little hints that Tyler Durden and the main character were the same person. The most obvious being the flashes of Brad Pitt that we see in the beginning of the movie, before the main character meets his alter ego for the first time. 

Minority Report

          Not all dystopian movies necessarily have totalitarian dictators in charge. Minority Report is one of these films. It questions our penal system, and makes us think of how technological advances could enhance or pervert it.

         The main character, John Anderton, is the head of a police force that stops crime before it happens. This is done by a machine hooked up to three children with precognitive abilities. The machine shows the members of this police force, PreCrime, where and when a murder will take place. They then arrest the person in question before he commits the crime.

         This police force is widely criticized in the beginning of the film and rightfully so, as the viewer finds out. Anderton gets framed for a murder he didn't (or won't) commit, which we eventually find out was perpetrated by the Director of the program, who did it to conceal the fact that the system is flawed.

         This movie raises several questions. Firstly, how far should the government be allowed to take preventative action? If we actually had a way of detecting crime before it happened, would it still make sense to arrest people for crimes they didn't commit?

         One of the problems with this is that certain crimes are committed under different circumstances. For example, a killing someone as a crime of passion isn't the same as a planned out murder. Also, there's the obvious issue of trusting that no errors are made in a system that's fallible. 

        Moreover, the government in this movie is very intrusive when it comes to looking for "criminals", specifically sending robot spiders into private residences for a forced body count. Clearly the government in this society has too much power, which is only made worse with the addition of the power to arrest suspects when technically no crime was committed. I also couldn't help but notice that the police's "sick stick" was a bit inhumane, in addition to a statement made by a Precrime officer: "If you don't want your son to see terror, keep him away from me." All in all, the police force in this film have too much unchecked power over civilians.

        Another issue in this movie is everyone's eyes. There's a great loss of privacy when anywhere you go people can scan your retinas and find out everything about you. Not to mention the scarily accurate (when you've got your own eyes on at least) advertisement booths. Am I the only one that thought of Facebook's data collecting apps during these scenes? 

One other point in this movie interested me very much. During the scene when John Anderton talks to his warden friend, he mentions that the prisoners are all dreaming in a coma like state. We do see John being put in one of those pods at one point...

      This might just be me looking too deep into the dialogue, but I have an uneasy feeling that the ending might have been too good to be true, and that John Anderton is actually in one of those jail pods dreaming up this perfect ending.

The Handmaid's Tale

        This movie was in some ways worse than 1984, and that's saying something. Although it's not nearly as bleak, at least rape and sexual abuse weren't issues in Oceania. 

        The punishments given out in this movie were terrible. The hanging of the handmaid convicted of sleeping with a doctor was particularly disturbing, because they made the other handmaids kill one of their own. The unsettling part, however, was that most of the handmaids were zealously obeying without hesitation. That scene, in addition to the so called "rapist" they killed reminded me of the 2 minutes hate scene from 1984. 

       The whole process the handmaids have to go through is incredibly degrading, from the moment Offred arrives at the Red Center. She is told (along with other women) that they are being given "freedom from instead of freedom to," as if she was a child that couldn't understand the difference. The sex she's forced to have with a creepy old man, expecting to have her baby taken away at birth, knowing she'll be sent away somewhere terrible if she can't conceive. It all was just plain depressing.

        Something I didn't really understand was the fact that so many of the handmaids were so complacent. Many of the women in the red center were childish and naive, but I expected more to be rebellious, especially with Aunt Lydia as their instructor. Speaking of which, the actress playing Lydia did a very good job, because I hated her guts every second she was on screen.

       The colors in this movie were particularly interesting. Red was the lowest color, that of the handmaids. But there were also women in brown, who were instructors of sorts, blue for the rich women, and men seem to be wearing whatever they wish. Also, it was interesting seeing Robert Duvall playing someone so different from THX 1138. Or with hair for that matter. Somehow he came out creepier than he was in THX, mostly due to the incredibly disturbing sex scenes and awkward talks with Offred.

      Of all the dystopian movies I've seen so far, this one was one of the most depressing. 

        

Week 1

1984

        The film 1984 is based on one of the most famous dystopian novels of all time (also called 1984). Throughout this movie, we see the various strategies used by the government/ruling class known as "The Party" to stay in power.  While the most overt strategy is the surveillance of all citizens, it's not the most effective one. The primary method of staying in power is essentially brainwashing their citizens by giving them symbols on which to focus their love or hate, and by promoting doublethink, which is believing in two contradicting facts at the same time.

         Although this movie isn't black and white, it seems to be drained of color. Everything almost looks like it's either a dimmed version of a color or has a grayish tint to it. It's as if the color in the world has been erased along with free will and self expression. The only scene with more color than the rest is the one where Winston and Julia first meet, which is in a place supposedly without big brother. I believe this is used to show that Big Brother is draining the life/color out of the world.

        A very interesting scene is when O'Brien is taunting a bound Winston. He tells Winston that they take people's minds and remake them into whatever they wish. When Winston claims that they will be stopped because of the human spirit, O'Brian says that in that case, Winston is the last human. By saying this, O'Brian is admitting that he himself isn't an individual. He even states that although he's aging and will someday die, he's just a cell in a larger organism (the Party). He claimed that power is the ends, not the means, which isn't true and is therefore doublethink. This is proof that even the higher class members of the party are indoctrinated, since they all want power for it's own sake. Usually in totalitarian states similar to this one, like North Korea, those in power are assumed to be aware of the propaganda being lies. But in 1984, they convince themselves that the lies are true. When everyone believes wholeheartedly in the system, even the ones in charge, it's chances of failure decrease. 

          The scary thing is, we can see similar things being done in today's society. I'll skip the NSA, as 1984 has already been brought up multiple times to critique their actions. One of the other recent examples being applied in America is the War on Terror. After 9/11, the US launched a military campaign in the middle east that was often referred to as the War on Terror. Firstly, this is a form of doublethink. We call it a war, but terror is an idea, not a place or group of people. It's impossible to have a war on an idea. In addition, this was disturbingly similar to the "War is Peace" message of 1984. Secondly, this led to something very similar to 1984's "2 minutes of hate" sequence. In post 9/11 society, Osama bin Laden played a role very similar to Emmanuel Goldstein. For the first decade of the 21st century, Osama was the face of everything that threatened the American way of life, and symbolized everything we should hate and fear. There's no doubt that he was hated throughout our country, and that his death contributed at least a bit to Obama's reelection.

      While I doubt that society will ever end up as bad as 1984, I do believe that the dangers portrayed in that movie are very real threats to democracy today. In a way, 1984 is a parody or exaggeration of some of the worst elements in our society today, or in the case of North Korea, a very slightly exaggerated version of that country's reality.

Soylent Green

      I knew that Soylent Green was people before I knew that it was food. "Soylent Green is People" has been used so much in pop culture that the phrase has become much more famous than the movie. I must have heard it at least a dozen times before I found out the movie even existed. However, after seeing the movie I understand why that sentence is more recognizable than the film. It basically is the film.

       I didn't dislike this movie, but it was definitely too long. While I really liked the whole detective theme, the movie was like a very long episode of the Twilight Zone. In fact, I think that's what it should have been, and I'll explain why. While many of the characters, such as Sol and detective Frank, were pretty interesting, this is still the kind of film where the focal point is the twist at the end. That just feels a bit gimmicky to me. Without the punchline, this movie is just a bad dystopian/crime thriller that drags on longer than it should. 

      Also, I watched the trailer before watching Soylent Green (it's something I like to do before watching a movie) and if I didn't know the ending I definitely would have guessed it. The narrator keeps asking what the secret of soylent green is, everyone that finds out gets killed or kills themselves, it's just incredibly obvious. 

       As an episode of a show like The Twilight Zone, the story would have been more to the point. A lot of scenes would have to get removed, along with many of the characters, but I believe the message would have been the same, and the ending would have been just as powerful, if not more so. I can't help but think that some people who saw this movie in theaters back in 1973 may have felt a bit cheated.

       The message of this movie is nonetheless a very powerful one, and is one that will always be important unless people solve the universal problem of limited resources. What will we do when we have nothing left to eat? Almost every movie that takes place in the future has people dealing with or at least mentioning this problem, whether it's food, electricity, or gasoline, something is always lacking and people are struggling to find alternatives. "Soylent Green is people" summarizes the horrible things people might have to do to deal with depleting resources, and that is why that phrase is so well known. 

      Many dystopian movies have displayed a similar scenario. In the Matrix, dead humans are recycled and converted into nutrition for other humans. In the recent film Snowpiercer, while the protein bars that the poor eat aren't made of people, they are made of roaches; something that the main character chooses to keep a secret from the rest of his followers. In Interstellar, a group of astronauts search for another planet capable of supporting life, and later find out their mission also involved abandoning the rest of humanity on a dying Earth. The story is always the same, however. Resources are lacking, and something controversial is done as an attempted solution, while the viewer is left to decide whether or not it's worth it. 

THX 1138

THX 1138 was the last film I saw out of these 3, and I'm very happy about that. Finally, after 2 depressing endings, was a dystopian movie with an ending that didn't make me want to lay in bed and look at the ceiling all day. Not to say that this movie wasn’t just as bleak as the others (if not more), but I’m glad that there was a little bit of hope at the end of this movie.

           I think that the visuals and sound effects are what make this movie truly unique. Excluding the chase scenes, they were very different from the effects in George Lucas’s Star Wars Trilogy, and a lot more subtle. This works very well for a dystopian film, as it makes everything much more unnerving.

          It’s very hard deciding exactly what imagery in the film was most disturbing. For starters, the machine that masturbates THX in itself. But the actual content of the channels was even worse. There was so little substance, from naked people dancing to a guy being hit repeatedly by a stick – and the fact that THX was so into that channel was just plain weird.

          The robot policemen were just as bad. From the expressionless chrome faces to their strangely relaxed voices, they would be terrifying if it wasn’t for their incompetence. The white rooms seemed like the scariest things I the movie by far, especially the one where THX was getting shocked repeatedly. In my opinion it’s worse than the torture scene in room 101 in 1984 because this white room torture seemed to be happening for no reason, but also because the room was so minimal. That whole scene just seemed a so crazy and claustrophobic, which is why it has such a deep impact on viewers (or at least on me).

          OMM, the machine that the workers confess to, reminded me of a very poorly made big brother of sorts. I found that pretty funny at first during the confession scene, but once you get a glimpse at the inside of what is presumably the OMM machine it gets disturbing again. The gecko inside makes me cringe, and I’m not really sure why. It might be because it proves that OMM is in no way sentient, which makes the fact that so many people pray to it sad. And of course, all of the subtle beeping sounds of buttons being pressed and the buzzing voices of various workers that sounded like they were coming from broken walkie talkies gave the movie a very stressful atmospheric feel.  

          The ending was a bit comical, but also made perfect sense in the context of this movie. This whole society thrives on efficiency. If someone or something can be used, it’ll be used, as long as the benefit exceeds the cost. Who knows, maybe THX 1138 felt a bit insulted that they stopped trying to chase him. This was visually a very good ending as well. The scenery of the giant sunset in the background with the epic music all blended together very well, and I found myself watching all of the credits (which I usually skip).