Day Two: Dystopia Has No Future
...Day One of the Conversation...
Though I share Nate's enthusiasm for genre pictures, I'm not entirely sure that Dana Stevens was trying to make a point about Oscar bait so much as about the war genre specifically. And I think that by ignoring "Oscar bait" movies wholesale, we become just as guilty as those who succumb to them wholesale, when what we should be doing is not accepting them as a real category. The other risk is that we wind up missing out on the occasional great film that shines through the PR/marketing blitz. (In fact, these occasional great films are often directed by Clint Eastwood *cough.)
So I think it is more useful to discuss these categories and genres specifically, as Dana Stevens did about war films. For me, the genre du jour that warrants some scrutiny is the dystopia film. Long a narrative conveniently suited for message-artists, dystopias are frequently used as a fusion of the sci-fi and social problem genres. 2006 was filled with them.
First there was V for Vendetta, a movie that took place in the future, but was so steeped in the aesthetics of mid-twentieth century visions of the future that it played like a period film. One can imagine that the Wachowski brothers and whoever directed the film were vaguely interested in applying the fascist imagery - leather outfits and all - to the current administration, Patriot Act, etc. But it really was as simple and shallow as that: a kind of cut-and-paste application of the most kneejerk variety. V, the film's terrorist-hero, couldn't begin to bear any resemblance to a twenty-first century terrorist because he is a class hero, not a religious hero (and therefore, his mission abides by a certain degree of logic - he's trying to change the world, not enter a new one). The reason the film could play in a multiplex was precisely because its (purportedly subversive) glorification of a terrorist is safely irrelevant to the modern world. Terrorists that make sense no longer exist.
Then there was the film that no one saw called Idiocracy. I finally caught up with the film on Netflix last week, and for those that aren't familiar with its backstory, it was only given a limited theatrical release by Fox (excluding the usual markets - no New York!), apparently because the subject matter may have offended corporate interests. Of course, nothing could lend more street cred to a film than this. But unfortunately, no film deserves less street cred. The movie's central conceit is that, unlike most sci-fi films, here the future is not depicted as more advanced than the present, but as less advanced. Luke Wilson is blasted 500 years into the future and is marveled by this very idea - that people could be getting stupider. But is this conceit as new as it appears? Isn't this the very basis of dystopia, a narrative genre that emerged in the late 19th century alongside the discovery of Thermodynamics (the principle that history can devolve)? And what's more, why isn't this movie funny?
Children of Men is, of course, the 30lb. gorilla that must be dealt with, since so many of you guys and the critical community at large seem to dig it so hard. What I like about Children of Men, aside from its obvious stylistic beauty, is that it does something rather specific in its portrayal of the devolving future: it dares to suggest that the First World (London) will start to look something more like the Third World. The street-chaos, urban decay and overpopulation that compose the mise-en-scene of the movie are ways of suggesting this, and I assume that Alfonso Cuaron having grown up in a "Third World" country contributed to the naturalism of his vision. So here's a reason to applaud the globalization of cinema - a Mexican filmmaker can bring something quite interesting to an American/European co-production.
What I dislike about Children of Men is its premise. What does it mean exactly to suggest that children can no longer be born? If this were purely a genre conceit that served as a catalyst to a more literal-minded story, then it wouldn't bother me. But COM isn't very literal; it never explains why babies can't be born. And neither is the movie especially allegorical, except to superficially suggest that without babies, there is - dun dun dun - no future. Again, the dystopia genre is reduced to its very basis, with no expanded ideas or specificity.
I guess what I'm wondering is this: is there something about the dystopia genre that's outdated in principle? Why do all of these stories fail to provoke any serious consideration about what our future might look like, aside from basic kneejerk implications about the Bush administration?
The one 2006 dystopia movie I did like was A Scanner Darkly, I think because it was concentrated on such a specific issue and didn't attempt to be so catch-all for liberals to project onto it whatever issue seems pressing at a given moment.
Thoughts?
-J
Babies
A few comments on this last addition:
1. I didn't see V for Vendetta. And I probably will not (until HBO), and will trust your analysis of it. However, I have to object to this:
"V, the film's terrorist-hero, couldn't begin to bear any resemblance to a twenty-first century terrorist because he is a class hero, not a religious hero (and therefore, his mission abides by a certain degree of logic - he's trying to change the world, not enter a new one).... Terrorists that make sense no longer exist."
I think this patently underestimates "terrorists" of today. If you are using the term "terrorist" as it might be logically defined, this would be accurate. However, as it is more generally used, this is completely inaccurate. As a fellow 24 watcher, you must have seen this current season - with its terrorist-turned political leader turned Jack Bauer buddy (not an odd concept - except for the Jack Bauer part). To use a blanket statement like that to call terrorists illogical zealots is complete Bush-speak.
3. As for the trick of using a baby-less society - I agree that it was utterly unexplained, but I had no problem with it. To me, the film was less about "children" than about the way we to tear ourselves apart. The film portrays the government and the "Fishes" as completely out of touch and self-obsessed. I think this a comment by Mr. Cuaron about current society, and the absence of children is simply a type of arbitrary punishment/end-of-days imposed upon us. This was most on display near the end of the film, after the child is born; the most hard-hitting scene of the film is when the battle quickly re-starts after a brief (and beautiful) moment for the combatants to gaze upon the newborn child. This absolutely screamed the view that the child and humanity, generally, are afterthoughts.
4. I also think you are on to something with your discussion of the way the film treats the Third World. However, I disagree with your analysis. This wasn't about the First World devolving so much as how the First World looks at the Third World. The treatment of foreigners, and the fact that humanity's hope comes from there, seems to indict First World ignorance toward the Third World, and more generally, human suffering. While rich nations get caught up in ideological battles, basic humanity suffers. (Please also view the graphic in this recent article in The New York Times discussing alternative ways to spend the costs of war.)
This discussion is what, to me, set Children of Men apart from the rest of this year's class of films (in addition to its striking technical achievements). Apart from its clear references to current life (which I completely agree cheapen the film as a whole), the film does an excellent job of looking at a very modern problem of acknowledging basic humanity while progressing towards a more developed future. (I think this was also part of what Babel was going for, but to less successful results.)
5. I did not see A Scanner Darkly, but I will. I don't think the dystopian film is outdated; I think with films like Children of Men (and 28 Days Later also comes to mind), it's very much alive.
6. Mexican directors. It's on the verge of becoming a "school," and is perhaps the most important (and youthful) "school" of filmmaking today. Thoughts?
7. Eddie Murphy. I've seen a lot of ads for Norbit lately. I am hereby selling short his chances of winning an Oscar.
8. Finally, a question for you Jeff: Is a 30 lb. gorilla really all that imposing?
30 = 300
So I left out a zero. I will respond to some of your other comments later, but am eager to hear from everyone else first.
CHILDREN of MEXICO
Jeff said, "CHILDREN OF MEN isn't very literal; it never explains why babies can't be born." I don't think the film is obligated to explain its premise—does FAHRENHEIT 451 explain how they arrived at the point in which all books must be burned? Does A CLOCKWORK ORANGE explain how the world has arrived at such an ultraviolent state? Ernst Lubitsch once said "Let the audience add up two plus two. They'll love you forever." This quote especially applies to the dystopian science fiction genre, where things that happen are justified primarily by the fact that the world presented is inherently foreign and separate from our current world (albeit laced with social commentary). So in CHILDREN OF MEN, all the five writers that it took to pen the script need to do is give Michael Caine that line where he ponders the various causes of female infertility, and then the nitty gritty points of exactly how women arrived at the state of infertility merely become the story's MacGuffin. I think that most audience members leave the theater without frustration after having not only the predicament go unexplained but also the open-ended question of how in the hell the girl ever got pregnant in the first place. For me, what's much more important is how the movie works as a whole—and I guess the reconciliation of a loophole-filled premise with expert filmmaking leaves me largely satisfied.
----
Nihal's comment about "Mexican directors...on the verge of becoming a 'school,'" is questionable. It's not like we've got a bunch of filmmakers in France who all turn from criticism to production around the same time amidst an increasingly turbulent political background. That was a "school", or wave, of filmmaking. Yes, the filmmakers in question are all Mexican, have all been imported to the U.S. at some point, and they all released a new feature this past year. But, although three might seem to be a large number, I still see it as a coincidence—not a "school" of filmmaking. Maybe if a) there were more of them and b) they remained in Mexico to make films, then there would be something more significant brewing. But the parallels here are much more blatant when you look at the wave of German/Austrian directors who were imported to the U.S. from the late twenties through the thirties (Murnau, Ulmer, Lang, Preminger, Lubitsch, Wilder, etc.). It's just a commonality between talented directors sharing a homeland—nothing more.
Touche
The "school" comment was a stretch at best. But given that these three seem to be so pally, it's not out of the question that they could accomplish something great in tandem in the future.
Crystalline Squid Hell
Hellboy was an exquisite piece of film making. They should build a school around movies like that.
I'd also like a 30 lb. gorilla, if possible.
Movies Need More than a MacGuffin
Alright, so Nihal called me out on a few things, leaving very few of my assertions unchallenged - not even the one made about what could only be a very small gorilla: a typo.
First, I should probably unload the weight of being called Bushist. You're right: there are all sorts of terrorists in the world (very few of whom have been depicted with much verite on the show 24).
Onto the more pressing matter of Children of Men, which everyone seems to be so enamored by (Nate, want to step to my defense?) Lefko has channeled Lubitsch to make the point that a movie doesn't need to be literal. This is true. But if a movie isn't literal or figurative, then what is left? In other words, it's all very well and good to have a MacGuffin, but there needs to be something else for which the MacGuffin is a trope. My argument is that COM has nothing else.
Nihal's example of the climactic battle scene is a good place to enter this film. It's the film's centerpiece - the sequence that best illustrates its extraordinary photographic achievement and which also, I believe, exposes its hollowness.
As Cuaron's camera goes in and out of that building, and Clive Owen exits with baby in tow, the miraculous occurs: people suddenly stop fighting, and then they start again. In the literal world of this movie - the one in which babies, for reasons unexplained (that MacGuffin), do not exist - this kind of reaction might make sense. It's been a long time since these people have seen babies, blah blah blah. Everything stops for a moment.
But we've established that this film is not operating on a literal level. It should be acting on a figurative level. So we are forced to ask ourselves what this behavior means. To Nihal, it means that the baby (= humanity) is an afterthought. I take that to mean the following: that by pausing to gaze at the baby and then resuming warfare almost immediately, this proves that wars are fought for reasons other than what they probably should be fought for (babies/humanity). The trouble with this, for me, is that it is a cheap means of unifying disparate audiences/people with different worldviews. By leaving the how (or the details/MacGuffin) completely aside, Cuaron leaves the audience no choice but to agree. The symbol of the "baby" makes this all to easy to see: who can argue with a baby? Precisely no one. But this is false consensus. If the film had substance, if it was sincerely interested in any of the issues its champions claim it to be interested in, then its "MacGuffin" would be the opposite of a MacGuffin; it would be central.
How does a society avoid its imminent doom (that moment when it "can no longer reproduce"?) We don't know because we don't know how the film got there. When Lefko/Lubitsch says that the audience can "put two and two together," in this case what that means is liberals will assume that the society on screen is our society, and they can then project onto it whatever pisses them off. But that's too much of a blank check. Or a lazy one, in any case.
Racist
Oh and re: the Mexican school...there's also a new "American school" - Bill Condon, Paul Greengrass and Ryan Fleck. What? They all come from the same nation!
Cheap?
A cheap means of unifying audiences/people with different worldviews?
Also, re. this statement: "...in this case what that means is liberals will assume that the society on screen is our society, and they can then project onto it whatever pisses them off." What the fuck!?!?!? It's not projecting or assuming when the film is pretty damn blatant in trying to show that is our society on screen.
Eric... you called it the best film of the year. Thoughts?
On another note, Jeff, you called Apocalypto one of the year's 10 best. Why? And would you have preferred if the baby was born underwater in Children of Men too?
And finally... racist? Perhaps. But can anyone else think of a recent year when three directors from the same country (besides US & A) received this much acclaim?
Wow!!!
Alright, so Nihal called me out on a few things, leaving very few of my assertions unchallenged - not even the one made about what could only be a very small gorilla: a typo.
First, I should probably unload the weight of being called Bushist. You're right: there are all sorts of terrorists in the world (very few of whom have been depicted with much verite on the show 24).
Onto the more pressing matter of Children of Men, which everyone seems to be so enamored by (Nate, want to step to my defense?) Lefko has channeled Lubitsch to make the point that a movie doesn't need to be literal. This is true. But if a movie isn't literal or figurative, then what is left? In other words, it's all very well and good to have a MacGuffin, but there needs to be something else for which the MacGuffin is a trope. My argument is that COM has nothing else.
Nihal's example of the climactic battle scene is a good place to enter this film. It's the film's centerpiece - the sequence that best illustrates its extraordinary photographic achievement and which also, I believe, exposes its hollowness.
As Cuaron's camera goes in and out of that building, and Clive Owen exits with baby in tow, the miraculous occurs: people suddenly stop fighting, and then they start again. In the literal world of this movie - the one in which babies, for reasons unexplained (that MacGuffin), do not exist - this kind of reaction might make sense. It's been a long time since these people have seen babies, blah blah blah. Everything stops for a moment.
But we've established that this film is not operating on a literal level. It should be acting on a figurative level. So we are forced to ask ourselves what this behavior means. To Nihal, it means that the baby (= humanity) is an afterthought. I take that to mean the following: that by pausing to gaze at the baby and then resuming warfare almost immediately, this proves that wars are fought for reasons other than what they probably should be fought for (babies/humanity). The trouble with this, for me, is that it is a cheap means of unifying disparate audiences/people with different worldviews. By leaving the how (or the details/MacGuffin) completely aside, Cuaron leaves the audience no choice but to agree. The symbol of the "baby" makes this all to easy to see: who can argue with a baby? Precisely no one. But this is false consensus. If the film had substance, if it was sincerely interested in any of the issues its champions claim it to be interested in, then its "MacGuffin" would be the opposite of a MacGuffin; it would be central.
How does a society avoid its imminent doom (that moment when it "can no longer reproduce"?) We don't know because we don't know how the film got there. When Lefko/Lubitsch says that the audience can "put two and two together," in this case what that means is liberals will assume that the society on screen is our society, and they can then project onto it whatever pisses them off. But that's too much of a blank check. Or a lazy one, in any case.
Thankfully for the fragman
Thankfully for the fragman patient masses, Avatar has turned out to be the biggest and best event movie of the year, perhaps the decade. The story is pure Cameron simplicity anal porno a paraplegic ex-marine is given a film chance to walk again through the use of a unique alien body, called an sikiş izle Avatar. It is his job to gain the trust of the natives so that a greedy corporation türk pornosu can steal the precious metal from their lush moon. Jake's (Sam Worthington) crippled main character is the perfect point of contact for the audience not only is he new to the visual delights of Pandora but his anal pornolar disability means that every moment in his Avatar body is one of glorious freedom from the confinement of his chair. sarışın pornolar When the Corporations intentions become more sinister, Jake must choose between his new found place with the natives and his own race and fight for what he believes in._Oscars, schmoscars. This weekend was all about the best and porno izle brightest in Hollywood animation. At Saturday's 37th Annual Annie Awards, Pixar's Up, the little gem that's also in the running for top honors at sex izle this year's Academy Awards, was named Best Animated Film and Best Directing in a Feature. dizi To hell with them 4 this kind of cash splash parça kontör in this credit crisis. oyun bu siteden oyun oyna ya bilirsiniz. There are a lot issues to deal with kontür as to bu sitemizden dizi izleye bilirsiniz. regards money and will be appreciated not to hear this from parça kontör the media 4 its publicity stunts. A lot people are dying just because they can't afford it and Kalou from a parça kontör very poor African country and background can't use the oppurtunity 4 charity. 4 the bayan arkadaş good samaritan Terry, that money would save countless lives if you had escort bayanlar donated it to Kanu's Heart Foundation arkadaş Celebrate what?!!!!.....birthday?.when u guys knew u have a ezel izle decisive n test of superiority match against man utd ds weekend. If u all lyk drink n get drunk n perform woefully against man utd n c wat i'll kızlarla sohbet do 2 u ppl.y dnt yemek tarifleri kızlarla sohbet u jst postpone d celebratn till after our parça kontör sex izle victory over escort bayanlar man utd n i'll u gy z seks in getting drunk in my own arkadaşlık siteleri domain..Up until my mid-20s, my ability to reproduce had seks porno izle been almost entirely a burden: the cost of sikiş izle contraception, the worry of pregnancy, the unsettling presence of blood. With that track record, padding my bank account seemed like the least my ovaries could do for me. My mother cried when I sold my ova. buraki sitemizinden yerli dizi veya yabancı dizi izleyebilirsiniz. Friends said, "I would never do that." Older women swore gazeteler I'd regret it. dul bayanlar But I do not miss those 12 eggs, hardly sohbet ever think of them, wouldn't know them if I film izle passed them in the street. I think instead of the long, thrilling trips I took with the money—to Bangkok, indir Istanbul, Cape Town. Devaluing my body, you say? It sure didn't feel like that in first class. seks izleintentions become more sinister, Jake must choose between his new found place with the natives and his own race and fight for what kızlık bozma he believes When the Corporations intentions become more sinister, Jake must choose between his new found place with the natives and his own race and fight for what he believes sikiş izle
Corporations intentions become more sinister,teen videoları Jake must choose between his new found place with the natives and his own race and fight for what he believes When the Corporations intentions porno izle become more sinister, Jake must choose liseli pornosu between his new found place with the natives and sex izle his own race and fight for what he believes When the seks izle Corporations intentions become more sinister, Jake must choose between his new found porno izle place with the natives and his own race and fight for what he believes kız pornosu place with the natives and his own race and fight for what he believesplace with the natives and his own race and fight for what he believes sikiş place with the natives and his own race and fight for what he believes izlesene
English grammar composition,
English grammar composition, information evaluation, analysis and conclusion demonstrate a thesis | online thesis | how to write thesis | thesis writing person's ability to present thesis effectively in an impressive manner. Writers desire to clearly demonstrate this in total coherence and unity on presented ideas. The company clearly support focused, well thought out piece of work. The kind of custom research paper and service one would desire to use.
thesis help | custom thesis | buy thesis | theses
Post new comment