Gravity

Because this film had a very limited amount of characters and settings, it was necessary that other elements helped to add appeal for the audience. Because in my commentary track the focus was on actual setting, I decided to apply my new critical eye to Gravity. The setting did vary partially, but as a whole it was based in outer space, go figure.. Instead, I noticed that in several scenes the camera work stood out to me in particular.

While I could only find trailer clips of the two scenes, they both have key elements in common. The first scene is called "Explorer's Been Hit", and it uses a long tracking shot to capture the action. This kind of shot uses a continuous shot from one camera, and the effect it creates is obviously one of continuity, but also one that adds a different perspective to the audience. The camera pans all around the action, allowing the viewers to see just how vast space was. You also are able to see everything happen in real time, making you feel like you're apart of the action, instead of just watching it happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YQyKOAq-rA

I chose the next clip to parallel the first. The camera work in this scene is the exact opposite of the first clip- it does not focus on showing the scene as a whole, but focuses on Ryan. All we can hear is her heavy breathing and panicked signals, while the camera is focused on her face, even though she is flipping over during her free fall in space.  It is not until the end of this scene that you can see that she is, and it almost disorientates the viewers like the tracking shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFQN_iqPTjc

Because there was not much in the way of set changes or props, aside from outer space, Gravity relied on film making techniques to portray certain aspects of the film to the viewers. This was done partially through a variety of different camera uses, including one of my new favorites, the tracking shot.

Alien

A topic I've focused on for other blog posts has been the comparisons of different androids in other films, like the Replicants in Blade Runner, actual robots in Wall-E, and alien races in Star Trek. The presence of non-human life forces in science fiction films is crucial, because it is hard to imagine a future that isn't primarily influenced by technology. There were two foreign beings in Alien, obviously the Alien and then Ash, the supposed human and then android. I guess because this is another Ridley Scott movie, he technically qualifies as a Replicant, but I digress. I think it was interesting that these two were included in the same film, because the reactions to them are quite different.

As we have seen before, humans do not react well to actual aliens. When represented in scifi films, aliens are not human like at all, and most often have far superior physical abilities. The alien in Alien was referred to as the "perfect organism", and it was treated as a huge threat by the crew, rightly so. It systematically hunted the crew in a very successful manner, and although Ripley seemed to dispose of it, the fact that there are sequels proves it wrong.

Ash is first introduced as a human, albeit an odd one. It is in his lack of reaction to the alien onboard that Ripley realizes something is wrong, and his attempts to murder her prove that he is not in fact human. While I don't really understand the whole rolled up newspaper attack, he clearly had no respect for human life and was far stronger than the crew members that came to her aid. Ash as a replicant did not outwardly harm the crew, but it was clear that he would if deemed necessary.

While Star Trek also introduced both aliens and androids side by side, it was to a very different effect than Alien. Neither the alien or Ash in Alien were peaceful, and therefore their roles in the film were very distinct. I believe the reason Alien was so successful in establishing itself as one of the corner stones of the science fiction genre is because it introduced both alien life force and mechanical humanity as equal threats. Both of these ideas seem to be equally terrifying to humanity: the idea that something we create in our likeness will somehow become more advanced than ourselves, and the idea that other beings exist than are inherently superior to humans.

Sunshine

In a film called Sunshine, it's pretty obvious that the focal point is going to revolve around the Sun in some type of way. Sunshine focuses on a crew's mission to reboot the Sun, in order to sustain life on Earth. This represents a common fear of humans I believe; that such a small variable- a star lightyears away, is absolutely neccessary for life on Earth. This film defintely plays on this universal fear of the Sun failing Earth, but it also turns the introspect inwards on humanity, which in my opinion is a major trope of the sci-fi genre.

The sun itself can almost be considered as a character in Sunshine. It appears in many scenes as the focal point of the shot; it is looming and impressive over the ship, or through the viewing screen. It dominants every scene it's pictured in, especially with the help of the vibrant orange color and the fact that you can see its burning surface. Everything else is shot with a much darker color scheme, mostly shades of black and blue. The ship itself is very shaded, with a sterile feeling to every aspect. Even the room filled with plants, the main source of oxygen, is dark compared to shots of the sun. This is also seen when artifical light is viewed- it is blueish and just seems cold compared to the vibrancy and warmth of the actual Sun.

While the sun is a literally a star, that's what it is in Sunshine in a non-literal sense. The characters all react to the sun in different ways, which is partially what brings me to my conclusion of the sun also representing humanity. Their lives all revolve around the sun, but not just in the sense that it is their mission and that they need the Sun to exist. I think that this film also makes the connection that the sun represents the purest form of humanity and morality. These characters will sacrifice anything to save it. The crew of Icharus II struggle to both save the sun and protect their ideals in the face of it, which brings us to an age old question of philosophy- which matters more, the means to the end, or just the end?

Star Trek Insurrection

I hate to admit it, but I actually enjoyed watching this film much more than expected. While Star Trek was one of the more traditionally science fiction films we've watched (go figure), I actually think it focused more on humanity than other films. I've focused on the concept of humanity versus technology or artificial humanity for movies like Moon, Blade Runner, and AI, but I feel that Star Trek does a better job at bringing up this internal conflict without the use of robotics.

The first instance I noticed of this theme was during Picard's questioning into the workings of the Ba'ku people. I was immediately intrigued when the Ba'ku male leader discussed how while his people were very technologically advanced, they chose not to use it in their daily lives. This immediately set them aside from the rest of the Federation, because they actively made the choice that machines were a hindrance to humanity. However, it is ironic that these people renounce technology and still reap the benefits from being virtually immortal, but I digress.

This scenario is made even more interesting when the plot point was realized that the Son'a were originally apart of the Ba'ku people, but split because of their differing views on technology. The fact that the Son'as wanted to steal the planet essentially for the immortality it brings does slightly mar the discussion of the goods and evils of technology, but it also brings forth another question about humanity. Are humans defined by our limited lives, or does the true merits of humanity rely on how we act? This film offers three different answers to this question. First, there is one of the Son'as, whose mission is to take the planet because he wants eternal youth, but also uses technology in all aspects of his life. Then there is the Ba'ku woman, who rejects technology but is immortal. Then, there is Picard, who chooses to remain aged, and while he uses technology, he maintains his morals even in the face of the Federation.


While the answer to who's humanity is the more acceptable is very relative, I believe that Jean-Luc presents the most human character. He does not use technology as a crutch, but he also does not let it encompass or control his entire life. The overarching theme of Star Trek Insurrection does not focus on the absence vs too much technology, but rather the right balance and morals used behind it.

Brazil

I really enjoyed the film Brazil, and while it strayed from the humans vs technology centric past films we've watched, I really liked the satirical view of Brazil. I related this film very much to Children of Men, and both films seemed to have an underlying parallelism. Brazil's was of a much more pointed nature. Everything done in this movie had an underlining double meaning, and one scene in particular occurred in the first fifteen minutes.

This scene begins in a Ministry office, with a low-level worker "supervising" a machine working on identifying terrorists. While the mistake made during this scene would be the basis for this movie's entire plot, the dialogue that occurred before the fateful fly drop is what I want to focus on.

Like much of the dialogue in Brazil, the action is occurring while a voice-over discussing other events is playing. The worker is sitting at his desk, attempting to read the newspaper, at the same time a fly is buzzing around his office. While this is happening, a Minister is talking to a television anchor about the terrorist threat in the country. The minister is convincing the public that these terrorists are a minor threat, even calling their success "beginner's luck". All the while, this fly is flying around the room, escaping the worker's attempts to kill it. It's almost comical the links this worker goes through to kill the fly, risking breaking his neck by stacking a chair on a filing cabinet on his desk to finally kill said fly. It's ironic the way these two events are occurring at the same time; a seemingly harmless terrorist group is resisting the government at every turn, while a fly is avoiding a newspaper swat. One can almost relate the two groups together, especially since the fly's death caused such a disastrous end for Mr. Buttle, much like the terrorist organization caused the demise of Brazil's main character.

Although this scene is ultimately a very small one in Brazil, it still demonstrates a greater theme that is very interesting when explored throughout the entire film; noticing the double meaning and parallelism.

Wall-E

I think the reason this blog post was so hard for me was finding a topic that really spoke to me. First off, I really don't like Wall-E. I appreciate it's animation and production, but I never really got all the hype over it. And yes, I am aware that this is an extremely unpopular opinion. It just seems that the overarching themes of post apocalyptic world and human's destruction of Earth were too in your face, and the humanizing aspects of Wall-E's personality and his relationship with EVE were too forced.

However, something that I did experience from watching this film again was the way it made me think about previous films we've covered, Blade Runner, Artificial Intelligence, and Moon specifically. These four films all deal with some kind of machines that live among humans, with varying degrees of humanity. I think a very important trope of these films was it made the audience look at themselves and how we viewed humanity. In Blade Runner, the non-human factor was the Replicants. They were physically human, but they were engineered to be better, stronger versions. The fact that they were almost grown and assembled took away from their humanity, along with their short life spans and lack of emotions. Artificial Intelligence showed their non-humans as very similar, except they were mechanical inside, instead of being biologically the same as real humans. Moon again varied from this theme slightly by having actual clones; human in all aspects except they are a copy of a "real" human. In Wall-E's case, the nonhuman factor is a robot that actually looks like a robot.

Regardless of what kinds of "robots" these four films portrayed, they all had differing degrees of humanity. I was not particularly attached to the Replicants or David, because I knew they were not actually humans, and because they were not capable of portraying emotions that I related to as "human". My opinion changed for Moon and Wall-E, and the lines between how to treat robots and humans began to blur. I genuinely felt bad for both of the Sam's, but it was not because of his personality, because I considered him almost-human, and definitely more human than Roy or David. In Wall-E's case, I did consider him more human, based solely on his personality and actions. Wall-E's love for Eve was genuine, and so was his general personality- my favorite moments of this film were the beginning forty minutes or so of just Wall-E palling around. I think that the character of Wall-E is the most human-like character, even though he is a robot. While I'm still not entirely sold on the idea that emotions and love can be the sole basis for humanity, I agree that his actions made him more human than the other three characters.

Metropolis

Since the version of Metropolis we watched was the original, "lost" film that adds at least an hour, I figured I would pay homage to the characters the restored scenes added to. Originally, characters like the scientist Rotwang and the Thin Man had little screen time or background information, leaving their roles in the film very unclear. While the found footage does not exactly go in depth to the Thin Man's character, he definitely made an impact on my viewing of Metropolis.

The Thin Man was a traditional evil henchman character, but the fact that this film was both black and white and a silent film definitely impacted how the actor's presented themselves. Gone is the typical villain banter that is now expected from these almost filler characters. The actor has to rely on his movements specifically, and while they can be seen as over the top, they are the best way to relate his motives to the audience. He is tall and physically threatening, but it is apparent that he is not the typical strong yet dumb henchman. His actions in stalking the fake Freder show that he is also cunning, and I agree that the combination is refreshing.

Because the role of the henchman is not one that requires much screen time or back-story, the Thin Man was not a prominent character. However, like many other aspects of Metropolis, this character had a huge influence on modern day films. The character role of the henchman definitely did not originate in this film, but you can see it in a lot of more recent movies, with Charlie's Angels for an example. The character in this film is actually also called the Thin Man, and while his motives differ slightly form Metropolis' Thin Man, the influence is unmistakable.

Charlie's Angels Thin Man
                                                       Metropolis Thin Man



The makeup used on the original Thin Man also adds to his menacing attitude; his brows are darkened and lowered to appear more sinister, and his eyes have dark makeup to create shadows, allowing his eyes to pierce the audience. This was necessary for the cinematography of Metropolis, but you can also see this costume translate to the modern day Thin Man. Because Charlie's Angels Thin Man has the added benefit of talking, his makeup is not as dramatic. His appearance does change his eyebrows, lowering them and keeping them furrowed to keep his face threatening.

The character of the Thin Man in Metropolis is a very interesting one. His role is not particularly large, and he is constricted to conveying his scenes through purely his body movements and costume/makeup. However, his performance in doing so was very influential on even the "talkie" films of today's times, seen through Charlie's Angels.

Moon

Moon's settings were very discreet and monotonous, due to the low budget and setting in general of the film, but there were still slight changes that spoke to the overall theme. The fact that the four harvesters were named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John completely escaped me until the class discussion. Because of this, I can't feel that I missed their importance to the film's message. When you chart their appearance throughout Moon, they don't really change. The four harvesters were never really explained to the audience except for the fact that they were important to the operation, so they were pretty stagnant throughout the film. I suppose if one wanted to go deeper into themes, the argument about the harvesters representing the books of the Bible could be transformed into a larger discussion about religion and it's role in Moon. While I don't think it was a coincidence by the directors, to me, the unchanging nature of the harvesters merely reflected how the four Gospels are the foundation of the Bible and most modern day religions.



An element from Moon that was definitely dynamic were the random flashes and glitches that Sam experienced. These were first introduced in the beginning montage of Sam working at the station, he was thanking unknown operator's for a recording of a game and a video of himself played back at him. The second "glitch" was the sudden apparition of a teenage girl, who was explained by the director's to be Sam's daughter through some bullshit clone-telepathy. I find that theory a stretch of the imagination, but I digress. The glitches were sudden and very erratic, contributing to a deja vu feeling that was present for Sam throughout the film. This can be again with his model's and the buildings he did not remember creating.

While the harvesters and glitches in the Matrix of Moon (if you will) don't really have anything in common and serve two different purposes, they both contribute to an overall theme of the film. The Moon station is a constant variable, and it's creators obviously saw a need for this station to remain the same, and saw the solution to be creating an army of Sam clones to man it. The glitches could be construed to represent the opposite; they represent the flaws in this system.

Children of Men

Scene: Opening/Announcement of Diego's Death

In regards to the story of Children of Men, this event is pretty much irrelevant. It was a very confusing experience being plunged immediately into this movie by hearing the news reporters discuss the death of Diego; the back story about the infertility issues of the world were unknown, and the gravity of the situation was very much present, but I couldn't tell why.

The composition of this scene also had a lot to do with my overall confusion. The first thirty seconds or so were completely black, with just the British news anchors voices. When it finally faded to the actual scene, you see a very crowded coffee shop filled with anxious and distressed people, staring intently at the screen. The lighting was very monotone, and everything was washed in a weird blue gray light, seen in the actual lighting and also their clothing, that would be present throughout the rest of the film.

I feel like this was a very impactful way to begin the movie, with no real context except for the context clues from Diego's death and what the news station told you. The entire time I was watching it, not only was I concentrating on depicting what exactly was going on in the film, I was struck by the fact that this event and the reaction of the population of this film seemed so familiar. It wasn't until we were doing our in class picture assignment until I realized that the event I was relating it to was the public's reaction to Princess Diana's death. It's possible that this connection was sparked by just the British accents, but I feel like the relation between the two events can put the film in a new perspective. Because the human population was facing its inevitable extinction, Diego's death obviously has a little more weight for this society, but it still points towards the sweetheart complex of all societies. It's true that the country was mourning the loss of the youngest person on Earth, but they were also mourning the little boy that they saw grow up. Societies tend to sensationalize characters like this, and it was interesting to note the differences in the ways that the masses, and Theo took his death, which I believe shows something much bigger about humanity and pack mentality.

Artificial Intelligence

"It occurs to me with all this animus existing against Mechas today it isn't just a question of creating a robot that can love. Isn't the real conundrum, can you get a human to love them back?"

A definite theme throughout Artificial Intelligence was the subtle relationship between Mechas and Orgas, putting the Orgas as almost the God to the Mechas' Adam. This was alluded to in the rest of the exchange that the above quote belonged to, and it really speaks to the film as a whole in my opinion. We first see this in the introduction of David to the family. When you think about this, it's actually quite terrible. This family's son is in a coma, and the way the father comes home with David like he's a new puppy to present to Monica is pretty darkly funny. "Here honey, I know our son is a vegetable, but I got you a fancy fake one to fill the void!" The whole nonchalance of this should have immediately tipped the audience off. My initial reaction was that no matter what happens, they will never be able to truly love David, and I feel like this is proved constantly over the next, very long, two-ish hours. 

It is portrayed that Mechas are created to fill voids Orgas need, and this is true, but in a completely physical manner. This can be seen through Joe. While his sole purpose is to be a sex worker, he also does not have any emotional duties at all. When the man kills his cheating spouse, he does not seem to give any blame to Joe. I agree with the point made in class that by considering her relationship with Joe an affair, it gives him human qualities, but in an actual affair, the wronged party hardly ignores the mistress like this man did. This Mechas-as-a-crutch theme is further amplified in David. Mechas like him were created to give childless couples what they desired the most, but with no regard for the Mechas at all. The robo-kids would love their "parents" irrevocably, fulfilling the Orgas' maternal instincts. But when the question comes to if the parents will actually love the children back, the response is really an "eh, who cares?". 

This seems like a complete paradox. However, this seems like a common occurrence in any movie featuring creating robots to emulate humans. It's confusing to me; the entire purpose of robots is something that are entirely efficient at the thing they are specifically built for, but humans seem obsessed with giving them emotions. Robots are better at what they do because they operate based on logic, without emotions to interfere. Robots' entire purpose is to make life easier for humans, and do things that seem to appear beneath humanity. When we give traits like the ability to love to nonhuman beings, what does this mean about how humans view love? While the focus in Artificial Intelligence seemed to be focused on David and his quest for humanity, I feel like it should be turned back around to the Orgas in this film and their reactions to Mechas. What does it mean about us that we can create things with emotions, simply for our own amusement, and then abandon them? 

Blade Runner

Although this was actually my first (second and third) time watching Blade Runner, I was immediately struck by how familiar all the scenes looked. Ridley Scott's sets seemingly have a distinctive theme that I have seen demonstrated and replicated through a lot of more recent sci-fi films. What really caught my eye was the similarities to one of my favorite artists music video, The Weeknd's Belong to the World, but I digress.

I was also familiar with the controversy over the voice overs, so I made it a point to see if the movie was really that hard to decipher without Harrison Ford explaining it. It was painfully obvious that the overarching theme of Blade Runner was questioning humanity, and the parallels between the Replicants and people who are supposedly human, like Decker. It makes me wonder how people did not at least have a hunch that Rachel was a Replicant from the beginning; her entire demeanor and presence did not seem human to me. Admittedly, I did not begin to question Decker's humanity until the last half hour or so, and I'm still not entirely convinced that he is one. I think the most conclusive evidence towards his humanness is the fight scene between him and Roy. Roy moves like he is genetically superior, and even when he is physically hurt, his actions are still superior to Decker's. Decker maintains his persona as the best Blade Runner during these scenes, but it's clear that he is no match for the Replicant. Other Easter eggs like the unicorn b roll splices still confuse me; I guess if you go deep you could assume that the unicorns are elusive like his humanity, but I think that's a stretch. My interpretation is more along the lines of Rachel being a Replicant who almost gained humanity, which is the stronger theme.

My favorite characters were definitely Roy and Pris, simply because of the dimensions their characters were given. For being genetically engineered to do specific jobs, they both had such a wide range of emotion; we saw anger, playfulness, and definitely love. The direction I got from Blade Runner was that the rumors about Replicants are true, and after a certain time period, their emotions and humanity are not manufactured, but actually become genuine. That does not mean that they become good people, but remain genetically superior beings simply with human emotions. When Roy kills Tyrell, it seems like a very human reaction. By doing so he obviously can't use Tyrell to re-engineer himself, and revenge is the next step. You can also see Roy's humanity in his reaction to Pris' body; the others did not seem very affected by the loss of the other Replicants, but Roy and Pris had a special relationship.

I think Blade Runner was very adept at exploring the theme that is at the basis of almost all sci-fi films: what separates humanity from machines. It does this in a very broad way, so there is definitely room for other interpretations, and perhaps not in the most clear way either. There are still some moments that felt like overkill to me: Roy howling like a wolf, the Jesus Christ allusion when he nails his own hand to remain alive a while longer, the very rapey "love scene" between Decker and Rachel, and obviously the Unicorn scenes.