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.