I couldn't watch this movie…
-
ttaskmaster — 11 years ago(August 28, 2014 04:44 AM)
I think this film is great, but his eye thing bothers me, too. I wonder why he leaves it there? Is it a British thing?
What is the obssession with having perfect teeth, perfectly proportioned bodies, a certain size of breasts, a specific amount of suntan and all manner of unnatural things? What is with Nature making people just fine one way, over thousands of years of evolution, only for them to pay a ridiculous fortune by going under the surgeon's knife? Are people THAT incapable of getting a job without a perfect appearance? How did they all manage before plastic surgery?
Are plastic surgeons THAT impoverished that they desperately need their fourth luxury yacht (which these generous surgery bills fund) in order to survive out there??!!
Is it an American thing?
But in all seriousness, it probably is a non-Hollywood mentality, be it Britain/UK specifically or whatever. Plastic surgery is insanely expensive in most parts of the world and often viewed as both unnecessary and seriously vain. The amount of magazines and websites obssessing and criticising over which celebs have had boob jobs, nose jobs and so on is evidence enough, but the sheer cost is subequently viewed as a serious waste of money.
In certain circles, acting ability is the only thing of importance and it's a good thing too, else we'd never have enjoyed the talent of actors such as Ron Perlman, Steve Buscemi, Pete Postlethwaite, Danny Trejo or Robert Davi, whose appearances are not exactly Playgirl Pinup
Also, to quote Christian himself:
"It's just disgusting, this vanity-fuelled profession".
None of that really saves this film, though!!! -
-
ttaskmaster — 11 years ago(August 28, 2014 11:13 AM)
I'm pretty sure the stereopsis of his binocular vision can compensate, just like it does for well, anyone who has a nose, really!!
Worry not about his lack of cosmetic surgery, but about his choice of film especially if he keeps choosing ones like this!! -
ttaskmaster — 11 years ago(August 11, 2014 06:19 AM)
They did seem to distinguish between emotions and feelings, with some minor explanation, though what they were on about is not really worth my time to try and debate over.
Seen the film thrice. That was enough. -
emvan — 11 years ago(January 13, 2015 05:08 AM)
You got 10 times further than I did. You almost got 100 times further!
You're absolutely correct about the movie's colossal misunderstanding of the role of feelings. Nor do the rebuttals in this thread solve the problem.
The opening narration tells us that that the new world order has eliminated the source of man's inhumanity to man (dramatic pause): "the ability to feel."
Well, that's preposterously backwards. (There should be a word for a combination laugh and groan, because that was my reaction.) The source of man's inhumanity to man is the
inability
to feel specifically, the inability to feel the pain and suffering of other human beings, as if it were our own. Empathy. Empathy for others is the only thing that prevents us all from being sociopathic killers and/or Ayn Rand fans.
If you mute feelings in order to ramp down hatred and passion and rage, you also mute empathy. And those destructive feelings only blossom when empathy is absent, and/or in reaction to sociopathic behavior by others.
Since most human beings are empathic, a world with muted feelings would be far worse. All you'd be doing is making the non-sociopathic people more like the sociopaths.
The source of man's inhumanity to man is a combination of two things:- We are hard-wired to make a division between "us" and "them", and treat the "them" as nonhuman, and hence unworthy of empathy. Most healthy people now regard "us" as all other human beings.
- Sociopaths have evolved to exploit the empathic altruism of others. They are far more likely to get themselves into positions of power because of their willingness to act amorally. And they can exploit #1 and get good people to start treating selected groups of others as "them," and thus do whatever it takes to consolidate their power, e.g., fight in a war.
I kept watching after the opening narration to see if the movie was otherwise interesting, but the first three or four minutes or so are just extremely violent action scenes, which looked cool but were so devoid of context that they meant nothing if you had correctly projected the premise.
Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.
-
vashstyle-887-988969 — 10 years ago(April 09, 2015 05:09 AM)
holy beep are you serious
maybe you should try finishing the film before you make assumptions about it's themes
it's not the movie that understands the role of feelings, it's the regime in control of the world. the movie is about rebelling against this regime.
you just went on this whole screed based on the scene that sets up the world, jesus christ. you're an idiot.
if you'd actually watch the beep movie you would see that it agrees with you. -
emvan — 10 years ago(April 09, 2015 03:01 PM)
You missed my point. Obviously I agree with the themes of the movie (like,
cough
, every other human being. See below). The problem is that the world portrayed has less than zero credibility.
Movies that portray a rebellion against an f-ed up society are a staple of sci-fi. And there is no shortage of conceivable types of such societies. But it must make at least a fraction of a smidgen of a whisper of an iota of sense that the society could have come into place.
There must be something credible that the repressive regime believes. And if they're lying to the populace about what they believe, it must be credible that they would bother lying to the public, and credible that the public would believe the lie.
As I explained, the belief that excessive feelings (in general) are the cause of man's inhumanity to man, and that we must get rid of feelings to avoid that, is preposterous. It's not credible for an instant that the members of a ruling class, whether their intentions were good or evil, would believe that.
Now, it's possible that, as the film progresses, it's revealed that this rationale is bs, and that the regime wants to eliminate feelings for some other reason, and that they have used the "this will help people treat each oher better" rationale as an excuse. But why bother with the lie? If there were a repressive regime that had the power to impose such a restriction on an unwilling populace,
they would just go ahead and do so
. No idiotic rationale needed.
Nor is a scenario credible where they convince people via propaganda that we need to get rid of feelings. It's not credible that people would ever buy that, because, like I said, it's a preposterous idea.
And do you know why all of this is true?
People like feelings
. People like feelings because people have them and most of them are good feelings, else none of us would want to live. And I think that most people understand that feelings are necessary.
A sci-fi scenario where feelings have been overtly outlawed is barely more credible as one where food or air has been outlawed.
(Nor, by the way, are we in danger, as a society, of moving in the direction of eliminating feelings. So the movie is toothless as satire or warning, too.)
Now, it just so happens that it's barely credible that a future society might decide that
certain types of feelings, if felt to excess
, are necessary for
war
, and if we could mute that specific set of feelings, we could end war. And they would need to mute those feelings covertly, without people realizing it was happening, because like I said, people like feelings.
And it just so happens that that story exists, and it's called
The Giver
.
I would say that the premise of this movie, as stated at the outset, is the premise of
The Giver
as rewritten for chimps, but that would be an insult to chimps.
Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen. -
markcameron-42529 — 10 years ago(April 23, 2015 09:29 AM)
I disagree heartily. For one thing, the Giver set out to do more than mute emotions. They muted color, they muted experiences they decided were too close to giving independent thought. They sought to withhold all power and freedom by giving people just enough liberty to enjoy their lives, if they stayed within the boundaries. One step outside of it, however, and you must be removed because it would mean shattering the illusion of the universe. Emotions are a big part of this and a reason why they were suppressed: because they could limit the imagination this way.
As for this movie and its premise Your argument is also flawed. This movie drew a heavy influence from Fahrenheit 451. This wasn't a society that was sold on the idea of giving up their emotions lightly. It was a society that -willingly- surrendered their emotions. Fahrenheit centered on books because literature was being literally burned in WWII and Bradbury felt a need to respond to it in kind, but that book and this movie spread out into the other forms of media to encompass a problem that all society seems to be sliding into: compliance toward not feeling, not thinking, not really wanting anything but to just exist.
People sit on their couches all day and stare blandly at the TV because it doesn't make them feel or think. Reality television and comedies that don't make you think continue to be the best sellers on the television. The dramas that do make it are often so filled with sex and violence that they don't have time to actually tell a story except in small snippets and it often isn't enough to still make us -feel-. Equilibrium is a movie about a society that gave up a basic human aspect because they thought it would stop their pain. They wouldn't need to question their place in the grand structure of things, there would be no need for jealousy or rage or depression if you were just doing what you knew was best for the world and didn't have to think about it. To think, to imagine, to love, those are the source of despair and, ultimately, violence. It isn't that hard to imagine that humanity could be sold on this idea over a given set of time. It would make people complacent, logical, efficient, in a word: Managed.
We don't want to empathize, we don't want to feel guilty or weird. Take away all emotions and let someone else run our bigger decisions for us. As for why you have to convince the populace it's for the best: it's a lot easier if people just roll over and let you attack their soft spots than to just do it. Then you get investigations and reasons for people to fight against you.
The very idea that reigning in all emotions and emotional content in the world isn't a new concept and it has always existed as a way to keep ideas out of people's heads. It is both satire and a warning and will always be such given that people are always too explosive about a great many things. Point out a group that can cut through all the bs and move into a system where they just get things -done-? Hell, it's tempting to jump on board of that with them.