I couldn't watch this movie…
-
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. -
emvan — 10 years ago(January 20, 2016 10:06 PM)
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.
That would have been a great movie. But that's not what we're told is the rationale for ridding ourselves of feelings. We're told point-blank that it's to end "man's inhumanity to man." In fact, we're told that before feelings are even mentioned.
To think, to imagine, to love, those are the source of despair and, ultimately, violence.
No. Lots of things lead to violence, but despair is not one of them. Despair leads to immobility.
The point remains: people widely believe that the source of human cruelty is the
lack
of feelings, not their presence. When you accuse someone of being "unfeeling," it's almost always a shorthand for saying they lack empathy, mercy, compassion, and the like. So it just beggars all credibility that any kind of repressive government would
try to convince people of the opposite
, let alone that people would come to believe it. When we present an imagined sci-fi future, we have to be able to connect our present to it (and the easier we can draw the line connecting the two, the more effective the movie is). This movie fails that test.
Now, I readily admit that the possibility that the movie's take on feelings is actually more nuanced that what they set out at the beginning. But that opening is so stupid that it left with me no confidence that the rest of the movie would be substantially smarter. And it needed to be
hugely
smarter.
Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen. -
markcameron-42529 — 10 years ago(January 21, 2016 01:12 AM)
That would have been a great movie. But that's not what we're told is the rationale for ridding ourselves of feelings. We're told point-blank that it's to end "man's inhumanity to man." In fact, we're told that before feelings are even mentioned.
That's sort of the point It's always been the point. Our inhumanity to man is a balanced struggle for power, fueled by the illogical emotions and 'feelings' of our then-previously held beliefs and philosophies. If you remove those aspects, you turn to blame emotions and feelings for everything. Almost all religions are based on the fear that this is the only life we can live and so we must be good in order to go to Heaven or face an eternity in Hell. Rearrange the words as you may, it still leads to a fear that there either is or is not something after this life and that leads to illogical decisions, flawed logic. The same can be said of many philosophies and decisions. Our own inhumanity is inherently linked to the emotions that pervade us. Without joy, without fear, all that is left is a cold rationale: Thus we cannot be inhumane if we are not letting an emotion guide our decisions.
No. Lots of things lead to violence, but despair is not one of them. Despair leads to immobility.
I disagree. Despair leads to fear, anger, hatred, and paranoia. All of these are known associates of violence. Have you ever known someone that is cornered and, in knowing they are doomed or confused or riddled with doubt, strikes out at themselves or others out of the sheer frustration of it all? It's a very common occurrence.
I think the point of authoring such a piece is to point out the fuzzy logic inherent in the argument as it comes. I'm not defending the lack of emotions as a viable way to live, but it certainly has gained credence in recent decades. Conquering ones emotions and focusing instead on pure logic is seen as a more 'accomplished' individual to those that see it this way. People would widely believe that it is the lack of emotions that leads to suffering (after all, this is the exact claim of capitalism these days). However, you are ignoring the other side of that argument. The defenders of those that are 'unfeeling' or that are seen as merciless argue that these emotions are running over. It is a commonly spouted statement of "You're just getting offended because things did not turn out like you hoped. You need to calm down and come back when your emotions aren't clouding your judgement or fueling your statements."
The premise also isn't a peaceful one. This is why there's a resistance in the first place. Many argued, many fought back, but in the face of an enemy with vastly superior resources and the 'higher ground' as it were: there is little doubt that they would be able to create a government based around the idea of stopping the violence by removing your ability to GET angry. You can't be inhumane if you cannot imagine a reason for doing so. Without emotion, you're just thinking about the next task, your next step.
This movie isn't even THAT smart. I'm more arguing the premise, since it's been used in several (dear god several dozens) stories. Emotions are the infection, scrub them out. Then someone proves that emotions are our saving grace. Then someone points out that somewhere in the middle is the best way. It isn't so far fetched to imagine a society being led into a future where they've been forced and led into believing these things are true. You are right in the sense that people believe it is a lack of compassion in the world that causes violence, but how can you not see that it is just as alluring, could be compelling, to prove that, by removing someone's emotions, they see your side of the argument and sit down to talk, renounce their claims of aggression and everyone moves on peacefully? The silly notions of the past, their crimes against themselves and others would give hope for people tired of dealing with so much white noise and pain.
And as I said, some would fight it. But if you have the right people behind that movement, the ones fighting it would lose quickly, because they aren't likely to be the ones holding any sort of major wealth.
All-in-all, the ending was anti-climatic and there were some conflicts they never resolved. It never was a perfect movie. But it was a better attempt at something approaching Fahrenheit 451 than the eponymous movie released a decade before. -
emvan — 10 years ago(January 21, 2016 06:57 AM)
Our own inhumanity is inherently linked to the emotions that pervade us.
But this is only true because all our behavior is determined by our emotions.
Without joy, without fear, all that is left is a cold rationale: Thus we cannot be inhumane if we are not letting an emotion guide our decisions.
In fact, there is no behavior, not even thought, left, if there are no feelings. We can be neither humane nor inhumane.
So eliminating feelings or emotions is impossible. They can only be muted or reduced.
You've actually written a very articulate summary and defense of the use of the idea in science fiction while admitting that you're being smarter than the movie!
So I should make it clear that I did not object to the general premise. Let's contrast the way it is almost always used versus the way it was presented here:
Typical: There's a future society where feelings and emotions are willingly suppressed or diminished in intensity. Everyone acknowledges that the source of man's inhumanity to man are
various negative emotions
. The value of the positive emotions is never denied. The diminuation of the positive emotions is viewed as a price to be willingly paid for the elimination of the negative ones. The story is about the discovery that this is, in fact, a
bad deal
. The price is far too great.
What we're told here: There has been no discrimination between good and bad feelings. We are told that after a war, the world agreed that
feelings in general
are the source of inhumanity which is ludicrous and decided to
eliminate them entirely
which is also ludicrous.
It's as if someone said, hey, what if we took this really good but kind of subtle, complex, and nuanced idea, and dumbed it way, way, down to make it more accessible?
I literally have 1500 movies in my Netflix queue (the extra 1000 are in a spreadsheet). I've seen 219 in the last year (including 40 re-watches). And I'm trying to see every science fiction movie that exists, and is above a certain level of quality. I'm keeping a definitive list here of modern indie sci-fi flicks worth seeing:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls076641370/
and I plan to eventually create a set of companions (precursor indie, mid-budget, big-budget), and to further improve the ranking algorithm where I mix my take on the movie with that of others. I'll also be writing reviews/entries for most of the indie flicks for the
Encyclopedia of Science Fiction
.
I have no doubt that
Equilibrium
has the virtues you ascribe to it, but it's also clear to me that those good things will be at least fully offset in my mind by the things about it that are bad.
Why am I sure? Netflix has predicted I'll give it a 3.3/5.0, and their predictions for me are very accurate and, for action movies, almost eerily so. I rarely in fact rent a non-genre movie below 3.8, and almost never rent a sci-fi movie below 3.5. Furthermore, my tastes are very broad, embracing both extreme arthouse and extreme commercial films but always with an emphasis on quality and smarts. I therefore really view that Netflix prediction as a proxy for what people with taste like mine would think, and those people are the target audience for my lists and my future Encyclopedia entries.
I checked out
Equilibrium
simply because it had been very popular. What I saw not just confirmed the 3.3, but suggested it might fall short. And that's below the bar where I can ever include it on a list of films worth seeing.
However, I will name-check it at the end of the mid-budget list, as a film that has some defenders. And if I ever get that queue significantly reduced, I may well give it another shot. You've made me curious about the virtues, even if they are offset by dumbness. But there's probably 100 sci-fi flicks alone that are ahead of it.
Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen. -
emvan — 10 years ago(January 20, 2016 09:27 PM)
The "emotionless" Vulcans make sense. They believe in perfect
rationality
, which is very different from believing that
feelings are bad
.
And emotions are more than feelings. Emotions include physiological reactions that prepare us for action. The Vulcans have learned not to have the full package that constitutes an emotion, but it's never said that they have no feelings at all. Intellectual curiosity, for instance, is very much a feeling.
And note that the show is wedded to the psychological language of the days of its creation, when we didn't know about the centrality of feelings to all behavior (human or otherwise), and didn't clearly distinguish them from emotions. So the show still refers to them as striving to be "emotionless," and that's technically more or less correct, but it can confuse people who don't know the difference between emotions and feelings*. If you were creating them today, you'd avoid the word "emotionless" and instead use phrases like "perfectly rational." But their actual behavior would not change.
*The discrimination is so recent that there is actually no adjective that unambiguously refers to feelings the way "emotional" refers to emotions. Psychologists sometimes use "affective," as in "affective disorder," but "affect" properly refers to the visible expression o feelings, not to the internal state.
Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.