Showing posts with label movie reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie reviews. Show all posts

Friday, August 23, 2013

Elysium: Denying Healthcare as Crowd Control




 


Elysium: Denying Healthcare as Crowd Control



My husband and I are huge science fiction fans. We couldn’t wait to see Neill Blomkamp’s Elysium this summer. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium ) Sure, there were other sci-fi action-thriller movies to be seen, but the enticing trailer for Elysium itself, and the fact of how much we enjoyed Blomkamp’s District 9, promised more for our always-stretched movie dollar.



Elysium as a film didn’t disappoint, but its premise posed many more questions—disturbing ones—than it attempted to answer. And, several weeks later, it keeps me awake at night.


First off, why would the near-future world posited in Elysium, filled with advanced technology that can cure disease and injury almost instantaneously, co-exist alongside a planet filled with such crippling poverty? It just doesn’t make sense. Or does it?
 

In my opinion, a near-future scenario of an Earth on the brink of collapse was last successfully realized on screen in the 1973 classic Soylent Green. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green)  The Millennial Generation may laugh at the idea of a heavily overpopulated planet, degraded and polluted by trying to feed too many mouths and ruled by a small, secretive elite of the mega-wealthy, but they’ll have to realize that the Pill and abortion on demand weren’t freely available in the first half of the twentieth century. The assumption that we’d have way too many humans on the planet by the turn of the twenty-first century wasn’t so hard to put out of mind in 1966 when the Harry Harrison award-winning novel Make Room! Make Room! (which the film was based upon) was published. The thought of overpopulation and a dying planet posed a very real threat in the minds of the powers-that-be.




In Soylent Green, it is food—the very essence of how a living, growing organism stays alive—that is manipulated and managed to keep the masses in check. No food source—no living. Furthermore, the masses are indoctrinated by the elite that it is both noble and proper for them to commit suicide in order to thin out the ranks. There is no need for a heavily armed-presence or too much overt violence (although there are some telling riot scenes where police brutality is evident) to control the masses if the masses do the killing and self-killing themselves as they are slowly starved to death and talked into suicide.



After all, the elite classes only need a handful of human workers at any one time (who are much cheaper to “create” than androids or robots) to serve, manufacture things, run machinery, have sex with, etc. The poor, starving billions are as easily used, abused, and disposed of as paper cups—and self-destructing paper cups at that.



How convenient for the one percent! Give the poor a few guns, feed their prejudices against other groups who look or act differently, and they’ll take care of the problem for themselves. Brilliant.



Once the idea of crowd control, of implementing an efficient way for those at the top of the food chain to keep the masses in check, is discerned in Elysium, then more of the unanswered questions present and explain themselves. Although it is set only a mere one-hundred-forty-one years into the future, Elysium hints that the advancement of technology in the fields of space travel, medicine, manufacturing, and computers has been able to solve many of the more pressing problems we experience currently in the world of 2013. With the advanced technology evident in the massive space-habitat ring of Elysium itself and the Med-Pod that cures all disease, obviously human beings in the future are capable of great things.




So, why would there be a need for slums and for little girls to die of leukemia? Why would there be a need for millions of workers working at slave wages and under extremely unsafe conditions, as Matt Damon’s character Max does? Why motivate these slave laborers with a carrot-and-stick promise that if they prove themselves “good workers” they might just be able to afford a ticket to go to Elysium one day just as Max has wished for since he was a boy?



Ah… could it be? It’s that control thing, yeah?




Once the motives of pure greed and a naked desire to execute absolute power are eliminated from Elysium what else is there to explain the plot? Jodie Foster’s character, Secretary of Defense Delacourt, is painted as a military-dictator wannabe, a fascist-in-training, but there’s more to her—and her fellow citizens of Elysium—than pure greed and hidden-fascist dogma. After all, they all dress well, speak well and drink the right wines. In spite of their sanitized, movie-star-glamorous lives, their motives to keep Elysium to themselves are much more base. They want—no, it’s more likely need—to possess total control over the billions who dwell below them on the one planet where they receive the raw materials needed to maintain and grow their utopian world in space.



They, the elite, the one-percenters, secretly acknowledge that they cannot live without the input of the ninety-nine percent, but they dare not let on how dependent they are upon the unwashed and self-unaware masses. To do so could mean that the masses would demand equal access to all the blessings of technology and healthcare… and once the masses have access to healthcare and a decent lifestyle, would they consent to work for next to nothing?



Can it be that simple? How could the Elysium elite motivate their slave laborers without threatening them with the stick of no healthcare access? They do possess advanced military technology, and Delacourt demonstrates she isn’t afraid to use it. But like most fascists, Delacourt and the wealthy citizens of Elysium realize how difficult it is to maintain crowd control through the use of weaponry alone. Even well-paid mercenaries, such as Sharlto Copley’s sociopathic character Kruger, can’t be trusted to serve their masters all the time.




To maintain crowd control, the elite of Elysium have only one option: denying healthcare in order to convince the slave workers of Earth to keep themselves in line. The elite only has to indoctrinate the masses with the idea that if they become soldiers in the elite’s cause then they are dying for a greater good—not for increasing the profit margins of the one-percent. (Overtones of Soylent Green and suicide centers, but something else there rings a bell. Hmm.) 



The elite can dangle carrot-like promises in front of the masses, “You’ll only suffer for a little while if you go along with our plans,” and expect most to believe the lie because it is as attractive as the beautiful green wheel in space rising above their dust-brown slum cities. “Some day soon you’ll become one of us and have access to the miracle of healthcare for you and your families if you keep your fellow slaves from agitating for equal access to it now.”


Wow. And here I thought I was reviewing a movie. No wonder I can’t sleep at night.



My British husband calls it the “I’m all right, Jack” syndrome. As long as you keep your head down, allow your one-percent masters to call all the shots, encourage your fellow slave laborers to off themselves in desperation to survive, you’ve made it. You’ve survived long enough to gain a chance at joining the well dressed citizens of Elysium. (But there’s no real guarantee they’ll let you into their exclusive country club, is there?)  You’ve made it…but at what price?



I hope only the price of a movie ticket. Go see Elysium. Discuss it with others. And please leave your comments below.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Movie Review: Modern Times


 
Read more about the film at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Times_%28film%29


It always amazes me how the more things change, the more things remain the same. Usually for the worse, too. Catching a showing of Charlie Chaplin's classic film Modern Times this past week on AMC doubly emphasized this point to me. 

I had seen the film many years before in a film studies class and remembered the great slapstick moments in the factory gear wheels and the hysterical miming antics of Chaplin's Little Tramp character working as a singing waiter and playing "football" with a roast duck. What really struck me this time about the narrative was how "modern" Modern Times still is. Eighty years on and the US still has large numbers of unemployed workers, union busting, street violence, and children and adults going hungry and homeless... Chaplin wrote this story during the Great Depression, yet it easily could have been written within the past year. Modern Times is both timeless and touching.

Watching Modern Times made me pause and wonder: Have I "time warped" back to the 1930s? Or did Chaplin time travel to the early twenty-first century and back again before he penned his masterpiece? Either way, the film stands the test of time and continues to point out how little the heart of American society has changed since the film's 1936 premiere. The rich demand more and more and will throw a starving street urchin in jail for stealing a loaf of bread. Workers are to be manipulated and exploited and then cast aside all in the name of profits. The authorities exact heavy violence against striking workers who only want to call attention to their plight. I think we can all see the parallels between Chaplin's story and today's headlines.

History repeats itself if we do not learn from it. Modern Times really should become required viewing for all. Perhaps only then will we stop the cycle of poverty, income disparity, hunger and frustration felt by those struggling to survive day-to-day. The Little Tramp will do us all a good deed if we will only watch and learn from his antics.


Tuesday, January 03, 2012

Whatever Happened to Romantic Comedy?

We've made it to 2012 and the Mayan calendar is still running... Perhaps we'll lick this end of the world thing before we run out of time. ;-)

I had a sudden revelation the other day on why I've not written a contemporary romantic-comedy in a while... I think the genre has gone completely and utterly belly up. What made me come to this horrible and sad conclusion? Hollyweird, of course!


Handsome hubby and I were watching a DVD checked out of the library (our only source of entertainment since we no longer have cable or money to go to theatres in person) the other evening. We figured a title, that was a recent release, looked like it had entertainment potential. Boy, were we ever wrong! Although two capable, big name Hollywood actors played the leads and the title and synopsis on the case gave every indication it would be an enjoyable two hours, hubby found himself reading his book about a half hour into the film, and I only finished it out of a sense of "train wreck fascination" to see if it would get better before the end. Unfortunately, it did not.





A romantic-comedy (PG rated) where the heroine and hero 
at least respect each other in the morning!

 I'm debating giving out the name of this movie (because who wants to give publicity to something that's basically dire?), but I will give you some spoilers so in case you come across it, and this rings a bell, you are forewarned.

 Handsome big name male movie lead (formerly hooked up with Demi Moore) falls into bed (i.e., sex) with the beautiful big name female lead (who was much better in Black Swan). Emotionless, cold-hearted, wild sex ensues. Now, I've written some pretty hot tales about acquaintances meeting and having great sex from the get-go, but these two gorgeous folks didn't get my juices going... I've watched hotter sex education films while I was taking a psychology class in college. Anyway, that wasn't the worse part of the movie in our opinions. It was the fact that cold, emotionless sex was suppose to be funny.


Why would anyone who used another human being for their own personal pleasure without a thought to the other be considered funny? Hubby and I chalked it up to us being old-fashioned romantics of a "certain age". That is, we're not under thirty years of age, and we don't sit and text our text buddies all day long about doing naughty things in order to rouse a quick snigger of laughter from the faceless internet crowd who is playing on their iPhones instead of working or attending class. But just the very thought that using another person for physical gratification and kicks is hilarious fills us with disgust and more than a bit of sadness.

I suddenly have an urge to find The Wedding Singer and watch it over and over again. At least the young folks in that movie treated each other with respect and courtesy... Two traits that are very much a turn-on for many of us "old folks".

This year, I'm working on a Young Adult novel series idea that's more science fiction/paranormal in nature and not so comedic. I just don't get the comedy of treating others like objects in contemporary fiction. Maybe one day the old-fashioned screwball romantic-comedy with bickering couples who fall in love (such as in Romancing the Stone) will return to our screens. I'll try to keep my hopes up, but the Mayan calendar is ticking away...


What's your favorite "romantic-comedy"? It can be a movie, play, book or whatever and from any era. List them in the comments below and see if we can't make a library of decent entertainment to fall back upon in in 2012!
google-site-verification: googlec9fe367ac800d499.html