DON’T LET THE FUTURE PASS YOU BY ITERATIVE DYSTOPIAS ON THE POSTMILLENNIAL SCREEN Blythe Victoria Chandler Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2015 School of Culture and Communication University of Melbourne Produced on archival quality paper ABSTRACT In the decade 2001-2010, films which presented spectacular futures dominated the box office. In contrast, Code 46 (2003), 2046 (2004) and Inception (2010) conceived immediately recognisable tomorrows, pessimistic futures firmly rooted in the socio- historical present. Despite their divergent production backgrounds, differing story arcs and disparate aesthetics, this thesis contends that these texts are key, early examples of a new subcycle of films it titles Iterative Dystopia. Using a social science fiction criticism methodology, this thesis conducts an interdisciplinary investigation which draws on science fiction genre analysis, dystopian narrative theory and contemporary sociological concepts to define the formal characteristics of the collection and offers fresh readings of the texts. This thesis finds that Iterative Dystopias are defined by the theme of perpetual liminality, an original concept developed following the work of sociologist Arpad Szakolczai. Iterative Dystopia’s perpetually liminal protagonists trace iterative paths across their narrative arcs, searching for an alternative to the continuous transitions of lives lived in this in-between state. Their goal is personal. They just want a place to call home. In direct contrast to the conventional dystopian protagonist, these characters are seeking their utopia within the familiar. These characters are, however, thwarted in their attempts to find a sense of belonging. Through a close textual analysis, this thesis explores three of the narrative environments in which these characters conduct their quotidian existence: the home, the relationship and the mind; and establishes that Iterative Dystopia’s protagonists are frustrated by paradoxes. They reside in Foucauldian heterotopic places and are uncomfortably exposed in their performance of their everyday. They seek solace in their relationships, but find their communications hampered. Their verbal and haptic exchanges produce multiple, contradictory meanings which this thesis explores through Fritz Senn’s concept of dislocution. They seek refuge in their memories, but their minds are sites of control. Working from Ulrich Beck’s definition, this thesis defines these characters as uncertain and i contrasts them with the anxious, alienated protagonist found in the conventional dystopian form. Ultimately, Iterative Dystopias retain a glimmer of hope in the ambiguities that remain as their credits roll. In conclusion, this thesis finds evidence that, far from being limited to films which garnered theatrical release in the postmillennial decade, the Iterative Dystopia subcycle continues beyond the bounds of this study. ii iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to all the members of the Screen Studies department at the University of Melbourne who have had a hand in getting me from first year to now. In particular, I would like to thank: Mehmet Mehmet and Di Sandars, your enthusiasm sparked my passion to continue in this field; Felicity Colman, your confidence in my ideas and your non-conforming reading suggestions stirred me to think outrageous thoughts and pursue all possibilities; Wendy Halsem, your practical critique and support to hone my arguments and structure taught me the pragmatism I needed to complete the project at hand; and Tim Laurie, your critical rigour has marked my thesis and the generosity that you showed me both with your ideas and your time have been invaluable. If I am the protagonist of this thesis-writing story, then it must be dedicated to the side- kicks who got me to its conclusion. To my Dad who inspired me academically from the moment I was born—don’t worry, I too remain confounded as to how your order for a nuclear physicist got filled with a screen studies doctorate—and to my Mum who resolutely supported all my crazy dreams, thank you. To Adam, you were never much one for carrots, but you could always find the s(ch)tick when I needed it most; and to Tait and Liljana, my two little embodiments of postmillennial paradox—without you this would have been finished years ago, without you this would never have been done. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION: ITERATIVE DYSTOPIAS 1 1.1 Against the blockbuster background: A fantastic decade 9 1.2 A word on postmillennial context 13 1.3 Social science fiction criticism: A methodology 16 1.4 The search for a place to belong 20 2. CHAPTER TWO: A DYSTOPIAN SUBCYCLE 24 2.1 A dystopian sensibility 26 2.2 Defining the subcycle 33 3. CHAPTER THREE: POSTMILLENNIAL CINEMATIC LIMINALITY 42 3.1 Perpetual liminality: The subcycle’s thematic link 43 3.2 Recognising perpetual liminality: The paradoxical environment 57 4. CHAPTER FOUR: THERE’S NO PLACE LIKE HOME 69 4.1 Locating the postmillennial home 71 4.2 ‘We’re off to see the Wizard’: Travel is home 78 4.3 Constructing the dystopian polycity 87 4.4 Playing in the dolls house 104 4.5 Limitations of the spatial paradigm and the question: who is home? 114 5. CHAPTER FIVE: EFFECTIVE (MIS)COMMUNICATION 119 5.1 Who is home?: Characterising the subcycle’s interpersonal exchanges 122 5.2 Motivated (mis)communication in Inception 129 5.3 Code 46’s (anti)esperanto 134 5.4 Making conversation with a foreign self in 2046 140 5.5 Ambiguous intimacy: Iterative Dystopia’s uneasy intercourse 145 6. CHAPTER SIX: SUBJECT(IVE) SURVEILLANCE, IT’S ALL IN YOUR MIND 153 6.1 Uncertain protagonists 155 6.2 Seeking refuge within: making a home through memory 161 6.3 The pathology of uncertainty: medical motifs, or, do your thoughts 164 make me sick? 6.4 Intimate Surveillance 175 6.5 Manipulated minds: memory as a site of control 183 7. CONCLUSION: FUTURE HORIZONS 188 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY 204 9. FILMOGRAPHY 216 v INTRODUCTION: Iterative Dystopias In late 2004, unmotivated by anything other than the desire to see a good movie, I found myself at the cinema. I watched two films in close succession, Michael Winterbottom’s Code 46 (2003) and Wong Kar-Wai’s 2046 (2004). Both were set in the near future, and it struck me immediately that these films, which diverged wildly in terms of their story arcs, aesthetics and production, seemed somehow to be saying the same thing. Some years later, Christopher Nolan’s Inception (2010) affected a similar response. This research originated as an attempt to determine exactly what it was that I felt these films were articulating and to seek out other texts which might be doing the same.1 In this curious constellation of postmillennial cinema, I had assembled a small selection of films which conceived immediately recognisable tomorrows. They depicted pessimistic futures, firmly rooted in the postmillennial decade into which the films were released. Each film clearly exhibited the hallmark Fredric Jameson identifies as anchoring the dystopian narrative form: these narratives evinced the ‘if this goes on’ principle articulated in the title of Robert A. Heinlein’s 1940 dystopian novella.2 They were futures framed as the next logical step for humanity.3 Against the background of a decade in which the cinema flirted with spectacular futures, a period in which popular films reinvigorated the technique of obliquely exploring sociological concerns ‘but always in the guise of entertainment’,4 I found these texts to be all the more frightening in that they operated diegetically in the realms of the almost-possible. 1 The term ‘articulate’ is used here cognisant of the dual meaning ascribed to it by Stuart Hall, who defines articulations as both utterances and the formation of connections. Lawrence Grossberg, "On Postmodernism and Articulation: An Interview with Stuart Hall," Journal of Communication Inquiry 10, no. 2 (1986): 53; Paul Du Gay et al., Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman, Culture, Media and Identities (Sage: London; California, 1997). 2 'If This Goes On-' published in Robert A. Heinlein, Revolt in 2100, Signet Books: 1194 (New York: New American Library, 1955; c1953). 3 Fredric Jameson, Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions (London; New York: Verso, 2005), 198. In developing his taxonomy of utopian narratives, Jameson invokes Heinlein’s story to characterise ‘dystopia’ in this way, and to distinguish it from anti-utopian and apocalyptic narratives. I discuss this point in detail in chapter two. 4 Antonio Sanchez-Escalonilla, "Hollywood and the Rhetoric of Panic: The Popular Genres of Action and Fantasy in the Wake of the 9/11 Attacks," Journal of Popular Film and Television 38, no. 1 (2010): 11. See also Sontag on science fiction’s dual role of exploring and allaying social fears. Susan Sontag, "The Imagination of Disaster," Commentary 40, no. 4 (1965). 1 This thesis contends that Code 46, 2046 and Inception, though an unlikely ternion, can and should be considered as early examples of a cinematic subcycle that I entitle Iterative Dystopias. I argue that each film works alongside the dystopian narrative tradition, manipulating and refiguring key diegetic conventions. These texts display ‘dystopian sensibilities’.5 It is, however, their narrative theme—perpetual liminality—that distinguishes these films as a coherent collection of texts. In each of these texts the utopia for which its protagonist is searching is an existence beyond their own perpetual liminality. They covet a life which is no longer characterised by continuous transition and uncertain play. Chasing a goal which is only able to be defined negatively, their journeys are tainted by a lack of clear telos. The subcycle’s protagonists remain suspended in a state of infinite restlessness, the narratives refuse closure. These characters spiral towards their film’s ambiguous conclusion.