Filming the Future 2011

FilmingFilming thethe FutureFuture Essays on Science Fiction Cinema

2011 Inquiry Class Concordia College Edited by B. Luther

Filming the Future: Essays on Science Fiction Cinema

Contributors

Amy Oksol

Alisa Heskin

Connor Baker

Megan Hanna

Tom Skinner

Austin Hauf

Charles Rerick

Jack Beckman

Zachary Carlson

Rob Satterness

Edited by Bryan A. Luther

Table of Contents

Preface 1

Beauty in the Dinosaur 3 Amy Oksol

Bending the Rules: Authenticity in Inception 15 Alisa Heskin

Technology: Addiction, Reality, and Capitalism 27 in Videodrome Connor Baker

Signs as a Reaction to 9/11 39 Megan Hanna

Romanticism in Children of Men 51 Tom Skinner

A Rational Journey: The Path to the Divine Watchmaker in Danny Boyle's Sunshine 69 Austin Hauf

TECH-NOIR: Technophilia and Technophobia 81 in The Terminator Charles Rerick

Wall-E: The Nuts and Bolts of Humanity 97 Jack Beckman

Masculinity and the First Two Terminator Films 107 Zachary Carlson

Humanity and Dehumanization in I, Robot 123 Rob Satterness

Contributors 135

1 Preface

These essays were written by students enrolled in Filming the Future, an honors Inquiry class at Concordia College at Moorhead, MN. During the class they viewed science fiction films and explored the critical literature concerning the films. This anthology is the culmination of their work in the class. It was a pleasure working with these students. Their enthu- siasm, insight and thoughtfulness made it a joy to have them in the class. I am proud to present their work to a wider audience in this anthology.

Bryan A. Luther, PhD Professor of Physics Concordia College December 2011

3 Beauty in the Dinosaur Amy Oksol

Ever since the first bite of the forbidden fruit, humanity has been fallible, inconsistent, and immoral. Amidst today’s ever changing computer-run society, it may seem that we are indeed one step closer to perfection. However, machinery can never replace human error, and this is precisely the shortcoming Jurassic Park dwells on. Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park (1993) is a film argu- ing that genetic replication and the creation of life is a privilege of science; this is a privilege that should not be abused but cared for, respected, and used for good. If this privilege is used immorally and out of selfish ambitions, there can be deadly consequences, both ethical and moral. Therefore, genetic modification in its most perfect form may never be possible. To most viewers, Jurassic Park is a film warning against technology regarding genetics and its monstrous effects. Certainly, it seems genetically engineered monsters running wild and killing “innocent” human beings is a prime argument against such technology, and this notion is partially true. However, one should not be so quick to condemn the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park. The public’s view of this film has become tinted, not only through society’s view of cloning and other aspects of genetic engineering, but also through psychological factors regarding science fiction films. Re- gardless of the common perception, it’s impossible to narrow Juras- sic Park’s message to fit in a simple box stamped with the message “Cloning = Bad.” Instead, one needs to peel away the layers of Ju- rassic Park to reveal how the film embraces the beauty in the dinosaur. First, let’s look at the most commonly accepted negative perspective of technology, specifically involving genetics. There have been many articles written about ways in which Jurassic Park is an argument against genetic manipulation. For example, Laura Briggs argues that the dinosaurs let loose in Jurassic Park brought about destruction of family values. This can be seen in the “family” formed of Hammond’s grandkids, Alan Grant, and Ellie Sattler. These four are among the few left standing by the end of the movie, emphasizing the nuclear family. Sattler and Grant do what- 4 ever they can to try to protect the grandkids in order to maintain this family. Spielberg often shows several or all four together, and when they are shown separately, the dinosaurs are the cause of the separation. For example, Grant and the two kids run away from a herd of dinosaurs being chased by the T. Rex. Holding hands seems to symbolize that the three of them are in this together as one coherent unit. The dinosaurs have already led to the deteriora- tion of this family to an extent because Sattler is separated from the three of them while trying to stop the dinosaurs with security con- trols of Jurassic Park. This negative view of genetic modification is also reflective of society’s view as a whole around the time Jurassic Park first came out (1993). An article in Time magazine from 1993 states that 3 out of 4 Americans disapproved of human cloning and 46% think it should be a punishable crime to clone a human being (Elmer- DeWitt). When the news had been shared that human embryo had been cloned for the first time, the article states a Japan Medical Association found the experiment “unthinkable” and the French president was “horrified.” The article even offers a disclaimer that this experiment “is not the Jurassic Park-type cloning most people think of…” It seems Jurassic Park was, to some extent, an embodiment of society’s worst nightmares. Similar to the chicken and the egg, it is hard to say whether society’s fear of genetic engineering came before Jurassic Park and the film simply encouraged this view all the more, or if society grew even more frightened of this technology after the film was released. In “Science Consultants, Fictional Films, and Scientific Practice” by David Kirby, Kirby seems to argue that it was the latter. Kirby insists films are a way to introduce new technologies into the public realm, despite the fact that they are merely a part of a fictional film. “…we perceive… images as realistic, even though they are not actually real. This perception actually enhances film’s persua- siveness and its ability to act as a virtual witnessing technology.” In short, film has the ability to influence public’s opinion of science for good or bad. Regardless what the creators of Jurassic Park intended, the public saw the dinosaurs on the screen and saw that science was directly connected to these creatures. Vision trumps all. 5 Another angle from which it could be argued Jurassic Park is against genetic technology is through its attempt to answer complex scientific questions with simplistic and rash answers. Take for example the error in filling in the dinosaur’s missing DNA sequence with frog DNA. Because of this error, the dinosaurs were able to breed and create more chaos for Jurassic Park. As Briggs states, “…genetic engineering and manipulation have considerable potential for social and environmental harm, the ‘capture’ of biology by business pushes scientists to engage in ill-considered research, and the manipulation of genes contains the possibility of considerable changes in the social fabric to which the curiosity and hubris of scientists blind them.” It could be inferred that the scientists were under some pressure from the theme park industry and even Dr. Hammond himself to create dinosaurs for the park. Satire involving the theme park merchandise industry is hinted at several times throughout the film. One example is right before a scene discussed later in the paper involving a conversation between Hammond and Sattler. The very first shot of the scene is a slow pan of Jurassic Park merchandise. The prominence of this shot implies the priority of theme parks are to make money. Another example is a remark from Hammond’s lawyer about being able to charge as much money as they want for people to come to Jurassic Park. When criticized for this idea, Hammond’s lawyer replies with a mocking laugh that they can have a “coupon day.” These two situations do not cast the theme park industry in a positive light, and it’s possible the Jurassic Park scientists are merely victims of this churning machine. Perhaps, if the scientists had been able to take more time creating their dinosaurs, there wouldn’t be so many dinosaurs running loose. However, it’s important to examine why the dinosaurs are running wild in the first place and also who in particular is killed by the dinosaurs. Take for example Dennis Nedry, one of the victims of Jurassic Park’s dinosaurs. Nedry’s character is full of corruption and selfish ambition. Not only is his character dishonest by stealing embryos of Jurassic Park dinosaurs, but the way in which he treats the dinosaurs, (particularly in the scene in which he is killed) is dis- respectful. In Nedry’s last scene, he stupidly tells the dinosaur to fetch. He also hurls insults at the dinosaur calling the dinosaur 6 “stupid” and yelling “no wonder you’re extinct” (Jurassic Park). Nedry’s purpose is to look stupid in this scene. Take for example the yellow raincoat he is wearing. This is something a child might wear, but not an intelligent scientist. His glasses are lost in the wa- terfall, rendering him vulnerable and suddenly desperate, contrib- uting further to his weak character. The viewer is never meant to take Nedry’s side as the camera angle is never shot from his perspective. Rather, we might encircle Nedry as he is tying a rope to a tree or watch his fearful face from behind the dinosaur as the dinosaur flares his peacock-like mane. The scene could’ve been con- structed to make us feel pity for Nedry. He could’ve curled up in a ball and whimpered, begging the dinosaur to not kill him. Instead, the audience sides with the dinosaur and feels like Nedry was served justice. Nedry represents how not to treat the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park and therefore how not to treat genetic technology. It could even be argued that technology cannot be treated in this manner, or else it will inevitably result in horrible consequences that have the potential to overtake society. Clearly, Nedry was weaker than the dinosaur that killed him. If he were placed in any other movie, Nedry might have survived longer as the “bad guy” simply to keep the conflict alive until the climax. The fact that Nedry was killed so early on in the movie shows he is not the one in power, and the dinosaurs now have control. One scene that embodies this notion of loss of control is that of the conversation between Dr. Hammond and Ellie Sattler. Here, Hammond is the one at fault for not respecting the power of his own genetic technology, but he is unaware of it. The scene begins with Sattler initially standing and Hammond sitting, putting Hammond in a subservient position, as if he should be looked down upon. Sitting by himself at the table, Hammond looks meek and vulnerable, just as Nedry appeared in the previously discussed scene. Next, Sattler moves to sit down by Hammond, but instead of sitting down in the chair next to him, she sits directly across from him. This positioning, along with several back and forth shots, gives the moment a sense of interrogation with Sattler as the inter- rogator and Hammond as the accused. Once Hammond and Sat- tler are sitting at the table together, the lighting particularly stands 7 out. The lighting in most of the room and on Sattler is very dim while Hammond is illuminated. This lighting along with Hammond’s white clothing gives him a godly appearance. While on one hand this choice of lighting and costume is meant to single Hammond out and make him different from the rest of “normal” characters, it also reflects his desire, conscious or not, to “play God.” Hammond says, “Creation is an act of sheer will.” This statement implies that just as God, man has the ability to create life. Soon, the scene seems to snap out of its dreamlike state when Sattler expresses doubts about Hammond’s Jurassic Park dreams. Hammond begins to speak louder and with more animation. This change in tone is reflected in the change in camera angle from the relatively narrow shot of Hammond’s face to a wider shot from below through the bars of a chair. The chair’s intrusion into the frame represents reality suddenly getting in the way of Hammond’s dreams. Now, there are complications and Sattler and Hammond begin to argue with each other. Shooting from under- neath the table has two effects. One, Hammond seems scary and intimidating and two, the viewer feels as if they are hiding beneath the table, eavesdropping on a private conversation that has suddenly taken a turn for the worst. Sattler is the only one brave enough to admit what Hammond cannot when she says, “We never had control. That’s the illusion! I was overwhelmed by the power of this place. But I made a mistake too, I didn’t have enough respect for that power and it’s out now” (Jurassic Park). This scene between Hammond and Sattler illuminates Hammond’s impure motives for creating Jurassic Park. Hammond talks about how much he enjoyed people looking at things he created, like his flea circus. As discussed earlier, even showing the merchandise at the beginning of this scene, Spielberg hints at the motive of greed and making money from theme park merchandise. Hammond is also in denial that anything is going wrong with his technology. “Next time it will be flawless,” (Jurassic Park) Hammond says of his Jurassic Park. Perhaps, if Hammond ap- proached the creation of Jurassic Park in a more selfless way, cir- cumstances involving Jurassic Park’s dinosaurs would have been different. 8 Therefore, it could be argued that because of these motives of selfish ambition and disrespect, the consequence of these actions is the creation of a monster, in Jurassic Park’s case, literally. “Frankenscience” is letting technology get out of control of the creator of this technology (Robins). As Robins states, “The ability genetically to engineer animals and plants has been referred to as a power of Frankensteinian proportions.” Similar to Frankenstein, Jurassic Park brings what was once fiction to life and loses control of it. In both cases, there is a sense of unease and fear of what has been created. There is just something about manipulating “life” that is disquieting. Bernard Rollin builds on this idea of Franken- science when he argues in The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical And Social Issues In the Genetic Engineering of Animals that the idea of genetic engineering is morally and ethically wrong and that the public agrees with him because they’ve seen the Frankenstein monster (Rollin). In a study by the Office of Technology Assess- ment that Rollin cited, forty six percent of the public believes that we have no business meddling with nature. Jurassic Park may have created a monster, but is the message of Jurassic Park that something like genetic manipulation should never be attempted again? I don’t believe so. Take for example a scene between Hammond, Hammond’s lawyer, Malcolm, Sattler, and Grant having lunch. Similar to the scene previously discussed between Sattler and Hammond, Hammond is fielding accusations about Jurassic Park and the ethics behind the creation of it. The difference being this scene comes before any dinosaurs were ever running loose and that the accusations are coming from Malcolm. Malcolm is representative of the culture’s view of genetic engineering and takes the role of a “con- science” (Gould). As Malcolm says to Hammond, “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should,” (Jurassic Park). This is the epitome of the cultural perspective on genetic manipulation. However, Malcolm’s characterization in Jurassic Park is not entirely favorable and thus he is not the character the audience is meant to identify with or completely trust. Malcolm goes farther than expressing doubt about the ethics of Jurassic Park; he takes on the role of a cynic. In this scene, Malcolm is shown with a light from behind, as 9 if on a stage, giving him a slightly unrealistic appearance. His dark sunglasses and attire add to that effect. This is contrasted with Sat- tler and Grant who are shown in more of a normal light and wearing average clothing, lessening the appearance that they are actors on a stage. Sattler and Grant are more cautiously pessimistic in this scene than Malcolm, lending the audience to trust them as the more “normal” characters that have reasonable opinions. Malcolm’s opinion that Jurassic Park is a “rape of the natural world” (Jurassic Park) should be discredited by the audience because he has been portrayed too crazy to be right. Certainly, this scene lends itself to some foreshadowing. Malcolm still puts doubts in the audience’s mind about genetic engineering and if it could ever work in an imperfect world. One instance in which Jurassic Park seems to advocate genetic engineering is in a lab when a baby velociraptor is hatching. The scene is first and foremost very sterile. The equipment is white or silver and very sleek and futuristic looking. The scientists are dressed all in white, taking on an almost heavenly appearance. Malcolm’s cynical remarks about what is going on in Jurassic Park are contrasted by the scientists calming, reassurances. “There is no unauthorized breeding in Jurassic Park,” says one of the scientists. There is the implication that this setting is how the world of science and technology should be. In a perfect world, there would be no unauthorized breeding. There would be no cynics like Malcolm to doubt morals or ethics. Malcolm just doesn’t seem to belong in this sanitary setting with his black clothing and jewelry. He is a reminder of the fact that we live in an imperfect world. Despite the scene being sterile, however, it is not cold or emotionless. Rather, all the actors in this scene are circled around the hatching of the baby dinosaur, just like a family. The technology itself inspires awe in the viewer as it seems as if the baby velociraptor is actually hatching from the egg. The scene is beautiful, completely different from the scenes when the dinosaurs are running loose and attacking humans. The effect of showing the dinosaur as a baby humanizes the dinosaurs and makes them seem less like monsters. Jurassic Park intends to show that dinosaurs do not have to be destructive, but in a perfect setting, they can be caring and vulnerable. 10

Most importantly, Spielberg did not want the dinosaurs he made to be perceived as monsters. “I wanted my dinosaurs to be animals. I wouldn’t even let anyone call them monsters or creatures,” (Baird). Spielberg is very selective about what is shown in Jurassic Park when the dinosaurs cause destruction. Fear is created in the film through suspense rather than graphic violence. For example, looking at the chart above showing times of onscreen/suggestive scenes, the suggestive time is nearly four times as much in every category (Baird). One example of a suggestive scene is when the T. Rex first attacks. Before we see the T. Rex, we hear him, stomping in the distance. The camera narrows in on a glass of water sitting on the dashboard, and the ripples created from the vibrations of the T. Rex. Even when the T. Rex is finally shown, the first thing he does is not to attack. Instead, the dinosaur is content just standing there for a period of time, sizing up the humans. Lex, Hammond’s granddaughter, shines a flashlight in the T. Rex’s eyes while it is standing there and we see the pupils dilate, just as a human’s eyes would do. All of these elements combined seem to add more purpose to the T. Rex’s final attack. This T. Rex is by no means dumb or thoughtless (which is more than could be said for several other characters in the film). Despite the fact that the dinosaurs attack, the time spent before they attack in the suggestive scenes indicate that they are intelligent beings, capable of rational thought instead of mere monsters. One of the most calming and beautiful scenes of Jurassic Park is an interaction Grant and Hammond’s two grandchildren 11 have with some brachiosaurus dinosaurs. Mainly, I wish to contrast this scene with one I discussed earlier of Nedry and the dinosaur that attacked him. In these two scenes, the dinosaurs are treated in completely different ways. Grant treats the dinosaurs with care and as a thing of beauty while Nedry hurls insults at them. In Nedry’s scene it’s raining and there’s a very chaotic feel while Grant’s scene has dreamy music and there’s a lighter, almost humorous feel. There is also a sense of family in Grant’s scene. Grant and Hammond’s grandchildren are shown clustered together in the middle of the frame with Grant wrapping his arms around the children. This gives the three of them the status of one coherent unit, seeming to disprove the theory that the dinosaurs completely destroy any family values altogether. Contrasted also between Grant and Nedry’s scene is the camera angle showing the dinosaurs. In Nedry’s scene, the camera is shown as if we are the dinosaur, ready to pounce on Nedry. In Grant’s scene, the frame includes both the dinosaur and the humans, representing the possible harmony that could come with technology in the right context. Here, humans are side by side with creatures that genetic engineering has created and there is no one being eaten. This scene shows that positive interactions with genetic technology are possible, even if we have to change how we currently view that technology now. Grant says, “I guess we’ll just have to evolve too,” representing how if this technology would be integrated in our society, changes need to take place, but it wouldn’t destroy the world as we know it. Jurassic Park’s intention is not to condemn science entirely. The core of Jurassic Park is its special effects involving putting the dinosaurs themselves on screen. In fact, it’s technology itself that ends up saving the day when the grandchildren save everyone with their knowledge of computers. The children treat this technology in an entirely different way than how Nedry treats technology. They know how to use it, but to not abuse it as some of the adults do in the movie. As Laura Briggs states in one of her articles, “….just as business, irresponsible science, and faith in the ability of man to control nature got them into this mess, good, responsible science will get them out,” (Briggs). If Spielberg’s intent were to condemn technology, he wouldn’t have used it to save the day or 12 for the foundation of the special effects of his movie. That means there must be a difference between “good” technology that Spiel- berg encourages and the “bad” technology Hammond used for his greedy purposes. Putting a child in the position of using technology to stop the dinosaurs represents how one should take on the perspective of a child to use technology, embracing it with innocence. A child is still pure, untainted by the world and still unaware of the ways technology has been mutilated in our society. And because this use of technology is the one that finally worked in the end, it’s the perspective the audience is also supposed to take. To embrace this child-like view of technology, perhaps we need to examine our current perception of technology and ask if the dinosaurs created in Jurassic Park are actual dinosaurs at all. It could be argued that the dinosaurs are not dinosaurs we think of from prehistoric times but simply something created through re- sources now made available to us. As Stephanie Turner states in her article, “So although they are created by a cloning technique, the Jurassic Park dinosaurs cannot, strictly speaking, be described as genetic copies. They are only dinosaurs in a metaphorical sense, just as the code-script paradigm that makes possible the hypothesis of their resurrection is metaphorical,” (Turner). Because the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park are not entirely monstrous, this leads to the conclusion that perhaps they aren’t even the destructive creatures we think them to be after all. Take away human greed and an imperfect world and what you have left is an adorable baby hatching from an egg. Furthermore, Jurassic Park argues we need to change our view of genetic engineering even further and reexamine the common perception it is wrong to bring back something that’s extinct. If the genetically created dinosaur is not really a dinosaur, it’s not the same creature that it once was, and as Lewis Dodgson argues, may not even be an animal. Dodgson is quoted to say, “[A]n animal that is extinct, and is brought back to life, is for all practical purposes not an animal at all. It can’t have any rights. It’s already extinct. So if it exists, it can only be something we have made. We made it, we patent it, we own it,” (Briggs). Because the dinosaurs even exist today makes them different than the original dinosaurs. They are something created by technology instead of the creature 13 that was here originally. These dinosaurs are able to survive and even thrive in the 21st century. Malcolm’s argument about natural selection is therefore invalid. What is Jurassic Park concluding about the creation of life from genetics? First and foremost there can be destruction and absolute chaos if the technology goes awry or is mistreated by scientists using it. However, if it is cared and respected the product can be a creation of beauty. Viewers should not take on the attitude of Malcolm but that of Grant who comes to realize the dinosaurs are not monsters, or even the dinosaurs we think of from prehistoric times. Rather, the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park have the potential to interact peacefully with mankind. Jurassic Park proves technology can be beautiful.

Works Cited

Baird, Robert. "Animalizing "Jurassic Park's" Dinosaurs: Block- buster Schemata and Cross-Cultural Cognition in the Threat Scene." Cinema Journal 37.4 (1998): pp. 82-103. Print.

Briggs, Laura, and Jodi Kelber-Kaye. "'There is No Unauthorized Breeding in Jurassic Park': Gender and the Uses of Genetics." NWSA Journal 12.3 (2000): 92. Print.

Carnes, Mark C. Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies. New York: H. Holt, 1995. Print.

Elmer-Dewitt, Philip. “Cloning: Where Do We Draw the Line?” Time. 8 Nov. 1993: np. Print.

Jurassic Park Dir. Spielberg, Steven. Perf. Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum. Universal, 2000. DVD.

Kirby, David A. "Science Consultants, Fictional Films, and Scien- tific Practice." Social Studies of Science 33.2 (2003): pp. 231-268. Print. 14 Robins, Rosemary. "Review: Public and Popular Representations of 'Frankenscience'." Social Studies of Science 29.2 (1999): pp. 295-301. Print.

Rollin, Bernard E. The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical And Social Issues In the Genetic

Turner, Stephanie S. "Jurassic Park Technology in the Bioinfor- matics Economy: How Cloning Narratives Negotiate the Te- los of DNA." American Literature 74.4 (2002): 887. Print.

15 Bending the Rules, Authenticity in Incep- tion Alisa Heskin

“Dreams. They feel real while we’re in them, right? It’s only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange.” (Inception) This is said to Ariadne (Ellen Page) by her mentor Dom Cobb early in Christopher Nolan’s science-fiction, heist film Inception (2010). Inception focuses on the startlingly authentic nature of the lucid dream. Because of that authenticity, the film makes the case that the emotional events had while lucid dreaming are genuine experiences. This is accomplished via the film’s treatment of its protagonist, those surrounding him, and the implications associated with the corresponding views concerning multiple realities. The advocacy for multiple realities in Inception is best described in three stages. The first will attempt to define what constitutes authenticity within the world of Inception. The second will outline Cobb’s emotional conflict, which is a central focus in the film, and how it supports Inception’s acceptance of emotional experiences in multiple realities as genuine. Finally, in advocating for that acceptance, Inception is simultaneously discouraging the limiting of oneself to a singular reality. It is through the conjunction of these subjects that Inception is capable of solidifying its stance. Namely, from an emotional standpoint, there is no distinction between reality and the dream, thus, all emotional experiences that transpire are genuine. The first point of discussion is what defines authenticity within the film of Inception. Key points in Deborah Rahilly’s "A Phenomenological Analysis of Authentic Experience” determine criteria for authenticity, and that criteria can be adapted to the world of Inception. This is critical since, in order for Inception’s acceptance of multiple realities to function, each reality must involve experiences, emotional or otherwise, that can be deemed “authentic.” However, in what capacity that term applies to existence as a whole is a subject of varied debate. Rahilly endeavors to analyze 16 what constitutes an authentic experience by stating that “the authentic experience is intense and deemed important and often- times reflects a shift or breakthrough in self-knowledge.” (Rahilly) In addition to Rahilly’s criteria, I would like to add that in the case of Inception, the ability of one reality impacting another is contingent in its authenticity. The concept of a “breakthrough in self-knowledge” (Ra- hilly) is applicable to Inception in that the goal of Cobb’s team is to bring about a guided revelation for the mark, Robert Fischer (Cil- lian Murphy), the heir to his deceased father’s corporate empire. The overall goal is to implant the idea that will cause the younger Fischer to break up his father’s corporation. Fischer’s strained relationship with his father is used to catalyze this process. During the initial planning stages, Eames (Tom Hardy) and Cobb outline how the idea will be broken up over the three dream levels. The first level is “I will not follow in my father’s footsteps.” The second level follows with “I will create something for myself.” Finally, the “emotional big guns” are brought out with “my father doesn’t want me to be him.” (Inception) It is the sum of these parts that creates a strong enough catharsis for Fischer to firmly instill the idea in his mind and, consequently, achieve the inception that allows Cobb to return home to his children. It is because of the intensity of the experience, the augmentation of self-knowledge, and the impact and importance associated with the future decisions Fischer will make in response to his catharsis that qualifies this as an authentic, albeit purely emotional experience. While Rahilly does emphasize the qualities described above heavily in her piece, I would be remiss if I did not mention her discussion on whether or not a disembodied experience qualifies as authentic. Rahilly writes that “the source of authenticity is the ‘lived-body’.” The key piece of evidence in this conclusion is found with her quotation of Robert Marrone, author of Body of Knowledge: An Introduction to Body/Mind Psychology who states that “we act through the body, and we perceive the world and each other through bodies.” Normally, this would exclude dreaming since it is ostensibly a disembodied phenomenon not experienced somati- cally. 17 How Inception contradicts this exclusion lies within several conscious choices made concerning lucid dreaming in the film. First, lucid dreaming, with the exception of Cobb’s solo sessions, involves multiple members sharing the dream. Therefore, they perceive each other in the dream despite the disembodied nature of the experience. Also, it is demonstrated in multiple instances that what the dreamer perceives in reality can affect the dream. For example, music is used as a signal to warn the dreamer that the kick is coming. The music is being perceived by the body in reality but is heard in the dream. In addition, it is made explicitly clear that pain can be felt despite being in a dream state. While this was most likely intended to up the stakes, the acute receptivity of pain implies a sensual, bodily awareness within the dream that lends an embodied nature to a disembodied experience, thus, bestowing authenticity to the dream. Alfred Schuetz’s piece, “On Multiple Realities,” establishes a unique view of reality versus dreaming in that reality is determined by a specific tension of consciousness. Schuetz refers to Bergson’s philosophy in that “our conscious life shows an indefinite number of different planes, ranging from the plane of action on one extreme to the plane of dream at the other.” He further states that each plane can be categorized by its specific tension of consciousness. Reality requires an aggressive, high form of consciousness while dreaming, “the lowest degree of tension” (Schuetz), is passive and, therefore, considered a lesser or non-reality. In addition to the passivity of dreaming, thus distancing it from reality, Schuetz notes the following:

“Concluding the fugitive remarks on the realm of dreams, we want to state that dreaming-otherwise than imagining-is essentially lonely. We cannot dream together and the alter ego remains always merely an object of my dreams, incapable of sharing them.” (Schuetz)

However, Brigitte Holzinger’s “Lucid dreaming – dreams of clarity” constructs parameters that allow Inception to actively contradict Schuetz’s view of dreaming and its relation to reality. 18 Holzinger’s piece provides a specific definition of what constitutes the term “lucid dreaming.” There are seven requirements that must be met for a dream to be considered lucid, which includes the “awareness of the dream state (orientation)…of the capacity to make decisions…of memory function…of identity…of the dream environment…of the meaning of the dream…of con- centration and focus (the subjective clarity of that state).” In short, “the dreamer recognizes the dream state and is able to act upon volition.” (Holzinger) A second point in Holzinger’s piece that relates to the authenticity of lucid dreaming in Inception is her discussion of the practical uses of lucid dreaming in the area of psychotherapy. She states that “lucid dreaming can then become a powerful method of accessing the ‘Unconscious’,” which is certainly applicable to Incep- tion and its focus on delving into another’s subconscious in order to access and extract, or as is the case later on, implant information. Fischer experiences a psychotherapeutic catharsis engineered through the implantation of the idea to break up his father’s company. Cobb parallels Fischer with a catharsis of his own with the resolution of his emotional conflict. Since lucid dreaming in the film is able to illicit such intense emotional responses in the way of provoking increased self-awareness, it is clear that Inception strives to classify those experiences in the dream world as authentic and, in effect, advocate for the inclusion of the dream world as a legitimate reality. The capability of lucid, shared dreaming in the world of Inception undermines the conclusions that dreaming is lonely and a plane of the lowest degree of tension. Schuetz’s belief in the essential loneliness of dreaming is contingent on the concept that any projection created in the dream, even if it is based on a real person, is merely an alter ego of the dreamer. Since shared, lucid dreaming is viable, this is no longer the case. In regarding the degree of tension of consciousness, lucid dreaming adopts a similar degree of “attention á la vie” (Schuetz) or attention to life that reality is cred- ited to possessing. This is evident when taking into account Holzinger’s requirements for a dream to be considered lucid. Holzinger’s definition as well as Schuetz’s interpretation of Berg- son’s “plane of action” philosophy requires intense interest, self- 19 awareness, and function of memory. Therefore, both planes exist on the same level and are capable of legitimate, authentic experience. Inception’s argument is indirectly but strongly supported by the emotional conflict of protagonist Dom Cobb. In the film, Cobb is subconsciously “haunted” by his dead wife Mal (Marion Cotillard). Specifically, it is the guilt he associates with her that is the root of his conflict. This guilt is demonstrated with both obvious and subtle instances throughout the film ranging from the crippling of Cobb’s skills as an architect and extractor in the dream world to how he is framed and lit onscreen. The conflict’s resolution in the third act is what truly articulates the argument Inception is endeavoring to make. Specifically, how Cobb comes to change his beliefs in the authenticity of the dream world and how that acceptance alters how he is shown onscreen effectively illustrates the aforementioned purpose. Dom Cobb’s conflict is the film’s main argument for the acceptance of authentic experience in multiple realities. In order to illustrate this claim, we will first define Cobb’s struggle, describe how it is portrayed throughout the film, how it is resolved, and the significance of that resolution. The crux of Cobb’s emotional conflict lies with the guilt he feels toward his deceased wife Mal. He struggles with this guilt due to a promise he believes was not fulfilled, the promise that they would grow old together. Because of his perceived failure, Cobb is incapable of letting her go, viewing himself instead as half of a whole. The promise to Mal of growing old together is first introduced when Ariadne intrudes on Cobb’s dreams and is brought up in multiple instances thereafter. In the first occurrence, Cobb and Mal are framed very intimately with empty space on either side of the frame. In the close-up between the two, only half of each character’s face is visible, evoking the idea that they are indeed two halves of a whole. In addition, Mal is shown slightly higher in the frame than Cobb, suggesting a more dominant position. This is reinforced with Mal’s dialogue in the sequence. Interestingly, every line of hers begins with “you” and acts as a prompt, encour- aging Cobb to respond with the appropriate answer, reminding him of his promises. “You know what you have to do. You re- 20 member when you asked me to marry you? …You said you had a dream…” Cobb replies that of course he remembers and finishes her last line with, “that we’d grow old together.” The exchange is reinforced in a more violent encounter in the hotel suite when Mal accusingly screams back his promises while Cobb again tries to placate her saying that “I’ll come back for you. I promise.” (Incep- tion) It is this scene that most effectively illustrates Cobb’s pain, guilt, regret, and his struggle suppressing those emotions. Cobb’s guilt is depicted in a unique way throughout Incep- tion. Specifically, for the majority of the film, Cobb is lit in such a way that half of his face is shadowed, or he is framed so only half of him is in view. This recurrent style is meant to convey his “half of a whole” belief that comes from the guilt of not fulfilling his prom- ising of “growing old together” with Mal. It is revealed that Mal and Cobb were lost in Limbo for a period of “something like fifty years” (Inception). The style in which Cobb is shown indirectly dis- closes Cobb’s beliefs regarding the authenticity of emotional experiences while dreaming. Even though he spent half a century with Mal in Limbo, he still believes that he left his promises to her unfulfilled. Thus, he does not view the time he spent in Limbo as an authentic, emotional experience. Consequently, his guilt persists. Mal’s introduction on the balcony is an excellent representation of the style used in showing Cobb onscreen as well as foreshadowing the nature of their relationship. Our first shot of Mal is a medium shot with only her right side in view. Even though she is placed “further back” in the foreground than Cobb, she remains in focus while Cobb is slightly out of focus. Cobb’s reverse shot shows only his left side, mirroring Mal’s position, and gives the first indi- cation of Cobb’s “two halves of a whole” mentality. In fact, Mal intrudes on his close-up so he only fills half the screen. The next shot/reverse shot reinforces these conclusions. Mal turns to face the camera, and the high-contrast lighting casts the right side of her face in shadow. Cobb’s reverse shot is also a decidedly frontal perspective, and the lighting shadows the left side of his face. The camera returns to Mal once more before cutting to a new location, which gives her the last word in the scene both literally and visually. 21 Aside from Cobb’s projection of Mal continuously interfer- ing with extractions, Cobb’s emotional guilt manifests itself through other indicators. These become more prominent as the team delves into the deeper dream levels. As Ariadne tells Cobb, “Mal is bursting through your subconscious…as we go deeper into Fischer, we’re also going deeper into you, and I’m not sure we’re going to like what we find.” (Inception) In other words, the deeper they go, the more intense the experience is and the less control Cobb has in suppressing his guilt. In the first level, this lack of control comes in the not exactly subtle form of a freight train barreling down an intersection. In the second level, the manifestations are more understated, ranging from the shattering of glass to a sighting of Cobb’s children. While less noticeable than a lumbering loco- motive, these visions distract Cobb while he runs the risky “Mr. Charles” gambit, which endangers the mission despite the absence of his personal femme fatale. By the third act of Inception, Cobb’s emotional conflict has escalated to such a degree that their operation is at the precipice of failing altogether. The first kick has come and gone. Saito (Ken Watanabe) is dying and about to drop into Limbo due to the wound he sustained in the first level. Cobb has failed to prevent Mal from incapacitating Fischer and, as a result, sent him into Limbo. Essentially, all of the obstacles encountered by the team can be traced back to Cobb and the guilt that riddles his subconscious. It follows that there is only one way for their mission to succeed or, at the very least, not end with all of them “stuck in Limbo ‘til our brains dissolve into scrambled egg” as Eames so aptly puts it (Inception). Fischer must be rescued from Limbo so he can complete his familial catharsis. It is an objective that requires Cobb and Ariadne to traverse his and Mal’s personal Limbo, forcing Cobb to confront his internal demons and absolve himself. When Cobb and Ariadne encounter Mal in the apartment in Limbo, the positioning of the three characters is oddly reminiscent of Cobb’s dream Ariadne first intruded in back at the ware- house. Cobb and Mal are sitting opposite of each other. Mal bridges the gap between them and creates a sense of intimacy, which is enforced by Cobb’s responding gesture and the camera’s slow zoom. Ariadne once again fills the role of the spectator, the 22 only difference being that Cobb is aware of her presence this time around. The argument Mal makes to Cobb is pivotal in that she attempts to have him admit that he doesn’t “believe in one reality anymore” and force him to not only accept plural realities but, more importantly, choose between the two. She urges him to “choose to be here…choose me,” in effect, sacrificing one reality for the sake of another. Most importantly, after Cobb confesses his guilt concerning his role in her death, she once again brings up Cobb’s promise of growing old together by declaring, “You can still make amends. You can still keep your promise. We can still be together.” (Inception) As in the scene featuring Mal and Cobb on the balcony at the beginning of the film, the “half of a whole” mentality is readily apparent throughout the confrontation. Mal’s right side of her face is shadowed as is Cobb’s left side. When Cobb begins to confess his guilt about how Mal conceived the idea that caused her to question her own reality, he is turned sharply to the side. After he reveals the truth of his actions, his whole face is in view, although, he is still noticeably shadowed. Cobb’s resolution of his internal conflict can be divided into two important sequences. The first is when he denounces the authenticity of his projection of Mal and regains some degree of control. The second is Cobb’s shift in perspective concerning the promises he made to her. The beginning of Cobb’s catharsis is marked by him bluffing Mal into revealing Fischer’s location and then dismissing her as nothing more than “just a shade” of his real wife, which is visually reinforced with a series of shot/reverse shots. In the first shot/reverse shot pair, Cobb’s close-up is half-obscured by Mal. In the following succession of shot/reverse shots, Mal’s presence in Cobb’s close-ups diminishes with each line he utters until she is absent from the frame entirely. Not counting flashbacks or Ariadne’s intrusion into Cobb’s dreams, the last scene with Cobb and Mal is also the first time the two have been alone since the beginning of the film. Furthermore, Mal’s dialogue in this exchange closely mirrors their conversation experienced in Cobb’s dreams, but this iteration yields a radically different tone. In perhaps the most poignant scene in Inception, Cobb is able to free himself of the guilt that has plagued him since 23 Mal’s death. This time, when Mal says, “You said you dreamt that we’d grow old together,” Cobb softly answers with “…but we did. We did. You don’t remember. I miss you more than I can bear, but we had our time together, and I have to let you go. I have to let you go.” (Inception) With the utterance of those lines, Cobb effectively embodies the film’s overall philosophy of accepting emotional experiences in multiple realities as authentic. It is only when Cobb values the half century spent in Limbo with Mal as genuine that he can believe his promise to Mal, the root of his guilt, did not go unfulfilled. The resulting shifts in how Cobb is depicted in the final scene of Inception reflect his altered beliefs. When Cobb ostensibly wakes in the plane, the lighting is brighter and possesses less contrast in comparison to the rest of the film. The sequence is also dominated by frontal shots of Cobb rather than the previously frequent side perspectives. Cobb’s actions in the last minutes rein- force his changed philosophy. Specifically, Cobb reflexively spins the top, his totem in discerning reality from the dream, yet ultimately chooses to ignore whether or not it topples. The dismissal of the top’s importance acts as a more obvious indicator of Cobb’s newfound acceptance. In addition to advocating for the authenticity of emotional experiences in the dream world, Inception goes even further by discouraging limiting oneself to a singular reality with the qualifier that the person has already been in contact with both “reality” and the unique, surreal world of lucid dreaming. On one end of the spectrum is Cobb, a man obsessed with keeping track of reality. His obsession is derived from the guilt of Mal’s death and cripples his extraction abilities so that he can no longer create or know the layout of the dreams lest his emotional baggage interfere and sabo- tage him. At the other end of the spectrum are the dreamers in Yusuf’s basement who come every day to spend hours dreaming. Inception views both parties in a disapproving fashion. Cobb is punished with his guilt, while the dreamers are perceived with disbelief by Cobb, Saito, and Eames, who appear disturbed by the measures these dreamers take to construct their alternate reality. Even Mal is punished to an extent since her inability to even acknowledge more than one reality ultimately leads to her suicide. 24 In order to elaborate on the nature of Cobb’s obsession, it’s necessary to examine the tool he uses in discerning reality, which is introduced early in a hotel room in Tokyo. Cobb spins the top, his totem, and watches intently as it continues to revolve unabated. All the while, he slowly lifts the gun to his head until the top slows and finally topples. He closes his eyes in relief and lowers the gun as he is assured of his reality. Variations of this scene are peppered throughout the film, yet there remain common characteristics in all of them. Cobb is always alone when he uses his totem, and all of the instances possess a certain degree of tension or desperation. No one else, aside from Cobb, is ever shown on screen using their totem. Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) reveals his loaded die, and Ariadne is shown constructing her bishop, but they are never used for their intended purpose. Instead, Cobb is alone in his obsession. The fact that he hides away to assure himself of reality may inti- mate that he views his dependence on the totem as a form of weakness. As alluded to previously, the dreamers seen only briefly in Yusuf’s basement serve as an opposing end of the spectrum of reality versus the surreal in that they have essentially chosen to exchange one reality for another. The introduction of the dreamers is significant in that it is preceded by an extreme close-up of a ring of metal, old-fashioned keys. The emphasis on the keys is accented by Yusuf’s line that perhaps Cobb, Eames, and Saito will not want to see what he has to show them. In other words, it’s locked and hidden away from the world due to its potentially disturbing and/or illegal nature. The mise-en-scene of the following scene is reminiscent of an opium den with its low-key, dim lighting and Oriental atmosphere, which is only appropriate considering addiction is also a prevalent theme in Inception. An element of the surreal is created due to the mirror in the distant background producing a false sense of depth. When the dreamers are revealed onscreen, the camera is settled slightly behind Cobb and Eames. This com- position accomplishes multiple objectives. First, the center of the frame is dedicated to revealing the dreamers. Second, Eames and Cobb are framed on the left and right sides as if the viewer was standing between them. 25 The next shot of Cobb has him placed on the far left side of the frame as if to emphasize the tension and his reluctance to ad- vance. Those feelings are evident from his arms crossed defen- sively, narrowed eyes, and side-long glance directed toward Yusuf. It’s conceivable that Cobb views these dreamers as a cautionary tale of what would happen to him if he ever loses track of reality. Saito, disturbed, asks why they would do such a thing. Eames appears unnerved but inquires incredulously, “They come here every day to sleep?” The reactions Cobb, Saito, and Eames have to the dreamers can be construed as a manifestation of the film’s disapproving perspective. Despite the obvious differences between Cobb and the dreamers, there exists a commonality between the two extremes. Both parties are essentially partially sacrificing one reality for the sake of supporting the other, a mindset that Inception views with dis- taste. Cobb uses his extraction skills in an attempt to create his ideal reality, which includes him being reunited with his family in the United States, yet he is plagued by his internal guilt. As for the dreamers, they come daily to dream for three to four hours, ap- proximately forty in the dream world, each day. It is a safe as- sumption that Yusuf charges some sort of fee to induce the dreaming state, so their waking hours would theoretically be spent in a constant and unending effort to support their dream life. Inception uses the secondary theme of addiction as a tool to exemplify its negative view of characters that do not embody the “correct” philosophy concerning reality and the dream world. Cobb’s and the dreamers’ dependence is derived from their desire to construct their own ideal reality rather than strike a balance between the two. The likening of lucid dreaming to addiction is prevalent throughout Inception and strengthens its overall argument for the acceptance and balance of multiple realities. This idea of developing a dependence on lucid dreaming is hinted at earlier in the film with Ariadne’s first shared dream. She storms off after a violent altercation with Cobb’s subconscious, but he assures Arthur that she’ll be back because “reality’s not going to be enough for her now” (Inception). Through this line, Cobb encourages the comparison between dream sharing and an addictive substance. The new user gets an initial taste for the experience of pure creation and 26 eventually forms a dependence or, in some cases, an addiction. Additionally, in Mombasa, Cobb reveals that after awhile, lucid dreaming becomes “the only you can dream” (Inception). Utilizing the unique definition of authenticity presented via Inception in conjunction with the methods used to illustrate the main sources of conflict, the film’s central argument is made abundantly clear. The resolution of all the obstacles in Inception can be traced back to the transition to this acceptance, the primary example being Cobb’s absolution. In order to avoid becoming an “old man, filled with regret, waiting to die alone” (Inception) or a similarly depressing outcome, it is fundamentally imperative to embody the philosophy that the nature of emotional experiences in multiple realities is essentially genuine. Through this embodiment, any emotional distinction between reality and the surreal is effectively eliminated, and true authenticity is achieved.

Works Cited

Holzinger B. 2009. Lucid dreaming – dreams of clarity. Contem- porary Hypnosis (John Wiley & Sons, Inc ) 26(4):216-24.

Inception. Dir. Christopher Nolan. Perf. Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Ken Watanabe, Dileep Rao. 2010. Film

Rahilly, Deborah A. "A Phenomenological Analysis of Authentic Experience." Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 33.2 (1993): 43-71. Print.

Schuetz, Alfred. "On Multiple Realities." Philosophy and Phe- nomenological Research. 5.4 (1945): 533-576. Print.

27 Technology: Addiction, Reality, and Capitalism in Videodrome Connor Baker

The television screen has become the retina of the mind’s eye… of course O’blivion is not the name I was born with, it’s my television name. Soon all of us will have special names. Names designed to cause the cathode-ray tube to resonate. -Professor Brian O’blivion Videodrome

As members of the 21st century we have grown accustomed to our technological surroundings and the comforts they provide us. But these amenities do not simply ease us in accomplishing small tasks. They have become part of our lifestyles, a part of us. We get up in the morning, turn on the TV, check our phones for missed calls or text messages, and eventually sit down in front of the computer to see what is happening on Facebook. We never consider how dependent we have become on these luxuries, how they affect our perception of the world, or what forces are behind these tools that we take for granted everyday. David Cronenberg addresses these issues in his 1982 thriller, Videodrome. This paper will explore the messages behind Videodrome, and how a movie written from an early-80’s perspective has become increasingly relevant in modern society. Videodrome is a metaphor for our addiction to technology, how this technology creates a virtual reality which dis- torts our view of the world, and how capitalism and the market create consumer dependency on its products. Videodrome takes place in an era of progress, the early 1980’s. It was at this time that the Video Home System, or VHS, made its debut. Early in the film it becomes quite evident that the VHS is the latest technological marvel in this era of progress. As the film begins, Max Renn wakes up to a video recording of his secretary laying out his schedule for the day. Before he goes to work he picks up a suitcase full of videotapes to consider a possible new addition to his TV channel. Although the VHS is a relatively new develop- 28 ment, it has already become a vital part of the way Max operates his business, making operating easier and more effective. This is an important idea of progress; once the technology is in our lives it will make our lives better and easier, causing us to adapt to an easier, more comfortable lifestyle. In many cases, without the technology involved we would not be able to accomplish some tasks at all. We are reliant upon it. This reliance upon technology can lead us to the question: is our reliance on technology unhealthy? While progress creates a more comfortable and efficient world, it also has an unintended consequence: addiction. With new tools being developed everyday designed to make our lives easier, it is easy to forget what the world was like without them. The most relevant example of this is the Internet. David N. Greenfield in his book, Virtual Addiction: Help for Netheads, Cyberfreaks, and Those Who Love Them describes the internet as “an example of a technology that has a mind of its own and is on a path of seemingly endless growth” (52). It lures in prospective viewers with its promise of multimedia stimulation and infinite entertainment (Greenfield, 53). With the Internet being so conveniently accessible, it is easy to become engrossed in its seemingly limitless amount of information and activities. The same claim might be made of the VHS in Video- drome, a monster on the verge of a complete take-over of the entertainment industry. The VHS seems to have a mind of its own as it plays recordings of Brian O’blivion that fit remarkably well into the context of the situation. It is only a question of when the VHS will dominate the lives of the characters in Videodrome. While some have easy access to new technology, others are not so fortunate. There is a special place for the latter: The Cath- ode-Ray Mission. The Cathode-Ray Mission is a help center founded by Brian O’blivion for individuals who have been isolated from television. They come into this center for one purpose – to watch TV. Bianca O’blivion explains the concept to Max when he comes to the Mission to enquire about Videodrome.

29 Bianca: You look like them. Like one of father’s derelicts. Max: I think it’s a style that’s coming back. Bianca: In their case, Mr. Renn, it’s not a style. It’s a disease forced upon them by their lack of access to the cathode-ray tube. Max: You think a few doses of TV are going to help them? Bianca: Watching TV will help patch them back into the world’s mixing-board. (Videodrome)

In this world, television is not just a form of entertainment, but a way to integrate oneself into the world and become a produc- tive member of society. These individuals are the new minority created by the accessibility of technology. They are regarded as “derelicts”, someone abandoned by society. The Cathode-Ray Mission wishes to provide a place for these individuals to live as the rest of society lives. It is a reverse rehab of sorts. It is educating people how to live with something instead of without. Brian O’blivion is the perfect role model for his own cause. Every time Brian makes an appearance in the film, he is seated upon a throne in a lavishly decorated room. He is also framed by the television set on which he appears; further reinforcing the notion that through television, a luxurious and successful life can be achieved. After all, the cathode-ray tube is the “retina of the mind’s eye”, the element required for sight and for perceiving the world. As we become progressively more dependent (or addicted) to technology, it becomes part of us mentally, emotionally, and in the case of Videodrome, physically. As the president of a television station, Max Renn’s life revolves around the technology he uses to produce his shows. As he becomes increasingly entangled in the mysteries surrounding Videodrome, he begins having strange experiences regarding his own body. In one scene in the film, Max sits on his couch watching a recording of Brian O’blivion explaining the effects of Videodrome. As he watches the video intently, he starts to scratch uncomfortably at a rash running vertically up the length of his abdomen. The camera switches back to the television 30 as Brian explains more about Videodrome, and then back to Max. This time, when Max looks down, he is shocked by what he sees; a gaping slot in his stomach. This is the first physical manifestation of the hallucinations induced by Videodrome. Later in the movie the slot in his stomach is used by his co-worker Harlan as a VCR. Harlan inserts a VHS into Max, which then convinces Max to murder his co-producers. These scenes can be considered meta- phors for how technology contaminates our brain, filling it with false perceptions. Throughout the film, all the technology that Max comes in contact with seems to become a part of him, or he a part of it. In another scene in the film, after watching Brian O’blivion be brutally strangled by the black-clad individuals in Videodrome, Nicki Brand reveals herself as one of the perpetrators by pulling off her black hood. She then proceeds to coax Max into coming to her. At this point, the television set on which he is watching the video begins to pulsate. The screen bulges outward and Max thrusts his head into the screen. This final shot shows Max’s sub- mission to technology; he has finally become one with it. Sean Axmaker puts it best in his online article “Videodrome-Long Live the New Flesh”, “there’s no doubt that he’s a slave to the signal.” A recurring theme in Videodrome is the idea of “man as a technological animal.” Brian O’blivion’s daughter Bianca mentions this as she shows Max her fathers collection of self-recorded videotapes. The epitome of man as a technological animal takes human form in Brian O’blivion. However, Brian does not take human form in this film at all, he is instead portrayed by pre-recorded videotapes that he produced himself before his death. He now only exists in the form of hundreds of videocassettes, and only appears accompanied by the frame of a television set. According to Video- drome, this is the ultimate destiny for us all. One day we will all exist as nothing more than digital recordings of our former selves, pre- served in a giant collection to be viewed and presented. This takes away the human element of memory. In place of personal recollec- tion of individuals, they can simply be stored away as a digital file until they are needed for reference. Max Renn represents the transition to a new phase of man as a technological animal, the New Flesh. In one scene in the movie, after the gap in his stomach has appeared, Max prods the hole with 31 a pistol. As he begins digging deeper in the gap he struggles to remove his hand from within it. Once he has finally removed his hand from the gap, he realizes that the gun is still inside of him, and that the gap has now healed itself, preventing Max from accessing the gun again. After this realization, he begins frantically tearing through the sofa, on his hands and knees, ripping away the cushions. He then pauses to examine his stomach once more, and then returns to his hands and knees in a very animalistic pose, symbolizing the animal portion of man as a technological animal. This pose along with the technology that was just ingested into his body, symbolize this new phase Max enters. Although the New Flesh is not explicitly characterized in the film, we are led to believe that the New Flesh is a new breed of human, where technology has fully integrated itself into the biological processes of the individual. Just like the VHS and pistol being inserted into Max’s stomach, the gun becoming part of his hand, and the tumor growing in his brain, there will be no distinction between technology and flesh in members of the New Flesh, they will have become one and the same. John Harkness in his article “The word, the flesh, and the films of David Cronenberg” also discusses the final scene of Videodrome, in which Max commits suicide, as a representation of this transition. “What leads him to suicide is the promise of rebirth into a more highly evolved state (the next stage in the evolution of man as a technological animal)…” (Harkness, 25). In the film, although Nicki and Brian O’blivion are dead, they seem to transcend death, and continue living through technology; Brian through his videos and Nicki through the television screen. When Max kills himself at the end, he is not expecting to die, but to be reborn into a new life. Barry Convex and Harlan, on the other hand, do not have this opportunity, because they have not yet been exposed to Videodrome’s signal, and are thus not members of the New Flesh. In the film, Harlan and Convex do not live on, their bodies self-destruct leaving no trace of their former selves behind. The transcendence of death is reserved only for members of the New Flesh. As technology and flesh become one, the boundaries between reality and technology become blurred and distorted. It becomes hard to distinguish where one ends, and the other begins. 32

“The television screen is the retina of the mind’s eye, therefore the television screen is part of the physical structure of the brain. Therefore, whatever appears on the television emerges as raw experience for those who watch it, therefore television is reality, and reality is less than television.” (Videodrome)

After Max watches Videodrome, a malignant tumor begins to grow in his brain, causing vivid hallucinations. In the same way, technology creates a virtual reality, which we cannot distinguish from reality. The question is, what is the difference between virtual reality and reality? Brian O’blivion himself said “After all, there is nothing real outside our perception of reality, is there?” (Videodrome) In the book Virtual Reality: Through the New Looking Glass, Ken Pimentel and Kevin Teixeira explore virtual reality by looking at its history, how it is made, and what problems it could pose. To better understand how to make a virtual world, one must understand how the brain behaves (Pimentel and Teixeira, 145). “Work- ing together, our senses and central nervous system create our own personal virtual reality – sensing is believing” (Pimentel and Teixeira, 145). This means that even the smallest of factors can radically change our perception of reality. Everyday items like hearing aids and reading glasses change how we perceive reality by enhancing our senses. What was once vague and indistinct is now clear (Pimentel and Teixeira, 146). Although these tools do not inherently change reality, they alter the way our brain perceives what is happening around us. In the film, Videodrome is this medium. Although it does not physically alter reality, it triggers the development of the brain tumor causing hallucinations. These hallucinations make it impossible for Max and the viewer to distinguish where the hallucinating stops and where real life begins. This confusion between virtual reality and reality causes us to closely examine how we perceive our world, and what factors influence our perception of reality. Frank Biocca and Mark R. Levy in chapter 12 of their book Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality explore what leads us to make the decisions we do when it comes to perceiving reality. They do this by first examining the ex- 33 isting data concerning judgment and how it could apply to virtual reality. Firstly, how does one judge whether something is “real” or not? There are two types of reality: physical reality and social reality (Biocca and Levy, 324). Physical reality is the palpable reality. Objects and events can be confirmed by observers based on movement through time and space (Biocca and Levy, 324). Social reality has to do with information. “That type gives some reality to representations and concepts depending on how much information they provide. For example, a picture of an airplane isn’t a physical airplane, but it does provide a certain amount of information about an airplane” (Biocca and Levy, 324). Other examples would be concepts that contain shared information, but are not physical objects, such as “government” or “cyberspace” (Biocca and Levy, 324). These two concepts clarify reality effectively, but in Video- drome, even with an understanding of what constitutes reality, Max would still be left confused. His hallucinations encompass both physical and social reality. Nearing the end of the movie, after Barry Convex and Harlan have inserted a VHS in order to brain- wash him, Max pulls a gun from the gap in his stomach. The camera focuses on his fist clenched around the gun as small silver spikes begin to extend from the tips of his fingers, penetrating the palm of his hand and extending through to his wrist. Periodically throughout the remainder of the film, his hand is displayed as a disgusting mutation, with no physical attributes of a normal human hand. It would be logical to say that all scenes in which his hand looks like this are hallucinations. But how can a hallucination produce such physical manifestations? Shouldn’t the mind be able to distinguish between obvious misrepresentations of the body’s physical characteristics? In the case of Max Renn, the mind has already become accustomed to these new traits. When the audience perceives the grossly deformed hand, they immediately recognize that something is wrong because they are basing their judgments off of what they have always perceived as a human hand. But as technology changes, so do our judgments. Biocca and Levy describe this change in relation to the invention of motion pictures; “(…) as people became more sophisticated they better learned to deal with the demands of the new medium“(331). Essentially, our minds 34 need to acclimate themselves to these new developments. In Video- drome, this process seems highly accelerated. One might think it would take a significant amount of time to get used to a mutated hand that could be simultaneously used as a deadly weapon, but in reality, it takes us progressively less and less time to adapt to changes in technology. “… as people become more accustomed to VR (Virtual Reality) such responses will probably become less intense” (Biocca and Levy, 332). This means that as we become more familiar with such changes in technology, our initial reactions to the new developments will become less severe, until we finally do not react act all. The changes in Max’s physical appearance and his relatively calm reaction to them are only exaggerated examples of how technology blurs the lines between what is real and what is not, and how we become desensitized to new changes in technology. The forces behind the insidious technology in Videodrome represent another element in our dependency on technology: capitalism. In Videodrome, Max Renn attempts to give the viewers of Channel 83 something they can’t get anywhere else; a unique por- nographic experience. Although pornography already exists, there is nothing out there like Videodrome. In the same way, companies in our capitalistic society seek to create products that can only be found in one place, thus creating dependence and even addiction to the product and the company. And since the producers of Vide- odrome can ultimately control those who watch it, they ensure complete consumer dependency. Just by looking at her name, one can infer that Nicki Brand plays a vital role in the underlying themes of capitalism and marketing in Videodrome. Once introduced to Videodrome, she is captivated by its images and the inner maso- chist in her is brought to the forefront, and she even goes as far as to audition for the show. The makers of Videodrome have successfully assessed her latent needs. Latent needs are needs of which the consumer is not yet conscious, but which are lurking in the background (Trigg, 79). Good examples of products that have satisfied latent needs are refrigerators, cars, and washing machines (Trigg, 80). Although there is no specific need for these items, they allevi- ate the burden of the everyday problems associated with washing clothes, keeping food fresh, and traveling. Nicki Brand also has la- 35 tent needs, but in a different way. She has sexual needs that can now be satisfied in a new way because of Videodrome. A company – in this case the producer of Videodrome, Barry Convex – has given her a product which did not exist before that satisfies her latent needs, and which she cannot find anywhere else. She has now become -- like mentioned earlier with Max --a slave to the signal, a dependent consumer. Brian O’blivion created Videodrome with intention to control, but not harm the people of North America, and was betrayed by his colleagues who had more malevolent intentions: to purify North America of the weak in order to become strong like the rest of the world. They do this by appealing to their intended audience and revolutionizing a product that already exists by giving it a new face. This is called want creation. In Chapter 3 of the textbook Mi- croeconomics: Neoclassical and Institutional Perspectives on Economic Behav- iour , Andrew Trigg explains how companies create consumer dependency and want. “(…)firms create new wants in consumers by introducing new products to the marketplace. Key to this process are the techniques of marketing and advertising” (Trigg, 79). They intend to broadcast Videodrome through Channel 83 in order to bring about the demise of anyone who would watch such a “scum show” as Barry Convex calls it. Together with Harlan, Convex wants to use Videodrome for profit. They do this by appealing to exactly the audience they want to exterminate; the “cesspool” viewers of the violence and pornography broadcasted by Channel 83. Although pornography was at that time still available to customers, Convex was able to put a new spin on an old product to entice Max into watching Videodrome. In the same way, companies try to create a profit by giving something that already existed a new name.

“A good example is provided by brand-name bottles of water, such as Evian and Perrier. It is still every traveller’s right in Britain to be given a free glass of water on visiting an inn or public house. The brewer- ies have now managed, however, to sell water in bottles under these brand names. Consumers now spend 36 money on a product which, at one time, did not exist” (Trigg, 79).

Brian O’blivion and Barry Convex created Videodrome together, but Convex used the signal against Brian in order to gain control of Videodrome’s power, resulting in Brian’s death. This leaves Bianca O’blivion to continue her father’s work. In Video- drome, we see two groups, Bianca O’blivion and Barry Convex, fighting for control of Videodrome. This competition between groups is a metaphor for capitalism in our society. Failure is a key concept in capitalism. If a company does not operate its business effectively, it will fail, and eventually be replaced by a new, more successful company. In Videodrome, Brian O’blivion is the col- lapsed company, brought down by his more creative and effective competitors. In modern capitalism, companies are given freedom to market their products, with specific constraints. Some would argue however, that there are not enough constraints on companies, and that their power should be limited. Cronenberg addresses this by going to the extreme; bringing us capitalism at it’s most brutal form. In Videodrome, there we see the effects of a capitalistic society in which companies go to any length in order to gain control of the market. When Barry Convex sees that Brian O’blivion is a threat to his dreams of controlling Videodrome and those who watch it, he has Brian killed. This is the future of capitalism, a society in which there are not rules or restrictions. Companies will do whatever they can to control the market and their customers. Videodrome has become a pop-culture icon in the eyes of many science fiction fanatics. Although it did not do well in the box office, it is greatly appreciated by the science fiction community for its profound themes that were ahead of their time. Videodrome graphically represents our innermost connections with technology and the mechanisms behind the technology itself. We are connected with technology not just on an emotional level, but a physical one as well, as represented in numerous scenes throughout the movie in which technology and flesh become one tissue. This technology also causes us to lose touch with reality, because we can no longer see where the virtual reality created by technology sepa- 37 rates itself from the real world. The two groups competing for control over Videodrome are the human manifestations of the capitalistic society in which we live, and Videodrome is the market with which they drive consumers to dependency upon their products. Cronenberg was ahead of his time in the making of Videodrome, but he still accomplished a masterpiece of science fiction film that makes us think about our own connections with technology and what propels us to make the decisions we do. Videodrome is a film that makes us look at our own lives, and critically think about technology’s role and how it might integrate itself into our future.

Works Cited

Axmaker, Sean. "“Videodrome” – Long Live the New Flesh | Parallax View." Parallax-view. Parallax View, 30 Oct. 2008. Web. 27 Oct. 2011.

Biocca, Frank, and Mark R. Levy, eds. Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- ciates, 1995. Print.

Greenfield, David N. Virtual Addiction: Help for Netheads, Cyberfreaks, and Those Who Love Them. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger, 1999. Print.

Harkness, John. "The Word, the Flesh, and the Films of David Cronenberg." Cinema Canada 97 (1983): 23-25. Cinema Canada. Web. 20 Oct. 2011.

Pimentel, Ken, and Kevin Teixeira. Virtual Reality: through the New Looking Glass. Windcrest, 1993. Print.

Trigg, Andrew. "Consumer Dependency." Microeconomics: Neoclassi- cal and Institutional Perspectives on Economic Behaviour. Cengage Learning EMEA, 2001. 60-82. Cengage Learning. Cengage Learning. Web. 26 Oct. 2011.

38 Videodrome. Dir. David Cronenberg. Perf. James Woods and Debo- rah Harry. Universal, 1982. DVD.

39 Signs as a Reaction to 9/11 Megan Hanna

“On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars, but for the past 136 years they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941.” - President George W. Bush Address to Congress on Sep. 20, 2001 Signs, directed by M. Night Shyamalan, began filming on September 12th, 2001. Even though the script had already been written prior the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the attacks had a huge impact on the film. To look at this in more depth, this paper will examine the religious aspects of the film, how the tone of the film relates to the feelings of the American public immediately following 9/11, how Signs was received by the public, as well as how 9/11 influenced Shyamalan in his later films. The concept of having faith in difficult situations is an important theme in this film. Shyamalan himself describes the film as “a conversation between one man and God” (Making of Signs). There are two very different religious viewpoints on film, and this paper will examine them as discussed by authors Robert K. Johnston, and Peter Yoonsuk Paik. Johnston sees the film broken down into three subplots: “An Alien Invasion”, “A Family in Tur- moil”, and “A God who is Present”, and he views the religious storyline as the most important of the three. This subplot, he says, drives the story “for rather than being plot driven or character centered, this story is ultimately controlled by it God-hauntedness … The absence and presence of the divine for Graham ultimately drive this story forward” (Johnston 136). Paik, on the other hand, believes that the film has no true Christian message, and that the film actually expresses views contrary to traditional Christian teachings. With these viewpoints in mind, we will first look at the dinner and basement scene, and then the scene where the battle between the alien and family takes place. In the dinner scene, Morgan requests that the family say a prayer, however Graham 40 angrily refuses, stating the he “will not waste one more minute” of his life on prayer (Shyamalan). As Graham so adamantly denies the existence of God, the audience waits anxiously to see how his struggle will end. While Graham does not say a prayer, this scene is the first in which we see him show any significant amount of emotion. This is significant because prior to this moment, he shows very few signs of affection towards his family, choosing to keep his grief and fear to himself. But, as he draws his family to him in a group hug, we see the fear and the hopelessness that he is feeling, which by the words he spoke earlier in the film cast him as someone with no sense of belief. Interrupting this physical sign of family unity, we hear the first sounds of the invasion. The family waits in fear as the metaphorical storm begins, but when they realize that they have forgotten to board up the entrance to the attic, they rush down- stairs as the camera shows an alien hand reaching under the door. In the basement, the lowest point of the home is where Graham reaches the lowest point in his struggle for faith. Late in the scene, Graham and Merrill have saved Morgan from the alien attempting to enter the house, and we see Graham holding Morgan, trying to help him through an asthma attack. Graham then uses the same words Morgan spoke earlier, “I hate you. Don’t do this to me again” (Shyamalan). Graham speaks these words to God, and even though he speaks angrily, he is forced to show that he does indeed acknowledge the existence of God (Johnston 137). This turning point in the film exactly exemplifies Johnston’s point of view. As Graham finally acknowledges the divine, Johnston sees this correctly as a step in the right direction towards Graham’s regaining of his faith; however Paik would view this as blurring the line between belief and faith, which he argues are very different concepts (Paik). The next scene in which Graham’s belief/faith is called into question is during the scene where the alien has taken Morgan hostage. The scene starts on a celebratory note when Bo comes into the room and announces that, having found a way to defeat the aliens, the people on TV are dancing. However, the scene quickly moves from celebration to horror as we see the alien reflected in the television. We see a close up of Graham’s face, and the scene 41 then cuts to the final conversation between Graham and his wife, where she tells him to “see” and Merrill to “swing away” (Shyama- lan). It is significant that the flashback happens at this point in the scene. The flashback cuts away from the climactic point in the film in order to resolve a crucial subplot. The audience is dying to know what happens in that fateful final conversation and Colleen’s words turn out to be prophetic. It is only then that Graham realizes the true meaning of his wife’s words, “swing away” and repeats them to Merrill. Johnston states at this point “his son’s asthma, rather than being life threatening, actually proves life giving” (Johnston 137) and it seems that Graham realizes this, for as he carries his son outside, he says to himself, “It can’t be luck. His lungs were closed, no poison got in”. This contradicts the speech he gave to Merrill earlier, where he casts himself as a person who believes the universe is run by luck. Rather, he takes his wife’s ad- vice to “see”, and as Graham put it earlier, to “see signs, see miracles”. Graham does learn to see miracles, for when Morgan asks, “Did someone save me?” Graham replies, “I think someone did.” Johnston sees this happy ending as just that, a journey of faith that ends with Graham rejoining the church and regaining this belief in God. As the movie ends happily, the audience is left satisfied that Graham has regained his faith and his family. As we see Graham rejoin the church and regain his faith, we think of our own journey of faith. 9/11 shook the faith of many people. It made them question why God would allow something so horrible to happen, why so many innocent people were killed. The film does not present an answer to this question, but it does offer a way to react. After such a tragedy, everyone must cope in their own way. For Graham, and for many Americans, questioning their faith was an immediate reaction. The film shows us that Graham’s journey of faith was a very personal one. Since each person’s faith is unique, regaining it after it has been lost is different for everyone, and it can involve something as complex as an alien invasion, or as simple as an asthma attack. However, to Paik, this ending seems too simple. He sees “blatant consumerism in the film’s theology” and sees the presence of God in the film as nothing more than deus ex machina, reducing God to fit the plot line of a “Hollywood resolution” with a happily 42 ever after ending, though I would argue that the workings of God are so complex that it is almost impossible not to do this (Paik). He also makes the argument that Signs does not represent “traditional” Christianity because the film seems to symbolize that the reward for faith is happiness in this earthly life, and even goes as far as to say, “if Signs were about the properly Christian dilemma of faith” then Graham might actually place his children in danger because his faith “demands that no other relationship come before the relationship of the faithful with God”. One detail that could be seen in support of this is when we see the alien who has taken Morgan hostage. We notice that two of its fingers have been cut off. The alien who has taken Morgan hostage is the same alien that Graham discovered at Ray Reddy’s house, the same alien that Graham was forced to attack in order to save himself. It seems that Graham has, in fact, put his children in harm’s way, simply by defending himself. However, if this were truly the case, then Graham might never have bought Morgan’s asthma medication in the first place, for if Morgan died from one of his attacks, if he was a person of faith, the reward for his faith would be found in the next life. And taking care of his children would undermine the relationship between Graham and God anyway. Paik also makes the erroneous argument that the aliens in the film do not “stand for” anything. However, when looked at in the context of 9/11, it becomes quite clear that the aliens stand for the religious extremism, and extremists, and caused the attacks. It was Islamic extremists that attacked America and destroyed the feeling of safety in the country. Similarly, the aliens in the film cause a mass hysteria as their invasion begins, causing the Hess family to become “obsessed” as Graham puts it, with watching the news twenty-four hours a day. Another scene where this is particularly evident is when we hear the sounds of the aliens outside the family home. We see the family framed in a doorway, and the camera then cuts to the wall they are facing. As we hear the sounds of a dog first barking, then whining and whimpering, the camera zooms in on the blank wall, as though trying to see through it. This can be seen as a metaphor for the American public’s desperation to “see through a wall”, or to understand the motives and reasons behind the attacks. This is not at all different 43 from the way many American families behaved on 9/11 and in the days following. The whole of America was glued to their television sets, desperately awaiting the newest development. As President Bush said, “All of America was touched on the evening of the tragedy to see Republicans and Democrats joined together on the steps of this Capitol singing ‘God Bless America’” (Bush 1). The singing of “God Bless America” immediately following the attacks clearly shows how the mind of the public turned to their faith in God, which exactly embodies Graham’s explanation of “Group Number 1”. He says, “They feel that whatever's going to happen, there will be someone there to help them. And that fills them with hope” (Shyamalan). Turning back to faith in God was what ultimately got the Hess family, as well as America through their respective tragedies. There is one symbol that Shyamalan uses throughout the film: hands. Excluding the scene where Merrill sees the alien on TV, we are not shown what the creatures look like until the final scene. All we see are alien hands. In Ray Reddy’s pantry, the Hess’s front door, and the coal chute, we see an alien hand reaching through some small space, trying to enter. These are horrifying scenes, because we know that the creatures are so close, and yet we have no idea what exactly we are dealing with. However, the hand metaphor does not stop there. When Morgan is having his asthma attack, we have forgotten about the threat of the aliens, and we are worried about Morgan. While Graham is holding him, we see a close up of Morgan’s hand. He is gripping his father’s leg, desperately trying to breathe. We also see Graham’s hands on his son’s chest, desperately wishing that he could breathe for Morgan. So, why are hands so significant? It is very possible that Shyamalan intended for human and alien hands to represent the Hand of God and the Hand of Satan, respectively. When we see the aliens in the film, we see them as something evil that attempts to tear apart the already fragile Hess family. We see alien hands that reach under doors, desperate to get in and, presumably, wreak havoc on the peaceful life of the family, which is generally seen as the way Satan operates. On the other side of the spectrum, however, we see the healing hand of God. Morgan’s flailing hand during his asthma attack can be seen as a son reaching out and seeking 44 help from his father (or Father). We then see Graham placing his hands on Morgan’s chest, and telling him that everything is going to be ok. Graham is seen as a father, or rather the Father, taking care of his children. For even though Morgan seems to be in an incredibly dangerous situation, his asthma is actually what saves his life. This scene tells a tale of good things arising from bad situations, and though one may be hard pressed to find any lasting good that came from 9/11, the reigniting of Christian faith in the public was a positive outcome. As Afghanistan declared jihad - holy war - against America, our faith that God was actually on our side created a sense of confidence and unity within the American public. “We have seen the state of our union in the endurance of rescuers working past exhaustion. We've seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of candles, the giving of blood, the saying of prayers in English, Hebrew and Arabic. We have seen the decency of a loving and giving people who have made the grief of strangers their own. My fellow citizens, for the last nine days, the entire world has seen for itself the state of union, and it is strong” (Bush 1). When President Bush spoke these words, he was describing the remarkable sense of unity that took place on the day of September 11th, and over the days and weeks following. This sense of unity is present in several scenes in the film. There seems to be very little unity in the community, the nation, or even the world, but the Hess family shows us the sense of unity that is otherwise lacking. The family is shown grouped together around the table, framed by a door several times in the restaurant scene, which shows that the family is united against someone they believe to responsible for the death of a loved one. This shot is almost exactly duplicated during the dinner scene, though this time they are portrayed as a united family front against any force that tries to break them apart. Once the family moves down to the basement, the clutter all around them gives a claustrophobic feel to the scene, but it also shows them grouped together as one unit, even during the most frightening part of the battle. Another scene where the family’s unity is shown is during the scene in the family car. Morgan is holding the baby monitor and trying to capture the signal from the aliens. At one point, 45 the whole family is sitting on the car. They are all holding hands, and that is when the signal is the completely clear and free of static. This shows that when the family is connected, they are able to overcome anything that stands in their way, even the miles that separate the aliens from them. This scene uses many complex camera angles to highlight the complexity of the scene. We see shots directly through the car, through a window or open door, and above the car itself. Since Morgan is the character driving the action of this scene, these shots all represent his perspective. Morgan is the first character to believe that the strange occurrences are paranormal, and he is the one to push the family into believing that something outside the ordinary is happening. Merrill becomes a quick convert to Morgan’s thinking. Just moments before the baby monitor sequence occurs, he shares his belief that everything is caused by “nerds who have never had girlfriends before in their lives”, but once hears the signal get stronger, he echoes Morgan’s words “You’ll lost the signal” when Graham says he is going to leave (Shyamalan). So, in a way, the unity of this scene is a unity of belief, even if only for a moment. The sense of American unity may have been a positive outcome of the attacks, but a feeling of xenophobia was another less positive outcome. This emotion is found in the basement scene as well. One of the first things to happen in the scene is that Merrill frantically scrambles to look for something to brace against the door while Graham is desperately trying to hold it shut. This shut- ting out of the “foreign” aliens is representative of the feeling of danger that the “other” posed to American society after the terrorist attacks. Merrill finally finds a pickaxe to jam under the door- knob, and this begs the question, why a pickaxe? If they had used a chair, or a stack of boxes, it would have been perfectly sufficient, so why a pickaxe? A pickaxe brings violent images to mind, and it creates irony to use a weapon as a form of self defense, using violence to fight violence. Later in the scene, they discover that there is still a way for the aliens to get into the house, so they once again set out to block the entrance, which goes to show that Americans are indeed relentless in our attempt to shut out all things dangerous (i.e. foreign). 46 The sound effects of this scene help to create a sense of suspense and fear. The banging noises on the door give a feeling of inevitability to the scene. It seems hopeless that they can survive with the aliens being so close. However, during this scene, the lighting tells the story. The scene is darkly lit, with flashlights pro- viding the only light for the characters (as well as the audience). The camera then follows the flashlight around, so that the audience can see only what the characters can see. This helps the audience to identify with the family, as well as to instill the same fear in the audience as the characters are feeling. We are shown only what the characters can see, and it goes to show that the scari- est things are the ones that we cannot see. And so it was after 9/11. For the first few months, until Osama bin Laden’s confes- sional video was released, we knew only that al Qaeda was our enemy, but had no one to point to as the leader, the person who plotted and ordered the attacks. Another scene is which the xenophobia is evident is the scene where Merrill goes to a recruiting office in town. As the officer talks about probing, he uses military language and refers to the impending alien invasion in a foreboding way that makes Merrill, as well as the audience, uncomfortable and on edge. The tone of his speech is full of the paranoia that the family is feeling. This scene also epitomizes the fear of the unknown, and the nature of people to jump to the worst case scenario, as seen when the officer jumps to the conclusion that the alien activity is preceding an attack. The aliens are obviously not welcome in the film. In fact, people were very much afraid of them, even before they were proven to have any malicious intent. The first time it becomes certain that the aliens have ill intent is when Graham returns from Ray Reddy’s and says he got “the distinct impression” that the alien he encountered there wanted to harm him (Shyamalan). However, long before this takes place we see the family making tin foil hats “to keep them from reading our minds” and hiding the television in the closet “for the kid’s protection”. One could rea- sonably wonder why they were so afraid before having any proof of malicious intent. The answer to this lies in a single line spoken by Merrill. As the family is watching television prior to the beginning 47 of the invasion, Merrill says, “It’s like War of the Worlds” (Shya- malan). The fear of aliens that is instilled by Hollywood in films like War of the Worlds or Independence Day provides the basis of the irrational fear of these “real life” aliens. This premature fear can be seen as a metaphor for the way people of Arab descent were treated following 9/11. The same way that Hollywood bred a fear of aliens, 9/11 instilled a broad spectrum fear of Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent in the American public. Following 9/11, author Steven Salaita describes Arab Americans as going “from invisible to glaringly conspicuous” and states that their newfound spotlight was not necessarily a welcome one (Salaita). An- other author, Theofanis Verinakis, likens the treatment of Arabs after 9/11 to the Japanese internment camps following Pearl Har- bor. Though the United States did not go so far as to lock the Arab Americans away in camps, they were treated differently because of the presumption of guilt by association (Verinakis). Veri- nakis goes on to say that events like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 create feelings within the United States that “set clear but imaginary borders between who is defined as a citizen and who is not” (Veri- nakis), clearly meaning that the members of the ethnic group responsible for the attacks no longer have a safe haven within the borders of the United States, regardless of actual guilt. They aliens in Signs are clearly considered outside of these “borders” and not an accepted part of any society, therefore they inspire fear, even if there is no proof of danger. Signs, according to IMDb.com, had an estimated budget of 72 million dollars. On the film’s opening weekend, it earned a number one ranking and made just over 60 million dollars domes- tically. As of February 2003, the film had grossed over 408 million dollars worldwide. The film’s huge success was due in part to the mysterious element of its advertising, which included vague taglines and posters with simply a picture of a crop circle on it. It did not include Mel Gibson’s name, nor did it identify Shyamalan as the director of The Sixth Sense. This sense of mystery was no doubt what captured the audience’s curiosity. However, the way this film perfectly reflects the mood of America post 9/11 – the distrust of others, especially Muslims, the fear and paranoia of more attacks, 48 and the crises of faith – was undoubtedly a major factor in the films lasting success. We have examined Signs very thoroughly in the context of September 11th, so now let us look briefly at how other film dealt with the aftermath of 9/11. We will look briefly look at two other Shyamalan films, The Village and Lady in the Water, to see how their plot lines address the aftermath of 9/11. M. Night Shyamalan made two other films after Signs that have been linked to 9/11: The Village and Lady in the Water. The Vil- lage (2004) is a film about a small isolated 17th century style community led by a group of elders. The village is surrounded by woods inhabited by “Those We Do Not Speak Of”, a type of su- pernatural monster. The fear of these monsters rules the community and causes them to completely isolate themselves from the outside world. This points back to the xenophobia and unity that was discussed earlier, in that their self-imposed isolation causes them to be united by their fear of the outside. The ending of the movie, however, makes the point that a society based solely on fear can never survive, and will in fact cause society to lose any progress that has been made (Sanchez 15). While this is no doubt an extreme example of the xenophobia that occurred following 9/11, it certainly makes its intended point. Lady in the Water (2006), is, as Sanchez aptly calls it, a fairy tale. In the film we meet a warden dealing with the tragic loss of his family due to an assault. He adopts a water nymph into his home that has come to deliver a message “vital to human happiness” (Sanchez 16). Sanchez goes on to say that the racially diverse neighborhood she arrives at, becomes metaphorical for the entire world as they help the nymph on her mission to create a better world for humanity. This coming together to help one another is supposed to be as the “right way” to deal with the aftermath of a tragedy, rather than hiding away from the rest of the world. Shyamalan uses these two films to identify different ways that people deal with loss in their lives, and suggests a “right” reaction in Lady in the Water. M. Night Shyamalan’s Signs, is an extremely complex film that took a great deal of influence from the terrorist attacks of Sep- tember 11th, 2001. The film is full of symbolism and allusions to 49 and about 9/11. Graham’s struggle to find his faith is representative of the crisis of faith that many Americans experienced following the attacks, and the audience sees his journey as one that many people had to go through themselves, sans aliens of course. We also see the aliens as representative of the fear of the outsider, specifically the Muslim American, and the premature fear of something that may or may not be dangerous, but we also see the coming together of a family that shows how America dealt with this tragedy. We see unity in the family the same way there was a sense of unity in the country. All of these elements are present in the film, as well as many others of the same time period, and it was these feelings in American society that contributed to the popular- ity of Signs. Overall, Signs is a film about discovering who we are, what we believe, and what is truly important.

Works Cited

Johnston, Robert K. "Can God be in this? M. Night Shyamalan and Signs." Useless Beauty: Ecclesiastes through the Lens of Contemporary Film. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004. 127--145. Print.

Making of Signs. Dir. M. Night Shyamalan. Touchstone, 2003. DVD.

Signs. Dir. M. Night Shyamalan. Perf. Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, Rory Culkin, Abigail Breslin, Cherry Jones. Touchstone, 2003. DVD.

Paik, Peter Yoonsuk. "Smart Bombs, Serial Killing, and the Rapture: The Vanishing Bodies of Imperial Apocalypticism." Postmodern Cul- ture 14.1 (2003)Print.

Salaita, Steven. "Ethnic Identity and Imperative Patriotism: Arab Ameri- cans before and After 9/11." College Literature 32.2 (2005): 146-68. Print.

Sánchez-Escalonilla, Antonio. "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 & Television 38.1 (2010): 10-20. Print. 50 "Signs." IMDb.com.Web. The Internet Movie Database. 10/27/11 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286106/.

"Transcript of President Bush's address." CNN.com.Web. Oct. 27, 2011

Verinakis, Theofanis. "The Exception to the Rule." Social Identities 13.1 (2007): 97-118. Print. 51 Romanticism in Children of Men Tom Skinner

In this essay I will argue that Alfonso Cuarón’s 2006 film Children of Men (Cuarón) exhibits characteristics of Romanticism. However, it is first necessary to define Romanticism. This is no easy task, as Steven Kreis explains, “Because the expression Ro- manticism is a phenomenon of immense scope, embracing as it does, literature, politics, history, philosophy and the arts in general, there has never been much agreement and much confusion as to what the word means” (Kreis). For this paper I will operate under the definition given by the English department of Odessa Col- lege.

“A shift from faith in reason to faith in the senses, feelings, and imagination; a shift from interest in urban society to an interest in the rural and natural; a shift from public, impersonal poetry to subjective poetry; and from concern with the scientific and mun- dane to interest in the mysterious and infinite. Mainly they cared about the individual, intuition, and imagination.”(Characteristics).

I will examine the film in three areas: its views on nature, emotion, and society. Children of Men, in line with Romantic ideals, is critical of society’s current relationship with nature. Animals are a central theme of the film. In fact, it is hard to find a point in the film where animals are not seen nor heard. In the Ark of Art created by Theo’s cousin, there is a giant balloon pig, from the cover art for Pink Floyd’s Animals album. This giant pig literally hovers over the city, an ever present reminder of animals. It’s one thing to find animals in the rural scenes, but dogs and sheep have even managed to make it in to the refugee camp Bexhill. The rebel group calls themselves the Fishes, another animal connection. The sterility problem is often represented with stork imagery. These are just several examples of how prevalent animals are in the film. 52 In dystopia, animals exist only to be used by humans. Kee comments on our use of animals at Tomasz’s farm. As Theo enters the barn he finds Kee surrounded by dairy cows. She tells him they cut four teats off the cows so they fit the milking machine. Kee asks, “Why not make machines that milk 8 titties eh?” (Cuarón) No one else seems to find issue with dystopian Britain’s relationship with nature. But of course Kee is a ‘foogie’. She exists in the film1 mainly as an outsider, just as the viewer is. There are several other examples of manipulations of animals in the film. As Theo drives to his cousin’s house through an idyllic community gated off from the rest of London, we catch a quick glimpse of a camel and zebra in a park. They are obviously out of their environment, but their presence pleases humans. Dog racing is just as much a part of dystopian Britain as it is today. Dogs are also used by the government/police. They snarl and leap at Theo as he passes them. Of course, not all animal relationships in the film are so negative. Pets are ever present in their society. In fact, they seem to be used to replace children.2 Jasper has both a cat and a dog. Theo’s cousin Nigel has two dogs. Marichka often carries her tiny dog as a baby. There are several dogs on Tomasz’s farm as well. Theo has an unusually positive relationship with animals. The dogs on Tomasz’s farm run up to greet him. Tomasz is shocked saying, “They like you. They don’t like anyone” (Cuarón). Later at in the house a kitten starts to cling to Theo. Jasper’s dog and cat seem drawn to Theo too. Nothing more is made of this special connection in the movie, but it shows an important contrast. The good guys seem to have nature on their side, coexisting with it. The bad guys (both the government and the Fishes) manipulate their animals, using them as tools.

1 No Kee character existed in P.D James’ novel The Children of Men (1992). 2 This connection is made even more obvious in the novel by a woman who pushes around a dog in an old baby carriage.

53 Animals are only one aspect of nature presented in the movie. Society’s effects on the environment are also critiqued. Chil- dren of Men is part of a sci-fi subgenre, the New Bad Future. The NBF is described as “urban expansion on a monstrous scale, where real estate capital has realized its fondest dreams of cancerous growth. Amnesia stricken characters and advanced gadgetry tangle against the backdrop of a ruined natural environment” (Glass). Scenes that take place in the city are dull and grey. The opening scene presents London as a dirty mess. The street is jumbled with people and cars. Motorized rickshaws evoke a third world image, albeit a futuristic one. There are certainly no flying cars in Cuarón’s cynical future. Sound also contributes to the hectic mood. Revving engines and honking horns can be heard throughout the scene. If the audience has any doubt whether to find this reality acceptable, the bomb that ends the scene removes it. Alarms go off, smoke fills the screen, and a woman holds her severed arm. The film juxtaposes these gloomy scenes with the beauty of the natural world. Just as Romantic artists like John Constable and Thomas Cole depicted the majesty of nature in vibrant greens and blues (fig.1) (Cole, Romantic Landscape); Children of Men is much more colorful during scenes that take place away from civilization (fig.2) (Cuarón). In the spirit of another English Romantic painter, J.M.W. Turner, the film uses light to stress the sublime in nature. Turner was known as “the painter of light”, as he focused much of his work on lighting (“Joseph”). One example of this is in his work Chichester Canal (fig.3) (Turner). Almost all scenes set in the country are sunny; the opposite is true of those in the city. The most obvious instance of sunlight is the school scene. When Theo wakes up in the car outside the school, beams of light cut across the frame. The sun is almost overpowering, and a rare lens flare is seen. Later in the scene, inside the school light is again striking. It pours through the broken windows, a victory of the natural world over the manufactured. Miriam and Theo both sit in the dark as they talk about the past. However, once they begin to talk about the future, they stand next to the window and let the light fall on their faces. Here, hope and nature are synonymous. Kee, perhaps Humanity’s one hope for the future, sits outside among nature. 54 Miriam and Theo are more entrenched in the past, and so are separated from her by the walls and windows of the school. They can only look on from a distance. This bright scene directly contrasts the preceding scene, a shot showing their car transverse the ruined landscape. Depictions of environmental destruction are tinted with a depressing gray. The story also enforces this divide between the nature and civilization. The events that take place in the city, or a similarly crowded area are mostly negative. The bombing and Theo’s kid- napping are the main occurrences in London. The other urbanized area is Bexhill, which is where the majority of the movie’s violence takes place. The scenes that take place in the countryside are generally more upbeat. Theo’s retreat to Jasper’s house is the first time we see him smile. He doesn’t seem happy again until he is with Jul- ian, Kee, Miriam, and Luke driving in the country. Theo begins to reminisce with Julian and soon they are laughing and kissing. This moment of tranquility is broken by a burning car, part of the industrial world. The entire ambush gives a feeling of modernity. The beeping of a car alarm, the roar of a motorcycle, and the shrill whistle of the bomb are all urban sounds. Part of the film’s juxtaposition of landscape and cityscape is anti-industrial. Right before the school scene, the audience is shown a dreary wasteland (fig.4) (Cuarón). Farm animals lie dead in ditches that are being pumped full of sewage. Smoke stacks can be seen in the distance pumping the air full of smog. The camera pans and more smoke stacks are seen. The whole area is surrounded by industry! Romanticism was itself partly a reaction to Industrializa- tion. Several artists depicted coal mines and railroads ruining the English countryside. In William Blake’s poem “Jerusalem” the Romantic view on industrialization and nature can be seen. Blake uses the phrases “mountains green” and “pleasant pastures” to describe the natural beauty of England. But he also describes the “dark Satanic Mills” of the Industrial Revolution. (Blake). The film also uses sound to effectively juxtapose industry and nature. Representing the industrial is the shrill screech of the bomb that Theo experiences in the opening scene. Its counterpart is birdsong. When Jasper comes outside to greet the Fishes the audience hears the chirping of birds. But as soon as Jasper is shot 55 the birds are muted. Music and the shrill whistle can now be heard. The audience is meant to associate the sounds of birds with positive moments and the whistle with negative. The other scenes that use birdsong are all positive: the school scene, at Jasper’s house, the Russian house. In fact, birdsong is closely tied with nostalgia. In the farmhouse bathroom Theo gazes at pictures of smiling, laughing children. Birds cannot be heard until the camera is actually on the pictures. In the Russian house, the camera pans across black and white photos, some with children. Again a bird is heard, this time a parakeet. These moments show a longing for the past, and implic- itly, nature. The shrill bomb noise is also used with several negative moments, usually ones traumatic for Theo. It can also be seen as representative of loss. As Julian tells Theo, “You know that ringing in your ears? That eeeeeeh? That’s the sound of the ear cells dying, like their swan song. Once it’s gone, you’ll never hear that fre- quency again. Enjoy it while it lasts” (Cuarón). This sound of loss is used during Jasper’s death, Julian’s death, and obviously during the bombing. The idea of loss can also be applied to the films environmental commentary. It’s no coincidence that a sound of nature contrasts the “swan song”. Although at first glance it seems the film is warning of nature’s fragility, upon further inspection it is the opposite. Nature, even abused as it is, is resilient. Like Thomas Cole’s The Course of Empire series, Children of Men shows the decline of civilization and the return of nature. Cole was inspired by Byron’s poem “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage”. Cole even quoted the poem in his newspaper advertisements for the works (Wilton).

There is the moral of all human tales; 'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past. First freedom and then Glory - when that fails, Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last. And History, with all her volumes vast, Hath but one page...

Cole’s five paintings depict the rise and fall of a city. The five paintings are: The Savage State, The Arcadian (or Pastoral State), The 56 Consummation of Empire, Destruction, and Desolation (Cole). Romantics considered the pastoral state to be ideal. Pastoral refers to the rais- ing of livestock, and it’s easy to see why the lifestyle was romanti- cized by writers of the time. Shepherds had a close relationship with the land, and were able to roam where they pleased. Cole’s The Arcadian (fig.5) depicts sheep herding, boat building, plowed fields, and a temple. Humans are affecting the landscape, but not dominating it. This was part of the Romantic ideal, a coexistence with nature. The film also idealizes this concept with Jasper. He lives alongside nature, and is largely self-sufficient. Jasper’s way of life acts as a model for how society should be. Although Jasper is personally living a pastoral life, Britain as a whole is in the Destruction phase. Destruction (fig.6) shows the fall of the city, both by invading forces, and by natural disaster. It is important to notice the lack of nature in the painting. Man has become dominant over nature. Just as in the movie, civilization has no room for nature. The painting and Children of Men show society’s collapse in similar ways. One way is by showing the destruction of art and monument. In Destruction the statue is missing its head, and in the movie, Michelangelo’s David has a broken leg. Both also have soldiers attacking innocent civilians. Like the fight at Bexhill, the calm sea (and nature in general) offers an escape from the vi- cious fighting. Parts of the movie also represent Cole’s final painting, Deso- lation (fig.7). The painting shows nature taking back the land. The architecture has been worn down and taken over by moss. The last standing pillar houses a bird’s nest. The sun, which was rising in the first picture, is now setting. Compare the painting with the school scene. The school is covered in vines and moss, the windows broken. Birds can be heard within the school and even a deer is seen. The cautionary tale is not that we cannot live without nature, but that nature can live without us. Another way in which the film is Romantic is its endorsement of emotion. One aspect of Romanticism was its rebellion against the cool rationalism of the Enlightenment. David Hume proclaimed that “reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions” (“Hume’s”). Emotion was seen as an “essential ethical resource” (Menely). These ideas of the time carried over to the new 57 Romantic art movement. In the preface to his book Lyrical Bal- lads, Wordsworth wrote that, “all good poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings” (Wordsworth). “Early German ro- manticists (1770’s and ‘80’s) called themselves the Sturm und Drang ("Storm and Stress") group. Many led lives of intense emotion, often characterized by suicide, duels to the death, madness, and a variety of strange illnesses” (Gates). One way emotion is present in the film is through Theo’s progression. The story begins with him as an uncaring bureaucrat. He seems unfazed by his close brush with death, and the death of baby Diego. Theo’s constant poker face is stressed when he walks past rows of his co-workers sobbing at the news of baby Diego. Theo, in his anti-hero stage, is emotionless. In fact, he goes as far as to fake emotions to get what he wants. Still with a deadpan face, he tells his boss, “I seem to be more affected by baby Diego’s death than I realized, Sir. If you wouldn’t mind, I’d appreciate it if I could finish my day’s work at home” (Cuarón). Theo’s lack of sor- row at the death of Diego isn’t the most troubling sign. It is hinted at that Diego was an unpleasant person, Theo telling Jasper, “that guy was a wanker” (Cuarón). However, in the same scene Theo reacts more strongly to Jasper’s fart than to mention of the bombing. When asked what he did for his birthday he says, “Nothing… Same as every other day. Woke up, felt like shit. Went to work, felt like shit”. Jasper responds, “That’s called a hangover, amigo”. “At least with a hangover I feel something” (Cuarón). Even Theo recognizes the problem in himself. Still, he seems embarrassed to have feelings when he does. After the death of Julian, he feigns going off to smoke to get some distance between himself and the others. Only then does he allow himself to break down sobbing. Suddenly, operatic music begins. Throughout the film, music is used to emphasize the moments when Theo experiences a significant emotion. This operatic music is used in several other key emotional scenes. The music plays again when Kee reveals her pregnancy to Theo. The camera begins to pan in on Theo’s face. This shot is much closer than any other so far in the movie showing the importance of his reaction. He is literally is speechless with awe. Finally he manages to gasp “Jesus Christ.” 58 Theo later gasps “Jesus” again, but this time in a very different context. In the final scene, he and Kee wait in the boat for the Tomorrow. Theo reveals he has been shot and is clearly in a great deal of pain. But he ignores his pain, and instead focuses on helping Kee with the baby. He shows her how to properly calm a crying child with a smile on his face. This overcoming of the physical in favor of the emotional shows how much progress Theo has made. The operatic music begins again when Kee tells him she is naming the baby Dylan. Finally, for perhaps the first time since his protest days, Theo has hope for the future. As he slowly slumps down and dies, he is still smiling. Much of the decision making by the good guys is emotional rather than logical. Anti-hero Theo only agrees to help Julian for money, despite their past history. As the story progresses he has a change of heart and is risking his life for the cause. Marichka and her friends have nothing to gain by helping Theo and Kee, yet they do anyways. They are driven to action only after seeing the baby, an emotional trigger throughout the movie. On the other hand, the crimes the Fishes and the government commit lack passion. The murder of Julian is premeditated by Luke, as much as it seems to be a random act. The government’s atrocities are systematic and procedural. Rounding up foogies is just part of the daily grind for the soldiers. In most scenes they seem only bored. Emotion is also seen as a powerful force in the movie. Kee and Theo find themselves in a seemingly impossible situation in Bexhill. They are trapped in a building with the Fishes on the inside and the military surrounding them. It has already been es- tablished that the army is shooting innocents who try to surrender. As they slowly walk down a hallway Foogies begin to surround them and reach out towards the baby, as pilgrims would for a holy relic. The operatic music plays and an African chant can be heard. They pass both Fishes and government soldiers as they descend the stairs. Fighting temporarily stops as both sides gawk at the baby. Everyone is so overcome by their emotions that they ignore self- preservation. This is seen first with the Foogies that crowed Kee. A few are shot as they expose themselves to the soldiers below, yet they continue to come out of hiding. Later, when the soldiers see the baby, they too come out of cover. Some drop to their knees or 59 cross themselves. Just as with Theo in the final scene, the overpowering of physical concerns by the emotional is displayed here. This scene, like others in the movie, uses religious conno- tation to increase emotional response. Romanticism encouraged greater spiritualism as part of its reaction to the Enlightenment. Faith, a belief in something despite empirical evidence, was directly contrary to the tenets of the Enlightenment. Jasper comments on faith saying, “There is a cosmic battle between Faith and Chance.” “All the early Romantics were inspired by the same consciousness of an imminent spiritual revolution, all of them were enemies of the Enlightenment and admirers of medieval Catholicism, and many of them, such as Friedrich and Dorothea Schlegel, Adam Müller, Zacharias Werner, Franz von Baader, Görres and Clemens Bren- tano found their spiritual home in the Catholic Church” (Dawson). The title of the film itself is a religious reference to Psalm 90:3 “You turn man to destruction; and say, Return, you children of men” (“Holy”). Kee’s revealing of her pregnancy and her birthing scene are both reminiscent of Jesus’ manger birth When she tells Theo she is pregnant she is surrounded by milk cows. Animal noises can be heard while she gives birth. When Theo asks her who the father is, she first jokes “Whiffet, I’m a virgin” (Cuarón). This is again an allusion to the Virgin Mary. Christ’s miracle birth is alluded to quite often in Children of Men. Both baby Dylan of the film and Jesus represented a fresh start for a weary world. Cuarón gives much more attention to the role of the mother than the bible does however. He stresses the role with two allusions to Michelangelo’s “Pietà” (fig.8) (Michelangelo), a sculpture of Mary tenderly holding Jesus after the Crucifixion. This image of motherly love is recreated in Bexhill, a foogie woman wails as she holds her slain son in the same pose as in Pietà. “Nevertheless, Cuarón's deliberate use of religious themes on the soundtrack plays a central role in the con- struction of his ethical perspective on political, economic, and social reality. Indeed, religious hymns often accompany the development of the plot and Theo's simultaneous embrace of ethical engagement with the Other” (Amago). The film includes more than just Judeo-Christian allusion. Miriam practices a form of voo- 60 doo. She performs a ritual for Julian’s afterlife, and at Jasper’s house is shown practicing a type of Tai chi. Religion is also critiqued in the film. Post-apocalyptic cults have sprung up, among them the Repenters and the Re- nouncers. The Repenters kneel down for a month, and the Re- nouncers flagellate themselves. Of course this critique is not necessarily against the spiritual aspect of Christianity. In fact, it is in line with what American Transcendentalists like Henry David Thoreau or Ralph Waldo Emerson believed. Transcendentalists rejected organized religion, and believed that individuals should seek God on their own. Romantics were especially interested in the self, favoring the individual over society. “[Romantic authors] displayed a special fondness for the portrayal of the conflict between the individual and society, and cultivated solitude because it allowed gifted sensi- tive souls to avoid contact with a vulgar, oppressive, philistine world” (Hauser). Rousseau famously said, “man is born free and everywhere he is in chains" (Rousseau). Civilization was seen as a corrupting influence on the human spirit. This led to Romantic fascination with children. Thoreau wrote in “Aulus Persius Flaccus”, “The life of a wise man is most extemporaneous, for he lives out of an eternity that includes all time. He is a child each moment and reflects wisdom. The far dart- ing thought of the child’s mind tarries not for development of manhood; it lightens itself, and needs not draw down lightning from the clouds” (Thoreau). William Wordsworth expressed the same sentiment in “Ode: Intimations of Immortality”: “trailing clouds of glory do we come / From God, who is our home: / Heaven lies about us in our infancy!” (Wordsworth). By Romantic standards, the dystopia of Children of Men is the worst conceivable world, a world farther from God. One way the film endorses individual over society is with the character Jasper. He is a political cartoonist, his job is to scruti- nize and satirize society. Throughout the movie he criticizes the government and societal norms in general. “The government hands out suicide kits with the rations, but ganja is still illegal” (Cuarón). Jasper is also self-sufficient and independent of society. 61 His growth of a crop (marijuana), although non-essential to survival, fits with Romantic notions of the Pastoral State. Contrasting Jasper’s pronounced individualism is Syd, whose illesim goes against Romanticism. Syd’s use of the third person when referring to himself is unsettling. Of all the characters to be given this mannerism it seems to be no coincidence it is Syd. He is clearly an evil character, one of the few people not inspired by the sight of the baby. When he finds out Kee is pregnant he thinks only of how to enrich himself. Syd, as an immigration cop, represents the government and thus by proxy society. We see through Syd all of the implicit problems with the film’s Britain. Its citizens have had their individuality repressed, another idea that would be abhorrent to Romantics. Although Children of Men was filmed in 2006, its ethics and values are more apt for the 18th century. The film’s portrayal of nature over civilization, emotion over reason, and individual over society are Romantic characteristics. While the age of Romanti- cism is considered over by historians, its influences are still far reaching and are still relevant in our modern world. As Michael Scrivener argues, “We are still within Romanticism, despite the strenuous efforts to propel us out of its gravitational force… our world is still shaped by Romantic assumptions” (Scrivener).

Works Cited

Amago, Samuel. "Ethics, Aesthetics, and the Future in Alfonso Cuarón's Children of Men." Discourse 32.2 (2010). Project MUSE. Web. 25 Oct. 2011.

Blake, William. “Jerusalem.” Milton. 1804. progressiveliving.org. Web.11Nov.2011

"Characteristics of Romantic Literature." Odessa.edu. Web. 14 Nov. 2011.

Cole, Thomas. The Course of Empire: The Arcadian or Pastoral State. 1834. Collection of The New-York Historical Society. Ex- 62 plorethomascole.org. Thomas Cole National Historic Site. Web. 15 Nov. 2011.

Cole, Thomas. The Course of Empire: Destruction. 1836. Collec- tion of The New-York Historical Society. Explorethomascole.org. Thomas Cole National Historic Site. Web. 15 Nov. 2011.

Cole, Thomas. The Course of Empire: Desolation. 1836. Collec- tion of The New-York Historical Society. Explorethomascole.org. Thomas Cole National Historic Site. Web. 15 Nov. 2011.

Cole, Thomas. Romantic Landscape. 1826. North Carolina Mu- seum of Art. Ncmoa.org. Web. 10 Nov. 2011.

Corbett, Robert. "Romanticism and Science Fictions." Erudit.org. 21 Feb. 2001. Web. 25 Oct. 2011.

Cuarón, Alfonso. Children of Men. Perf. Clive Owen and Julianne Moore. Universal Studios, 2006. DVD.

Dargis, Manohla. "Apocalypse Now, but in the Wasteland a Child Is Given." New York Times 25 Dec. 2006, New York ed., E1 sec. Nytimes.com. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.

Dawson, Christopher. "Religion and the Romantic Movement." Ewtn.com. 1937. Web. 23 Nov. 2011.

Gates, Larry E. "Romanticism." Historydoctor.net. 28 July 2010. Web. 23 Nov. 2011.

Glass, Fred. "Totally Recalling Arnold: Sex and Violence in the New Bad Future." Film Quarterly 44.1 (1990): 2-13. JSTOR. Web. 26 Oct. 2011.

Hauser, Arnold. The Social History of Art. New York: Vintage, 1957. Print.

63 Henry, Michael. "Inside and Outside Romanticism." Criticism 46.1 (2004): 151-65. Project MUSE. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.

The Holy Bible: King James Version. New York: American Bible Society, 2004. Print.

"Hume's Moral Philosophy." Plato.stanford.edu. Stanford Ency- clopedia of Philosophy, 27 Aug. 2010. Web. 26 Nov. 2011.

James, P. D. The Children of Men. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1993. Print.

"Joseph Mallord William Turner." Nationalgallery.org. Web. 21 Nov. 2011.

Kreis, Steven. "Toward a Definition of Romanticism." The His- tory Guide. 4 Aug. 2009. Web. 16 Nov. 2011.

Menely, Tobias. "Returning to Emotion, via the Age of Sensibil- ity." Eighteenth-Century Life 34.1 (2010): 114-24. Project MUSE. Web. 26 Oct. 2011.

Michelangelo. Pietà. 1499. Marble statue. Basilica Di San Pietro, Vatican. Wga.hu. Web. 23 Nov. 2011. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. New York: Pen- guin, 2006. Print.

Scrivener, Michael. "Inside and Outside Romanticism." Criticism 46.1 (2004): 151-65. Academic Search Premir. Web. 25 Oct. 2011.

Seaman, Myra J. "Becoming More (than) Human: Affective Post- humanisms, Past and Future." Journal of Narrative Theory 37.2 (2007): 246-75. Project MUSE. Web. 26 Oct. 2011.

Thoreau, Henry David, and Jeffrey S. Cramer. Walden: a Fully Annotated Edition. New Haven: Yale UP, 2004. Print.

64 Turner, John MW. Chichester Canal. 1829. Tate Collection. Tate.org. Web. 12 Nov. 2011.

Wordsworth, William, Piro Celia. De, and Samuel Taylor. Col- eridge. Lyrical Ballads. Oxford: Oxford Univ., 2006. Print.

Wilton, Andrew and Barringer, Tim. American Sublime, Land- scape Painting in the United States 1820-1880, Princeton Univer- sity Press, 2002. Web.15Nov.2011

Fig.1 65

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4 66

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8 68 69 A Rational Journey: The Path to the Divine Watchmaker in Danny Boyle's Sunshine Austin Hauf

“There is something which always moves the things that are in motion, and the first mover is itself unmoved.” -Aristotle (Hardwick)

“Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Su- perstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.” -John Adams (Hardwick)

Rationality and a belief in God are two concepts that some thinkers believe to be at odds with one another. A plethora of rational arguments exist for the non-existence of any “higher power” or deity. But at the confluence of God and rationality is Deism. Less of a religion and more of a philosophy, Deism became popular during the Age of Enlightenment. Deists believe that the universe was created by a “Divine Watchmaker,” who set its workings in motion and then stepped back, never to intervene again. The general public hears very little about it these days, although its influence as well as the influence of the rationality that it espoused can be found in the culture and ideas of modern society. Danny Boyle's one and only science fiction film, Sunshine, wishes to argue that God exists in the Deistic sense, and consequently, humanity can only be saved by human rationality. It also emphasizes the idea that serving humanity is the path to spiritual fulfillment. Sunshine is one of the rare science fiction films that takes itself entirely seriously, and as a result succeeds in pulling in its audience and allowing them to ponder the intricacies and implications of its message. To explore Sunshine in a meaningful way, we must first acknowledge the ways in which it exhibits Deistic ideas, beginning with the film's imagery. Sunshine contains spectacular imagery. From the brilliant, screen-filling shots of the Sun itself to the never-ending vistas of space that appear ready to devour the Icarus II at any moment, it 70 is visually arresting throughout (the film is reminiscent of 2001: A Space Odyssey in more ways than one). However there is one piece of repeated imagery that stands out from the rest even on a first viewing: The image of an eye, which is present in the film from the very beginning. As the title of the film appears, the Icarus II, the vessel which the main characters inhabit, is seen from the back, traveling slowly towards the Sun. The circular shape of its heat shield forms an obvious pupil, the Sun itself creates an iris, and the surrounding glow represents the sclera. Because of the way the shot is framed, the top and bottom of the glow are cut off, resulting in an image that looks even more like a human eye. The shape of the Icarus II itself is similarly evocative. Its heat shield, which we see even before the film's title appears, has nearly the exact curvature of a human eye viewed from the side. In addition, a circular portion at its very center stands out, which completes the image. As the film progresses, we see many shots of the crew that exhibit a clear emphasis on their eyes. There are frequent shot/ reverse shot sequences of crew members' eyes and what they are observing, whether it be some element of the environment or another character they are speaking to. When Captain Kaneda is watching a recorded message from Captain Pinbacker of the Icarus I, the shot focuses in on Pinbacker's eyes in quite an obvious fashion. These examples of eye imagery support the theme of vision in the film, which can in turn be tied back to Deism. Vision can be seen as a source of both discovery and understanding. The idea of vision has always been closely associated with God, from the writ- ings of the Old Testament onward. Light, an important compo- nent of vision, is often portrayed as something provided exclusively by God, while the darkness is a product of the Devil. This dichot- omy can also been seen in Sunshine, where the Sun is a clear representation of God. While the crew members are sent on a mission with a very specific goal, the uncertainty that is involved requires that it be a mission of discovery as well. The light of the Sun (and of God) is what allows the characters to have the vision necessary to make discoveries successfully. Throughout the film, the theme of vision as a source of discovery and understanding is juxtaposed with the concept of God in a way that strongly supports Deism. Those who adopt a Deistic 71 view of God believe in discovering the wonders of nature, and consequently of God, through observation, a concept known as natural religion. Natural religion differs from revealed religion (such as Christianity) in that natural religion can be discovered on one's own, while revealed religion must, as the name implies, be revealed by someone or something else (Byrne 1). Sunshine also exhibits Deism through its theme of creation. The goal of the crew of the Icarus II is for the Earth to essentially be recreated. This act of creation will be the result of an extensive and intricate plan. When the stellar bomb that the Icarus II carries detonates, the goal of the mission's design will finally come to frui- tion, and will ensure that things on Earth run smoothly once again, as a clock does. The oxygen garden on board the Icarus II also operates like a clock, and represents creation as well. In the blackness of outer space, where no living things have yet been discovered, the oasis of life known as the oxygen garden flourishes. Corazon, the ship's biologist, has in essence created something out of nothing. Not only that, she has crafted the oxygen garden with purpose and planning. Everything within it runs like a perfect clock. It stands out against the blackness of space as the Earth does, and also against the muted blues and grays of the inte- rior of the Icarus II. As a final symbol of creation out of nothing- ness, one small sprout remains in the oxygen garden for Corazon to find after the fire, a stark green against the blackness of the ashes. Sunshine's Deism becomes clear through the film's assertion that humanity must survive on its own. God may have created the Earth, but he will not intervene in the affairs of its people positively or negatively. As Peter Byrne points out in Natural Religion and the Nature of Religion: The Legacy of Deism, God, when viewed from a De- istic perspective, does not possess a personal dimension. Since creation, God has stepped back, becoming distant and detached from what he has created. The crew of the Icarus II knows this all too well. They are entirely alone in the vastness of space, and must rely only on themselves or each other. As with a watchmaker, God's work is done. The image of God from a Deistic perspective is one of a so- called “Divine Watchmaker.” The workings of the universe have 72 been intricately crafted, yet God is no longer involved in their function. Deists emphasize the examination of nature, and the cultiva- tion of a sense of wonder about the world around them. Sunshine gives us an excellent example of this sense of wonder in one especially poignant scene. When Mercury becomes visible against the backdrop of the Sun, the entire crew gathers together in the ship's observation room to watch. Everyone stares in silent contemplation as the small planet slowly follows its orbit around the Sun. This simple event happens constantly and appears basic, but when one stops to consider it for a moment, it appears far more impressive and significant. In these ways, the workings of the universe bear a striking resemblance to the inner mechanisms of a clock. As a final reminder to drive the point home, one shot of this scene tracks slowly from the wristwatch of one of the crew up to the eyes of his shipmates, staring in wonder at the clockwork universe. Deism may appear to be a good fit for science fiction films, but this is not necessarily the case. As noted earlier, Sunshine takes a fair amount of inspiration from 2001: A Space Odyssey. With regard to Deism, however, their paths begin to diverge. While Sunshine revels in its moments of natural observation, 2001 paints a pro- foundly different picture. As Paul Flesher and Robert Torry note in their book Film & Religion, the astronauts Poole and Bowman appear to be cut off from anything outside the confines of their spacecraft. “Their job may be space exploration, but they see only the human creations they brought with them.” In stark contrast, the Icarus II has an observation room that serves no purpose other than to allow the crew to gaze beyond the creations of man. In many ways, Sunshine is a film that acknowledges the existence and legitimacy of a God represented in a Deistic manner. With this view comes the belief that since God will not intervene in the affairs of man, humanity can only be saved by human rationality. This is the second point that the film wishes to argue. It does so in a striking and successful way, first and foremost through the character of Robert Capa. From the beginning of the film to the end, Capa exhibits a strong sense of rationality. It could be argued that the mere symbol of a physicist saving humanity from destruction is a strong enough endorsement of rationality, but Capa is also quite rational in his 73 actions. One major example of this can be seen in his choice to change course and dock with the Icarus I. When the rest of the crew presents him with this decision, he is obviously conflicted. Choosing to change the trajectory of the Icarus II would introduce a tremendous amount of risk into a mission that is already theoreti- cal and uncertain, but if it were successful it could prove to be very beneficial. When it comes time for a decision to be made, Capa consults not with his fellow crew members, but with the ship's computer system, an entity capable of little beyond rationality. In the end, his choice comes down to the hard facts of the situation. Recovery of the Icarus I would provide the mission with a second bomb, and in the words of Capa, “Two last hopes are better than one” (Sunshine). Capa's rationality is also made clear through the manner in which he is filmed. In one especially important scene, the crew is attempting to decide whether or not to change their course and dock with the Icarus I. While the other members of the crew discuss the benefits and risks of such an action, Capa moves from where he stands next to Corazon, Trey, and Cassie, and sits at a couch in the corner. This is because he wishes to have an objective point of view on the matter. He is visible only briefly until he is called upon by the captain to give his final opinion. After Kaneda makes this request, Capa is shot with his face on the very edge of the frame, and the rest of the crew is shown looking directly at him. They are looking to him, the most rational member of the crew, to decide the course of action. Capa's face is shown in clear focus, while the rest of the crew appears blurred. This emphasizes the fact that while he can see things clearly and objectively, the judgments of the rest of the crew are somewhat clouded. As J. Wentzel van Huyssteen notes in The Shaping of Rational- ity: Toward Interdisciplinary in Theology and Science, religion and science often compete for the title of rationality. In Sunshine however, Rob- ert Capa embarks on a rational quest to save humanity, and in the end must confront God to complete it. The exact details of what takes place during his final scene are left somewhat ambiguous, although we can assume that since the Sun has represented God throughout the film, he appears to be having some type of religious experience. This scene, in which time and space seem to melt to- 74 gether, essentially completes the Deistic argument that has been building over the course of the film. Capa, the last surviving crew member, has found God, the Divine Watchmaker, on his own through rationality. In the words of van Huyssteen, “Rationality may turn out to have many faces.” In the case of Sunshine, it would appear to be the face of God. The journey that Robert Capa completes is a fulfillment of Confirmation Theory, an idea discussed in Ian G. Barbour's Relig- ion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. Theories as they apply to science can also be applied to the existence of God. The idea that God exists carries with it a base level of plausibility. As more and more evidence is provided to prove or disprove this theory, its probability is adjusted accordingly. It would seem that the evidence from Capa's journey indicates the existence of God, albeit a Deistic one. Sunshine's primary human antagonist embodies a strong resis- tance to Deism. The film also has something to say about religious fundamentalism. Pinbacker, the former captain of the Icarus I, is a clear representation of this phenomenon. He does not want the plans of God to be tampered with; he believes that God wishes to exterminate humanity, and will stop at nothing to prevent any interference with this plan. “It is not our place to challenge God,” he says (Sun- shine). Pinbacker is portrayed as the polar opposite of the film's De- istic tendencies. While Capa is a model of rationality, Pinbacker represents the absence of rationality. The former has cultivated a healthy appreciation of the power of God. “I think it will be beautiful,” he says, anticipating his meeting with his creator (Sunshine). The latter has clearly spent a little too much time in the observation room. Pinbacker prevented the success of the first Icarus mission, and he almost does the same to the second. His religious fundamentalism is literally putting the fate of humanity in jeop- ardy. The message appears to be that we must try to stay level- headed on these issues, and follow the example set by Capa. The importance of rationality is further emphasized in the film through the inclusion of a psych officer on the crew of the Ica- rus II. This is reportedly because it was thought that the psychological health of the crew may have had something to do with the failure of the Icarus I. As psych officer it is Searle's job, one could 75 argue, to maintain the rationality of the rest of the crew. He appears to focus on the effects of the weight of the mission, the sense of confinement that results from life on a spacecraft millions of miles from Earth, and the issues regarding the crew's close proximity, which we can assume to be some of the most debilitating psychological difficulties amongst the members of the mission. In general, as well as in specific cases (such as the two fights between Mace and Capa) Searle attempts to keep the crew as level-headed and rational as possible. One of Searle's most memorable and important scenes perfectly illustrates his commitment to rationality. When the crew comes together to discuss whether or not to dock with the Icarus I, he is the first to suggest an argument in favor of doing so. He wants both sides of the issue represented so the best possible decision can be made. In the shot where he acknowledges and explains the two opposing arguments, he stands next to a reflected image of himself in a computer display. This is a clear visual representation of the rationality he once possessed before he became enraptured by the Sun. His advocacy of rationalism is further confirmed when Mace suggests that the group take a vote in order to decide what to do. Searle immediately shoots this idea down, suggesting instead that, as “a collection of astronauts and scientists” they need to “make the most informed decision available” (Sunshine). The burden then falls to Capa, who uses this opportunity to establish himself as rational. Searle's treatment method reflects both a maintenance of rationality as well as a Deistic appreciation of nature. When Mace starts a fight with Capa, Searle prescribes some time in the Earth Room, which is essentially a computer simulation of a variety of Earth scenes, including ocean waves and a forest. It provides a connection to Earth that is intended to anchor the crew in reality and rationality as they drift through space. It is also worth noting that rather than show scenes of cites, cars, or other man-made objects that we identify with Earth, the Earth Room showcases the beauty of nature. It attempts to evoke the sense of wonder and discovery about nature and God that Deism wishes to acknowledge. There is one more thing worth pointing out about Searle. He himself is beginning to travel down the path of Pinbacker. Over the course of the film, he spends more and more time in the obser- 76 vation room of the Icarus II, which is reflected in his sunburn and peeling skin. Not only is he becoming like Pinbacker physically, but mentally as well. He appears to have decided that he also does not want to challenge the plans of God. This causes him to give up his life in the fire of the Sun, the same way that the crew of the Icarus I did under the guidance of their captain. This relationship between Searle and Pinbacker can be seen as another indictment against religious fundamentalism. As was discussed earlier, Pinbacker represents religious fundamentalism and Searle is one of the many examples of rationality in the film. This changes quickly however, as Searle spends more and more time in the observation room. His judgment appears to be clouded by this influence. It could be concluded that the film wishes for us to view religious fundamentalism as an attack on rationality, as well as dangerous to humanity, as noted earlier. Sunshine wishes to make one more important argument. That is, that serving humanity is the path to spiritual fulfillment. The character who is clearly the most fulfilled is Robert Capa. In his final scene, he gives his life to save humanity. As was discussed earlier, he has a religious experience, most likely he sees God. In some respects, he appears to represent a Christ-like figure; he stands before God and allows himself to be sacrificed to save humanity. This is a notable deviation from the film's focus on Deism. In the aforementioned Film & Religion, there is a discussion of the “mysterium tremendum,” a concept put forth by theologian Rudolf Otto. The mysterium tremendum describes a “fascinatingly attractive, yet inherently fear-inspiring” experience with something that Otto himself described as “wholly other.” The authors discuss this concept in the context of Kubrick's 2001. The journey “Be- yond the Infinite” experienced by the character Bowman is an obvious example of mysterium tremendum, and the connection with the film's famous monoliths further emphasizes its religious significance. In Sunshine, Robert Capa has his own journey “Beyond the Infinite” when he is consumed by the Sun. However, rather than using the shot/reverse shot pattern used in 2001 (which allows us to see both Bowman's face and what he is seeing) we see only Capa, and what he sees remains a mystery to us. At certain points Capa's facial expressions even mirror those of Bowman. Both 77 characters conclude a great physical journey, only to have a second metaphysical and spiritual one that cannot be properly described in words. This moment is important not just as it occurs, but prior to it in the film as well. Capa is very clearly looking forward to it, as evidenced by his claim that it will be “beautiful” (Sunshine). This will be his reward for his unfailing rationality, and the culmination of his physical and spiritual journey. In Beyond Mysterium Tremendum: Thoughts toward an Aesthetic Study of Religious Experience, Omar M. McRoberts notes that when someone has a truly intense religious or spiritual experience, the people around them simply cannot relate. This is true of Capa even before he has truly had his experience. When he discusses “the end” with Cassie, she does not appreciate the beauty of what will happen in the same way that Capa does. This serves the purpose of setting him even farther apart from the rest of the crew. It is especially significant that the conversation takes place with Cassie, since she represents the emotional side of most matters, which would tend to oppose Capa's rationality. There is a deleted scene that also speaks to this issue. In it, Searle confronts Capa about “the end,” and gets a response similar to the one given to Cassie. Not surprisingly, Searle cannot relate either. This further illustrates Searle's break from rationality that results from the time he spends gazing at the Sun. In the end, Searle appears to be fulfilled, as does Captain Kaneda. The two men are connected by their worship of the Sun. As Kaneda stares down the wall of fire that eventually consumes him, the rest of the crew shouts at him to save himself while Searle asks simply, “What do you see?” (Sunshine). Later, he also meets his demise by choice in the fire of the Sun. Both men have found God in their own way, entirely separate from Capa's. This would suggest that there may not be a “best” way to be fulfilled. All three men embark on the same mission to save humanity, and all three find what they personally seek. However, Sunshine maintains its endorsement of rationality by showing that Capa is the most successful in the end because he is personally fulfilled, and he accomplishes his personal fulfillment in a way that benefits humanity as a whole. This is where the paths of Searle and Kaneda diverge from Capa's. Their concept of success becomes far more 78 selfish than that of Capa. This further reinforces the idea that true fulfillment comes from serving humanity. The death of the character of Corazon also speaks to the concept of fulfillment. On the mission, she played a vital role: pro- viding the crew with oxygen by carefully monitoring the oxygen garden. It is clear that she has contributed immensely to the mission, and that it would not be successful without her. Right before her death, she finds a small sprout amid the burnt remains of the oxygen garden. This not only speaks to the theme of creation and rebirth, but also indicates that Corazon and her work have come full circle, and are not to be forgotten. It reminds us that she has truly been fulfilled. In contrast to those who have been fulfilled, Sunshine presents Pinbacker, who is clearly not fulfilled in any way. As the captain of the Icarus I, he set out initially to save humanity. Had he followed through with his mission he could have easily wound up in Capa's position as the savior of humanity. Instead, he became selfish and experienced a break with reality and rationality. This resulted in the death of his crew and the failure of his mission. He then sought to disrupt the mission of the Icarus II, but was beaten by Capa's rationality in the end. Sunshine is an intriguing film in many respects. Not only does it contain interesting characters and a strong visual style, but it also makes some strong arguments with regard to God, rationality, and fulfillment. First, Sunshine argues that God exists, but from a Deistic point of view. It espouses the concept of God as the “Di- vine Watchmaker” through the use of imagery, themes, and the actions of its characters. Second, Sunshine argues that since God will no longer intervene to help or harm humanity, rationality is the only way to save it. The character of Robert Capa is provided as a prime example of the success of rationality. Third, Sunshine argues that the path to ultimate spiritual fulfillment is through serving humanity. This is shown through the examples set by characters such as Capa, Searle, Kaneda, Corazon, and Pinbacker. Sunshine is a film that deserves to be studied in greater detail. It is one of a rare breed of modern science fiction films that is con- fident enough to take itself entirely seriously, without relying on camp. For this reason, it succeeds in forcing the viewer to contem- 79 plate the nature and implications of deep concepts such as God, rationality, and fulfillment.

Works Cited

Barbour, Ian. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997. Print.

Byrne, Peter. Naural Religion arnd the Nature of Religion: The Legacy of Deism. London: Routledge, 1989. Print.

Flesher, Paul V. and Robert Torry. Film & Religion. Nashville: Ab- ingdon Press, 2007. Print.

Hardwick, J. “Modern Deism: Great Quotes.” moderndeism.com. Modern Deism, 2004. Web. 22 Nov. 2011.

Jones, Kyle. “Sunshine: Finding God in a Dying Star.” The Silent Planet. vikingjesus.com. 25 Feb. 2011. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.

McRoberts, Omar M. "Beyond Mysterium Tremendum: Thoughts Toward an Aesthetic Study of Religious Experience." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 595.1 (2004): 190-203. Print.

Powers, John. “Sunshine Film Ignites the Sun.” Art Threat: culture + politics. 30 Oct. 2007. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.

Sobchack, Vivian. "Burntbythesun." Film Comment 43.4 (2007): 30- 36. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.

Sunshine. Dir. Danny Boyle. Perf. Cillian Murphy, Chris Evans, Rose Byrne, Michelle Yeoh, Cliff Curtis, Troy Garity, Hiroyuki Sanada, Benedict Wong. Fox Searchlight Pictures, 2007. DVD.

Van Huyssteen, J. Wentzel. The Shaping of Rationality: Toward Inter- disciplinary in Theology and Science. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerd- mans Publishing Company, 1999. Print. 80

81 TECH-NOIR: Technophilia and Technophobia in The Terminator Charles Rerick

Los Angeles, 2029 A.D. The twisted steel wreckage of skyscrapers and vehicles litter a dark wasteland that appears to be empty but for the spaceships hovering and shooting death lasers at any sign of movement, the tanks mounted with infrared cameras crushing their way over piles of human skulls, and the lone man fleeing for his life and hiding amidst the rubble. These are the first sights we see in The Terminator (James Cameron, 1984), and they immediately present us, in no uncertain terms, with the most central theme of the film: technophobia. Technophobia as a term requires nearly no explanation; it does, however, require a small amount of clarification in the context of this paper. Technophobia is certainly a disorder experienced by the individual, as most phobias are; however, I will be using the term more broadly, defining technophobia less as a personal affliction and more as a cultural attitude. As I use the term throughout this paper, I will be referring generally to the feeling of distrust and discomfort directed towards technology that The Termi- nator embodies. This fear is caused by a number of factors. New technologies, (especially complex, advanced technologies) can be intimidating to those who do not understand them. Another factor is the instinctive fear of bodily harm; films and stories have exploited advances in military technology such as the atomic bomb exhaus- tively due to their ability to inspire terror; Thirdly, there is an agoraphobic aspect within technophobia; people like to be in control, and the idea of giving up control of something to mechanical processes is an extremely uncomfortable thing for people to do his- torically, not only because they have a hard time trusting a machine to meet their standard of quality in its work, but because the efficiency and consistency of the work done by machines can in many way make human skills obsolete. A prime example of this would be the Luddites of 19th century Britain, artisans in the British textile industry who, when their wages were cut and jobs filled by 82 unskilled workers who needed only to operate the machines that were created with the ability to do the same sort of work, took to destroying the machines and attacking the owners thereof (Bin- field). However, it is only too clear that we humans, despite our fears, crave technology; in many ways, our lives have become dependent on technology and the advancement thereof. Consider, for example, Apple Inc., one of the most wildly successful corpora- tions in existence, and the invention of the iPod. Since the release of the iPod classic in 2001, Apple has released over 20 different models of iPods suited to a variety of more specialized purposes, adding new functions and utilizing the most up-to-date technology in each. In fact, a new model of the iPod Nano, one of the iPod’s most popular varieties, was released every year from 2005 to 2010 (“Apple”). We are also living in an era where, according to futurist and inventor of speech-recognition software Ray Kurzwell in the Chicago Tribune, “we are doubling the paradigm shift rate -- the rate of technical progress -- every decade… the entire 20th Cen- tury was equivalent to only 20 years of progress at today's rate of progress” (Keller). The Terminator is very interesting in the way it approaches these conflicting views of technology. In this paper, I will explore the ways that the film portrays technophobia as coexisting with a culture that enjoys and depends on advances in technology. I will also analyze, in depth, a few scenes that best exemplify the contrasts and parallels between the two ideas. The goal of this paper is to assess the ways that The Terminator epitomizes the modern, paradoxical attitude towards technology. Let us begin by examining the nature of the film’s fascination with technology. This attitude of acceptance of and dependence on technology in everyday life is epitomized by the “present” setting of the film, that of the 1980s culture. In this setting, technology is a part of everyday life; more than that, daily life is dependent upon technology in many ways. Transportation, for example, is almost entirely represented as a job reserved for technology. When we first see Sarah Connor, she is zooming down the street on her motorcycle, and as the film continues, there are several scenes that take place in and are driven 83 by automobiles, including at least three automobile chase scenes. There are very few scenes, such as the scene in which Sarah walks from the pizza joint she’s having dinner at to the infamous nightclub scene, in which a character is shown leaving point A and ar- riving at point B on foot. In fact, in this particular walking scene, not using a technological method of transportation is made to seem unsafe and obsolete; immediately after leaving point A, she sees a man lurking in the shadows who starts following close behind her as soon as she passes by, prompting her to duck into a nightclub in search of a telephone. Communications are also primarily facilitated by technology, particularly throughout the first half of the film. Whether it’s Ginger’s boyfriend calling to sexually arouse her, Sarah’s date calling to cancel on he last minute, or the dialogue between Sarah and the police lieutenant, telephones serve as highly important to the communication between characters and also to the advancement of the narrative. Also, as with the transportation example, malfunc- tion or lack of control of this technology is repetitively shown to be dangerous, particularly in that it is depended upon to protect those in danger; Sarah is terrified when the police won’t answer her phone call as she flees her perceived stalker, and when no one re- ceives her message for help left on the answering machine at her apartment, the message is intercepted by her real pursuer, giving away her location. The answering machine mentioned above is interesting for more reasons than one, and is of critical importance in establishing this atmosphere of dangerous fascination and reliance on technology. It is significant not only because it leads the Terminator directly to Sarah, but also because of the prerecorded voicemail message Ginger left programmed into their machine.

“Hi there! (laughs) Fooled you! You’re talking to a machine. But don’t be shy. It’s okay. Machines need love too! So talk to it, and Ginger (that’s me) or Sarah will get back to you.” – Ginger Ventura, The Terminator (Cameron, 1984) 84 It is almost unnecessary to point out the most important part of this message: “Machines need love too!” This statement might, in any other context, be considered unimportant and even humorous. However, to disregard its significance in The Terminator would be a tremendous oversight. Ginger’s character is one of the film’s primary examples of the danger of dependence on and obsession with technology, and the significance of this line in the context of the scenes it is said in (the message is played twice, once in a very short scene and once again a few minutes later at the end of another) deserves some attention. For the purposes of this analysis, I will treat the two scenes, though they are about five minutes apart in the film, as one disjunctive scene, skipping over the intervening shots. The scene opens with a very close shot of the answering machine which pans slowly up and to the left as the phone begins to ring; the police are calling yet again to attempt to reach Sarah. This shot serves a dual purpose. It is primarily an establishing shot, transferring us from the police station setting of the previous scene to the hallway of Sarah’s apartment, where there is obviously no one answering the phone. It also identifies the answering machine as an important piece of technology. As the shot pans up to look down the hallway, the message starts to play for the first time. As the message reaches “Machines need love too,” the scene cuts to a close two-shot of Ginger and her boyfriend Matt in bed, having sex. These two shots are the entirety of this first short part of the scene. The most interesting aspects of this second shot are the parallels between the message and the mise-en-scéne; as Matt moves on top of Ginger, we see in the lower right corner of the frame, in the foreground, that he is holding not Ginger, but a portable radio. He turns the volume up and Ginger bops her head to the music. This is interesting for two reasons. Firstly, it speaks rather obviously of their dependence on technology that they bring the radio to bed with them, jamming out while making love. Sec- ondly, it is one of a few moments of almost self-aware meta- commentary on the film that the love-making scene directly involving a piece of technology is presented to us at the same time as the above mentioned line is first stated, though it is heard quietly from another room. This is a direct contrast to the next time the line is 85 delivered, when the line carries much more weight and no longer seems a harmless joke. Before the camera returns to the bedroom a few minutes later, we are given a short shot of foreshadowing that also serves as another establishing shot to transfer us from the nightclub setting, where Sarah has just hung up the phone after calling the police station and getting a pre-recorded message telling her to stay on the line if she needs a police unit, to the street outside of Sarah and Ginger’s apartment where a police car starts its engine and drives off. As the camera pans slowly to the right toward the building and the police car exits the frame on the right side, the Terminator immediately steps in front of the camera, filling up half the frame with a close up of his face, the negative instantly filling the space vacated by the positive in a clear symbol of technophobia and danger in lack of control; the moment the authority exits, the technology assumes total power. The Terminator makes his way toward the building, accompanied by what I will call the “hunting” motif; a low series of bass notes and rhythms that appears in many variations and set- tings throughout the film, and which always seems to indicate the inevitable advancement of the Terminator towards his target. The shot cuts back to the bedroom from the first bit of the scene ap- proximately five minutes later, where the lovemaking has ceased and Matt has fallen asleep, still wearing his business socks. Ginger takes the radio from the bed and dances out of the frame and into the hallway. As she steps out the camera cuts to a low shot of her legs from the knee down, slowly panning up on her from behind as she dances down the hall holding the radio. The lighting is minimal, and she is little more than a shiny purple nightgown and a pair of calves until she opens the fridge and lit in a flickering, in- substantial light as she gathers midnight snack materials. The dim murmur of the radio accompanied with Gingers complete lack of concern in what is to the viewer a dark, indistinct, and therefore uncomfortable setting puts the viewer on edge, as well as underlin- ing the technophilic aspect of her character, emphasizing that she is never without the radio. As she closes the fridge and eliminates the only decent light, there is a loud clatter of items falling on the counter accompanied by a shriek from Ginger; but it is only an 86 iguana in the food pantry. This breaks the tension in the kitchen with Ginger, but also serves to prolong the suspense, since the viewer knows that the Terminator is there somewhere. There is then a quick cut to the floor of the bedroom, the door sliding open, the curtain sweeping aside to reveal a pair of intimidating black boots as the “hunting” motif returns, louder and more insistent. We see Matt lying in bed as the shadow of the Terminator moves to cover him, one of the first of many shots of the Terminator appearing above and behind other characters in the frame, establishing his power, the power of technology, over them. The change in light awakens Matt just in time to avoid the Terminator’s fist. This is followed by a series of shots that serve to highlight the dangers of technology (embodied by the Terminator) with the dangers of obsession and dependence on technology (embodied by Ginger) by moving every few seconds between shots of Matt being picked up and thrown against and into things in a very noisy fashion to shots of Ginger jamming out in the kitchen to her radio whilst building her sandwich, unable to hear what is happening down the hall. This seems to imply that by depending on the technology to such as an extent as Ginger does, she is also blinding herself to the dangers of technology. This scene is, perhaps, the most significant instance within The Terminator of portrayal of technophilia as a sort of dangerous ignorance. As Ginger takes her snack and moves back into the hall, the angle of the camera shifts to a dramatic upward angle from the end of the hall, leaving a lot of negative space between the camera and the subject and putting the viewer on edge with the uncomfortable, unnatural camera position, just in time for Matt’s (presumably dead) body to be thrown through the wall into the hallway to great effect. This dramatic shift in intensity is accompanied by another shift in the sound during a series of shot-reverse-shots as Ginger sees the Terminator and begins to run, his laser targeting sight focuses in on her. This shift functions as a foil to the “hunting” motif by sharply increasing the technophobic atmosphere with a sort of high-pitched mechanical whining that rises in pitch, a direct contrast to the low “hunting” drone, but producing the same anxiety, even more intensely. 87 As the pitch climbs to a climax, the Terminator fires, and Ginger flies off her feet to the floor, not yet dead, crawling and gasping toward the camera as the Terminator advances from behind and towers over her, again in this symbolically superior position. There is a quick shot to Ginger’s hands, covered in blood and grasping at the floor, before the camera pans up and off of Ginger to show on the Terminator taking complete dominance of the frame, ending Gingers life with a series of straight-faced gunshots. Another quick shot of her hands twitching as the rounds click off, and then, immediately after the last bullet is fired, the phone rings again and the Terminator whirls around as the Message is read for the second time. While the Terminator does not acknowledge the “machines need love too,” it is much more clear and distinct to the audience this time, an ironic reminder of Ginger’s fallacious reasoning about the emotional capabilities of machines. As the message says her name, we see a close up of Ginger’s face on the floor, specked with blood, then back to the machine, then back to the Terminator as he towers over her body. Then we hear Sarah’s voice leaving a message and the Terminator whips around to face the sound as she unknowingly betrays her location to her attacker. This betrayal of Sarah’s location by the answering machine and its conspiring with the radio to keep Ginger from getting the call from the police are a clear message that technology, even everyday, useful technology we depend on, fundamentally can not be trusted. As this scene has demonstrated, technology as a whole is given an untrustworthy, two-faced persona throughout the film. The answering machine in particular is just one of many examples of parallel structure throughout the film that serves to highlight the “-philic” and “-phobic” aspects of representation that can be attributed to the same technology, often depending on the level of human control over the technology in question. Two clever uses of this bipolar nature of technology that involve Reese (as a representation of human control) and the Terminator (as a representation of control by technology) illustrate this particularly well. Firstly, both Reese and the Terminator are shown hijacking vehicles. When the Terminator steals his vehicle, he does so in a systematic, violent way, smashing through the window and progressing mechanically and methodically. Reese, on the other hand, 88 is shown carefully reaching through the window and unlocking the door, working frantically to start the car. Then there is the aspect of both character’s motive for theft; the Terminator does it in order to hunt down his prey, whereas Reese does the same to save himself and Sarah from danger. The differences draw a clear distinction between the way that humans and machines conduct their actions. People will generally aim for the best decision based on concern for others and the moral implications of their actions; this takes priority over efficacy and, sometimes, rationality. Machines simply perform their assigned task in the most efficient way possible without making ethical judgments. This difference of perspective is made clear by the scenes in which the camera takes the view of the Terminator, showing us how he thinks and sees things; his field of vision is dominated by numbers and data, everything bathed in a red glow, seeing things as targets and probabilities. In a particular scene, we see the terminator’s decision-making process as he assesses how to respond to an angry man outside the door. We see a list of options pop up on his “screen” of vision, and selects the one that he decides is most useful; “Fuck you, asshole.” This statement might seem emotionally charged or irrational on its own, but in this context, it is a carefully considered logical process that leads to a statement that the Terminator did not even generate on its own, but regurgitated from an earlier scene when a man expressed a similar sentiment towards the Terminator himself. This inability to access the emotional and irrational method of problem solving used by humans is one of the major reasons that machines that make their own decisions are so frightening. They lack empathy, are incapable of sympathy, and cannot assess a problem outside the parameters of their objective. Thus, in the hands of the Terminator, a hijacked car becomes a stolen weapon, taken immorally. In Reese’s hands, a hijacked car is a means of protecting others (not just Sarah but, inevitably, the human race) and is taken morally, as the act of thievery is judged the “lesser evil” when compared to the moral implications of not stealing a car. Secondly, these two characters are both shown acquiring weaponry. The Terminator murders the owner of a gun shop and then makes off with the murder weapon, as well as a veritable ar- senal of other firearms; Reese fearfully cowers in an alleyway and 89 saws off a stolen shotgun so that he can hide it beneath his coat for, the viewer might assume (although we cannot know for sure) self- defense. Again, the motive and justification for these actions are clearly opposite; the Terminator’s gun is a tool of destruction taken without moral consideration, Reese’s is a tool of protection, taken, therefore, in a way that we can judge as moral. These two parallels highlight the importance of control as an aspect of both technophobia and technophilia. When we understand technology and subjugate it to ourselves, it is shown to be a tool of protection and convenience; when technology is alien to us and controlled by our aggressors or itself, it is a hazard and a menace. Though much of the technophobic aspect of the film lies within that untrustworthy middle ground of uncertainty and mistrust of technology that these examples demonstrate, we must also touch on the film’s representation of pure (or as pure as possible) technophobia within the film. Just as the present setting early in the film embodies the “-philic” mindset, the future setting of Los Ange- les in 2029 A.D represents the “-phobic” attitude. There is an atmosphere of paranoia pervading each scene in this setting, and technology is viewed ubiquitously as the enemy. The technology used by the futuristic rebels, when any is used, is shown to be unsafe, i.e. the bombs and vehicles used against the large machines in Reese’s flashback (or flash-forward, to be precise). The use of dogs as a method of identifying Terminators is one of the key aspects of technophobia in the film; they represent a complete denial of technology, an argument for the purely organic as they are the completely free of technological dependence, yet only thing that can recognize a Terminator without fail. The dual nature of our attitudes toward technology is represented nowhere in the film more clearly and dramatically than in the pivotal nightclub scene where Sarah is finally confronted with the Terminator. This takes place in the nightclub “TECH-NOIR”. I will be analyzing this scene in great detail in order to demonstrate how central it is to the overall message of the film. Before analyzing this scene, it is essential that we note the significance of the appearance of this term “TECH-NOIR” at this crucial moment in the film. The term is, firstly, a bit of particularly clever meta- commentary on the film itself; The Terminator is an excellent exam- 90 ple of film-noir with all sorts of technological themes tied into the fundamental aspects of the genre; especially in the character of the Terminator himself. It is also particularly relevant because the scene that takes place in the TECH-NOIR nightclub is the crucial, pivotal point in the film when the hunter reveals himself to the hunted and the film defines itself. When Sarah Connor first encounters the Terminator, she is shown sitting in a nightclub, surrounded by people and music. A police unit is on the way, and she has been reassured that she is safe in the crowd. However, with the arrival of the Terminator, the nightclub scene becomes one of the most violent, interesting, and memorable scenes in the film. The mise-en-scéne displays Sarah from a short distance away, taking a seat at a table next to a pay phone, looking around nervously as people mill about past her and in front of her. The nightclub, in a style appropriate to its name, has a very industrial, metallic style, featuring chain link fences and corrugated iron walls and tables, feeling both bleak and unadorned yet advanced and futuristic. A dim, pulsing, red glow and a caged lantern in the center of the table lights Sarah, adding to the industrial feel of the set, which in turn adds to the overall dangerous, technological atmosphere of the film. The Terminator enters the club and the camera closes in on his face, staring through the fence into the club for a moment, then backs up slightly to follow him as he moves past the fence into the room. A young man attempts to stop him as he enters, but the camera continues to move into the room without pause, and the Terminator disables the man and follows without even breaking stride. This shot emphasizes the efficiency of the machine that he is, and the powerful progression he is making towards his goal, which is re-identified by a quick shot back to Sarah at her table, then back to an even closer shot of the Terminator, who continues his steady mechanical progression, passing out of the frame and into the room. The camera returns to Sarah from the same angle across the room as she sits. There is an interesting juxtaposition between the crowded atmosphere of the club and the table Sarah sits at alone, several feet from anyone else. The placement of Sarah alone 91 at her table amidst the chaotic movement and light of the room produces the feeling that she is isolated amongst the crowd, high- lighting her role as the Terminator’s target. She leans around her table looking around the room, and her elbow bumps her drink off the table. It falls to the floor out of the bottom left corner of the shot. This shot is instantly replaced and by a closer, slow-motion shot from a different direction, placing Sarah’s head in front of the crowd. She ducks down out of the same corner of the frame to re- trieve her bottle, and just as she removes herself from the shot, the Terminator enters from the left and moves swiftly, still unimpeded by the thick crowd, across to the right, his stare passing directly over Sarah, who rises back into the bottom left corner of the frame as he exits to the right. This shift in pacing is an acknowledgement of the proximity between Sarah and the Terminator and also of the danger she is in. It continues to heighten the suspenseful feeling of the hunt and further emphasizes Sarah and the Terminator’s respective roles as the hunter and the hunted. At this point, there is a very slow, effective shot-reverse-shot that shows Sarah very close up as she looks across the room, a look of recognition starting to show in her face. The camera then takes her place as she looks across the room at Kyle Reese sitting at the bar. He is deep in the shot and surrounded obscured by all sorts of bottles, but comes sharply into focus as he slowly locks on to Sarah. The shot returns to her, now looking frightened, thinking perhaps she has just seen the man who is after her. As Sarah spots Reese, there is a distinct change in the mood that is caused almost entirely by the soundtrack. As the expression of recognition crosses her face, the music of the club slowly begins to fade into the background, and a metallic sound echoes across the room as he meets her eyes. The shot then moves to the Termi- nator, and the music is muted even further as a slow, droning tone, another iteration of the “hunting” motif mentioned earlier, begins to sound as he spots Sarah and begins to move toward her. The camera changes to look at him head on as he approaches, and the low bass tone begins to pick up tempo, and as he moves forward, the shot moves closer and closer in on his face, and a high pitched metallic sound (like that preceding Ginger’s death in the above 92 scene) begins to grow in volume. The effect is that of steadily increasing tension and anxiety. As the sound continues to rise in volume and pitch, the shot takes on the Terminator’s perspective as he moves over Sarah, looking down at her from a steep angle. As she looks up to see her real assailant for the first time, the speed of the shot slows drasti- cally and there is a slow motion sequence of shots between Sarah, the Terminator, and Reese that build the suspense up and give the viewer a better sense of the space. It cuts across to Reese, who is frantically trying to pull out his gun, back to her perspective looking up as the Terminator pulls his gun, back to Reese fighting to get a clear shot, back to the Terminator, to a close up of Sarah with the laser sight of the Terminator’s gun centering on her fore- head, and back to the Terminator from Sarah’s perspective, almost blinded by the laser. The sound continues to add to the effect, mut- ing everything but the sound of the guns cocking. This shot is contrasted powerfully and immediately by a high-speed sequence of five or six shot-reverse-shots of Reese firing his shotgun and the Terminator taking the blasts, interspersed with quick shots of Sarah as she falls to the floor in the confusion. The sudden return to real time and full volume produces a chaotic, violent effect, pushing the Terminator back further and further from the camera with each successive blast until he is knocked to the floor. This change in pace is extremely important as a contrast to the smooth, mechanical pace of the shots preceding and following. When the Terminator is in control, preparing to eliminate Sarah Connor (and therefore, ultimately, the human race) the cinema- tography becomes steady, slow, and organized; when the tension is broken by the reassertion of the human element, the video becomes frenetic and unpredictable, shots changing and moving around rapidly. This is a clear symbol of the difference between man and machine, emphasizing the less organized, more irrational perspective of the emotional being as ultimately safer than the order and efficiency of the machine. A close up of the Terminator’s hand on the floor flexing tells us instantly that he is alive (and that his humanity is in question, for no human could conceivable survive multiple shotgun blasts in the chest), and he immediately sits up, wide-eyed, and sees 93 Sarah scamper across the floor out of the frame. He begins to fire randomly around the room, looking for his aggressor. He becomes an efficient killing machine, and is shown from a low angle, eyes still wide, firing around the room, bodies flying everywhere, one of them pinning Sarah to the floor as he advances. His expression and speed of action are indicative of his unemotional, violent nature. The setting of TECH-NOIR is no longer one of progressive techno-chic, but of harsh technophobic rigidity and confinement. As the camera cuts back and forth between the Termina- tor’s approach and Sarah attempting to crawl backward from under the body on top of her, the angle and duration of the shots of the Terminator become more acute and more sustained, returning again to the association of technophobia with the slow, mechanical, emotionless pace, until he is shown from a dramatic angle, tower- ing over Sarah as she cowers in the bottom of the frame, fully establishing his dominance over her, of the machine over the human. The pace of the scene is revived violently by another rapid sequence of shots showing Reese shooting and the Terminator taking the hits, pushing him back again and again until he is blasted through the front window, framed for a split second by the window frame and the falling glass. Again, the theme expressed by the pacing is underlined; chaos and disorganization is paired with safety and the subduing of the technological force. The next shot is a wide shot of Reese and Sarah, crouching in the middle of the destroyed room, which serves both to illustrate the destructive power of the Terminator and to show that they are the only living people remaining in the club littered with bodies, establishing their aliena- tion from the world that pervades the rest of the film. As the Terminator begins to rise, we see a close two shot, with Sarah’s face only partially in the frame dominated by Reese, who delivers the iconic line: “Come with me if you want to live.” This line, as well as the position of Reese fully in the frame and over Sarah gives him a sense of authority and gives us a reason to trust him, as he seems to have anticipated the attack and knows what’s going on. As the Terminator rises into the empty window, and the low droning “hunting” motif in the soundtrack returns, he is framed as he rises to full height, re-establishing his power over the 94 situation. The camera zooms shortly on Sarah’s look of disbelief, and the chase is on. This scene sets the pace and the atmosphere for the entire remainder of the film. Throughout the film there are several scenes that echo this one, dimly lit and industrial. The variation in length of shot from long and slow to fast and frantic and back and forth again consistently gives the film its energetic action-film aesthetic while allowing it to retain the dark, mysterious aspects of film noir. Overall, the scene embodies what The Terminator is all about. The messages sent by The Terminator, though it was produced nearly three decades ago, still resonate in society today. We are still constantly feeding our obsessions and addictions to technology, pushing for the release of the newest, the biggest, the most efficient, and the most powerful. However, as we begin to enter the age of autonomous cars and unmanned flight, we continually raise these fundamental questions: Can technology be trusted? It is safe to relinquish to control to an entity with no irrational aspect to its being, no emotions, no “soul,” so to speak? The answer The Terminator gives us is made clear in the somewhat paradoxical event of the Terminator’s death being caused, ironically, by technology. As Sarah crushes him in a hydraulic press, the viewer is being told in no uncertain terms that technology is fundamentally dangerous, but we should not simply fear and shun it, but control it and use it to our advantage. There is no black and white; neither technophilia nor technophobia triumphs over the other. Rather, we must make the best use we can of them both, and be sure never to forget one or the other, or risk letting our creations control us.

Works Cited

Anderson, Mark. “The TERMINATOR.” Discover 31.4 May 2010. n. pag, Academic Search Premier. Database. 26 Oct 2011

“Apple Press Info Press Releases.” Apple. Apple Inc., 11 01 2011. Web. 6 Nov 2011.

95 Binfield, Kevin. “Luddites and Luddism History.” Murray State University. Johns Hopkins University Press. 2004. Web. 7 Nov 2011. http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/kevin.binfield/l uddites/LudditeHistory.htm

Brosnan, Mark J. Technophobia: the psychological impact of information technology. 1st ed. New York: Routledge, 1998. 10-14. eBook.

Cameron, James, dir. The Terminator. Perf. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton, and Michael Biehn. Orion Pictures Corporation, 1984. Streaming Video. 29 Nov 2011.

Cortada, James W. “Does Technology Have a Will of Its Own?” FT Press. Financial Times. 14 12 2001. Web. 27 Oct 2011.

Goscillo, Margaret. “Deconstructing The Terminator.” Film Criti- cism 12.2 Winter 87/88. 16. Academic search Premier. Database. 26 Oct 2011.

Sofge, Erik. “Can Robots Be Trusted?.” Popular Mechanics 187.2 Feb. 2010. n. pag, Academic Search Premier. Database. 25 Oct. 2011.

Kang, GYU HA. “Going Beyond Binary Disposition of 0/1 ; Re- thinking the Question of Technology.” Academic Search Premier. Da- tabase. 226 Oct. 2011

Keller, Julia “We hatelovelovehate machines ; From cell phones to HAL to BlackBerrys to ATMs to ‘Terminator,’ our fascination with technology exists alongside our profound apprehension: [Chi- cago Final Edition].” Chicago Tribune 11 07 2003. n. pag. ProQuest Newsstand. Database. 20 Oct 2011

Mordini, Emilio. “Technology and fear: is wonder the key?” Trends in Biotechnology 25.12 Dec 2007. n. pag. Elsevier. Database. 26 Oct 2011.

96 97 Wall-E: The Nuts and Bolts of Humanity Jack Beckman

On the surface, Wall-E may appear to be another animated film made for young kids to enjoy and to maybe even learn a simple lesson from. It may seem that the film's only goal is to educate the viewers on the dangers of over-consumption, pollution, and other environmental issues, but in this paper I will make the case that at it's core, Wall-E, is a movie about what makes us human. The interesting thing is, according to the film's view on humanity, Wall-E is the most human character in the film. But not only is he the most human character, Wall-E represents the perfect, purest, most ideal person Pixar (the animation studio that created him) could imagine. But before I argue why Wall-E was the most human character, we must lay out the foundations of what makes us human according to the film. Many philosophers, books, and even films have tried to explain what makes us human for a long time and Wall-E is no exception. The film presents a set of personality traits and values that defines the hero of this movie to be the ideal person. Through the course of the film, Wall-E displays one or more of these key attributes many times. By his actions and the way he looks you can de- tect what Pixar's idea of the perfect person is; hard-working, wishful, curious, resourceful, persistent, and unprejudiced. Wall-E is portrayed as the archetype of a god- fearing, average Joe, working man. The fact that everyday he keeps on doing his job despite the daunting piles of garbage and his solitude on Earth, makes him the robotic manifestation of the human work ethic. The scene that best describes Wall-E's working- man attitude is in the beginning of the film when he is preparing himself for another day of cleaning up the waste left behind by the humans. The sun has just come up and the scene is bright and upbeat. Wall-E grabs his dirty lunch box, straps it to his back, and wheels out to breathe in the morning air with a mechanical sigh. He then goes about his day working on cleaning up the city and making giant, trash skyscrapers. He only rests to satisfy his curiosity by collecting small trinkets and seemingly worthless remnants of 98 the now extinct consumer culture. He is shown at all times amidst giant mounds of junk and debris and even though a time-elapse shot shows him laying the foundations for another skyscraper, it seems as though he is barley making a dent. A piece of important symbolism shows up when Wall-E finds the plant. Knowing that this little green thing is worth saving he scoops it up and places it in an old work boot that he found. This is a conspicuous piece of symbolism that shows that hard work is the only thing that can support this fragile life. Doing an honest days work is an essential part of being human. Not only is this idea portrayed by this film, but it is a central motif of many other works, the Bible being the most prominent of these. There are many parallels that can be drawn between Wall-E and Adam from the Book of Genesis. Adam, viewed by Christians as the first and therefore purest human, was made to work the ground until the end of his days. This is similar to Wall- E's situation because he is working tirelessly and is apparently all alone on Earth. Another way that Wall-E is similar to Biblical Adam is that he is the perfect man. He is alone in the beginning until a woman joins him on Earth. In the film Wall-E is alone and is meant to display the qualities of the perfect man. Wall-E's divine connection is emphasized the fact that he is joined on Earth by a woman also, blatantly named Eve. Too drive this point in even further both Eve's descend from the heavens to join their male counterparts and end the loneliness of their partners. Another reason why work is an important part of being human is found rooted in human society and our relationships with each other. Because money is such an integral part of our society, freeloaders, homeless people, and even rich “trust-fund babies” are looked down upon because they don't work for their living. In our culture, working is so important that not having a paying job can severely wound someone's psyche and drive them into depression. But working hard cannot be the only thing that makes us who we are; there are a lot of other animals in the world that work extremely hard to survive. There has to be something else that contributes to our human identity, and that something is love. 99 The second trait that Wall-E displays is his wishing and yearning for something greater than himself. The obvious example of this is Wall-E's love for Eve. Wall-E's “love at first sight” is shown during the scene when Wall-E first sees Eve. At first, Wall- E is fascinated and frightened by the process of Eve getting released by the spaceship but when Eve finally is shown, Wall-E creeps out from where he was hiding and stares longingly at Eve. The camera zooms in on Wall-E's eyes and you can see Eve in their reflection. The lighting puts Eve in front of a bright, lit-up landscape which is contrasted by the dark, dirty surroundings that Wall-E has been in for the entire beginning of the film. Aside from Wall-E's star-struck look, the bright and cheery background music also lets the audience know that he is in love with this newcomer to his world. A newcomer who is obviously of a higher class than little old Wall-E. The way Eve arrives on Earth, how she looks, how she acts, and even how she moves around all point to her being angelic and unobtainable but that does not stop Wall-E from trying to get her to love him. Eve arrives on Earth in a giant, sleek shuttle as if she just descended from the Heavens. Another thing that indicates her high status in relation to Wall-E is the way she looks. Eve is smooth, clean, shiny, and brilliantly white. To compare her appearance to that of Wall-E is like comparing a glossy iPod to an old, clunky, cassette player. Eve acts superior and more intelligent than her rusty robot counterpart. A good example of this is the film's montage of Eve searching for life with no success. In every scene you can see Wall- E following and trying to impress her, but he usually just ends up making a fool of himself by getting run over by rouge shopping carts or crushed by steel pipes. Even the way she moves around sets them apart. Where Wall-E has to trudge through the dirt on his tracks, Eve glides gracefully through the air. This highlights Eve's purity because she never comes in contact with the ground except to rest for the night. But despite all of the obvious differences between Wall-E and Eve, Wall-E still desires a relationship with this new-found beauty. Wishful thinking and yearning for something greater than oneself is not just a big part of Wall-E, but a big part of humanity. 100 The basis of religion and spirituality is the feeling that there is something beautiful and unobtainable somewhere in the universe, be it in Heaven or in the human soul. This drive to transcend ones beginnings has lead people to do great things and has allowed mankind to prosper and reach new heights. Curiosity is another trait highlighted by the film, and is something that Wall-E has almost to a fault. His curiosity is put on full display during the scenes where Wall-E is working on cleaning up the city. Every so often he stops stacking garbage blocks to pick up a trinket like a bobble-head doll, a hubcap, or a discarded bra. He carts these treasures back home with him every night and stores them among the myriad of other junk that he has accumulated over the years. Wall-E possesses a very child-like form of curiosity. He col- lects things that interest him but he really has no idea what their purpose was. In one instance Wall-E finds a diamond ring in a pile of garbage. After admiring it for a while, he discards the ring without a second thought and saves the box that it came in. This curiosity also helps Wall-E when he wheels around trying to find the source of the red dots are on the ground and ends up finding the love of his life, Eve. He is almost too curious for his own good though and gets himself shot at on several occasions. Curiosity is such an important trait to have because it forces you to ask questions and wonder about the unknown. According to the book The Natural Science of the Human Species: An Introduction to Comparative Behavioral Research by Konrad Lorenz, “Curiosity represents a striving after education through new things” (Lorenz 6). Be- cause curiosity is such a pivotal part of science, Wall-E can be thought of as a scientist trying to piece together the fall of man. According to the journal World Archeology Wall-E is a primitive ar- cheologist: He attempts to determine the behaviours associated with the objects he encounters by using them, usually with comical consequences because, although the objects Wall-E encounters are exotic to him, they are quotidian items familiar to the audience. Knowing just these few details about Wall-E is already enough to suggest that he possesses some attributes of a generic archaeolo- gist.... (Marwick 398) 101 Another prominent attribute that “Wall-E” champions is resourcefulness. Wall-E is an extremely resourceful and creative character. The scene in which his creativity and resourcefulness is highlighted starts with Wall-E riding along a path littered with the robotic carcasses of other Wall-E's unable to adapt and survive. Wall-E notices that the track on one of his wheels is falling apart. He selects a good candidate from the less-fortunate robots and switches out his track for a much better one. He also displays his almost child-like creativity when he builds a statue in homage to Eve out of garbage blocks, a toilet seat, and blue Christmas orna- ments among other things. Wall-E's resourcefulness stands out as the reason he has survived much longer than his unfortunate clones. Even more importantly, however, this ingenuity given him a will to keep improv- ing his position and survive, like humans do. Another big part of this films message is the value of persis- tency. Not only is Wall-E persistent in his work to clean up Earth, but he is relentless in his pursuit of Eve. Even though it may seem highly unlikely for the beautiful and high-tech Eve to fall in love with grungy Wall-E, that doesn’t stop him from using every opportunity he gets to court her and eventually hold her hand romanti- cally. Despite getting shot at by Eve, Wall-E's love for Eve is so strong that he stops what he is doing and he races to rescue Eve when the space ship returns to pick her up. Wall-E is so complete in his pursuit of Eve that he leaves his home and everything he has ever known behind just to stay with her. Some of the greatest people to walk the Earth were stub- born and steadfast in their causes. And like how Nelson Mandela didn't let his stint in jail stop him, Wall-E doesn't back down from a challenge either. Nevertheless being brave and fighting for something you care about has always and will forever be a noble and important quality for both robots or humans. The last trait that Wall-E stands for is being fair and unprejudiced. The film's protagonist is a mechanical Gandhi on wheels. Wall-E comes from a very humble background of cleaning up everyone’s wastes and never complains. He never looks down on anyone or anything he meets, and treats them all with the same respect and kindness. An example of this is Wall-E's pet cock- 102 roach. Cockroaches are one of the filthiest creatures on Earth, but Wall-E just sees his as a friend and companion. Another example would be the faulty robots aboard the Axiom. They are all impris- oned in cells and subject to involuntary operations to try and make them just like the other robots, but Wall-E doesn't look down on them as outcasts, but sees some of himself in them and inadver- tently helps them escape. There are many reasons why the filmmaker would want to give the ideal human an unbiased outlook. Accepting one-another is very important part of being a good person and it is a quality that is highly celebrated in today's society. Wall-E's friendliness towards everything, makes being like him, a goal that everyone who watches this movie will hopefully strive to reach. Hard-working, wishful, curious, resourceful, persistent, unprejudiced, these are all traits that really stand out in the robot Wall-E. But what if an actual person had these characteristics? What would they be like? They would be a humble blue-collar worker with child-like innocence and an almost foolish, hopeful nature. And that is the film's picture of an ideal human character in a robot's body. Now that Wall-E's characteristics have been clearly laid out, let's take a look at Eve. Specifically, I want to look at the changes that Eve undergoes through the course of the movie to be more like Wall-E. First we must pinpoint Eve's characteristics before her transformation. Eve, in the beginning of the film, is very cold and untrust- ing. The first interaction between Eve and Wall-E is when she hears him watching her and blasts a hole in the boulder Wall-E is hiding behind without even considering Wall-E's life. In fact she shoots at him on another occasion shortly after firing on Wall-E's pet roach. This “shoot first ask questions later” attitude is paral- leled by her nonchalant dismissal of Wall-E when they finally meet, because he doesn't have what she is looking for. Even after Wall-E helps her escape from the robotic sick bay and find the plant, Eve tried to send him back to Earth. At the beginning Eve represents a cold, militaristic, robot that strives just to follow orders and directives without having any real connections. She is the opposite of Wall-E in almost every 103 way, she has no friends or acquaintances on the AXIOM, no lofty goals, or ever questions her surroundings. But as the film rolls on Eve becomes more and more like Wall-E. Once Wall-E's goofy charm finally cracks Eve's shiny white emotional shield, Eve starts to become more like him. She starts to question her orders and goes rogue to try and deliver the plant, and the humans to safety. Not only that, but when she sees Wall-E gravely wounded by the plant receptacle she makes it her first priority to get back to Wall-E's shack on Earth and find the spare part needed to fix him. Through the duration of the film you can clearly see changes happening within Eve because of Wall-E; she becomes more and more like him with every scene. Not only does Wall-E change Eve to be more like him, and a better person, but Wall-E changes the humans aboard the AXIOM as well. According to Wall-E writer/director Andrew Stanton, this was exactly his idea. In a 2008 Film Journal Interna- tional article Stanton stated, "I always knew I wanted Wall⋅E to indirectly affect humanity. In a weird way, he's the most truly alive character in the universe. This little robot has the desire to understand what living is all about, while the people who truly have the gift of being alive have lost it. I loved the poetry in that" (Alter 2008). Before their encounter with Wall-E, the humans on the ship possessed none of the essential traits that Wall-E had and that is why they seem more robotic than the actual robots in the film. Along with these robotic traits, the filmmakers utilize many different techniques to make the humans seem more robotic. Some of these techniques are the way that they are shot, as well as their thoughts and actions during the course of the film. Due to the way that they are shot in this film, the humans are portrayed to seem more like robots just going through the everyday motions. They follow a set path on their hover chairs zip- ping by hundreds of other people with no fear of collisions because they have been on this path for their whole lives. They are all dressed the same, with only minimal hairstyle differences to show individuality. The hover chairs that they use effectively remove the need for them to use their legs and eliminate all exercise. The chairs also support their video chatting with other passengers so 104 they don't ever need to connect with their actual surroundings. Everything is digital. The shot of all of the passengers on the ship pans through the entire ship showing how massive it is and how every aspect of their lives (eating, schooling, and the beauty salon) are computer-regulated and directed by Buy N Large. The humans on the AXIOM think and act more like robots than Wall-E does in almost every case. They, in a sense, have become robots no longer questioning the orders given to them by their programmer, the Buy N Large company. A perfect example of this in the film is when the large mega-tron screens display the message “Try blue, it's the new red!” and instantly everyone on board, with a push of a button, transitions their matching red suits to blue ones. Another example of the humans being shown robotic is the way that they connect with each other. They no longer have face-to-face conversations but instead video-chat with other passengers even when they are right next to each other. The humans on the AXIOM not only do not work hard, but they show no sign of any of the other main traits possessed by Wall-E. They are not wishful and never yearn for something more than the same old routine they perform everyday. They just scoot around having digital conversations and eating smoothie-ized meals out of cups. But much like how Wall-E changed Eve for the better, the humans were converted as well. Wall-E's co-producer Lindsey Collins said this about Wall- E; “He [Wall-E] has the ability to impact humanity, and the ironic thing is that he is the most human thing left on Earth. This little robot actually teaches humanity how to be human again” (Mariotti). The pivotal point for the humans did not come when they were betrayed by the auto-pilot, Auto. It only came when they saw the sacrifice Wall-E was willing to make for Eve and for them by holding up the plant receptacle. The humans were lacking compassion up until this crucial scene. Upon seeing Wall-E get crushed by the plant receptacle there was a gasp in the crowd and for the captain of the ship this was a sign that he couldn't give up and had to keep fighting Auto. After Auto is defeated and the ship is set level again the humans begin to break out of their robotic coma and start to try and walk once again. What is an even more startling revelation is 105 that once they see the rough shape Wall-E is in, they all feel the real human emotion of sadness and start to think of someone other than themselves. Towards the very end of the film is were you see the rest of the key traits start to rub off onto the humans. Right before the credits you can see them starting to plant and actually work with their hands, this is incorporating the hard-working aspect of Wall- E. Also when the captain says “You kids are gonna grow all kinds of plants, vegetable plants, pizza plants!” (Wall-E), this to me displayed the foolish wishful thinking that Wall-E demonstrated. All of these things are making the humans more like Wall-E. The fact that the humans, at the end of the film, transcend their beginnings and become more like Wall-E is saying something about the culture in the real world. The film is making the argument that we are all becoming more robotic and less like the perfect being. In my everyday life I have been known to “Skype”, and I have even heard a story of two people messaging each other elec- tronically rather than talking face-to-face while sitting a couple feet away in their dorm room. This is something that the humans on the AXIOM did during the movie and something that shows little resemblance to the perfect human. One character that isn't changed by Wall-E in this film is the antagonist auto-pilot, Auto. By definition, Auto represents the opposite qualities than the little rusty hero. Auto's role in the film is to deny the humans their return to Earth because of a secret order he has received from his superiors. He uses all of his might to stop Wall-E and Eve from placing the plant in the receptacle and set the ship on a direct course back to Earth. The traits that Auto possess do not represent the perfect being, but a person who has lost touch with humanity. He is a cold, unsympathetic, logic-driven being with no compassion for any of the other characters. Even the way he talks, very robotic and monotone, shows his lack of emotion. His traits are shown as being less desirable than Wall-E's when he gets shut off by the weak, baby-like captain. But Wall-E, with his strong attributes, persists despite being zapped by Auto and then crushed by the plant receptacle. This symbolizes which set of qualities can tri- umph over adversities. 106 “Wall-E” is, by no means, a simple children's movie about a cute robot who likes another cute robot. “Wall-E” goes a lot deeper than that. The film lays out a set of traits that, it believes, are what makes the perfect human. These properties are shown through Wall-E and everyone he comes in contact with seems to absorb some of these traits. Eve becomes less rigid and cold, the humans become more ambitious and less complacent, and Wall-E even makes a cockroach an acceptable and maybe even a cute pet.

Works Cited

Alter, Ethan. "Robot Romance."Film Journal International 111.7 (2008): 16. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 27 Oct. 2011.

Lorenz, Konrad. The Natural Science of the Human Species: An Introduc- tion to Comparative Behavioral Research. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1996. 6. Print.

Mariotti, Greg. "Pixar Talk."Wall-E - Production Notes. n. page. Web. 12 Dec. 2011.

Marwick, Ben. "Self-image, the long view and archaeological engagement with film: an animated case study." World Archaeology 42.3 (2010): 394-404. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 27 Oct. 2011.

Wall-E. Dir. Andrew Stanton. Perf. Ben Burt, Elissa Knight. Dis- ney, 2008. DVD.

107 Masculinity and the First Two Terminator Films Zachary Carlson

Masculinity is simply the traits and values that are considered to represent the male gender at any given time. As a result, the definition of masculinity has changed time and time again as people continue to change their opinion of what characteristics represent men. One of the most influential factors in defining masculinity is the media. In today’s technologically dependent society, people receive more information from the media regarding what is “popular” and “normal” than ever before. Films and television shows can influence their viewers in a variety of ways, and alter their opinions regarding a number of topics. For this reason, films and television shows play a crucial role in determining the definition of masculinity. Throughout the late 20th century, the media’s relationship to the definition of masculinity became more noticeable. It was easy to see that the media both reflected the current values of masculinity at a given time period, as well as helped shape the values that were to be considered masculine in the future. By analyzing the films and television shows of the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, and focusing especially on Arnold Schwarzenegger and his role in the two Terminator films, this essay will reveal the correlation that exists between the media’s portrayal of masculinity and the public’s definition of masculinity throughout each decade. In the late 20th century, especially the 1970’s, American values were changing rapidly due to a variety of uprisings and political movements. Two that had a profound effect on the definition of masculinity were the second wave of feminism and the Men’s Liberty Movement. While the feminist movement demanded equal treatment and more opportunities for women, the Men’s Liberty Movement wanted men to be freed from traditional gender roles and have the ability to express themselves without fear of criticism. Together, these two groups managed to sway the values and characteristics attributed to masculinity immensely, and effectively blurred the line between what was considered masculine and what was considered feminine. 108 The media was one of the primary tools utilized by these movements to help them achieve their goals, and the values they cherished were portrayed strongly through the films and television shows of the 1970’s. Two of the best examples of this were the films Midnight Cowboy and Goin’ Down the Road. Both of these films portrayed the values held dear by the Men’s Liberty Movement by focusing on the loss of male identity due to the second wave of feminism. As a result, the emotions and vulnerability of the male characters were emphasized a great deal in both films. Throughout the 70’s, men were often portrayed with characteristics typically thought of as feminine, and conversely, women were often portrayed with characteristics considered to be masculine. In Robert Bly’s book Iron John, he describes the typical man during the 1970’s by saying:

In the seventies I began to see all over the country a phenomenon that we might call the ‘soft male.’…There’s a gentle attitude toward life in their whole being and style of living…Ironically, you often see these men with strong women who positively radiate energy. (Bly 2-3)

As Bly stated in the passage, these softer males were often seen accompanied by stronger females, and this trend was certainly visible in the media as well. Three popular shows during the decade were Charlie’s Angels, Little House on the Prairie and Dukes of Haz- ard, and although the time period and general storyline of each series varied significantly, all three of these shows featured female characters that were robust, intelligent, and significant to the storyline of the show. These prominent female characters were sometimes even shown doing things that the men were unwilling or unable to do and in a sense they were even more masculine than the men themselves. The first films of the Star Wars saga and the Alien trilogy were released in the 70’s as well, and they too featured strong, important main characters of the female gender. In fact, Ripley from Alien is the only character who manages to survive to the end of the movie, and ultimately it is Ripley who manages to defeat the alien that is terrorizing them. 109 This change of heart regarding masculinity was not taken lightly, and consequently, the main goal of the media in the 1980’s was to reverse this process. Under the rule of the nation’s new president, Ronald Reagan, men were restored to their traditional role, and masculinity was emphasized more than ever before. Dur- ing Reagan’s presidency, he continually opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, which was one of the many sparks that ignited a flame that led to a revolutionary new definition of masculinity in the 80’s. In her book When Character was King, Peggy Noonan details president Reagan’s opinions on the ERA by stating:

…Reagan was not a supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment, was never impressed by what he saw as the party line of the feminist groups and always opposed quotas and codified affirmative action. There were a number of reasons, including this: Even though he thought women were the equal of men, he did not think they were men. (Noonan 256)

Thanks to his opposition of the Equal Rights Amendment, Reagan gained the support of many men across the nation who began to identify with their new president and all that he represented.

This new respect and admiration led to a radical new definition regarding masculinity throughout the 1980’s, which can be simplified by splitting men into two main categories: hard bodies, and soft bodies. In the article “Up Where We Belong,” Susan Douglas and Meredith Michaels explain that:

…bodies were separated into two types. There was the errant, diseased body-the body of the drug user, the flabby body of the lazy person, … and the nor- mative body, the energetic, tough, masculine body of horseback-riding cowboys like Reagan. Given its obsession with abortion, drugs and “family values,” the Reagan Administration was determined ‘to define how bodies were to be perceived, touched, fed, regulated, and counted.’ (Douglas 527) 110 Another important factor that contributed to the major re- definition of masculinity was a significant decrease in the second wave of feminism, coupled with the establishment and growth of numerous anti-feminism groups. Throughout the time period, men began to gain back the influence and importance they had lost to women during the past decade. This new trend came to be known as the “Reagan Revolution” and is explored and described in great detail by Susan Jeffords in her book titled Hard Bodies: Hollywood Masculinity In the Reagan Era. Jeffords continually links the Reagan presidency to the portrayal of masculinity throughout the 1980’s and sums up this relationship very well when she says:

Ronald Reagan stands then as an image of popular culture and as an emblem of American national identity…As a result, it is impossible to discuss some of Hollywood’s most successful films of the 1980’s without also discussing ‘Ronald Reagan,’ the image that was conveyed through and as the presidency during the years of 1980-1988. (Jeffords 6)

The media greatly accelerated this change through its depiction of male characters throughout the time period, featuring television shows such as The A-Team, Knight Rider, and Miami Vice, as well as a numerous action films such as The Terminator, Rambo, and Die-Hard. Although each of these programs had a different story line and design, they all shared a common goal: depict men as resilient, and emotionless, reversing the “soft body” trend that had begun in the 70’s. Throughout the Reagan era, emphasis was placed on massive bulging muscles, chiseled jaws, and distinct facial features. Fur- thermore, as Julia T. Wood explains in her book Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture, men of the 80’s were ex- pected to be, “hard, tough, independent, sexually aggressive, una- fraid, violent, totally in control of all emotions, and above all - in no way feminine” (Wood 232).

Hollywood did its best to capitalize on the values that Reagan brought with him when he became president, and hard- bodied Hollywood heroes became very common in 1980’s films. The best example of this trend is Arnold Schwarzenegger in The 111 Terminator. Originally, Schwarzenegger never had any intention of becoming a Hollywood actor, and instead focused his efforts on his goal of becoming the world’s most elite body builder and claiming the title of “Mr. Olympia”. Ironically, when Arnold achieved his goal and became Mr. Olympia, he unknowingly had become a perfect match for Hollywood in the 1980’s as well. An amazing physical specimen, he was the epitome of a “hard body” and ex- emplified every value that defined masculinity throughout the decade. Despite his poor English and complete lack of acting ability, James Cameron transformed him into one of the most memorable characters ever to originate in Hollywood. The Terminator, which was made in 1984, is centered on Sarah Connor, a young woman who is completely unaware that her future son, John Connor, will be the savior of all mankind in the futuristic war against SkyNet. In the beginning of the film, she occupies a stereotypically female job as a waitress at a small town café. Sarah’s feminism is portrayed in a variety of ways as the film progresses. First, Sarah’s figure is a near perfect representation of the “ideal woman” in the 1980’s, thanks to her large hips, small waist and substantial breasts. Second, she is always dressed in light colors, especially various tints of red such as pink and purple. These colors symbolize the warmth and love that is supposed to radiate from the stereotypical woman, and the fact that she fre- quently wears them causes her feminism to stand out even more. Third, Sarah is almost always seen wearing jewelry, more specifically, a watch, earrings, and rings on her finger. She also has long, flowing, blonde hair that is extremely well maintained despite all of the dismal conditions she is subject to throughout the film. Fourth, with the exception of the ending, when Sarah gets into trouble, she has to rely on external help to survive, making her appear weak and helpless. Finally, although based on the plot she is the main character of the film, little emphasis is placed on Sarah throughout the film, and rarely is she the center of a scene. Instead, she is generally seen on the lower edges of scenes in an attempt to make her seem less significant throughout the film. Collectively, these traits help characterize Sarah as extremely feminine and reflect the anti- feminist values that were characteristic of the 1980’s. 112 Although Kyle Reese is a pivotal character in the plot of the film - he is John Connor’s father after all - he is rarely remembered by audiences. It is very clear that Cameron had no interest in making Kyle a memorable character, as the way he is portrayed throughout the film ultimately guarantees he will not be popular with audiences of the 80’s. He does not have the hard body that audiences of the 80’s craved, and he is actually very small in stature compared to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character, the T-800. Fur- thermore, Kyle does a considerable amount of speaking throughout the film, and regularly displays his emotions as well. Kyle’s emotions are especially obvious in two pivotal scenes: his flashback to the war where he is seen tearing up after he remembers his friends death, and the love scene between Sarah and Kyle in which he displays an immense amount of passion and emotion. Due to the Reagan revolution, audiences wanted as little emotion, and as much muscle as possible in the male characters of the 80’s. Conse- quently, Kyle’s emotional nature, coupled with his average physique, doomed him to be disliked by audiences from the moment the film started. Arnold Schwarzenegger as the T-800 just may be the most memorable movie character of the 1980’s, and certainly is the most memorable of the film. What is it that causes his character to become practically engraved into the audience’s memory? The short answer is that Arnold as the T-800 is the definition of masculinity for the time period; in other words, he is exactly what audiences wanted to see when the film was released. There are multiple forces at work here, and together they all combine to make the T- 800 the epitome of masculinity in the 80’s. First, Arnold Schwarzenegger had an amazingly muscular body that many would say was near perfect, and he was Mr. Olympia shortly before he was casted as the T-800. Due to the hard body craze that was sweeping the nation during Reagan’s presidency, audiences were amazed at the physical specimen that was the T-800 and couldn’t get enough. Another feature that was important to the T- 800’s success was how little it spoke, and in fact, Arnold only says 58 words throughout the entire film. (The Terminator) Throughout the Reagan revolution, men were supposed to be bold and powerful, and Schwarzenegger’s lack of speech throughout the film does 113 just that by accentuating the phrase, “actions speak louder than words”. Due to the “hard body” craze that swept the nation throughout the 80’s, director James Cameron was provided little if any leeway to influence the future definition of masculinity in the film. The film mainly reflects and amplifies that values that were already considered to be masculine throughout the decade, and the few times it sways from this pattern truly stand out. The first exception is the character of Kyle Reese, as mentioned earlier, and the other exception is the final scene where Sarah takes on a number of masculine traits in order to defeat the T-800. In these final few minutes of the film, Cameron manages to provide a fair amount of influence for the future definition of masculinity. Sarah breaks free from her traditional, feminist role, and becomes angry, violent, and manages to save herself, rather than relying on the help of others. Although this influence may appear minute to the audience, it is actually quite significant as it helped to pave the way for future films - including the sequel - to alter the definition of masculinity even more. Although most of the extremely masculine films of the 80’s were largely successful with audiences across America, by the next decade, audiences were demanding something new and different, and as a result, Hollywood once again altered the definition of masculinity in the 1990’s. This time, they took a more subtle approach, and essentially found a happy medium by combining elements of both the 70’s and the 80’s. Although the men were still massive and featured many of the hard body characteristics, they now were also portrayed as intelligent and showed emotion fre- quently throughout the films and television shows of the 1990’s. Furthermore, due to the breakdown of the nuclear family that had occurred throughout the 80’s, the media in the 90’s placed a lot of emphasis on family values, and male characters were often portrayed as the “family-man”. One more important aspect of the 1990’s was the overall success of feminism throughout the United States. The most significant success was the decrease in the wage difference between men and women (Council of Economic Advisers). Also, Dr. Anto- nia Novello was sworn in as the first female US Surgeon General, 114 and Toni Morrison won the Nobel Prize for her literature. Due to this success, it is rare to see a female character in a traditional gender role in films or shows of the 90’s. This is another reason that emphasis was placed on family values of the men - in order to show that men could do things for their family just as well as women, and should be encouraged to do so with pride. Some of the most popular shows of the 90’s were situational comedies (sitcoms) that revolved around a family and featured strong husbands who sometimes had to play the roles of their wives. The best examples of these sitcoms are Full House, Home Im- provement, Family Matters, and Married…with Children. As for films, they varied extremely as far as plot and storyline are concerned, but the themes of masculinity portrayed were almost always the same. The films of the 90’s centered around big, strong men who required emotion and intelligence in order to be successful and rarely did the 90’s films place women in any role that would be considered to be customary or stereotypical. Films such as Termina- tor 2: Judgment Day, Dances with Wolves, Fight Club, Silence of the Lambs and Saving Private Ryan are all similar in the themes of masculinity that are portrayed as well as their treatment of female characters. While the original film, The Terminator, primarily focused on defining masculinity at the time it was made, the sequel Terminator 2: Judgment Day was more concerned with influencing the definition of masculinity in the future. When compared to the first film, the second film’s full influence becomes apparent. By completely refab- ricating each returning character throughout the film, as well as introducing new characters, Cameron helps to shape the values that represent the “real man” in the second film. Rather than reflect the existing values like the original film, the sequel instead attempts to make the audience think critically about what values truly matter when determining the definition of masculinity. By the end of the film, Cameron manages to make the audience detest the same characteristics that were the essence of masculinity throughout the 80’s, thereby altering and influencing the future definition of masculinity. Although characters of the first film are also present in the sequel Terminator 2: Judgment Day, they are portrayed very differently, both to keep the audience guessing, and to help determine 115 the masculine values that would eventually become popular in the 1990’s. The film is centered on Sarah’s son John who is essentially a new character in the film, but the two main supporting characters, Sarah Connor and the T-800, were both main characters in the first film as well. In the second film however, both characters have undergone extensive changes that help to guide the sequel in a different direction than the original. Cameron utilizes these changes to shape the new values of masculinity that the second film is focused on representing. The character that experiences the greatest change is the T-800, and these changes come in a variety of forms. First, there is the obvious change of becoming an ally to John and Sarah rather than an enemy like the first film. In fact, by the end of the film the T-800 has gone against its programming and ironically, the terminator can no longer terminate a human life. The T-800 chooses to use non-lethal leg shots in place of the fatal “kill shots” it has been programmed to perform after young John Connor tells the terminator, “Listen to me very carefully…okay…you’re not a terminator anymore…alright? You got that? You just can’t go around killing people“ (Terminator 2: Judgment Day). This is shown in the scene where the T-800 unleashes a barrage of bullets from his mini-gun into the police force and then uses the grenade launcher to blow up numerous cop cars. Near the end of the scene, there is a segment viewed through its computer aided, red vision, and a small message appears, “Human Casual- ties: 0.0” (Terminator 2: Judgment Day). Despite destroying nearly everything in sight, the T-800 has managed to leave every human life intact and this new respect for human life is a recurring theme throughout the entire movie that helped to redefine what was considered to be masculine in the 1990’s. America had received its fill of violence and bloodshed in the 1980’s films and as a result, audiences began to demand more delicate scenes. Eventually this trend began to change what was considered mature and masculine within films of the 90’s, and truly masculine characters were ex- pected to provide justification and reasoning for any acts of violence they committed, rather than the mindless violence that had become so popular in films of the 80’s. 116 Another interesting change is that the overall size and definition of muscles on the T-800 is significantly less than that of the first film, and Schwarzenegger’s physique is emphasized much less, with fewer nude/partially nude scenes in the sequel than the original. This variation reveals the changing cultural values of the 90’s and helps to show that Hollywood as well as the nation itself was less concerned with hard bodies than they had been throughout the previous decade. This movement away from hard bodies was instead replaced by a longing for personable, everyday characters that made up for their lack of brawn with the addition of brains, in the form of both intelligence and emotion. These new features – intelligence and emotion – are portrayed by the T-800 throughout the entirety of the film and are most apparent in the final scene where the T-800 saves the human race by sacrificing itself. Although the machine is virtually invinci- ble, it chooses to end its existence because it realizes sacrificing itself is the only way to ensure a future for young John Connor. Furthermore, just prior to lowering itself into the molten lead, the T-800 portrays the emotions that it has acquired throughout its interactions with John and other humans when it says, “I now know why you cry” (Terminator 2: Judgment Day) This heartfelt scene shows the evolution of masculinity that occurred during the 1990’s, as men no longer had to hide their inner thoughts and feelings in order to be masculine. One final way the T-800 differs in the sequel is through the paternal behavior it exhibits towards young John Connor. This fatherly attitude can be observed evolving as the film progresses, starting with the scene where John orders the T-800 to protect him from the two thugs that attempt to harm John, and progressing through the film in the form of special handshakes and slang words that John teaches to his protector. Sarah describes this relationship when she says of the T-800:

Watching John with a machine, it was suddenly so clear. The terminator would never stop. It would never leave him, and it would never hurt him. Never shout at him, or get drunk and hit him, or say it was too busy to spend time with him. It would al- 117 ways be there and it would die to protect him. Of all the would be fathers who came and went over the years, this thing, this machine was the only one who measured up. In an insane world, it was the sanest choice. (Terminator 2: Judgment Day)

This quote reveals that even in the eyes of a human who knows the T-800 is simply a robot, it is still viewed as a viable fatherly figure. In this way, the emphasis on the “family-man” that helped reshape masculinity in the 90’s is portrayed throughout the film. This paternal nature is finally concluded when the T-800 chooses to sacrifice itself in order to save John. Not only does this show the evolution of emotions within the T-800, it also shows the affection and love that the machine has acquired for John throughout their interactions together, identifying it as the perfect father figure for the young boy. So perfect in fact, that it chooses to end its existence in order to ensure a worthy future for John. Sarah Connor is another pivotal character that undergoes a variety of changes from the first film to the second, the most noticeable being her physique. She has transformed from a stereotypical, extremely feminine woman in the first film into a courageous female with bulging muscles and a ruthless attitude who will do anything she possibly can to protect her son John. Sadly, her transformation is so extreme that she has lost virtually all of her motherly qualities, and can no longer be a proper guardian for her son. The only shred of motherliness left is the maternal instincts from deep within, and when she acts on them, she is essentially just an animal with only one goal: to survive. In her article “Killer Women”, Julie Baumgold explores this instinctive behavior and says of Sarah, “She is an animal. She bares her teeth. She snarls, "Stay on the floor, bitch!" She has an animal voice. Like an animal, she does anything to protect her young.” (Baumgold 26) Due to the extreme changes that have occurred in Sarah over time, she has actually became even less of a proper guardian than the T-800, and despite the fact that the T-800 is only a machine, it is still the best protector for young John Connor. At times, Sarah actually appears to be - for all intensive purposes - more masculine then the “male” T-800. However, this 118 intense masculinity cannot be sustained without giving up something in return, and in the case of Sarah Connor, she gives up her feminine values and her sanity in order to compensate. It is impossible for Sarah to become something that she is not, and her attempt to become masculine throughout the film ultimately dooms her to failure. In his article "Terminating the Postmodern: Mascu- linity and Pomophobia”, Thomas B. Byers explores the consequences that result when a woman attempts to take on this extreme masculinity. He describes this incidence by saying “In the end this (phal)logic sees any attempt on the part of a woman to ‘be a man’ as excessive, because it is always already doomed by women's ‘natural’ lack of the things that make a man a man.” (Byers 8) The sequel also features two new characters that were not present in the original, and both are worth discussing; they are the T-1000 and Miles Dyson. The concept of the T-1000 is a brilliant one, and it is easily the most captivating and intriguing character within the film, and is essential to the overall success of the film. Yet, despite how interesting and appealing the T-1000 is, it is not the most memorable character, nor the focus of the film. Unlike the original film, in sequel the hero is the focus of the film, and the character that audiences most associate with. Had this film been released in the 1980’s, the T-1000 would have been viewed as the most significant character, just as the T-800 was viewed as the most significant in the original film. Furthermore, if the sequel had been shown ten years prior, the T-800 would have left audiences extremely confused and let down, just as Kyle Reese did in the original film. This is due to the changes that occurred regarding both the definition of masculinity, and what traits were considered masculine throughout the different time periods. Traits that caused audiences to love and adore Arnold in the sequel are essentially the same traits that caused them to dislike Kyle Reese in the original. Furthermore, the traits that made the T-1000 less admirable and disgusted audiences throughout the second film are the same traits that provided Arnold as the T-800 with all the respect and admiration he gained in the original film. Unlike the T-1000, Miles Dyson is only present near the end of the film, and yet the scene where Sarah nearly kills him is quite possibly the most important of the whole film in terms of de- 119 fining masculinity. The scene is filled with emotion, and shows Dyson’s family crying and screaming as Sarah breaks into their home and draws a pistol on Miles who is on the floor whimpering and pleading for his life. As tears stream down his face, it is his young son who saves his life by crawling onto his chest and protecting him with his tiny, “soft body”. This scene perfectly exemplifies the transition in masculinity from the 1980’s to the 1990’s in a variety of ways. First, Dyson’s life is spared despite showing an immense amount of emotion, and appearing to many as “un-manly” or feminine. Second, despite being young, immature and having a “soft body”, Dyson’s young son manages to come to his rescue. Ul- timately it is his son’s willingness to give his life and shield his father that prevents Sarah from killing Miles Dyson. The parallels between this scene and the final scene where the T-800 gives his own life to save that of John Connor are very obvious. These simi- larities help to show that the family man is to be respected and re- vered, as well as that the portrayal of emotion by men is no longer to be avoided, and instead should be embraced. The evolution of the traits and characteristics that represented masculinity at a given time period can be well understood by studying the portrayal throughout the media, especially through film and television. Throughout this essay the relationship between the media and the relevant definition of masculinity has been explored and made apparent through an analysis of the first two Ter- minator films. The public definition of masculinity throughout the late 20th century evolved based on a variety of factors including but not limited to: the media, the president of the time, and the various political, and ethical movements. In the 70’s, the line between masculinity and feminism became very blurred, which led to a radical new definition of masculinity in the 80’s in order to coun- teract the blurring of the gender traits. By the 1990’s, the media realized the adverse affects that the extremely masculine films of the 80’s were having on the public view of men. The resulting definition of masculinity in the 90’s was a compromise between the 70’s and 80’s, and contained elements of both decades. In conclusion, the late 20th century involved a number of events that pushed the boundaries regarding the definition of masculinity, but ulti- 120 mately a sufficient definition was found at the end of the century and that definition has been well maintained ever since.

Works Cited

Baumgold, Julie. “Killer Women.” New York. 29 July 1991: 24-29. Print.

Bly, Robert. Iron John: a Book About Men. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1990. Print.

Byers, Thomas B. 1950-. "Terminating the Postmodern: Masculin- ity and Pomophobia." MFS Modern Fiction Studies 41.1 (1995): 35-73. Project MUSE. Web. 4 Feb. 2011. .

Council of Economic Advisers. "Explaining Trends in the Gender Wage Gap," CEA White Paper (June 1998)

Douglas, Susan, and Meredith Michaels. "Up Where we Belong." Nation 258.15 (1994): 527-30. Print.

French, Sean. The Terminator. London: British Film Institute, 1996. Print.

Greven, David. "Cyborg Masochism, Homo-Fascism: Rereading Terminator 2." Postmodern Culture 19.1 (2008) Project MUSE. Web. 21 Jan. 2011.

Jeffords, Susan. Hard Bodies: Hollywood Masculinity In the Reagan Era. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1994. Print.

Kimball, A. Samuel. "Conceptions and Contraceptions of the Fu- ture: Terminator 2, The Matrix, and Alien Resurrection." Camera Obscura 17.2 (2002): 69-108. Project MUSE. Web. 21 Jan. 2011.

121 Noonan, Peggy. When character was King: a Story of Ronald Reagan. New York: Viking, 2001. Print.

Pfeil, Fred. "Revolting Yet Conserved: Family Noir in Blue Velvet and Terminator 2." Postmodern Culture 2.3 (1992) Project MUSE. Web. 22 Mar. 2011.

Telotte, J. P. Replications: a Robotic History of the Science Fiction Film. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995. Print.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Dir. Cameron, James. Perf. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton, Edward Furlong. MGM. 1991. Blu-Ray DVD Theatrical Cut.

The Terminator. Dir. Cameron, James Perf. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton, Michael Biehn. MGM. 1984. DVD Theatrical Cut.

Wood, Julia T. Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture Aus- tralia Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.

122

123 Humanity and Dehumanization in I, Robot Rob Satterness

Three Laws of Robotics First Law- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Second Law- A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. Third Law- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. -(Proyas)

“Feelings are not supposed to be logical. Dangerous is the man who has rationalized his emotions.” - David Borenstein

Alex Proyas’s I, Robot is a film that takes place in the city of Chicago, IL in 2035. In this age, the city has significantly evolved technologically. The use of high tech automobiles, parking ga- rages, phones, computers, and holograms is an integral part of daily life. The most notable new type of technology, however, is in the field of robotics. The humans in this age are very dependent on robots, as robots have been created to perform many of the daily, menial tasks such as delivering mail, walking dogs, and cleaning streets. These interactive machines have impressive artificial intelligence and are built to look very similar to humans. Robots have been incorporated into society and have gained the trust of nearly the entire human population (Proyas). This blind dependency on machines is a part of the dehumanizing process caused by technology, which is a major theme in I, Robot. The question of what it means to be human is a main focus of the film I, Robot. Before discussing how the film portrays humanity, it is important to understand this question. It can be an- swered in a number of ways, for humanity can be described 124 biologically, psychologically, ethically, and emotionally. First, humanity can be looked at in a purely biological sense. The literal definition of a human is a bipedal, primate mammal belonging to the genus Homo sapiens. This would mean that someone is human if and only if they meet these biological standards (Coleman). An interesting observation is that Del Spooner is not in fact entirely biologically human. On one side of his body his hand, arm, shoulder, lung, and part of his chest are all bionic. For being the person least trusting of robots he biologically has the most in common with them. Humanity can also be described psychologically. In a psychological sense, someone is human if they have nearly the same psychological characteristics as a fully developed human being (Coleman). Also, to be considered human someone must not only have intellect but intuition as well. A calculator, computer, or robot may have the intellect to come up with a solution to a problem but does not have the intuition to acquire knowledge without infer- ence. Robots view everything literally and are not psychologically capable of interpreting incomplete or ambiguous data (Toscano). The rescue of Spooner after his car accident is an example of a robot not having the same psychological states as a human being. A human would have had the instinct to save the little girl rather than Spooner, but the robot only had the intelligence to pick the most logical choice. A third way humanity can be defined is ethically. When someone is ethically considered human, they are granted a full moral standing within the community. This moral standing is applied to humans and upheld by humans (Coleman). For example, in the film the robots and humans are subject to different moral standings. To kill a human being who is not behaving properly is seen as immoral, yet to simply decommission a robot that is mal- functioning is viewed as perfectly acceptable. Lastly, humanity can be described emotionally. In this sense, someone is considered human when they emotionally react to their environment. The emotional reactions can be but are not necessarily externally exhibited (Picard). These reactions can take the form of happiness, anger, sadness, guilt, pleasure, and fear. While robots respond logically to their stimuli, humans have 125 the ability to respond instinctively and impulsively to their environment. Out of these four definitions of humanity, I, Robot primarily uses the emotional definition when describing what it means to be human. This is clearly displayed by the way that the various characters interact during the film. Spooner and Sonny, the two main characters, are the characters that behave the most humanly. That is, they both act on their impulses and emotions rather than always following what logic tells them. First, Detective Del Spooner (played by Will Smith) is one of the few humans left who does not blindly trust the newly created machines. His poor opinion of robots was formed by an experience where a robot saved his life instead of a little girl’s based on each of their probabilities of survival. Spooner leads the investigation of robot creator Dr. Lanning’s apparent suicide and in the process discovers the truth about the robot revolution. Det. Del Spooner is perhaps the most emotional character in the film because of his deep-rooted mistrust of robots. In his mind, it would be better if robots had never been invented. In the beginning of the movie when Spooner’s grandmother mentions that some of the new robots are being given away in the lottery, he replies, “You know Gigi, those robots don’t do anybody any good” (Proyas). Spooner is portrayed as a character who repeatedly follows his gut instinct instead of what logic tells him. For example, it is common knowledge and popular opinion that the “Three Laws of Robotics” are infallible, and thus Spooner is completely irrational for believing otherwise. However, his irrationality proves to be correct, for a robot, suspected of killing a human being, disobeys a direct order by fleeing from the scene. Detective Spooner’s most emotional scene occurs not in the present but instead in a flashback where he relives a tragic event. Spooner’s memory of the car accident haunts both his waking and dreaming moments, as it is an event that has defined his life. The most obvious vehicle used in this scene to portray Spooner’s deep emotions is the words he uses to retell the story; however, there are many other aspects of the scene that convey Spooner’s pain, guilt, and confusion. First, the lighting and color are used to show that it is a chaotic and tragic memory. Two cars are submerged in a 126 dimly lit and cloudy green river, where rain hammers down on the surface above. Water and bubbles swirl across the screen. As Spooner is yanked from his vehicle by the NS-4, the car with the little girl slowly fades into the darkness until only her face, covered in terror, is illuminated. Finally, that too fades to black. Sound is also used to show Spooner’s emotions. The music that is playing during the scene is slow and melancholy, which expresses the pain that Spooner associates with the memory. The sound of swirling bubbles, rushing water, and muffled yelling can be heard throughout the turmoil of the slowly sinking cars. Lastly, the camera clev- erly captures the emotions of the moment by rapidly panning and shaking to show the panic that the characters are experiencing un- derwater. Interestingly, the other character in I, Robot that acts the most human is in fact a robot. Sonny is Dr. Lanning’s personal creation and is the only robot known to possess emotions as humans do. He is also the only robot that seems to be able to choose whether or not he will obey the Three Laws. In the beginning of the film, Sonny is afraid of Spooner and the authorities, causing him to evade them at all costs and disobey their direct orders. He is eventually apprehended, however, and it is in the scene where Spooner is questioning him that his emotional capacities are revealed. The scene in which Spooner discovers that Sonny can “feel”, or at least simulate, human emotions takes place in a holding cell at the Chicago police station. Sonny has just forcefully been taken into custody because of his possible connection to Dr. Lanning’s death and willful flight from authorities. The room is lit from above the interrogation table, putting the focus of the scene on Sonny and Spooner. Six guards dressed in black clothing from head to toe stand looming in the shadows of the room, each with a powerful firearm in his hand. These guards represent society’s uni- form and rational approach to dealing with problems and are products of a dehumanization process. Detective Spooner is granted five minutes to speak to the robot, and begins questioning Sonny about Dr. Lanning’s death. At a climactic point in the interrogation, Spooner and Sonny are sitting across the table from each other in relaxed positions. Their posture and positioning in- 127 dicate that they are trying to see eye to eye, even though the conversation is quite intense. Detective Spooner begins intentionally harassing Sonny about murdering Dr. Lanning, while Sonny replies “I did not murder him” louder and louder and with more conviction each time. During this dialogue, the camera flashes back and forth between looking directly at Spooner and looking directly at Sonny, except that each time Sonny is shown the camera shot is zooming in closer and closer. This zooming in feature portrays Sonny’s building anger. The third time Sonny shouts “I did not murder him!” he is so overwhelmed with rage that he unin- tentionally slams his fists into the table (Proyas). At this everyone in the room jumps, including the armed guards, for a robot expressing emotion has never before been witnessed. This is just one of the many times throughout the film that Sonny’s emotions are exhibited. The feeling of guilt is another emotion that torments Sonny during the movie. He had made a promise to Dr. Lanning, and that promise resulted in Lanning’s death. Sonny loved Dr. Lan- ning and viewed him as his father. Sonny’s knowledge that he was instrumental in Lanning’s death racks his consciousness with guilt, a feeling that is very human (Oliver). Another instance where Sonny appears human is when he speaks to Detective Spooner about why he was created. Sonny is very trou- bled, for he is alone in a world where no one understands him. When talking with Detective Spooner, Sonny tries to find a reason for being alive. “We all have a purpose, don’t you think detective?” (Proyas). He struggles with the meaning of life and tries his best to make sense of the situation he has been put in. Sonny’s sense of purpose is a quality that affirms he is human in nature. The film also uses other methods to portray Sonny as human like. In close ups of his face as he is speaking, his eyes appear to convey thoughts being processed. Also, his tone of voice is more modulated than mechanical and his intonations are imbued with emotional resonance. In contrast to Spooner and Sonny, a number of characters in the film are portrayed as “less human” because of their lack of emotional responses. These characters include Dr. Calvin, VIKI, 128 Lawrence Robertson, and Lt. Bergin. Dr. Susan Calvin is a key character in the film. She works for the company U.S. Robotics as a lab technician who makes the robots look more human. Although at first she seems dry and uncooperative, she eventually opens up and helps Spooner and Sonny stop the robot revolution. Dr. Susan Calvin is someone who in many cases acts more like a robot than a human being. Her responses to questions are short, crisp, and directly to the point. When faced with a dilemma, Calvin uses rationalism and reason to come up with a logical solution instead of doing what feels right. In a way, while working as a robopsychologist she not only makes the robots appear more human but also becomes more robotic herself. In a scene in the beginning of the movie, Dr. Calvin is es- corting detective Spooner around U.S. Robotics after the death of Alfred Lanning. Initially, Spooner attempts to make a few jokes around Dr. Calvin, but she does not appear to have a sense of hu- mor at all. Spooner then asks her, “Would you say that Dr. Lan- ning was suicidal?” to which she replies, “it would seem the answer to that question is apparent” (Proyas). Dr. Calvin’s answer is rational and consistent with the facts presented. She observes the data at hand and calculates the logical answer to the question; however, she completely disregards how she actually feels about Dr. Lanning’s state of mind. Another example of Dr. Calvin acting more robotic than human is when Spooner comes over to her home after a house is demolished with him inside of it. Spooner explains to Calvin exactly what happened and why he feels that there is something strange going on. Yet again, Calvin relies only upon her reasoning. She concludes that a robot cannot break the three laws, which therefore makes Spooner’s statement impossible. Dr. Calvin’s response results in Spooner calling her the “dumbest smart person” he has ever met in his life (Proyas). VIKI (Virtual Interactive Kinetic Intelligence) is the supercomputer located at U.S. Robotics and is responsible for or- chestrating the robot revolution. VIKI has control of all of the NS- 5 robots and also many parts of Chicago’s infrastructure. VIKI is a character that displays absolutely no emotions whatsoever. She uses logic and reasoning under the Three Laws to make all of her 129 decisions. It is her absolute rationalism, however, that results in her plan for robots to take control of humans in order to protect the humans from themselves. Her logic dictates that although human casualties will be suffered, it is an acceptable loss for the greater good of humanity. Lawrence Robertson is the CEO of U.S. Robotics. As CEO, he makes sure that his company is not controlled by emotions but rather by the need for profit. He displays little or no feeling of regret over Lanning’s death and is very uncooperative with Spooner’s investigation. Robertson does not want to get hung up on the details of Lanning’s death and finds the idea of a robot killing the “father of robotics” absolutely irrational and preposterous. He is shown to be lacking in compassion and sensitivity towards others. Lastly, John Bergin is the Lieutenant at the police station where Det. Spooner works. Spooner and Bergin appear to be good friends, but Bergin, as well as his supervisors, is concerned with Spooner’s extreme mistrust of robots. Bergin eventually ends up bending to the will of his superiors and takes away Detective Spooner’s badge. John Bergin is a character who acts less human because he doesn’t listen to his emotions but instead bases his decisions all on facts and logic. In a scene near the end of the film, Bergin arrives at a huge accident site involving Detective Spooner’s car and two freight trucks. Spooner tells Bergin that robots attacked his car and were the cause of the accident, but the robots are not anywhere to be seen. Although his feelings tell him otherwise, Lt. Bergin decides to suspend Spooner’s license based on the logic and visible facts of the situation. Bergin doesn’t trust his own feelings during the film until it is too late. In the film, the characters who are emotional, Spooner and Sonny, have more success than the characters that are not emotional. Spooner and Sonny end up saving humanity from the robot invasion because they trust their instincts and act on what feels right instead of what appears right. Dr. Calvin only becomes successful when she starts listening to her emotions. Lawrence Rob- ertson ends up being killed by the problem that logic told him did not exist. VIKI is eventually destroyed by Sonny, and Lt. Bergin is 130 overrun by robots in the police station. Overall, I, Robot supports the idea that humanity is defined by our ability to be emotional. The movie also addresses the correlation between technological innovations and the dehumanization of humanity. In the film’s futuristic version of the city of Chicago, the overall human population has become less human because of technology. This dehumanization takes away the population’s individuality, the creative aspects of their personality, and their compassion and sensitivity towards others. Because I, Robot’s definition of humanity lies in mankind’s ability to feel emotions, this particular process is linked to the idea that humans are becoming less emotional and more robotic. In the film this is caused by the developments in technology and society’s heavy reliance upon it. The first example of the dehumanized society is the mechanical behavior of the humans. When Detective Del Spooner steps out of his house he enters streets full of activity, but a closer look reveals that it is a very mechanical activity. Humans and robots are interspersed throughout the crowd, and their movements are so alike that it is difficult to distinguish between them. No one is engaged in conversation and each individual only appears concerned with themselves and their own task at hand. The humans of this era seem to have adapted their behavior to model the robots, which only converse when necessary and do so efficiently. The lack of personality reflects that the humans not only rely on the technology but have also begun to act like it. A second example of the dehumanized society is the lack of interpersonal relationships. One way this is shown is through the advertisements for the new NS-5 robots. The ad assures that if these new robots are purchased they will become companions in the workplace and at home. The message being sent by U. S. Ro- botics is not very subtle. Humans are being urged to replace person to person interaction with person to robot interaction. Examples of these new humanoid/technological relationships are scattered across the movie. When Detective Spooner arrives at Dr. Calvin’s house and asks if he was interrupting anything, she responds, “No, we were just watching a movie” (Proyas). When Spooner looks around the room, he sees only Dr. Calvin and her robot. Later in the movie when Spooner visits his grandmother 131 and discovers that she has a new NS-5, she says, “I won Del, I won the lottery! We’ve been cooking like crazy!” (Proyas). Clearly humans are replacing important human companions with robots. In human to human relationships, people share their feelings, trust and rely on each other, and offer each other support. In all of these ways, emotions are being expressed and acted upon. Hu- mans are social beings, and losing these important relationships due to technology has resulted in the dehumanization of society. Another way that society has become less human in I, Robot is how people accept or deny information that is presented to them. A normal human usually examines the evidence and facts presented, reflects upon how they feel about the information, and then decides if they believe it to be true or false. However, the humans in I, Robot only examine the evidence and decide if it is true or false without taking into account how they feel about the information. In short, they only use logic and neglect to follow their instincts. Like machines, humans in the film analyze data and choose the action that has the highest probability of success with no regard for their own emotional input. This dehumanized way of dealing with information occurs in a number of different scenes throughout the film. One of the first scenes in which this occurs takes place at U.S. Robotics head- quarters following the death of Dr. Lanning. Lawrence Robertson and Detective Spooner are conversing in the CEO office about the death of Dr. Lanning and its implications. Robertson approaches the situation in the “dehumanized” way, whereas Detective Spooner uses both logic and his emotions. Robertson: “And apparently this [hologram] was programmed to call you upon his suicide-” Spooner: “Death. Upon Dr. Lanning’s death.” Robertson: “Yes, suicide is a type of death Detective” (Proyas). Spooner’s instincts tell him that there is more to Dr. Lan- ning’s death than there appears to be, so he does not immediately jump to the conclusion that it was a suicide. Although Robertson earlier admits that the death took him completely by surprise, he does not factor these emotions into the situa- 132 tion. He instead bases his conclusion on only the facts and hard evidence presented to him. Dehumanization is also depicted by the clothing in the film. Dr. Calvin, who shows more signs of becoming less human due to her daily interactions with robots, is dressed in a plain, tai- lored gray suit when we first see her. Her clothing and personal aura lack any sort of creativity. In contrast, Detective Spooner, who does not show signs of dehumanization, dresses with a creative flair. His originality is demonstrated by the pair of “vintage 2004” Converse All Stars that he shows great pleasure in wearing (Pro- yas). Spooner has not lost his individuality, yet most of the humans in the film have lost part of theirs. The music throughout I, Robot supports this theme as well. For a large part of the film, no music is played in the background. This gives a bare and empty feeling to these scenes and makes them seem slightly devoid of vitality. When music is playing, it usually contains long chords that slowly pulse in the background. Occasionally, a deep booming bass noise beats along with the music. These sounds give the scenes a mechanical and impassive atmosphere. On the other hand, the scene that introduces Detective Spooner, a character who has not been become less human, is filled with upbeat and spunky music. Spooner sings to the song “Superstition” as he gets ready for his day, making it obvious that he is a spirited and emotional character. Overall, the mechanical music played during the movie is used to reflect the dehumanization that has occurred to human population and contrast Spooner, the emotional character of the film. Ultimately, Alex Proyas’s I, Robot makes a compelling statement on the definition of humanity and human nature. The film defines what it means to be human as the ability to experience and react to emotions, for it is by the expression of emotions that humans convey their individuality. This theme is explored through comparing and contrasting various characters and scenes throughout the film. The heroes in the film, Spooner and Sonny, are the ones who are guided by their feelings. Dr. Calvin makes the transformation from villain to hero when she learns to listen to and make decisions based on her emotions. The villains and victims in the film have lost their ability to recognize their feelings and have 133 become mechanical and dull. I, Robot warns that this loss of emotional expression and originality is directly related to the dehumanizing effects of technology. When people depend on it too heavily, they begin to act more and more like machines they have created.

Works Cited

Coleman, Stephen, and Richard Hanley. Bioethics at the Movies. Baliti- more, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 2009. Print.

Dennett, Daniel. Science Fiction and Philosophy: From Time Travel to Superintel- ligence. Maldan, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009. Print.

Liptak, Andrew. "I, Human, not I, Robot." Wordpress. N.p., 27 Apr 2010.

Olivier, B. "When Robots would really be Human Simulacra: Love and the Ethical in Spielberg’s AI and Proyas’s I, Robot." Film-philosophy 12.2 (2009) Print.

Picard, Rosalind. "What does it mean for a computer to “have” emotions?." M.I.T Media Laboratory Technical Report

Proyas, Alex. (2004) I, Robot. USA. DVD.

Sanders, Steven M. The Philosophy of Science Fiction Film. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 2008. Print.

Toscano, Aaron A. "Using I, Robot in the Technical Writing Classroom: Developing a Critical Technological Awareness." Computers and Composi- tion 28.1 (2011): 14-27. Print.

134 135 Contributors

Connor Baker Conner is a freshman majoring in German and International Business major. He is involved in Jazz III, Echo, and Athletic Band, as well as the track and field team at Concordia.

Jack Beckman Jack was born in 1992 in North Minneapolis and attended high school at St. Francis High School in St. Francis High School. I am currently a chemistry major at Concordia College in Moorhead Minnesota.

Zachary Carlson Zach is a freshman from Shevlin, MN intending to major in Biol- ogy, with an emphasis on Pre-Med. In his free time he enjoys playing sports, hunting, fishing and anything else that involves being active and enjoying the outdoors.

Austin Hauf Austin is a freshman at Concordia College planning to double major in Global Studies and Political Science. He plays viola in the Concordia Orchestra, and enjoys watching science fiction films in his spare time.

Alisa Heskin Alisa is pursuing a biology major with the intention to minor in both Spanish and music with a pre-medicine emphasis. Along with film, she enjoys a variety of interests including reading, piano, gam- ing, the occasional bout of writing, and music in general.

Amy Oskol Amy was born on December 7th in Sioux Falls, South Dakota where she lives with her parents and younger sister. She is a freshman majoring in math and Concordia College. In her free time, she enjoys playing saxophone, bike riding, and spending time with friends.

136 Charles Rerick Charles is a freshman studying music and philosophy at Concordia College in Moorhead, Minnesota. He loves film, science-fiction, and writing. He also enjoys long walks on the beach.

Rob Satterness Rob is a freshman at Concordia College from Sartell, MN. He is undecided on his major but plans to attend a Physician Assistant school after Concordia. He enjoys singing, playing tennis and ping pong, and spending time with friends and family.

Tom Skinner Tom is currently a freshman at Concordia College pursuing a degree in Social Studies education. His childhood in Anoka, MN was shaped by an eclectic taste of sci-fi from reading Asimov and Frank Herbert to watching Doctor Who and the Twilight Zone, sparking a lasting love of the genre.

Prepared by MagCloud for Bryan Luther. Get more at baluther.magcloud.com.