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 an- thology 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 2 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 re- place 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 per- fect 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 tech- nology, and this notion is partially true. However, one should not be so quick to condemn the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park. The pub- lic’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 dino- saur. 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 embodi- ment 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 com- plex scientific questions with simplistic and rash answers. Take for example the error in filling in the dinosaur’s missing DNA se- quence 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 biol- ogy by business pushes scientists to engage in ill-considered re- search, 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 scien- tists 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 dis- cussed 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 im- plies the priority of theme parks are to make money. Another ex- ample 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 per- spective. 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 dino- saur 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.