Oops Totally Forgot About Moon

While original in its portrayal of how the cloning process works, Moon can attribute some of its characteristic from the last few Sci-Fi films we have seen. For example, in some parts of the film, there is classic music that is played. I noticed that the musical was played during a montage of either the station, Moon, or the Earth. This can be associated with 2001: A Space Oddessey because of the musical montages used. What could also be taken from 2001 is the robotic instrument of GERTY and HAL. Both are robots connected to the computer components of the station and spacecraft, respectively. However, this is where Moon deviates from the Sci-Fi convention that we have become used to. From Brazil and Blade Runner is Moon's indistinguishable place in time. We don't know how the technical advancement of Earth is because we never see it. We can assume that technical advancement has taken place because of the evidence with clones/replicants - an idea taken from Blade Runner. In addition to that, Moon also takes the idea of implanting memories into the clones and also giving them a life span of three years (four in Blade Runner) Thematically, Moon takes elements from The Day the Earth Stood Still, Brazil, and Blade Runner. The culminating factor is the question posed by all four movies; What is human/ What makes us human? The clones of Sam Bell appear to have emotions and are relatively human-like until it is revealed to the viewer, and to the clone itself.

Moon did have natural conventions of its own, for example, the influence of emotion, not seen in 2001. In contrast to HAL, GERTY is much more apathetic to Sam, rather, the clones of Sam. The bond between the two of them is much stronger than what is seen in 2001. I think this is what surprised us as the viewers, is the depth of interaction between GERTY and Sam, how in various situations, the robot is seen crying or smiling by its little emoticon image. Another element was when it helped Sam hack into the computer system and how it stated that it serves to help Sam, not the people up at mission control, with whom we would normally associate as having power over the robot.

Question #4

The movie "Moon" gave a very gloomy and negative view of the future. One that many of us would most likely not want to live in. This gloomy and negative view is also shared in other films we studied such as "Things to Come." In fact, surprisingly this movie had many things that seem to be derived from other films we viewed. For example the clones seemed as if they were straight out of "Primer" and the over-ruling body was reminiscent of the film "Brazil." We will never know if these similarities were intentional, or maybe they are just things that many sic-fi films contain.

What "Moon" does though that most science fiction films do not do is that it made no effort at all to romanticize the future, not even in the slightest ways. Even in movies like "Blade Runner" there were gadgets and gizmos that seemed were worth having, but in "Moon", nothing of the sort. Just and empty, lonely, gloomy out take of what the future holds. The reason this movie can provoke audiences is the message it is trying to convey, but that is another story for another day.

The film that moon most obviously draws inspiration from is 2001: A Space Odyssey.  Throughout the film, Sam  struggles with things that are greater than him.  Lunar industries and Gerty is akin to HAL in 2001, knowing and controlling factors that are unbeknownst to the humans under supervision.  The struggle here, however, is not just between man and machine, but between corporation and man.  The corporations here use machine to cheaply gain labor, and to trick their clone subjects into working themselves to death.  Another film where a very similar premise is used is in Blade Runner. There is the same struggle between a replicant that is so similar to a human that it believes it is, and the entity in charge of destroying them.  The ingernuity used to create their human tendencies creates the same ethical dilemma as in Moon: Just because something thinks it is real, should it be treated like it is?  Lastly, the film deals with similar issues of confusion as in Primer.  (The) Sam(s) never have a full grasp on what is happening or has already happened, leading him to act without a full knowledge of prior events, just as the characters in Primer. Moon is different than these other films, specifically 2001 because of the true human element of humanness in Gerty, the computer. Gerty is open to reason, and even susceptible to trickery, just like a human, while the machines in the other films, are not.

Moon's connection to the other sci fi films

how is this embody thematic and cinematic qualities from some (three) of the previous sci films we've seen and discussed.  You can talk about Things to Come, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Oddessey, Brazil, Blade Runner, and Primer.  What does Moon inherit from these films?

Connections to Blade Runner: 
Blade Runner and Moon seemed very similar to me-- both stylistically and thematically. There was an element of symbolism that they had throughout the film in the smiley face placed on Gerty and the strange clothing that the main character wears. This reminded me of the strange outfits of the replicants in blade runner. Thematically, the question of the new technology being ethical comes into play in both films. The main character is cloned and the clone realizes they are not real and the memories have been "copied" from the real Sam.  This is very similar to the copied memories of the replicant Rachel. 


Connections to 2001: a Space Odyssey: 
Moon and 2001: a Space Odyssey  are both about men who live away from the earth and live in space with robots as helpers. Plot-wise the story is very similar and at the beginning Moon borrows small details from 2001, such as the video chat with the daughter back home, and the classical music in the background during a space journey. The space station is very similar to the one in 2001, and a few of the scenes are similar: such as the one of Sam running on the tredmill. 

Connections to Primer:
This film connects to Primer in that the plot gets very complex towards the end. The multiple copies of Sam are similar to the multiple versions of the characters in Primer who have traveled in time. Also reminiscent is the degradation of the main characters despite a sense of stillness in time. In Moon it is very surprising when we hear that 15 years have gone by. Sam however does look older and older towards the end of the film. In Primer, similarly, the characters begin to lose their ability to write and seem to be deteriorating towards the ending for instance when Aaron wears the sweatshirt and sweatpants it's a noticeable difference to the suit he always used to be wearing. 

Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon

One of the first things I noticed in moon was the robot-computer (whose name eludes me at the moment) because it reminded me of the one from 2001.  I remembered the commentary that said that the computer in 2001 was "the most human" or something like that, and I thought that this was reflected in Moon as well, when the computer would do things for Sam even if it went against orders.  The facial expression emoticons were a nice touch though.

Most of the setting inside the Moon base looked pretty sleek and modern, but there were elements of it that reminded me of Brazil; specifically those giant truck things that Sam gets hit by and the computer that he finally uses to contact earth.  They had the heavy, industrial look and feel that was very present in Brazil.

Thematically, I thought that it followed the majority of the other movies very well.  Some technology is  invented or changed to make the world better and- surprise - something goes wrong.  I say the majority because I also wanted to say that it took place in the future, but as far as I'm aware Primer didn't so I can't say that for all of the films that we watched.  I noticed the least amount of similarities between this film and Primer out of all of the science fiction films that we watched, which is slightly interesting because I believe they were both independent movies.

The thing that surprised me the the most about Moon is that it actually had a somewhat satisfying ending.  I know that some people are going to disagree with me on this one, but I never actually expected him to make it to earth.  By the sounds of the reports at the end of the movie, he makes it.  Nothing is really solved, but I really thought that he wasn't going to reach his destination, which happens in a lot of science fiction movies (like Brazil).

Question 4

Moon is has a similar theme with Brazil which deals with complete control by a central authority, and the protagonist trying to escape it. In Moon, Sam's life has been planned out for years, with him being killed after three years of service, and a new clone being brought to life. This systematic lifestyle is also shown in Brazil through the paperwork that has to be completed for every action, and people only able to do what they are specifically assigned to do. The biggest differentiation between these two films is (possibly) in their endings. In Brazil, Sam Lowry is able to escape the control of the central authority through his imagination, and we are made to think that Sam has successfully escaped at the end, but it is soon revealed that this too is merely a delusion. Sam is not physically able to escape from the cylindrical room, but mentally, Sam is able to escape from the central authorities, so it is hard to say whether he was able to "escape" control. The difference with Moon is that Sam Bell is able to physically escape from the mining base at the end of the movie. However, the ending is fairly open ended, and the audience is not told whether he reaches Earth, and what happens after he reaches our planet, and there are also thousands of other Sam Bell's stuck in the mining base left to continue the three year cycle.
Moon and Blade Runner both play with the concept of memory. The Sam's have implanted memories from the original Sam Bell as a way to incentivize the clones to work the three years. Sam has a family to look forward to at the three years, and is what helps him to get through loneliness and boredom until he is ultimately killed at the end of his service. On the other hand, memory is used as a way to differentiate between Replicants and humans in Blade Runner. Replicants are identical to humans except in their increased agility and strength, and the fact that they don't have memories past a certain point in time. In Moon, Sam is able to figure out that they are probably clones since they look the same, and also have exactly the same memories. I found it interesting that memory is used as the differentiating factor for both of these films. 

The romantic sci-fi film Moon has a lot in common with its predecessors, most notably Primer, Blade Runner, and 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Moon and Primer shared an important concept necessary for a “good” sci-fi film--futuristic technology that is grounded in real-world concepts and sciences. By doing this, a film creates a world its audience can understand and therefore relate to. In Moon, much of the technology--from the lunar base to the harvester--was created with input from NASA to ensure accuracy. For example, Jones explains that the astronauts built the base using a material dug out of the moon itself, to save costs. He also discusses how the symptoms affecting the old Sam clone--the headaches, bleeding, pale complexion, dizziness, and fevers--are often caused by acute radiation poisoning, which would be a practical and assured way for the He3 harvesting company to gradually kill the clones. Similarly, the time machine featured in Primer was built with an understanding of the principles of gravity and the Meissner effect, which deals with magnetic fields and superconductors. The characters spoke in technical jargon used by working scientist, further emphasizing the potential reality of the situation. Shane Carruth, the director, was a math major and engineer before becoming a film director, enabling him to develop these more complex ideas. Though these films differ in that the technology in Moon is more easily understood by the common man, while the explanation of the technology in Primer is really only appropriate for those with a math/science background, the connection both these films make to real-world concepts is crucial to the success of the film.

Thematically, both films deal with the breakdown of a relationship. In Moon, that relationship is between Sam and...himself. It explores what it would be like to meet a younger, less knowledgeable version of yourself, and whether you would actually like yourself as a person--in Sam’s case, he struggles greatly with both areas, though eventually finds peace with himself. In Primer, the relationship is between Aaron and Abe, two young colleagues with very different ideas about the use and implications of a time travel machine. They start off the film as companions, as equals, but end as acquaintances who want nothing to do with the other.

Moon also has a lot in common with Blade Runner, thematically, as both deal with the ethics of human cloning. In Blade Runner, the audience immediately learns that human replication has backfired, as the “Blade Runner” is a man hired to eliminate them. Through this plot, the filmmaker is warning us about the dangers of messing with genetic engineering. Though Moon is less obviously opposed to cloning, the suffering each clone endures as he longs for a home he will never reach is enough to suggest that the cloning is wrong, even though it’s only ruining one life. Both films remind us that while technological advancement can mean positive progress, the sacrifices people make are often too great.

Cinematically, Moon and 2001: A Space Odyssey are similar, specifically in the way they created the worlds of the film. Both films make use of extensive modelwork, (though obviously, CGI wasn’t really available to Kubrick).  Jones explains how “there’s a depth to the look that you get with models that you just can’t get with CGI...it’s about the detail that you just wouldn’t think to put in”. The robot-characters in both films are also quite similar, speaking to the main character as a human-like friend. The robots also wield more power than their human “owners”--GERTY refuses to let Sam outside and communicates with Earth via live feed (which Sam can’t do), and Hal prevents Frank from reentering the satellite. One more cinematic similarity the two share is the way they underscore scenes shot in space with classical music, which creates an interesting juxtaposition between the past and future.

One surprising feature of Moon is, as explained earlier, its use of modelwork over CGI. This makes it different from most of the sci-fi films on the market today, whose over-reliance on CGI techniques sacrifices an honesty, a believability, that lends Moon such a nostalgic, sympathetic feel.

Moon themes

The film that I link most closely to Moon is 2001: A Space Odyssey.  To me the link is more than the fact that both are set in space. Moon very much builds off many of the themes introduced in 2001.  Firstly, the idea of technology progressing so far that it becomes an isolating agent.  In each film, very little communication happens between characters (until in Moon Sam meets his clone). In both films, most of the dialogue happens between humans and supercomputers (HAL in 2001 and GERTY in Moon). In both films, the supercomputers are highly developed characters.  One major difference between the two films is that one supercomputer, HAL, attempts to thwart the human astronauts, Dave and Frank's mission while the other supercomputer, GERTY, actually helps Sam escape back to Earth. Though the supercomputers take drastically different actions, both do so on order to stay true to the orders that they have been given.  In doing so, the supercomputers actually exhibit human qualities.  Both films raise the questions, is that the way that our society is headed and if so, is that a good thing? One difference I saw between 2001 and Moon that actually puts Moon much more in the realm of Blade Runner is that Moon has a very prevalent ethical question that the film asks of its viewers.  In Blade Runner, this question is, what does it mean to be a human being?  In Moon, this question is what does it mean to be a clone and do you have the same rights as the human you are a clone of?

Questioning Moon Post

Like many of the other sic-fi films we have watched this unit, Moon initially started off slowly with little action. The first connection I made in Moon was the similarity between Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey and Gerty in this film. The two films explore what it means to be human, a common genre theme, but they do so differently through these two characters. Both of the computers have genuine human-like characteristics, but while Hal ultimately acts as a force of evil, Gerty has Sam's best interests at heart and proves to be an entirely emotional character. It is possible that Jones took 2001's quasi computer-human character and added more humanity to it in creating Gerty, something that made Moon more than just an average sic-fi film.
Another apparent connection is the one between Brazil and Moon. Both films deal with an overbearing, secretive, and all-powerful government, one that hides information from its citizens. In Brazil, Sam (the Brazil Sam) is not able to escape this government; it ultimately drives him mad and the audience is left feeling disappointed as we stare at his spaced-out smile once it is revealed that the happy ending is playing out only in his head. In Moon, however, Sam does achieve this happy ending as he his able to make it back to Earth and experience the life that the original Sam once lived. Moon Sam is able to escape the repressive government and find peace with his humanity; Brazil Sam cannot escape the government that he himself was a part of. While the two films differ in thematic content, they share similar set design in that both sets are very realistic looking and appear to be shot in a studio. In both films, it appears that full-scale sets were used, making films that otherwise would be unrealistic look realistic to the viewer.
One connection I made between Moon and Primer was the music. I do not know if the same music was used or if it was composed by the same artist, but both soundtracks are capable of being happy, sad, sentimental, and thoughtful all at the same time. Because the music had so many different tones depending on the context, it was able to mirror the complex emotions the characters felt as there appeared to be multiple of themselves (a thematic similarity between the two films). When the characters in both Moon and Primer found and utilized their doubles, they were confused, excited, and inventive about what to do next. The characters in Primer, or at least Aaron, used his double to go to the future and pass on the events of what would happen with their time machine technology to the Aaron in the past. In Moon, the younger Sam also goes back (not to the past, but back to Earth) with knowledge about what is really going on in the company and with intentions of passing that information on. Moon inherits from Primer the idea of not only having multiple versions of one person, but using the information one of those versions holds to better the lives of all of the versions. Both films portray this as a selfless and brave act, although it is interesting to think about how selfless it really is if you are doing it to benefit another version of yourself.
I think that Moon surprises the audience because it really gets at the root of "what makes us human" much more directly than many other sci-fi films. The first Sam we see is actually a clone of the original Sam, as is the second Sam that is activated once the first Sam gets into an accident. Both of these characters are technically not human, but they are derived from a human, so on the human to not human scale, how human are they? Gerty is definitely not human, but he has emotions and looks out for the best interests of the Sams, especially when he reboots himself to erase his memory, so do emotions make him partly human? I believe that Jones is suggesting that human is not a physical attribute, but an emotional one; all of the Sam clones and Gerty are human because they are capable of caring for another person and having tangible emotions. In this same way, Jones portrays the men who work at the company as inhuman; they secretly clone their own employees without telling them and refuse to acknowledge that these actions are morally wrong. Moon is different from other sic-fi films in that it sets up the non-human characters as the most characteristically human while depicting the fully human characters as devoid of human emotion or any level of sympathy. 

Ima Moon ya

          The most obvious connections from moon can be drawn to 2001 and Blade Runner. Hal and GERTY are robotically identical, but their purpose in the film does vary a teensy bit. In 2001, Hal is there largely to contrast with the humans on board the ship, Hal being the most human of all the crew members. Once again, GERTY is a very human-like robot in that he seems to genuinely care about Sam. What makes moon interesting is not the contrast between GERTY and Sam but rather the comparisons. Both are technically "programmed" and yet they both have rather human characteristics, furthering the discussion on what is human and does Sam still count even though he is technically a scientific creation. That conveniently leads into  a comparison to Blade Runner, and how similar the Replicants are quite similar to the Sam clones. Both the clones and Replicants are used for labor but are given human emotions and thoughts. This leads back to the reoccurring theme of "if it feels and acts like a human, is it a human? and if not what is human?" And once again the answer is left up for the audience to decide. Things to Come also plays a part with the background of Earth. Both movies take place in the future of when the movie itself was released and play into realistic scenarios of how the future could end up. While Things to Come uses that as the plot for the entire movie, Moon simply uses the background information that humans mess things up and that is why Sam is on the moon. It still makes the movie feel more genuine because it does seem like a believably crappy future we will probably have.
        What I thought was different and what made the film unique was the ending. With films that deal with "what is human" themes it is often left with nothing really changing. In Blade Runner the audience is left to understand that the main character was a Replicant and now he is going off to live out what is left of his "life", but nothing really changes in the world he is in. With Moon, the audience is left with those news sound bits that make it seem like the Sam clone is going to, somehow, change the future. It seems like he is spreading awareness of what is happening and that might lead to people rising up and seeing what the company is doing as inhumane. It is left open ended but a bit more satisfying than other sci-fi movies that deal with similar themes.

Drawing Influences From Other Sci-Fi

              In The film Moon seems quite heavy with themes inspired by previous science fiction films. There were two specific elements of the film which seemed to be inspired by previous science fiction efforts that we have viewed in class, and they both deal with the theme of humanity. First, the robot that helps Sam seems to be inspired by HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Second, the clones, combined with their limited lifespans, are reminiscent of the Replicants in Blade Runner.

            These are things we’ve seen before. The general ideas of the clones and the computer are familiar to us. What is different is how they’re handled in the film Moon. In the other films, both the computer and the clones, which aren’t really people in the most traditional sense, are shown to be the antagonists for the majority of the film. They are established as different from the main characters in each of the other films. However, in Moon, they are the norm. Although, for example, we don’t know that Sam in a clone at the beginning of the film, it doesn’t change our opinion of him once we find out: his character has already been established. It’s the same way for the computer; he isn’t as much of an antagonist as HAL was. Although there are scenes that suggest he may be conspiring to some extent, we also see him help Sam throughout the film.

            I guess what I’m trying to say is that, while Moon has types of characters we’ve seen before; they are shown in a different light. This lets us consider the events of the film from their point of view. What the lead replicant in Blade Runner considers at the end of the film could easily be how Sam feels in this film – we just feel differently about it because the film shows things from Sam’s point of view.

            Lastly, in contrast to some of the other films we’ve seen, Moon doesn’t seem to be trying to be a spectacle. 2001, Things to Come, and Blade Runner, to an extent, put a lot of time into showing off their respective visions of the future. Moon, apart from obviously taking place on the moon, didn’t really have these huge spectacle effects or set pieces. I think that this was probably done to put the focus on the characters, but it also could’ve been a product of limited financial resources.

Question 4 - Gabriel Rodriguez-Fuller

Many connections can be drawn between Moon and the the films we have viewed previously in this class. Whether these connections are based on inspiration, homage, or indirect influence is truly only known by Duncan Jones and perhaps Nathan Parker, the screenwriter. But regardless, Moon is clearly tied to the canon of sci-fi cinema in numerous ways. It provides a realistic and arguably pessimistic view of the future just as Things To Come did. The false promise of the "rescue squad" and the overriding influence of a ruling body (public or private) feel closely tied to Brazil and 1984, which inspired it. The dynamic between the clones feels similar to the dynamic between different versions of single characters in Primer, although in Moon the second version of Sam gives us an idea of how bitter and angry Sam was when he first arrived (his wife says "we needed some time apart" or something of the like), thereby hinting at a gradual weakening into the gentle and tired version we first see, whereas in Primer the second version is a glimpse into the future, where the protagonist has become wiser. At the very end of Moon, the snippets of radio banter about Sam's arrival on earth hearken back to the public unrest in The Day The Earth Stood Still about the "space man" on the loose. Above all of these connections, Moon seems vitally inspired by 2001: A Space Oddessey. From the interior design of the space station, to the overall feeling of stillness and isolation in Sam's life, to Gerdy's uncanny likeness to Hal, Moon in many ways is 2001: A Space Oddessey, with alterations. The overall conversation seems to be the same: "what makes us human?" In 2001, the humans have lost all humanity and their creations are on the verge of taking control. In Moon, Sam is not especially inhuman (he is quite human actually), but we find out that he is being used as somewhat of a machine. Inhumanity is forced upon him, rather than being the result of a natural progression (as in 2001). Gerdy, like Hal, feels suspiciously human. In fact, for the first half of Moon, Gerdy feels rather like a cheap rip-off of Hal, bringing nothing new to the table. But by the end of the movie the difference becomes clear. Gerdy has no mal-intent and only wishes to help. He lacks the omnipresence of Hal, and his destructive power. The smiley face on his screen becomes an honest one, not ironic or sinister in the least. Like Hal, Gerdy feels human. But unlike Hal, Gerdy feels human in the best of ways. In the end of Moon, Sam says to Gerdy, "Gerty, we're not programmed. We're people, do you understand?" Through his apparent free-will and detachment from blind logic, Gerty has earned his humanity, just as Sam has won his humanity back from the forces  wishing to turn him into a machine of labor. In 2001, Dave defeats Hal, leaving open the question of whether machines can achieve humanity. Moon asserts that a machine can indeed achieve that level of redemption, by having a conscience. Gerty becomes less like the quasi-human Hal, and more like the very human Rachel from Blade Runner, only in a sad, clunky body.

Q4: Moon and Friends

Although I missed the beginning of Moon the moment I came in I thought 2001: A Space Odyssey. The predominantly white interior shots and the plot point where one guy has to go save the other were two points that really connected the two movies for me.

Above: Moon    Below: 2001: A Space Odyssey

 And then add the fact that there's a computer that controls everything in the station just added to the Space Odyssey-ness. However Moon differs because rather than stick to the mission, GERTY's mission is to help Sam, or the Sams with whatever they need. There were points in the film where I felt the movie was just a joke and I'm not sure if they were supposed to be funny with GERTY's facial emoticons, because they just seemed out of place in the futuristic space base, even HAL seemed more futuristic. However HAL was omnipresent while GERTY was a singular unit that had to physically move around the base. Another element of Moon I saw borrowed from another film was Brazil's bureaucracy/totalitarian element. The Lunar company that Sam works for is basically Central Services but with a single worker that they keep refreshing every few years. Lunar keeps Sam in the dark about the communications and the clones just as Central Services hides much of their inner workings from everyone but those who have to manage them. All in all I really enjoyed Moon both for its twist in what I expected thinking it was a 2001 knockoff and for the elements that did carry over and what Jones did with them.

BLOG POST 4: Questioning Moon

We will end the Science Fiction unit with a look at the thoughtful, romantic sci-fi thriller, Moon.  Premiering at the 2009 Sundance Film Festival to great acclaim, Moon is the first full-length feature film directed by Duncan Jones.

For this post, I want you to reflect on two things:  how does this film embody thematic and cinematic qualities from some (three) of the previous sci films we've seen and discussed.  You can talk about Things to Come, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Oddessey, Brazil, Blade Runner, and Primer.  What does Moon inherit from these films?

Second thing:  how does Moon surprise us?  What's new here?  What's different?

Ambiguous time in Brazil

Modern:

Terrorists

Bureaucracy

Many people working

Huge city

New technology

New cultural Norms (kids with guns, plastic surgery,  more sexual and there's more cursing etc.)

 

Old:

40s posters (such as mind that poster)

Regular shopping malls with old clothes.

Everybody speaks in British English

Getting set up by your parents

Christmas presents were a big deal

Typewriters and old elevators that still break

The music

 

 

Above is a list of the Modern and Old traits that I took notes on while watching Brazil. This film takes place "sometime in the 20th Cent" but it is ambiguous as to whether it was futuristic or past. I think making the world of Brazil a complete fantasy in time gives the director more creative freedom and flexibility in conveying his message. He wants to criticize and satirize a beaurocratic society and the possibilities for this were greater with no contexual time constraints. The confusing mise-en-scene also submerges the viewer into a state of confusion that establishes the director's themes of being out of control or lost.

 

 

Question 3

Sci-Fi films tend to be set in the near or distant future, and show off some technical development of the future, but Gilliam's Sci-Fi film "Brazil" is set in a more ambiguous time period some time in the 20th century. I feel that the biggest effect that this has on the film is that it makes the film much more relatable and understandable to the audience. Watching a film set in a random time in the future makes the audience feel much more detached from the film, and will make the audience see the film as something that can't really happen in real life. It may also be the director making a comment on society. Films tend to show advancements in technology, but this film shows older technologies instead, such as the use of tubes as a way to send mail, which was old even when the film was made. The director may be commenting on how technology and society as a whole may move backwards in the future instead of progressing. It may also have the effect of making the film future-proof. By making it set in a past-future setting, audiences that watch it in the future will be less likely to pick apart at what advancements actually occurred, and how ridiculous the prediction of the future was, and instead focus more on the message that the film is trying to convey and the story.

Q3

Gilliam's approach to Brazil is very unusual to the Sci Fi genre, because as we have talked about in class we usually are put into a futuristic setting in which the technology is advanced and it feels almost as a prediction of the future. Gilliam on the other hand chose to create a setting in which it is not truely clear what the time period is other than, "sometime in the 20th century." This allows him to introduce elements that both hint to the future, but also some that are relevant to the past, and often present around 1985. The way he uses elements which are more reflective of the present are often satirical, and a way to comment socially on current trends. An obvious example of this is the exaggerated plastic surgery. Gilliam exaggerates these things to make fun of the present, the mail tubes going through the office (especially towards the end when it explodes), the other tubes running through almost every building, the extremely tiny car, etc. As for what this does for the movie other than allow a satirical view of both the past, present, and sometimes future, is make his social commentary timeless and allow the audience to relate. Many people have said it and I agree, by introducing so much people are familiar with it makes this Sci Fi film more relate-able, which is necessary for this often times outrageous and comical approach to the film.  

3

Brazil just gives you a different experience that you don't get from most science fiction films. The fact that the time is confusing helps you focus more on the actual story and what is going on on-screen. When Sci Fi is used to predict future outcomes it must meet a certain amount of standards that we have today. The Matrix creates a futuristic world where us as humans have been betrayed by our own ingenuity (the machines). This becomes somewhat grounded as even today we can see ourselves relying on technology more and more. This leads us to believe the new world and how it still is a possible future for us. What Gilliam does with Brazil is create an entirely new world. We can recognize various elements but for the most part everything is completely different from what we are used to now, let alone anywhere in the 20th century. This allows us to fully suspend our belief and accept that this world is different and plays by its own rules, making the movie more of an immersive experience. Star Wars used pretty much the same thing through the establishment of the time being long long ago, but all futuristic tech we see we accept because it is also far far away, i.e. its own place with its own rules.

Brazils take on the future and past are really both they same. It merges the two into one. At the start of the film it is shown "somewhere in the 20th century" But this strange future and past setting is strange to science fiction as a whole, which as stated normally looks "unapologetically into the future." So what does this future past setting achieve? It makes the movie seem more believable for one,and two it makes the audience understand with out explanation what many things in the film do. In fact it even does more; Brazil shows people, and peoples interaction with other people. While in Sci-Fi movies such as the matrix, which clearly takes place in the future, are more focused on the connection between people and machines. Which is better? Thats really a matter of opinion.

Question 3 Ambiguity in Setting

By ambiguously setting his film in a time that can only be described as neither the past, nor the present, Gillam is able to create a setting that is initially confusing, but ultimately just relatable enough to begin to understand.  The Matrix films are full of high tech, visually appealing technology that makes for great special fx, but that are also too alien to comprehend.  The Matrix future is not one that is likely to be realized any time soon. While there are also aspects of an unattainable future in Brazil, there are some aspects that belong firmly in the past, for example, the fact that the bureaucratic government sends mail using large mail tubes.  These aspect allow modern humans a bit of superiority over the futuristic (I think?) people of Brazil (the film, not the country).  Even in 1985, when Brazil came out, mail was not delivered using tubes.  Instead of being in a constant state of awe of the high tech world of most films set in the future, audiences react with confusion.  We take for granted the new age technology of films set in the future, but when no time frame has been given to us and when we see an amalgamation of familiar and unfamiliar aspects within the scenery, we as an audience are forced to think about every aspect individually. As the film plays we formulate possible hypotheses for these seemingly out of place aspects. For example, are the old fashioned mail tubes a commentary on how ineffectual communication in a huge bureaucracy is?

The Effect of the Ambiguity of Brazil's Setting

Gilliam avoids defining the exact time in which Brazil is set, which accomplishes a couple things related to how the audience receives the film. For an audience watching the film in the 21^st century, saying that the film takes places “somewhere in the 20^th century” makes them reevaluate their past situation. For example, have they experienced personally or heard about places with a government as strict as the one in Brazil? (The latter is probably true.) What should have been done about it? Or, how about the importance of physical beauty in their society? Has it reached the extreme level it does in Brazil? Since the 20^th century was almost over when the film premiered, those watching it earlier on were able to ponder these questions about their current situation and a short ways into the future. Audiences can surely ask themselves similar questions after viewing a science fiction film set more solidly in the future, like Things to Come, but with a film set more clearly in their own time period the questions seem more relevant and therefore more frightening. It’s difficult to seriously worry about the problems presented in Things to Come, because the men were all wearing short togas and the overall presentation of “the future” seemed a bit ridiculous...it’s harder to relate to. I mean, I know people who wear suits just like Sam’s, and I’ve seen offices smaller than his, and we also have Smart Cars, just like Sam’s little vehicle. So though I can’t really discern when Brazil takes places, I can easily see the similarities between my world and Sam’s, which makes the films’ questions stick with me.  Again, these two films were made about 50 years apart so it’s not fair to compare them.

Question 3

I think the ambiguity of the time period in which Brazil is set is used to serve as added discourse to which the society is already facing. In Brazil, bombs going off during lunch and officials having power about a person's identity as well as the system that basically determines whether you live or die from a crime, is normal. The added confusion as to why the future appears much less futuristic compared to what was protrayed in other sci-fi films, adds to the disorientation felt by the film.

Something to keep in mind about Gilliam's decision, I found, was that maybe he didn't want to portray the future as something to be admired, like the advanced technology shown in The Matrix and in Things To Come.

Question 3

Like many people have said, Brazil takes place in this weird middle ground between past and future, leading me to believe that Brazil takes place much closer to the present than it seems. Due to this quasi-present time period, the audience automatically relates to the characters, plot points, and the world Gilliam has created in the film. As we have talked about before, a film that is relatable is a fail-proof way to get the point across to the audience with ease, and I think this is why Gilliam chooses this "generally identifiable yet also quite specific" time period. The audience better understands Sam's madness because we pick out similarities between his life and our own; the bureaucracy and red tape often seem at odds with common sense, technology creates unforeseeable problems, and Sam goes to great lengths to protect the woman he loves. Because of the similarities between Brazil's present and our own, we sympathize with Sam and are more likely to see him as a man giving up his career and life for another person rather than a spurned government employee who defrauds his country.
I have not seen The Matrix so I cannot make an educated point about the use of the future in the film. However, I have seen CJ and Nehemaiah's version of the film, so if I were to comment on what the audience gets from their representation of the future, I would say that the future looks a whole lot like Bethesda.