| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
New Zealand
|
 Posted - 20/09/2006 : 02:10:52
|
Did I miss any?
Dystopia accolade
It should be self-explanatory, although no remakes or sequels. And must be about earth-derived humans (i.e., no humanoids in a galaxy far, far away etc). And it really should be self-inflicted, i.e., reduction in life-quality after a natural disaster probably shouldn't count unless the apocalypse is followed by dystopia.
Edit: Copied from Page 3, I ended up with this definition for this accolade
All of the following need to apply:-
- An imaginary society that is a conceivable progression of human society. It may be a future progression of modern society, or a lateral progression of a past human society (i.e., an alternative present.)
- The society must be relatively stable and functioning. Post-apocalyptic anarchy doesn't fall into this category.
- Most external observers would see the society as a worse place to live than where they live now; there are substantial flaws. This does not necessarily mean that those living in the fictional society are aware of anything 'wrong' with it.
- The flaws in the society are self-inflicted. E.g., oppression by man or man-made machines and perhaps tolerance of oppression, resource depletion and/or environmental degradation, denial of reality, loss of enjoyment and/or purpose etc. Alien invasion does not fall into this category. |
Edited by - Sean on 30/09/2007 10:50:16 |
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
The Hub of the Universe
|
Posted - 20/09/2006 : 03:46:06
|
| A large proportion of the films on that list don't seem to fit the description you just gave. At least a dozen of those films are post-apocalyptic films or your typical "things get crappy in the future" movies. And the accolade description makes it even more confusing. It's an interesting collection of films, but I see no thread they all share in common. |
 |
|
|
bife 
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
Singapore
|
Posted - 20/09/2006 : 03:49:29
|
How about '1984'?
Or 'Brave New World', commonly believed (wrongly, imho) to represent a dystopic (real word?) world? |
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
Singapore
|
Posted - 20/09/2006 : 03:57:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
A large proportion of the films on that list don't seem to fit the description you just gave. At least a dozen of those films are post-apocalyptic films or your typical "things get crappy in the future" movies. And the accolade description makes it even more confusing. It's an interesting collection of films, but I see no thread they all share in common.
Tend to agree on that on at least some of the films. Not sure that The Island counts as a dystopic (still a real word?) society as much as a society that represses a minority. Similarly for Blade Runner, or Minority Report, or a few of the others. On that basis, the accolade could be huge - any film based in a concentration or POW camp, for example, or about wrongly convicted innocents in prison.
And I now notice that 1984 (but in words!) is already there, and so is Brave New World  which I still maintain doesn't represent dystopia at all |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
New Zealand
|
Posted - 20/09/2006 : 04:01:26
|
<SPOILERS>
It was a hard one to pin down. Dystopia can be post-apocalyptic, eg, THX1138 where oppression follows some sort of total disaster, but not all post-apocalyptic movies involve dystopia, e.g., The Day After Tomorrow. Hence the former is in the accolade but the latter isn't.
I've essentially used this very broad definition of dystopia here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia
So, the purpose of the accolade is to contain all movies on fwfr set in a time that could be considered dystopic. But, no remakes or sequels.
If there are any in the accolade that don't fit, please let me know which ones and I'll remove them, I want the accolade to make sense. Incidentally, there are plenty of movies in this accolade I haven't seen, it was based primarily on various web searches, so there may well be mistakes.  |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
New Zealand
|
Posted - 20/09/2006 : 04:08:58
|
<SPOILERS> I think The Island is OK, as surely a future involving human farming for their organs is dystopic?
I think Brave New World definitely applies, if you read this bit here (from the above Wikipedia link):-
-An apparently Utopian society, free of poverty, disease, conflict, and even unhappiness. Scratching the surface of the society, however, reveals exactly the opposite.
sums it up. Synthesised human beings, utterly brainwashed, with zero tolerance of any form of individuality would be a classic dystopia, wouldn't it? |
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
Singapore
|
Posted - 20/09/2006 : 04:34:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I think Brave New World definitely applies, if you read this bit here (from the above Wikipedia link):-
-An apparently Utopian society, free of poverty, disease, conflict, and even unhappiness. Scratching the surface of the society, however, reveals exactly the opposite.
sums it up. Synthesised human beings, utterly brainwashed, with zero tolerance of any form of individuality would be a classic dystopia, wouldn't it?
Yes, according to that view of Brave New World, and it is a very commonly held view.
What I read into the society of Brave New World, though, was not one that under the surface is 'the opposite'. For 99% of the popluation in Brave New World, it really is a "Utopian society, free of poverty, disease, conflict, and even unhappiness". Only for 1% of the population - the TOP 1% - is it not true. It is only the 'dominant' Alpha group that live with constant doubt and unhappiness.
Of course, living in a 'conditioned state' in the bottom 99% of Brave New World's society is not something any of us would want - but for those in it, they are actually happy. Now if the conditioning was for the benefit of the ruling Alphas, I could consider it oppressive and dystopic in any case. But it isn't, all of the dysfuntional characters are Alphas, because their unconditioned brains, required to enable them to function at a level that can run the society, allows them all sorts of doubts about the society they are running even though they are genuinely running it for the benefit of the lower 'castes'.
I think this is the key dilemma that the book leaves you with - can such a society, run for the benefit of the population and not for the elite, be inherently 'good' or 'right', despite the restriction of free will that maintains it, given the happiness and contentment it brings to those within it.
I am not trying to change your mind about including it - most people reading Brave New World would contend that it is dystopic, given our natural predisposition to freedom of choice, thought and action, I just don't agree wholeheartedly with that view
I love both Brave New World and 1984 (admittedly a long time since I read either), but particularly enjoy considering them together, comparing the very contrasting societies in the two
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
New Zealand
|
Posted - 20/09/2006 : 04:50:37
|
Fair points, bife. You won't be the first to argue that point. You can have the same argument about farm animals, are they better off fenced in free from predators, filled with antibiotics, fed by humans and kept in perfect health? Or are they better off 'free' to roam the wilderness doing what they want when they want, but subject to disease, predators and no kind farmer to look after them? It's a philosophical question probably without an answer.
Your argument about Brave New World also could apply to most dystopias, e.g., are the inhabitants of Pleasantville better off in their ignorant B&W bliss than in a colourful world that also includes violence? Etc etc.
I suggest that if it's even debatable, then it's probably safe to call it a dystopia. E.g., the Savage in Brave New World was quite incapable of fitting in without being lobotomised (he was the colour in a B&W world like the visitors in Pleasantville), so I'd call it dystopic.
In any society there are plenty who'd be very happy living under tyranny (most in Germany in 1939 loved Hitler). But if the society can only exist with zero tolerance for those who want to live differently then I'd call it dystopic.
Here's a good list of dystopic movies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dystopian_films
many of which clearly fit, and towards the bottom many are debatable.
But, I think for this accolade, if it's debatable, then it might as well be in the accolade. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
The Hub of the Universe
|
Posted - 20/09/2006 : 04:54:31
|
I can't think of any movies you've left out, so your list seems inclusive. Here are some films I think don't belong:
"28 Days Later..." Admittedly, I haven't seen it...but from what I know it's basically just a zombie movie with a twist (not a new twist...it's really just a ripoff of The Crazies)
"Blade Runner" It's a rather bleak view of the future, but it's really just because the Earth has become so polluted. The wiki entry includes Blade Runner, but I think the required elements were in the book (which I haven't read), and not the film. But perhaps someone might have a different take on this.
"A Boy And His Dog" Post-apocalyptic. Civilization has been destroyed and returned to a pre-industrial state, practically the stone age. I don't think it fits the definition. I'll explain below.
"Cube" This is just a weird movie about some strangers that wake up trapped in a strange labyrinth. No explanation is ever given. But we know nothing about their society at all.
"The Day After" This is a "realistic" view of the immediate aftermath of nuclear war. It really is "the day after."
"Escape From New York" It's a society with a lot of crime, but that's about it. They built a huge prison, but from what we can tell the condemned got due process. However, "Escape From LA" might be a better fit.
"Freejack" Like Blade Runner.
"Mad Max" This is a society that's gradually breaking down. But we still recognize it as our society, with all the familiar institutions operating like they always do. The only real problem is there's more crime and the police are getting overwhelmed.
"The Matrix" This one should be debated. Does it count as a dystopia if there's no society at all, just an elaborate virtual world that we're all plugged into but isn't even real and we're just batteries?
"The Omega Man" Post-apocalyptic. I wouldn't call that society dystopic...I'd call it pure hell on Earth.
"The Postman" Post-apocalyptic.
"Resident Evil" Sort of a zombie movie.
"Robocop" Very similar society to what we see in Mad Max. It might be heading in the direction of government serving corporations...but it's not there yet.
"The Terminator" Post-apocalyptic, with humans on the verge of total extinction.
"They Live" I love this movie...but it's just a silly alien invasion film.
"Total Recall" Also should be debated. Earth society is no different from ours. It's only on Mars that you have a whole society that's really run and owned by corporate interests. But that Mars society does seem dystopic. Discuss.
"Twelve Monkeys" Do we know enough about that future society to call it dystopic? And isn't it really just a post-apocalyptic film?
"Waterworld" Post-apocalyptic, with all the usual total anarchy stuff.
A lot of these people will disagree with depending on their own definitions of "dystopia." But I think one key is that you have to have a functioning society, just one that's been perverted in some way. The post-apoc films I've listed don't present a society that's been horribly twisted...rather, it's been completely destroyed altogether, and humans have been reduced to pure survival, almost like animals. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
The Hub of the Universe
|
Posted - 20/09/2006 : 04:57:15
|
Hey, what about "Alien?"
"The Corporation" runs EVERYTHING, and it clearly has no regard whatsoever for human life, sacrificing the entire crew just to bring back an alien for weapons research. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
New Zealand
|
Posted - 20/09/2006 : 06:08:04
|
DT, thanks for the elaborate comments, I'll have a thorough look at those ones later when I have a bit more time.
I did notice that many of the ones you highlighted are line calls. I think this is inevitable with this topic, like marginally generic or intelligible fwfrs, there's always room for debate on whether they're OK or not.
I think you're right about Alien; humans are earth-derived in that as they are in Silent Running, so if one fits then probably so does the other. (I'm guessing many don't have it in their dystopic-movie lists as it's not set on earth). Good call, I think I'll add it. |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
Little Rock
|
Posted - 20/09/2006 : 07:23:10
|
| I recommend drinking bottled water to avoid that in the future. Also don't forget to order drinks with no ice. Also sometimes when I have too much spicy food. |
Edited by - turrell on 20/09/2006 07:24:09 |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
Los Angeles, CA, USA
|
Posted - 20/09/2006 : 08:33:08
|
A lot of the films in your accolade would not be considered dystopia films, at least according to my understanding of the term. I always assumed that the word "dystopia" refers to a society with the intention (or at least perceived intention) of a utopia, but compromising in basic rights such as freedom of expression, etc. (example: 1984) or includes an inhuman, unethical new technology that should not be used (example: Blade Runner).
For this reason, I wouldn't call the following films dystopias:
28 Days Later - takes place in a state of anarchy
Cube - the designers of the cube clearly were not concerned with utopian ideals
Mad Max - takes place in a state of anarchy
Sin City - nobody seems concerned with utopian ideals
Waterworld - takes place in a state of anarchy |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 20/09/2006 : 09:24:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Did I miss any?
Dystopia accolade
It should be self-explanatory, although no remakes or sequels. And must be about earth-derived humans (i.e., no humanoids in a galaxy far, far away etc). And it really should be self-inflicted, i.e., reduction in life-quality after a natural disaster probably shouldn't count unless the apocalypse is followed by dystopia.
Not sure if these meet your stringent criteria  , but I reckon any society that allows/sanctions the premises of these flicks would be dystopic -- oh, wait, that might be us
Westworld http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070909/
Tron http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084827/
Derek Jarman's Jubilee http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076240/
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 20/09/2006 : 09:57:37
|
| I have nothing to contribute to dys topic. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
New Zealand
|
Posted - 20/09/2006 : 10:20:15
|
Ok, I've been thinking about this while cooking and eating dinner (coq au vin for those interested  ) and tend to agree that post-apocalyptic anarchy shouldn't count. Whereas dystopic oppression following an apocalypse does. So I'll remove the stuff like "The Day After" which essentially deals with post-apocalyptic anarchy (I saw it a looooooooong time ago but don't recall any fascist government oppression.)
BTW, I started this essentially with the Wikipedia list (see above links) which was a good start but probably contains more than it should. The second step was to ask fwfrers what they thought. I create about one accolade every six months so don't have a problem with working hard at it (I'll be doing a bit more web searching by the look of it). But I can see why nobody's got around to creating a Dystopia accolade before now.
BTW, GHcool, there's more to dystopia than a failed (or chimeric) utopia, check out the Wiki link above (ok here it is again)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia
there's also more to it than what I originally thought. Dystopia obviously also has plenty of sub-genres summed up by Wiki as:-
Governmental/Societal
Techno
Post-Apocalyptic
Corporate
etc. You could also come up with sub-sub-genres, e.g., Diminished-resources-governmental (Soylent Green), Insidious-megalomaniacal (V for Vendetta) etc etc.
I'll get back to this tomorrow, time to go watch a movie. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Dystopia
