|
Frackie Robinson posted:They literally institute universal health care with the flip of a switch. That's insulting to both sides of the argument. The movie has nothing to say except, "hey, why haven't we done this yet?" in the most strawman-y terms possible. Install Marxism, problem solved. The fictional conceit of the Law as a God-OS illustrates that truly universal democracy is not inconceivable but, in fact, quite simple to conceive. In a world where the Law is not an OS, seizing control of the state apparatus would take more than one person, but this utopian Idea is not any more complicated. It's this Idea that the film is illustrating: true democracy can only come from the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is not, however, an instruction manual; it's allegorical. Anonymous Robot posted:Our readings of the film differ pretty cleanly along ideological lines. In the ending,(if I'm remembering right) Damon's character is recognized as the president and the androids- the literal machinery of the state- protects him, quickly followed by medical aid and capital being dispatched to the Earth. This is an election, and an American liberal fantasy. The "right person" just has to get in office and welfare and civil rights will flow through them. But that's not how it is. The system is rotten to the core- emancipation can never come through capitalist democracy. That's actually not at all what happens. Damon is a radical Christ figure who becomes the incarnation of the system. When he dies, the system dies with him. The result is the total destruction of the bourgeois dictatorship of liberal democracy, and the implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat (in christological terms: the holy spirit guarded by the heavenly host, aka the Kingdom of Heaven).
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
Anonymous Robot posted:Where do you get the impression that proletarian rule has been established in any meaningful or lasting way? It seems to me that the system created at the end of Elysium is only stable for as long as it takes the human police to batter down the doors. The imagery at the end of the film is of a host of angels descending upon the Earth. In addition to the fact that there's no reason to anticipate their failure - we see them effortlessly subdue some corrupt liberal cops - the point is that they should win. Why shouldn't they? It is fairly clear that there still many counter-revolutionaries like President Patel that will have to be dealt with, so it's not an 'instant-win button'. The tone is upbeat not because everything is instantly solved, but because things are on the right track. This goes back to the heavenly host: Max does not literally re-incarnate, but we see the Last Judgement and the institution of the Kingdom of Heaven. Max 'returns to Earth' as the holy spirit, which is the community of believers - the universal citizenship.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:I really didn't like this movie. It was pretty dull and I absolutely didn't care about a single character in the movie. The pacing was weird and the dialogue was weird, the villain was wasted and the action scenes too short Weird movies are good, actually.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Elysium is weird and cool because the protagonist is 'just' a meat-support for the robot exoskeleton, in much the same way Nick Cage is just a vessel for The Rider in Ghost Rider. Max is actually quite well-written, but 'deliberately' not a very interesting character, in the same sense as Bane in Dark Knight. No-one cares who Max is until he puts on the exoskeleton. He is just a decrepit human, but the skeleton makes him into something more. That's why the skeleton gets its own portrait, as a poster.  Delacroix is very misunderstood as a character as well. Foster's acting isn't 'bad'; she's just playing a weirdo - like Fichtner's character and his robotic mannerisms. Foster specifically pulls off the tricky feat of playing a bad actress. Delacroix is clearly speaking bullshit and, worse, trying to convince herself of its veracity. As a character, it's clear that she was written from the beginning as the counterpoint to Spider. Duality is all over the film - you do not fully understand Max until you take into account that Kruger is his evil twin/shadow/id/whatever. You see that dark side in fleeting glimpses, as when Max coldly targets his boss for the hit. That's why the film ends with those two battling each-other, Kruger literally attaching himself to Max. Kruger is, likewise, the truth behind Delscroix's bullshit - her logic of oppression taken to its logical conclusion/extreme. This is why it has to be Kruger that kills her and supplants her. In the reverse: that's why Max has to 'let Spider kill him'. A very significant chunk of the characterization is expressed through these relationships and interactions, instead of through exposition or whatever. It's nuanced, rather than complex. Strategic Tea posted:Elysium's message seems to be that utopia itself is easy to build, and all we need to to is remove bad people who stand in its way for no reason (not even selfish ones, really). And it's damaging; some people genuinely seem to think you can just apply revolution to problem and let that tedious 'governance' stuff sort itself out. Elysium's solution is a radical appropriation of the state apparatus. The basic idea that everyone becomes a citizen of Elysium means that we spend the entire film seeing 'how they govern': Elysium, on Earth. The same protections afforded the rich are applied to everyone. Of course, when you do that, the rich are rightly perceived as the criminals they are - because property is theft. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 05:00 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:That assumes that the state apparatus is capable of supporting worldwide healthcare. In Elysium it can, because it's practically a post-scarcity society and because the writers said so. A real revolution isn't going to have that benefit. The sci-fi 'what if' of the film changes the playing field so radically that it undermines the political message. Though I will admit that this way lies sperging about star destroyer reactor outputs and god knows what. Right now, today, we have enough food to feed the entire planet. Hunger is pretty much entirely the result of bad economic practices that cause poverty. The imagery of people being cured is taken a bit too literally as just a 'universal healthcare' thing, when it can also applied to issues like hunger and whatnot. The space magic in the film is a way of making visual the otherwise abstract idea of universal democracy. Nonetheless, I believe we do have the resources to provide healthcare to the entire world - even if not through nanotech healing pods.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Are we using spoiler tags? Again, this focuses on the space-magic technology and misses how the entire Earth is reorganized around defending the poorest as if it were Bill Gates himself who were in distress. The people are in power, and you must trust in the people.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 19:51
|
|