The Fly Reaction Paper

The film was quite good for being a horror film, it gave suspense and mystery as to how Andre was
crushed by the press. It was good, despite the time when the film was produced, because the mutation was
realistic and "beyond it's time" quality.The film will also leave an impression to you to be cautious in
doing things, especially experiments. This film also closely represents the theme of movies of when this
film was produced. It is because of its futuristic applications like having the transporter device.
I can say the film was interesting because its approach to the story's plot was different than others
which is the flashback. Even though it is a simple plot, the story gave suspense to the viewers. This film's
plot really gave a shock to the unveiling of the reason behind Andre's death. Also, this is not quite the
usual horror stories we see today. The film gave commentary to scientists as if they were obsessed to succeed in their experiments even if it means doing it on restricted objects to test without permission. I can consider this film as a morality play because the protagonist has shown good and bad morals. The good of not giving up, and the evil of being reckless. The film's reflection on science and technology during the 1950's was something futuristic and ahead of its time. Curiosity and imagination on futuristic machines and
possibilities that the impossible would be impossible really skyrocketed upward in the 1950's.

        I recommend this to viewers who want to have a taste of what is the theme of the old horror movies and for those interested. This film is not appropriate for children because of its concept and theme.

The Perks of Technology?

By: Langsa Tuguinay, 2013-62888

               Considering the standard of films today, I find the movie The Fly to be mediocre in terms of entertainment. Although the story caught my attention because of its plot, however, it is the type of movie that could make me sleep mainly because of its cinematography. 

                Filmed in the 1950's, the story started with the death of Andre Delambre, a scientist who was able to invent a matter transporter. The story then progresses with his wife, Helene, confessing the murder but later on explained the circumstances that lead to her husband's death. It ended with the truth being revealed and Helene is not convicted with the murder.

               I believe that this movie was made so to show people that every invention, despite all of its perks and benefits, would always have "that" something which could drive men crazy. Crazy to try new things and to prove that they are right in doing what they have done. Of course, we could not blame them because people have the natural tendency to be curious and to test this curiousity. In the movie's case, it is Andre's eagerness to show the world his invention that eventually lead to his death and all the other circumstances surrounding that. And considering that the movie was filmed in 1958, I would have to say that their vision of Science and Technology is a little bit advanced.

               To wrap it up, I would say that I see the movie as a "good" portrayal of morality play. I say this because scientists, or should I say, people in general make mistakes and when they do, they would have two options on how to deal with it: whether they would correct this mistake or just let this mistake slip through and not do anything about it. Obviously, the former is more moral and that is what happened in the movie. 

REACTION PAPER: The Fly

As the film introduced its title at the early part of the movie, I feel like imagining the whole movie a monotonous one. But as the film goes and approaches its middle part, I bit changed my prejudices on the film, I felt like it was becoming more interesting. What is interesting and entertaining in the movie is that it deals with technology specifically a new discovery—a machine allowing one to travel from place to another within just a matter of seconds through teleportation—which is hard to believe with but undoubtedly amazing, if ever it will be discovered.

The film portrayed how scientists behave. It was shown that the husband in the movie who is a scientist was really curios and that he never stops looking for the solution to the problem his machine was experiencing—letters in the bottle were arranged inversely and the disappearance of the cat. This shows the patience, creativity, and curiosity of scientists when inventing, observing, or examining things. This portrays the truth that scientists never give-up unless they have reached unto their conclusion. It also features that not for all the time that science succeeds but it also experiences instances of failures along the way.

In my own point of view I do not consider it as a morality play simply because it didn't portrayed about ethics and values, only things about scientific fictions and how scientists behave were portrayed throughout the movie(in my opinion).

The film reflects the view on Science and Technology during the 1950's by showing how desperate science and technology is in finding a faster and inconvenient way of transportation. That the focus of Science and Technology that time was to find a more efficient way to travel.

Beware, Science! (The Fly Reaction Paper)

2013-14735
Cadiz, Marianne T. M.

I thought the film was interesting, but I wasn’t entertained, although I did find the old special effects cool. I already knew the story beforehand, so that might have had something to do with it. I’m also very particular with my movie choices—to be honest, if I had the choice, I would have chosen to watch the remake by David Cronenberg starring Jeff Goldblum, but that movie is more of a horror than a thriller, which is what this movie is.

I found it interesting because of its stance on experimenting and euthanasia. I have no qualms about André’s experimentation on himself since he consented to it, so I think the bigger question is the fact that he killed himself, or that he asked his wife to kill himself. If an experiment left you crippled and out of your mind, would you turn to suicide? Especially considering that you’re slowly losing your humanity? Personally, I would, but I’m sure not everyone would respond that way.

            I wouldn’t consider this movie a morality play because there weren’t really any designated “good” or “evil” characters, just well meaning people in difficult situations. In the end, they’re all just really human characters. The brilliant scientist whose experiment goes wrong, the dedicated wife who tries to hold the home together, etc. However, I do believe the film was a cautionary tale for the scientific and technological advancements that were made in the 1950s, particularly in the West. If you think about it, the biggest mistake that lead to André’s death wasn’t because he was curious but because he was careless. Had he inspected his set-up, he would have found the fly and gotten rid of it, and he would have undergone no transformation at all. So the moral of the story isn’t really “don’t experiment,” but “be careful.”

The Fly of the 50s

Watching this fifty five year old movie has made me think of how people have already developed a sense of creativity even at the early times.  It is okay to say that I enjoyed it because the pace was a bit slow for me, but my attention was definitely on the film the whole time. It brought about curiosity within me, thinking about why Helene would kill her husband, why she was acting weirdly around flies.

Science can make anything possible even the things which are far from the people’s imagination. It just goes to show that they have a wide sense of wanting to improve technology. One would want something better and eventually the best. Andre has put the burden on his shoulders in creating possibly the biggest technological innovation in his time. With Andre’s experiment turning into a disaster, Helene obliged to find a fly, Andre just wanting to die at the end, and Helene doing it for him, I consider it a morality play showing how people decide under circumstances, whether they religiously choose between good or bad, or just do what they thought was right.

During the 1950s when innovations on science and technology were on constant development, the film suggests how people have been curious, making a picture of a scientist changing the world. That was the time of hydrogen bombs and atomic powers, of ballistic missiles during the World War II[i]. They wanted to do what was never done before, but Andre ended up dead. It could be the use of living creatures as experimental variables, the lack of preparedness and carelessness, or the fire of their desire to succeed burning up, begging to be seen. It is for the rest to decide.

---

[i] Shmoop Editorial Team. 2008, November 11. Science & Technology in the 1950s. Retrieved December 12, 2013 from http://www.shmoop.com/1950s/science-technology.html

Reaction Paper: The Fly (1958)

Dull lighting, corny music, draggy pacing, stiff or superfluous acting – these are just some of the reasons I never really shared a love for old films. And as much as retro cinematography didn’t appeal to me, “The Fly” did very little to change my notion on old films.

It was boring, weird and disturbing. The show basically had all the elements of an old film I was dreading to see: dull, retro production, turtle-paced plot development, awkward and sometimes, off musical scoring and occasional superfluous acting. The one thing I love about old films though, beyond their classical aspects, is the wealth of invaluable insights and relevant lessons to be learned on various social, political and scientific aspects that are rarely derived with commercial cinema nowadays.

The film projects Scientists as innovators who strive to make society grow and be more efficient through their discoveries and inventions. Andre, the protagonist of the film, falls short in following the conduct of Science by testing the teleportation machine on himself without perfectly ensuring its stability and taking necessary precautions.

In effect, various levels of morality play manifest in the film on the aspects of Science, Andre’s family and and Andre himself as the Scientist. Andre, realizing that he could well be unleashing a contraption into a world that may not be ready to accept such an innovation, readily destroys all traces of his research and equipment, hoping that the abomination he has become will be the last Earth has to see. This also took a negative toll on Andre’s family, forcing his wife to kill the monster her husband has become and causing their son to be fatherless.

Science, as depicted by the movie and its era, is indeed a powerful thing to harness with lots of potential to create, as well as destroy.

Reaction Paper: What The Fly.

Films produced before the year I was born have always had a different hold on my interest and entertainment. Films such as these remind me that people already had sentient thought. More than this, they had the audacity to organize, communicate and present it into the format of film.

The film charters into territories beyond Science and ventures into Philosophy. Science has no morality. Science is neutral. It is the user of the technology that is subject to the judgments of morality. Harnessing nuclear technology destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the discovery of this technology also led to the creation of Nuclear Power Plants that, given firm ground and proper engineering, may provide independence from the politics and pollution of Oil.

The film was produced during the 50s, when the world watched in wonder as new developments in technology continued to shape the world in big strokes such as the military technology of the two world wars, the development of antibiotic, the impending arms race, and the race of superpowers to the moon. It then makes sense that the film makes out Scientists as superhuman beings making discoveries nearly impossible even a century hence. It also makes sense that science is made out to have morality. Whether it is good. Or bad.

The Fly Reaction Paper

           Last Thursday, the entire STS class were made to watch the 1958 version of the American science fiction movie entitled “The Fly.” As a student unravelling the mysteries hidden in the universe of science, I found the film’s plot quite interesting as it exhibited futuristic technologies such as the matter transporting device called the disintegrator-integrator; add to the fact that the idea was conceptualized way back in 1958. However, the film lost me in the midst of very slow pacing as it was unable to keep up with its horrific and dreadful start.

            The story revolved around a scientist named Andre Delambre, who represents a person who has the burden to discover and develop new technology for the benefit of humankind. However, in his pursuit, he was able to sacrifice his life. The film touched on the concept of morality ranging from the mere use of animals as test subjects, up to the concept of euthanasia where the wife was asked to kill her husband. Science and technology may have a great impact towards a better world, but it also has the capacity to backfire when inappropriately used and abused. Cliché as it may be, but the quote from Spiderman stands still, “with great power comes great responsibility.”

          Around half a century has passed since the film’s birth and it is evident that people back then had a forward perspective to break scientific barriers and further improve lives. However, as exhibited by the famous paradox of Erwin Schrodinger, a cat is both dead and alive while inside a box. The only thing to determine which one is by opening. In the film’s case, curiosity killed the scientist.

The Fly Reaction Paper

Who would have thought that a fifty-five year old film could still be entertaining and interesting? I did not even consider the possibility but after watching the science-fiction horror movie, The Fly, I changed my perspective. It was interesting because one can see the difference between the cinematography of movies then and now. The actors’ portrayal of their roles was entertaining. There exists a wide gap between the customs and fascinations in their time and the time now. But even though that is that case, the movie refers to scientists as people who invent things for the purpose of improving people’s lives just like how we refer to scientists now. Not all scientists are atheists because an eternal paradox exists. Human life is of utmost importance so one should not experiment with it because the consequences are endless and unimaginable. Mistakes might occur and there are no instructions on how to correct these just like how the scientist teleported himself. It did not occur to him that a fly entered the tube as well. Thus, a mix up of their DNA happened. He then asked his wife to kill him and the fly because their existence was not for the greater good. And that is why this film may be considered a morality play. He said that no one should know about it because it was a dangerous device. And this movie reflects the forward outlook of the 1950s on science and technology. They see the possibility of a teleportation device being invented. Science can improve and new technologies can be discovered every day. Something out of the box can be created and it can effectively work.

Reaction Paper on The Fly (1958)

                As a person who likes watching Korean dramas and mostly feel good movies, I didn’t find the film as entertaining as I would prefer my movies. However, it was indeed interesting. It was interesting how at that time people still considered television as a big miracle and how they deemed flat screen TVs as, if not more, miraculous. It was also interesting how the film, without any deep analysis, would just seem like a normal ambitious sci-fi film; but with close scrutiny one will see that the film is actually a morality play. It showed that although scientists are successful, with their beautiful spouses and big mansions, if they abuse their intelligence, things won’t go well for them. It may even end badly, or in this case deadly, for them.

It was shown in the film that scientists are extremely inquisitive and persistent go-getters. They won’t stop until they perfected their inventions, even at the cost of one’s life (human or animal). The film showed that those who do not respect the “sacredness of life” (as mentioned in the movie) must pay for it. Andre certainly did, with his body and his life. I think the message of this film is that scientists are needed in one society since they bring progress. However, they must know their limits. They must not sacrifice life or anything God-given just for the sake of their science. This just means that during the 1950’s even though science and technology was celebrated, religion and God was still first on everyone’s list. If science tried to defy religion/God, not only will more people side with religion but bad things may happen to the people of science as well.  

Sabrina Romasoc
2011-14690

Reaction Paper on The Fly

                The film ‘The Fly’ was indeed entertaining. Admittedly, I expected it to be a bit boring at first, but as the story started to unravel, I found myself paying more and more attention to what would happen next. I also found it interesting because it is far from the kind of films that we have today. It has a simpler storyline but has a greater emphasis on the lessons it can teach the viewers. It was the first old, if I may call it that, movie that I watched and it didn’t disappoint me.

                The film showed how science demands perfection and how scientists are willing to reach that level of perfection in their inventions and discoveries. It shows how scientists and experts strive to make a mark in the world of science and technology, even if it means risking their own safety.

I think the film can be called a morality play because Andre, the main character, could somehow represent the never-ending curiosity of mankind and our thirst for perfection. It teaches viewers that there are some things that we just shouldn’t mess with and that we should be able to face the consequences of every action we make.

‘The Fly’ also gives viewers a peek into how simple everything was back then. People weren’t used to encountering and handling complex situations which they aren’t used to. Inventions and discoveries, like the one Andre made, would be treated like oddities and would be met with a lot of criticism, that’s why it was so hard back then to come up with something that would be immediately accepted as something good.

- Clarice Alyanna Adeva

The Fly: A Retrospective View

        I never am an avid fan of horror movies. Heck, I never watch them by my own will. Horror films don’t entertain me to tell the truth. But somehow The Fly of Kurt Neumann is an exception.

        What makes The Fly entertaining and interesting is how it combined a Gothic atmosphere and that air of constant apprehension throughout the movie perfectly. The audience, I for one, is made to continually feel the suspense and thrill of knowing what really happened prior to the death of a character and leaves that feeling of consternation and pity in the end---it “mixes horror with a subtle trace of sadness.”        

        Moreover, the film comments on how scientists constantly endeavor to seek for the truth. The Fly shows how difficult it is for scientists to present new discoveries without being criticized by the public and how they make sacrifices for the benefit of mankind. The conduct of science is still suspicious for most people and there is always fear of what it may bring in the near future.

I cannot say that the film was a morality play though; but a horrific tragic accident. Morality play is described as an allegorical drama that has characters who personify moral qualities and in which moral lessons are taught. But what happened in the movie was different. Yes, there was a lesson, but that lesson wasn’t all about morality. It was: “always check your machines before testing for BUGS.”

        The movie, which was created in 1958, presented how science and technology in the 1950s was held in a light of doubt and suspicion. This was the time the development of the Hydrogen bomb and Atomic Power were constantly debated and discussed. People back then were apprehensive of its discoveries and were fearful of what it might bring in their lives.

References

         Duarte, M. Enois. “The Fly (1958).” High-Def Digest. Internet Brands Inc., 2012. Web. 7 Dec 2013.

        “Science and Technology in The 1950s.” schmoop. Schmoop University, Inc., 2013. Web. 9 Dec  
2013.

Reaction Paper

Hunger Games: Catching Fire

        Hunger Games movie composed of two series, The Hunger Games trilogy and Catching Fire, are considered to be science fiction movies. The movies were based on the science fiction novels of Suzanne Collins. Catching Fire, the latest release movie of the hunger games series is considered to be a science fiction because it shows events and situations throughout the movie wherein scientific knowledge is applied with exaggeration. I can say that it is exaggerated because as far as the science world is concern such things were not yet discovered, invented, and existing, thus those scenes shown in the movie were still fantasies of today’s generation. Though such things do not yet exist we still can’t disregard the possibility that these things would happen after some generations as we all know that science doesn’t stop finding ways of making impossible possible. But unless not being proven to be true, catching fire would remain as just fictions in the world of science and reality.

        Catching Fire is all at the same time commentary of the past, present, and future. It is said to be commentary on the past because it features events which is commentary with the past events such as the concept of the tournament. The way the tournament is done in the movie is influenced with how past tournaments are done, particularly games during the ancient civilization wherein people are being put to a challenge where you need to fight, kill and hunt for your survival. It is commentary with the present because throughout the movie the so called “power” is portrayed with emphasis. In the movie the capitol did have great power over the people that they can mandate someone forcibly without any further excuses to a “Deadly Challenge”. Which in our case today, if you have power then you can do what you want and you can let someone do things in exchange of money and power, which is one of the continuing problem of our society. It is commentary on the future because the futuristic effects and fictional things are being introduced and portrayed. Things which are still beyond the reach of science for now. Things which are soon to be discovered in the future.

        For me, Science and Technology failed in the world of the 13 districts for the reason that technology wasn't used in the proper way it should be. Technology is made to attain the arousing need of the people. In the case of the Hunger Games: Catching Fire movie, Technology was used in the tournament which aims only to entertain the rich and manipulate the society. A game which steals lives, and praises death. From that, I conclude that indeed Science and Technology failed in the world of 13 districts.

-Jonelle J. Retorca

Catching Fire: A Reaction Paper

By: Langsa Tuguinay, 2013-62888

        Everybody who read Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games trilogy and watched the first movie based on the trilogy had long waited for the release of the movie The Hunger Games: Catching Fire in theaters. I, for one, did not read the novels but was able to watch the first movie released last year and honest to goodness, the movie left me in awe.
       I was able to watch the premier of Catching fire on November 21, 2013 and here are some of my thoughts regarding the movie. First of all, I do not see the movie as a science fiction. Secondly, I think that the film is a commentary on our past, present and future society. Lastly, the movie has been well-thought-out because of its effects and of how grand these effects had been carried out on the movie.
       The film is relatively not much of a science fiction compared to the Star Wars and Star Trek movies. Although it is described as a sci-fi movie by some, I would like to think otherwise because science fiction is described as a fiction based on an imagined future with scientific or technological advances and major social/environmental changes that frequently portrays space or time travel and life on other planets. So, I say it again, the film is relatively not a science fiction. It is merely a non-fictional representation of a society where power is only centralized in a few people, in the movie’s case; the power is centralized in a place called “The Capitol”. This is visible today, and I believe that this has been visible in the past and would still be evident in the future.
       This then leads us to my next point in saying that the film is a commentary on our past, present and future society. It is comparative to the slavery issue in the past wherein the people of the 13 districts are the slaves and The Capitol being the master. Just like the slaves, the people of the 13 districts don’t have the liberty and freedom that the masters, The Capitol, have. The movie is also similar to our society at present given the greed and all the luxury that the people with power have. As to being a commentary on the future, we could see this by the technology they use and how advance these technologies are.
       Finally, I have to say that science and technology is successful, or better yet, seen in the world of the 13 districts in terms of keeping the districts “tamed” and “caged” using the Capitol’s advanced arms. I have to say that I am not pro this kind of treatment, all I am saying is that the advanced technology that they have is portrayed successfully in the movie.
       To wrap it up, the movie left me thrilled because it ended with a cliffhanger. I also have to say kudos to the success of the movie and I can’t wait to watch its final movie, Mockingjay.

Remember who the enemy is

Photo taken from moonfirecharms.com

          I was very excited to watch the second instalment of The Hunger Games trilogy, Catching Fire, not only because of the hype and the well-made trailers but also because I really liked reading the books from which the movies were adapted from. In fact, I have already watched the movie even before the announcement that it is required for STS.

Suzanne Collins laid out a blueprint for a futuristic complex nation known as Panem (the country containing the 12 districts and the capitol). The technological advancements evident in the use of different Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) serve as a testament that such methods or materials are impossible to execute in the present world. Examples range from the bullet trains Peeta and Katniss rode as part of their victory tour at the start of the movie, to the flaming dress Katniss wore for the occasion and the archery training tools used to prepare themselves for the Quarter Quell. Hence, Catching Fire can be considered under the Science Fiction genre.

            On another point of view, the film tackled and exposed the different problems surfacing in the present human society. Set in the post-apocalyptic dystopian era where the Capitol reigns and dictates, the movie exploits how the society would rise upon oppression when greed is shared among few people only. History is a testament that no ruler, no matter how great and charismatic he is, would be able to stay in power only for long. Cliché as it may be, but even the great fall down sometimes, as exhibited by the decline of the once-significant Roman, Persian and British empires. The concept that power can be blinding isn’t alien to us Filipinos as the memories of Martial Law remain fresh in our hearts and minds. In fact, the idea of term limits contained in the 1987 Constitution serves as a response to the 20 long years of tyranny under the once-great Marcos regime.

            The film ends on a cliff-hanger where the viewers were only able to witness the beginning of the end for the Capitol and the regime of President Snow. Science and technology was doomed to fail as it was used for personal purposes such as the annual hunger games instead of accounting for the better benefit of the citizens.  The supposed to be “utopian” and ideal society turned into “dystopian” and chaotic because the main goal of technology, which was to improve lives, was put into wrong context. It was the Capitol’s thirst to stay in power that obstructed science and technology from accomplishing their missions.

Having not yet read the third and last book of the trilogy, I really cannot wait for the Mockingjay to come out and surprise me on the fate of Panem. May the odds be ever in their favor. 

The Search For Neutral Ground: A Catching Fire Reaction Paper

STS THY / Group 6
Cadiz, Marianne T.M.

First, is the film Science Fiction? Why or why not?
     I would argue that the film Catching Fire barely qualifies as science fiction. The science isn’t really thought about, it’s mostly just the mechanism by which the events in the movie are explained. The technology is very present in the movie but it’s barely explored besides the fact that it’s a convenient way to explain the plot and it looks impressive on a movie screen.

Second, is the film a commentary on past, present and future human society?

     I believe that the film is a commentary on present society. It could be a commentary on future society, but I really hope that’s not what happens. We, like them in the movie, live in a really tech-linked age, and it’s not that hard to find most of us online or on any sort of technological network. If you don’t use the computer, you’ll at least have a cellphone with a SIM card. If you were to be hacked, it’d be relatively easy to spy on you, like what President Snow does.

     The film is also a commentary on a dystopian society in which there is an elite ruling class and a suffering working class—and it’s all based on where you were born. It’s not nice to think about, but yeah, we have so many institutions that promote that kind of discrimination, when something completely out of your control is taken against you. In this case, it’s so bad that they have a competition in which you get lucky, or kill or be killed.

Third, how does science, technology and society fail or succeed in the world of the 13 Districts?
     Besides the fact that the technology in the movie’s universe is used to subjugate everyone (even the Capitol is being manipulated), it’s also shown to be very useful. In the arena, they would have died had they not had the spigot with them, which was their main source of drinking water. I think the main point the movie makes is that science and technology itself is neutral. It can be used for bad—as I previously mentioned, the President of the Capitol uses cameras, microphones, etc. to keep an eye on the people he rules and to make sure all hints of dissent are quickly stamped out, but it can also be used for good, basically whenever Katniss and her allies use technology to fight the authoritarian rule of President Snow.

     It’s not that science and technology is inherently good or inherently evil, but in the movie it’s shown that it depends who is using it, and to what end. After all, the technology that frees Katniss and the tributes from the arena in which they were to die is the same technology that was supposed to kill them.

Reaction Paper: Catching fire and teen angst with a revolution on the side.

First, is the film Science Fiction? Why or why not?

                The emotional circus of adolescence and running a revolution set in the backdrop of advanced technology and appalling gaps of both wealth and standards of living, the movie-adapted novel of Suzanne Collins “Catching Fire,” is science fiction

                Not contesting the merit of the novel nor the movie, I would daresay that Catching Fire is, aside from being a science fiction is a fantasy teen novel with strong hints of social commentary. True enough that the setting of the film is a society where they feature advanced architecture, better infrastructure, a more stylish (and hopefully more apt) military police.        

Science fiction, as how my English professors taught it, makes a guess of what technologies would be available in the future and then make a society and a story set in the said society about this technology. Hopefully, the story manages to ask questions on issues such as morality, philosophy, and social structure. An example would be “A Stranger in a Strange Land,” a novel about a Human raised in a Human colony in Mars who goes back to his homeland, our Earth. He discovers, however, that he doesn’t fit. He discovers that he isn’t an Earthling. He is a Martian. Science fiction hopes to make its readers ponder such questions. Catching Fire does that. 

Second, is the film a commentary on past, present and future human society?

                The film is a commentary of present society. As globalization pushes nations to take hold of their comparative advantages and specialize in their products and services, the world slowly morphs into the Panem portrayed by Collins. Though driven to the extreme in that dictatorial rule, political and social oppression and downright economic slavery exists, Collins attempts to warn us of what happens in a system of specialized states with only one, and unfortunately-exclusive, capital.

                This present system, however, seems to be in its infancy. With the entire world as the Districts and the few superpowers in the world as the capital.

Third, how does science, technology and society fail or succeed in the world of the 13 Districts?

                Science and technology are worthless if they are not pursued for the benefit of the people. If science and progress would all be directed towards enriching the center while siphoning the resources of the periphery, no matter how far science and technology develops, it fails.

                Science and technology should be used in social services such as medicine or agriculture, and not in petty and political pursuits such as building a Hunger Games arena. As one can see, science and technology is to free people from their inherent limits, not to trap them further into suffering and servitude. Panem fails in this.

Reaction on Catching Fire

Science Fiction – a genre of movies/books that revolves on events that don’t happen and can’t happen in the present, however it does not involve any form of magic. This is my personal definition of science fiction. Hence, I consider Catching Fire as a sci-fi film. I don’t think the hunger games is held in any country at the moment; and I doubt that there are any hovercrafts lurking above the sky right now.  There are a lot of elements in the film that don’t seem plausible in the world we live in right now that it is just right to consider it as science fiction.

However, I do think that there are some parts of the story that represents the past, present and future of human society (not so much as commentary). For instance, the hunger games proper is a representation of the past. It represents the time of the “survival of the fittest”. In the hunger games, only the fittest (the person who killed every other tribute) can walk out of the arena alive. Much like the time before, only those who have the most suitable traits/characteristics for the environment can survive. As for the present, it took me a hard time to think of its representation in the movie; but if I had to point my finger to it, it must be the mining in District 12. The citizens of District 12 work in order for them to survive and most of them work with the material that is abundant in their place, coal and minerals. That is pretty much like the present where countries main source of labor comes from the resources that are abundant to them. Like the Philippines, agriculture is our primary source of income since we are an agricultural country. Lastly, for the future, I think the hovercrafts, lavish dresses that burn without hurting the wearer, sickening medicines enable you to eat excessively and all the eccentric elements in the film represented the future well. I believe that with the pacing of technological advancement that we have, there will come a time where there will be hovercrafts, fire-blazing dresses, holograms, etc.

Finally, I mustn’t forget to talk about the failure of science, technology and society in the world of 13 Districts. Yes, I think that all these three failed in the world of 13 districts. I say this because I believe that the true purpose of science, technology and society is to give better lives to human beings. Those three must be used for the betterment of the human race and not to hurt them for it to succeed. But, as shown in the movie, the three things were only harming the citizens of the 13 Districts. The science there was not used to help people live longer, it was used to kill them. The society’s system was unjust and the technology were predominantly war weapons. The three brought danger and fear to the human race, when I believe that it should’ve protected them.

Reaction Paper: “Catching Fire”

“Catching Fire” can be considered a science fiction film because of the advanced technologies featured in it that may still be under study or even non-existent in our present society. The film showcased advanced display and hologram technologies that were used much like computer monitors and also as battle simulators for the players practicing for the game. Apart from that, the movie also showed state-of-the-art flight and hover mechanism with their transportation and ships. Of course, the whole idea of the hunger games set-up rested on the advanced environmental regulation and manipulation as demonstrated in the movie. There also were invisible force field generators, advanced cameras and cinematography. Sophisticated gear and weaponry were also shown worn and carried by the guards and players in the movie. Even the aspect of fashion was tapped scientifically giving rise to Katniss’s famous flaming dress that even morphs into another dress altogether.

“Catching Fire” is a bleak commentary on the future of society, as it shows a highly “regularized” and advanced world overlying poverty and deprivation. The people from the higher districts were depicted to live easy and extravagant lifestyles, while those from the lower districts have to constantly fight for their survival amidst scarcity and abuse. This ingrained caste system gradually blurred aspects of equity further down the social spiral. Status, resources and even human dignity were stripped from people below so that the people above could keep their lifestyle, as depicted by the abuses done to contain the people from desiring change and social restructuring.

The very purpose of science, technology and society in alleviating human lifestyle sorely fails here because of the selective growth that only a few people enjoy while the rest suffer. These elements do not work for the betterment of all but merely a few people in the social structure. These even served as tools for oppression against the people who desired for social change and equality.

“Catching Fire” then serves as an alarming reminder to us of the possible effects of the misuse and abuse of science and technology on society, so that our efforts to further enrich humanity through discovery and innovation will never threaten to compromise that very aspect of humanity that we seek to enrich – life.

Reaction Paper: GDayX Manila

           GDayX provided for a more fruitful and productive escape for an otherwise, mundane and lazy Saturday afternoon for me last 23^rd of November, 2013.

            At first, I thought it was just gonna be another boring tech talk about the latest gadgets used in business today. And of all audiences to single out, they chose probably the most learned and sophisticated generation to give focus to in such a talk.

            Turns out, the event had much more knowledge in store for me, stretching far beyond the confines of day-to-day usage of gadgets and gizmos. The speakers for the event gave really relevant and useful points not only for aspiring entrepreneurs, small-medium scale businesses or students, but also to any modern man who encounters and works with these state-of-the-art gadgets and innovations.

             “Introduction to Google Analytics” was the first talk I listened to. I knew it really wasn’t the best sounding title for a talk to start off the day. But however drudgingly lackluster it sounded, the speaker, Maro Rimorin, who was a Blogger and Digital Strategist, was able to capture his audience through his natural charisma and of course, the relevant points he raised regarding Google Analytics and its relation to personal and company websites.

            Google Analytics, in a nutshell, is an online web-tracking service by Google that provides pertinent information regarding the website chosen by the user to be tracked. This helps users keep tabs on the development and progress of their personal or company websites, so they can adapt and make changes to their website according to the information relayed by Google Analytics.

            For instance, if the bounce rate (which simply means the times people visit a site and immediately leave without taking time to view its content) increases, then perhaps the business tied to it, say a restaurant, is also experiencing a higher bounce rate. Thus, the company will employ strategies to improve the website or explore other online venues of interaction with their market. Dealing with this problem successfully online will eventually trickle down to their sales and provide for a more efficient and successful business.

            The following talk was entitled “Google+ for Business” by Johnn Mendoza. It was as straightforward as it could get, pretty much bearing the whole-point-of-coming-here title for the entrepreneurs present then.

            Who never thought of Google+ as “Google’s Facebook”? That’s what I thought the first time and, as did any other user who thought the same way, left the site vowing never to visit again.

            The speaker clarifies Google+ as “Google plus all the other things; a label uniting all the other functions of Google into one brand”. Mail, Maps, Drive, and all the other services of Google fall under this category and each one these functions has the capacity to help further improve people’s lifestyle, as well as business.

            The speaker discusses of a project he worked on. It was an upstart hotel that catered to the middle class tourists in Cebu. They invested 80% of their capital on online marketing which roughly even cost them twenty-thousand pesos, compared to the expensive printing of flyers and paying more to post them around prominent landmarks. Now, the hotel is constantly receiving bookings, even beyond their capacity at times. All this was possible through online marketing through Google Places and Google Maps.

            The final talk I listened to was “Google for Education” by Jerome Locson. This topic, of course, piqued my interest as a student of this day and age, who is used to computers and other gadgets as mediums for my professors to lecture in class.

            The speaker showed a video of a man handling a class for less fortunate students who desire to learn and achieve greater. It shows the man putting on his Google Glass and traveling to a famous Science Complex to show his students over a feed through the laptop the machinery and processes inside.

            I can’t help but be excited with all the new technological possibilities and frontiers to be explored in the near future - may it be for a general betterment of lifestyle, economic progression or quality education accessible for a greater majority of people, I sincerely do hope that all these changes and innovations will bring genuine good to our society.

Sources:
"Build Your Audience - Google Analytics." Google. n. d. Web. 26 Nov. 2013.<http://www.google.com/analytics/why/>.
Castro, Fleire. "The Prestigious Business Community in Cebu."Blogger. n. d. Web. 26 Nov. 2013.<http://www.gbgcebu.org/p/about.html>.