The Fly - Reaction Paper

Jonathan Idolor
2013 - 14792

The movie was quite interesting, being acquainted with the more recent version, it was nice to see what the first version looked like. The flow of the story was made to confuse or most probably get the attention of the viewer from the very start. The ending was anti-climactic though and just seemed to aim to eliminate any possibility for the story to continue for the human fly.

The concept of teleportation is very familliar of course. One thing I was expecting to see was how the concept of the soul would be explained in line with teleporting people or living objects. But due to the focus of the story, they focused more on disintegrating and reintegrating matter.

Their views on scientists showed the general public's skepticism for new and profound inventions. It was apparently expensive to be curious back then. People were also very afraid of change and of things they could not explain and understand, which explains why they so abruptly killed the fly.

The overall feel of the movie seemed to be directed towards the concept of playing with science. How human experimentation was, and still is taboo. On how being too skeptic can hold you back from great things but without understanding the limits, can destroy you.

Reaction Paper (The Fly)

- Krystine Pearl Robles (2013-70142)

                As a teenager with modernistic views, the 1953 film The Fly didn’t catch my interest at all. It is that type of film I would never consider watching. Maybe I just don’t like super old movies starring people with weird clothes and weird haircuts, I don’t know. So as I watched the film, deep inside, I wanted it to the end quickly. Even though, I decided to give it a chance and I was quite amused with the creativity of people back then. All in all I think the plot though was weird and funny.

                I think the film served as a warning so people will not use living things as test subjects and do weird creepy experiments on them. I guess you could consider it as the morality of the play: Never ever play with living creatures because we never know what horrible possible things could happen.

                It somehow reflects on the views on Science and Technology during 1950s. From what I saw on the film, i can conclude that during their time using humans or other living things on dangerous and out of this world experiments is bad and immoral and as of today I think that view is still accepted and practiced.

The Fly (1958) - Classic Sci-fi

by Erwin Dennis Umali | 2010 - 23119

Despite the slow plot development reminiscent of classic movies, The Fly manages to pique my interest enough to make me see it till the end. While I managed to suspend my disbelief, its stereotypical 50's interpretation of science still felt off-putting, leaving me with a bad taste by its conclusion. Its message, compared to the rest of the film, sounded so contradictory.

The film circles around the mad scientist Andre, going beyond normal science and inventing a matter transporter. Andre then goes on to conclude that his invention will end shortages and conflict. Well, that escalated quickly! I'd say its exaggeration was done purposefully; later on, the scientist abandons the notions of careful, methodical science and tests on himself, where his errors become the central plot of the movie. Strange, really. By the end, the rest of the cast smile upon Andre, telling of him to be one who searched for the truth. Such a benevolent act! Yet portrayed in such drama and non-science.

The Fly felt like it tried to incite morality into viewers, but you can glimmer some overdramaticism mixed in. I think only incited fears on how rapid technology was progressing at the time. Colored TV's, the discovery of DNA, atomic submarines, Sputnik's launch into space -- surely something has to go awry, right? Yes! His transporter does, in such a horrid manner.

In the end, I think I'm criticizing too much on what supposedly is a sci-fi thriller. While, for me, The Fly  entertains, it leaves a lot of misleading thoughts and questions to ponder about science. Search for the truth, become a hideous beast? All part of the job! By the end, it's all up to the viewer how to paint his image of science; The Fly encourages you to paint it grisly, but beautifully.

The Fly

by: Paulline Olabre 
      2013-11698


     As the movie started with some kind of mysteriously creepy music, I thought it was a horror story. I got really confused when I saw the title "The Fly" and I think it would be so ridiculous to make a movie about a fly. The first part was so weird because of the woman who is so obsessed with flies and she killed her own husband. But on the latter part, it turned out to be about a scientist who created a disintegrator-integrator machine that could teleport anything from one place to another. I don't think that the movie is entertaining for me since it's some kind of an old fashioned movie and is too fictional but it is quite interesting seeing how people were so into inventions a long time ago.

    Scientists and their underground laboratories at home and their not so modern equipment. The movie showed how the scientists from the past are so into inventions. How passionate they were for new innovations and their eagerness to make things that would benefit everyone. It is a morality play since Andre, the scientist wanted to kill himself since the accident happened and also before that, his wife already told him not to use animals for the experiments. This movie could've had a happy ending only if the scientist himself was very careful with the technology.

   Science and Technology in the 1950's would be something that I would compare to a kid. It is still developing and is learning more and more everyday. The characteristic of the scientist in the movie shows how important is the innovation for them because he knows that this would make a big thing to everyone and it would really help for future inventions. With their not so modern equipment, they are more curious and more eager to find out more about where technology would be able to take them.

The Fly 1958

by: fidel delos reyes

2009-31842

-The film to me is not that entertaining and interesting. Just like so many suspense movie that I’ve seen, nothing extra ordinary. I find the story ridiculous and funny. How can a small sized head of a fly become big to fit the body of the inventor,so was the left arm.  Likewise how can the big sized head and arm of the scientist fit in a fly body. Add to this is the fact that the fly head could still think like a human being, meaning that only the head and not the brain was reintegrated. How could one separate the brain from the head?

-The commentary that I remembered most about the film is what Vincent Price said “a man (scientist) dared to play God.” Surely this could be an issue on morality since it concerns a human being, and if this is brought out for debate, I’m sure it will become  a big issue. If the animal carers protect the life of animals by protesting against the use of animals as guinea pigs for scientific experiments, what more is a human life, which is more valuable than that of an animal?

-The movie reflects the idea on science and technology in the 1950 which I think is still true at present, that it shows the obsession of man in creating something very extraordinary, that in their earnest desire to make a difference, scientists try to become God. But the truth is always there, that is the human mind is limited and making blunders and great mistakes are always present in their works. They can never be perfect because they are not ‘God’.

THE FLY (1958) REACTION PAPER

I was absent when “The Fly” was viewed in STS class.

I just learned from my classmates that it required a reaction paper, so I downloaded a copy of it. But I have no interest in watching it because of the year it was produced and its uncatchy title.

It was an amazing film; science amazes me, and so does the film.

The film aged more than half a decade, but still the views of science hadn't changed.  As to modern day researches, the same ethics should be applied; the risks should all be noted however small the possibility would be.

Science and technology during the 1950’s was I think successful. Considering the improvements, science indeed was successful. The film also showed how mistakes lead to success. But everyone should consider their limits.

So just try and try..’til it hurts.

Xavier Noel Briones

2013-41022

The Fly(1958)

by: Maricella D. Valdivia(2013-55498)

        From the moment the movie started, I became interested. I was curious about the title, and these questions arose, 'Why is it entitled "The Fly"?' and 'Is the fly relevant to the story?'. It came out that the movie was about a scientist who tries to make a some kind of a teleport. The whole thing may be a little boring because of the quality of the video, it is an old film, and the story is quite predictable(doesn't have a lot of twists).

        The film also discussed about the scientists during that time, it appears to me that all of the scientists are eager to find new discoveries, new inventions, that not one will help another since the other might copy his idea, etc. The scientist in the movie gave more of his time with his inventions, hungry for more technological innovations for mankind to use. Although this 'teleporter' doesn't exist up until now, I think it frustrates the scientists because in the first place, this portal isn't impossible.

        I consider it a morality play although for me it doesn't fit well that the scientist wanted to kill himself because he thinks he and his ideas are no longer valuable since his invention didn't work well since his atoms and those of a fly were mixed up. But it gave us the idea and abstract of death. Another is that the wife tells the scientist not to use living creatures for experiment. There were many scenes having a moral value which I cannot tell one by one.

        Basically, they were limited from high technological sources. The film showed how science and technology is a big deal for the people during the 1950's. It's as if one might risk his own life just to discover something. That was the period where every question needs to be researched by these scientists, that there shouldn't be a mistake before they introduce it to mankind. Just like the scientist from the film who aggressively makes his invention for the benefit of man, but unfortunately failed to do it. I'm thankful for the scientists back then, for they lessened our questions. But still technology is still improving itself, we cannot say what we might have in the future. Maybe Harry Potter's invisibility cloak, a time machine, or even a teleport.

The Search for the Truth

Was the film entertaining and interesting? Why?
The movie wasn't particularly interesting for me because the plot was too predictable. There's the ambitious scientist who invents something that will benefit the world, an experiment goes wrong, the scientist realizes that man isn't ready for the new invention yet and destroys his creation. The movie itself wasn't bad since the story was well developed. There were instances though that amused me greatly, like when Andre teleported the cat, the experiment failed and it turned into atoms floating in the air, its meowing still audible.



What was the film's commentary on Scientists and conduct of science? Would you consider it a morality play? Why?
Scientists seemed to have much freedom when it came to exploring the sciences. It was a respected profession but one that was risky (like when Andre mixed atoms with a fly). In some sense the movie is a morality play, since it showed that man cannot just mess with nature however they wish, that even though something may be good for the world, if the people aren't ready for it yet, it's meaningless. Helene's struggle on whether she should seek help despite her husband's opposition or fulfill his last wish of a hidden death is also a play on morality. Should she kill a man who wants to die or should she continue the fruitless search for the fly? So many things could have ended differently had Andre not made that mistake with the fly.



How does it reflect the view on Science and Technology during the 1950's ?
STS seemed to be very important back in the 1950's since scientists were often given huge budgets for them to research with to their hearts content. Even Helene talks as if scientists are so abundant that it would be easy to ask for help when Andre's experiment went wrong. As Francois says, Andre died doing the most dangerous act to humanity, but also the most beneficial: "the search for the truth".

Reaction Paper: The Fly

by: Maria Teresa Llera 2013-40924

I was really confused while I was watching the first few minutes of the film because I just couldn’t fathom why the woman in the movie was so obsessed with flies. When I went on with the film, however, I realized that it was very interesting, after all. The Fly (the title of the film) is a science-fiction horror movie that revolved around a scientist who transformed into a “half-fly” after a fly got caught with him in the disintegrator-integrator machine, an invention of his that could transport matter. The great plot, love story, and unexpected twists made the movie entertaining and heart-racing.

The film showed the scientists’ great thirst for new discovery and invention during the 1950s. The lack of the advancement of technology (compared to the kind of technology we have nowadays) wasn’t a hindrance to the scientists in the past to create great inventions, even if these inventions’ possibility of destruction was very high. This is where the movie as a morality play comes in. The question of morality began when the scientist tested the invention on his cat, a living creature, and when this cat failed to reintegrate. In this part, one could question: “Is it really morally good to test an invention that isn’t 100% safe on a living creature?” and “If it isn’t, can great inventions be possibly created?”

Science and technology was a big thing during the 1950’s, with many scientists working very hard to achieve great things that could improve people’s lives significantly, although I think that they weren’t as cautious as the scientists we have now when it comes to the concept of morality. Still, one can see that great improvement has been made since the past. Science and technology indeed continues to fluorish as more and more discoveries are made.

On The Fly (1958)

          by: Joben Ryan A. Padre 2013-42972

          The Fly was one of the most interesting science-related movies I have ever watched. The plot was so interesting that even if I have already anticipated what was going to happen next in the story, I still looked forward to every scene in the movie. I liked how the makers of the movie were able to combine the elements of science, love, family, and morality into one great film.

          Though the film most likely just came from imagination, its storyline highlighted the different traits and attitudes of scientists, especially during the 1950’s. The movie is definitely a must watch as it highlighted the scientists’ aggressiveness in research and invention, curiosity regarding different scientific concepts and principles, and bravery even up to the point of sacrificing oneself for the common good.

          Morality is the different opinions of different people regarding what is good and what is bad. The film showed at many points how the different moralities of the characters have affected their decisions in life. This is why the movie can be considered a morality play. Furthermore, the movie showed that the end does not justify the means, that one must be responsible for his/her actions, and that we must do what is good and right for many.

          During the film’s setting in the 1950’s, Science and Technology were continuing to flourish and scientists all over the world were making great leaps in order to achieve what previous generations haven’t been able to accomplish. In the 50’s, people were somehow idealistic and optimistic in making everything easier for them. However, the film showed that we must be cautious and considerate in the judgements that we make especially regarding advancements in Science.

Catching Fire

By: Paulline Joyce N. Olabre

      The Catching Fire is a science fiction because of the futuristic elements used in the movie. The concept of the arena, looking all natural but is absolutely hi-tech covered with force field and all the hybrid-looking animals, the thunder, flashfloods, all the things happening inside it are just controlled by the game maker, Katniss’ burning gown or even just the whole environment in the Capitol. These things are way beyond what technology can do in the present. But who knows, maybe in the future we’ll all be able to do these things. But I hope that it won’t be for the Hunger Games. Let’s use technology for good purposes and not just for entertainment that involves people killing each other.

      

      The movie reflects the past, present, and future of the society. The past because the reality of slavery is there. The absence of education in the other districts, people without means of transportation, and the old ways of living. However, these things are just happening in the poor districts. The present, with the districts being able to put up their market. The use of mass media, the trains, the armed men responsible for the discipline of their citizens, the capitol as their government, the large difference with the lifestyle of the privileged and the unfortunate ones, and the most important of all, the revolution of the people. In the future, I think, would be the excessive power of the capitol over the people. With great technology, making them very powerful and the whole concept of the game itself, picking people in each districts to kill each other for the pleasure of the rich people.

    

     Science, technology, and society for me failed in the world of the 13 districts. Because even if they were able to improve technology to the extent that they can produce things such as The Hunger Games with hi-tech arenas, training facilities, weapons, etc. The lives of the people in the districts are still miserable, there seems to be no modernization happening. They still have to work really hard for their living instead of them being able to use the technology to lessen the work that they should do.  The thing is, instead of helping the poor people to rise up, the Capitol were just more able to abuse their power over the people with these kind of technology that they have. 

Catching Fire

by; Fidel Delos Reyes (2009-31842)

Is it science fiction?
        - I think the movie is definitely a science fiction since the technology they use are very advanced with the use of holograms, advanced training system and transport system and even the whole concept of the arena is pretty much high tech. I think that the use of technologies like this makes the movie look like it was set in the future where technology really advanced or in a parallel universe. Still, I think that the whole movie can still work in a more low tech setting but with the same plot.

Commentary on past, present and future human society?
        - i think the movie can be a commentary of the past due to the concept of the hunger games where it really is the survival of the fittest and also the fact that after the civil war it was the winners that lived in the capitol and the losers are the ones in the districts serving the winners, this isn't really a new idea in history. It can also be a commentary of the present when it depicts what could happen when people abuse their power. and it is also a commentary of the future of what people can do with the technology they hold, both good and bad.

How science and technology fail or succeed in the world of the 13 Districts?
        - You can see that there is a big difference in terms of technology in the 12 districts (13th not counted as it was not really showed in the film) that the richest which is the capitol is very technologically advance with its futuristic lifestyle while the poorest which is district 12 can be compared to a poor city at the time of the great depression in the early 20th century. I think that science and technology failed the world of the 13 districts because even if they have great technology it was only available for the few and the ones in power uses it to suppress others to maintain themselves on top. Still the fact that it really improves the lifestyle even if it is only limited to some is undoubtedly success enough.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - Thoughts and Insights

by Erwin Dennis Umali | 2010 - 23119

I have to admit, I was not really that interested in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire when it came out. I didn't really watch the first one. Actually, I do not really engage too much in movies in general. However, I think that, because of my lessened exposure to film, I can actually give a more objective point of view on this movie, because I have no initial bias or expectations on what was shown.

... Or, well, maybe it's just me trying to justify my laziness on going to movie theaters. But, anyway-- !

Science fiction?

If we take into consideration the textbook meaning of science fiction (a good example on Wikipedia), we can certainly consider Catching Fire within that category. I mean, did you see that force-fielded arena? Or even Katniss' "burning dress" costume (which is technically possible today, but yeah)? Basically, the technology depicted in the movie surpasses current feasible modern technology. For me, that is enough to consider Catching Fire as sci-fi.

That doesn't mean, though, that the movie is purely sci-fi. More appropriately, I think sci-fi was used as a literary device to depict the dystopian world of Panem, in the eyes of a distraught teenager forced into dire circumstances for grim entertainment. Most post-apocalyptic tropes intersect with science fiction, and Catching Fire is one of those.

However, it doesn't end there. The movie also delves into other genres and tropes...

Commentary?

... and, arguably, Catching Fire is quite a commentary on society. It depicts a totalitarian regime, catering to an abusive oligarchy (the Capitol), and structuring the populace to provide their own luxury to their detriment (the 13 12 Districts). It is a view on humanity, politics, and societal issues that could happen when the minority gains access to technology -- and, thus, power and influence.
In this sense, the movie can actually criticize society in any timeline. It can be paralleled to how past empires shape their domain according to their ruling class' needs. It can be compared to how current superpowers are trying to implicitly bend the world to their bidding. It can be thought of as how society will progress if it continues down a path of capitalism and (ironically) global self-interest. Even taking away Catching Fire's romance, the movie can be thought of as a pretty powerful commentary on what society has and can become.

STS?

There's little argument for me in this regard. The Capitol is lush in science and technology. The people in the Districts lack such privilege. In this light, technology is power in Panem. It is the fulcrum in which those who wield it can exert influence to everyone else. The Arena for the Hunger Games itself can be seen as technology's role in manipulating society, using futuristic (and infeasible -- but yeah, let's not go there) technologies to bend the circumstances to their bidding.

So, then, does science, technology and society succeed or fail in Panem? For me, it's both. It succeeds in the context of developing science and technology for the sake of it. In the movie, these dictate power. The mere fact such technologies exist is, for me, a success in itself.
We can't look at things at face value all the time, however. In the context of society, the movie's innovations certainly fail. If we were to view the purpose of technology to aid in society, then no tech in Catching Fire succeeds. Just one look at the dystopian, totalitarian setting suggests that science is being used to suppress, silence, brainwash. And, certainly, that future is not something I'd want to live in.

Catching Fire Movie Review

by: Maria Teresa Llera (2013-40924)

Catching Fire, the second book and movie of The Hunger Games trilogy, is no doubt a science fiction. The movie presented a lot of futuristic technology, like the hologram-like televisions, flying ships (or what most some fictional books call ‘hoverboards’), and clothes that are set on fire without them burning. The Hunger Games, or the 75^th Quarter Quell, to be specific, is an example of science fiction, with its bouncing forcefield, mutated killing animals, and its arena that can be altered anytime, anywhere by the gamemakers. Although most of the futuric things that can be seen in the movie do not exist today, there is a big chance that they will exist in the future. I mean, one can never tell what can happen and what can be invented in the future, like how people in 1900s could never tell that smartphones could actually exist.

                The movie is not only about impressive technology – it is also about the human society in the past, present, and future. It presented a society where certain groups of people are divided into classes, like the working class (can be referred to as slaves, in some cases) who live in the 12 districts of Panem and the wealthy class who live in the Capitol. This kind of society was very dominant in the past where people are classified as slaves, landlords, and etc., although this kind of society still exists up to now. The movie also presented a government system that is very similar to the government systems in different countries nowadays. The Philippine government is an example. Admit it – our own government system has its black agenda and corrupt system. As for the future, one could see the endless possibilities that technology can bring. Hoverboards, forcefields, and holograms – these things can definitely exist in the future, with the right time and effort.

               The concept of science, technology, and society both failed and succeeded in the world of the 13 districts. Society failed in the sense that not everyone in Panem was equal and was given the equal privileges. The corrupt system and discrimination was dominant in the districts. Although society failed in the 12 districts, we cannot say the same – at least not yet – to what could happen in District 13, a new district where Katniss and her allies were heading to. Also, even though the technology used in the movie was very advanced, it was not always used for the better. The creation of the different traps and other things that were meant to kill the tributes in the arena is an example of the misuse of technology. The improvement of science and technology is always good, as long as it is not destructive to people and to the environment.

                Catching Fire is not just another book or movie that could make people’s hearts beat faster and their shouts louder every time Katniss and Peeta kiss. No, Catching Fire is more than that. Catching Fire, above all, is about how one person can inspire thousands of people to ignite a revolution that could change their lives forever.

Catching Fire: Genre, Commentary, STS

by Jovialis Jill N. Yeung (2013-72341)

Genre

Honestly, I don’t think that the main genre of Catching Fire is Sci-Fi. Sure, they do have some awesome and really advanced tech in Panem but only the people in the Capitol are privileged enough to experience it while the other districts are stuck with really basic tech that still involves a lot of manual labor and inefficiency.

Even during the Hunger Games the tributes are left to use primal weapons and the “obstacles” they had to face were also primal such as poison fog and violent apes (even though they were created using superior technology).

The Sci-Fi aspects of the movie were there I think, for the purpose of contrasting the wealth and power of the Capitol against the poverty and helplessness of the 13 Districts.

Commentary

As for whether Catching Fire is a commentary of the past/present/future of human society, I guess I’d say a little bit of everything.

Past – Like how slavery was dominant before human rights came into fruition, the stark differences in the lives of the rich and poor, the elitist system etc.,….things like that were more evident in the past.

Present – Shows the sometimes extreme differences in the technological advances of different countries/nations, the use of social media to manipulate/influence the public, how even with all the rules and laws people have implemented there are still many who violate even the most basic of rights (wars, violence etc.)

Future – It may be a sort of warning, that if humanity doesn't pay attention to what they’re doing and what they’re aiming for, the world may end up as twisted as the one portrayed in the movie, not in the sense that people will start killing each other as entertainment but more along the lines of the gap between the privileged and under-privileged becoming so huge that it will lead to discontent among the masses and eventually trigger wars. This is all just speculation on my part though, there’s no evidence to support anything like the scenario mentioned above from happening in the near future.

Science, Technology and Society

As far as I can tell, the technology available to the 13 districts is so ridiculously old-fashioned it could have come from the 19th Century. About the only place in Panem that has modern technology is the Capitol (holograms, airships, battle dome, etc.) or in a smaller scale would be the houses of the victors (since they won, they became rich, and so their living quarters were upgraded), but other than those two, everywhere else is just ancient. No normal worker (from the districts) seems to be happy, and a lot of strenuous manual labor is still required to keep things barely running. Food and water is scarce, and people live in poverty. It is in this case that the differences between the districts and the Capitol are so glaringly obvious. It's really sad actually, but the Capitol just uses its advanced technology to oppress the masses rather than help them. 

On Catching Fire The Movie

by: Joben Ryan A. Padre 2013-42972

             A movie like Catching Fire which contains scenarios involving force fields, computer-controlled arenas, bullet-like trains, virtually generated animals, tidal waves, thunderstorms, and the like, is definitely a science-fiction. I’m not saying that these themes are impossible to create in real life, but they seem far-fetched to exist today. The film basically showed the possible effects and consequences of science and technology in a highly developed world. However, since it is still fiction, what the film reflected are mere expectations and projections on how science may look like in years to come, and its positive and negative effect on humans and the world as a whole.

On whether the film reflected the human society of the past, present, and/or future, it depends on which areas we consider and how we see such comparisons. When we take into account the past, we realize that slavery was dominant back in the days, and this type of oppression was seen as the Capitol bullied the lower districts. As this type of tyranny took place in human history, we saw the people from lower “districts” or the ones being enslaved revolt against their specific captors. A good example of this is the Philippine revolution against our many conquerors. This took place little by little as the story of The Hunger Games went on. A good comparison can somewhat be drawn between Katniss Everdeen and Jose Rizal since they both served as inspirations to people. When we look at our present situation, we can see how unrighteous government officials get higher and higher on the food chain on the expense of the less fortunate citizens. In the movie, this abuse is shown as President consistently imposed his own will and brutally tried to stop the booming revolutions. The film also projected the future of mankind. It is obvious that from a science and technology standpoint, the film depicts what innovations and developments could come in the next centuries to come. That is the good part about the story being our future.

What’s frightening is the possibility that in the next generations, a specific pecking order would exist among people of various “districts” and inequality among humans would be as evident as ever. Catching Fire somehow gave us an image of the past, an interpretation of the present, and a forecast of the future.

In the world of the 13 districts, Panem, the main components were typically Science, Technology, and Society. The movie showed that if the power of one of these elements gets out of hand, the others tend to revolt in order to maintain the equilibrium of the country. This is why in a nation like Panem and in our very own Earth as well, the balance between man and his inventions is vital in maintaining peace, order, and prosperity. 

Catching Fire: A Review

by: Maricella D. Valdivia (2013-55498)

1. Is the film a science fiction? Why or why not?

            “Science fiction(Sci-Fi) is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life”. Based on the given definition, I consider the film Sci-Fi. Although we have the LCD projector which we can compare with their 'TV', and the train that is quite similar with our MRT's. But there was a great advancement of technology in the film, just like the ship which is somehow similar to those in the movie, Avengers. In the arena, they were able to make a poisonous fog, a lightning, a large wave, wild baboons, and even birds imitating the cries of the tributes' love ones. They were also able to check up on the tributes' every move and everything they talk about, clearly and understandably.

            Today, it is Sci-Fi. But for me, there may come a time when this is no longer considered fiction. Nothing is impossible, with God. With the curiosity of man, we might have these advancement in no time. In the movie “Back to the Future”, they never thought of smartphones and laptops, but look at us now, we have these portable gadgets everywhere. Let's just hope that the odds are ever in our favor. ;)

2. Is the film a commentary on past, present and future human society?
   

            I think it covers all, past, present, and future human society.
            -Past, since there were people, slaves to be exact, who weren't able to experience the life of the future, those people who are starving, and with low educational attainment. Those districts with low technology, for they have no privilege of using the advanced stuff;
            -Present, since there are people, just like the other families who live the life of somewhat the ordinary. Those who we can compare with the people today; and
            -Future, since some have the opportunity to use the high tech stuff by themselves, those in the imaginative part of the story which we consider extraordinary(since we have the concept of ordinary, today). But we don't know, maybe the extraordinary will just be ordinary someday, somehow.


    3. How does science, technology, and society fail or succeed in the world of the 13 districts?

            There were only twelve districts, but in the end, a thirteenth district was made. Science, technology, and society succeeded in the thirteen districts although not everyone has the opportunity to use the advanced science. It succeeded in the sense that it improved and didn't degrade. From how they transport, their cameras that can record live on its own, the clothes worn by Katniss and Peeta on the welcoming of the tributes, and Katniss' farewell evening gown that transformed into a dress which symbolizes the mocking jay. Although I haven't watched the prequel, nor have read the book series, from what I've watched. It cannot be unseen.