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
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.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento