Annihilation (film) (1 point)

 

            While the book absolutely places emphasis on the relationships between characters, the film version of Annihilation makes these relationships far more central to the story. The characters are allowed to be more emotional overall, and the addition of a fifth member rounds out this dynamic. We get more insight into the lives and personalities of the members of the team, with Josie standing out in particular. She’s the only character who gets to die on her own terms, and it’s a hauntingly beautiful death.  It’s somewhat ironic that the film has more character development for the cast than the book, since it’s usually the other way around. In comparison to the biologist, Lena is far more human. She needed to be since this is closer to an ensemble story (though Lena is the clear protagonist) than the novel, which is solely about the biologist’s journey. Dr. Ventress is also a far more sympathetic character than the psychologist of the novel. While I wouldn’t call her evil or a villain, the psychologist is an antagonistic force in the novel. In the film however, Ventress is just as confused and scared as the rest of them.

 

            While the biologist of the novel tries to explain everything, the characters in the film mainly just try to survive. This means less is really explained, lending the film an even more dreamlike quality. The things we are shown seem impossible and even the scientists barely have a grasp on what’s happening. Personally, I somewhat prefer this, but I wouldn’t say one is necessarily better than the other. This also allows the movie to focus more on exploring very human ideas, like loss, identity, and depression. I tend to lean more towards stories like that, but I do appreciate how the novel uses its science to show how otherworldly and impossible Area X is. 

 

    Also, there’s a big scary bear with a skull face that uses their dead friend’s voice and that’s just really cool. What’s the book got, a dolphin with an eye? Movie: 1, book: 0.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bloodchild (2 Points)

1. What is your reaction to the text you just read?  That was…a lot. There’s a lot to unpack with the relationship between the Tlic and the Terrans. It’s disgusting in a literal sense, but it also mirrors a lot of things going on in the real world. Their parasitic relationship, which the Tlic make out to seem mutually beneficial, reminds me of how some white people view Black people. In America, the whites are the ruling race, like the Tlic in the Preserve. They make it seems like Black people are just part of the “mutually beneficial” system of capitalism, but really, they are an oppressed class, being used to further the wealth of those in charge. This parallels how the Tlic use the Terrans as host bodies for their young, but make it seem like they’re doing the Terrans a favor by “protecting” them, when in reality they are putting them in harm’s way.  2. What connections did you make with the story? Discuss what elements of the story with which you were able to connect?  I was able t
Read more

Metropolis (2 Points)

A lot of Metropolis barely feels like fiction at this point, at least when it comes to its commentary on society. As a matter of fact, it weirdly feels like a predecessor to Bong Joon-Ho’s Parasite. Both visually portray class in similar ways; the working class literally live under the upper-class, who don’t really care about those beneath them. Sure, you can argue it’s a bit of an obvious visual metaphor, but I don’t think it takes away from how effective it is. I’d argue that some of the most powerful imagery seems obvious. It speaks to the core of what it’s representing, in this case how the working class is seen as below the upper class. It’s kind of hard to analyze it beyond that, because the film sums it up better than I could with its final card: “The Mediator Between the Head and the Hands Must Be the Heart.”
Read more

Future Tense (2 Points)

The year is 2220. Humanity has, in essence, created immortality. When the body dies, an AI copy of the consciousness can be created and can live on through virtual reality. Some people use this to continue to interact with dead loved ones, and others meet AI versions of their idols. There has been a lot of debate over how legitimate these AI copies are considering they are created by humans. No matter how hard they try, the people who create these do have biases. This is especially true when the family is involved in crafting the AI version of their dead relative; is this a truly authentic version of the person, or an idealized version? How does this affect their legacy? In the end, does it really matter as long as the family is happy? The morality of turning this into an industry would be questioned, but capitalism was abolished after The Millennium War in 2100, so it’s no issue. VR has blown up in popularity after scientists figured out how to simulate the sens
Read more