The Island
I recently saw the movie The Island for the first time, and thought there were many parallels that could be drawn between discussions we had had in class and themes and ideas present in the movie.
At first, the people in the movie live in a seemingly Utopian society. Everyone is equal, everything is bright, fresh and clean. Every day is the same. There are no politics or religion, or anything by which people can become divided. The characters are told that this Utopian place is the only location on Earth that hasn't been contaminated by some detrimental nuclear or chemical incident. The only location other than "the island," which is also uncontaminated, but has limited space, so the residents play a "lottery" to see who gets to leave and go to paradise, "the island."
As the movie continues you learn that these people are actually clones or real humans on a very much "uncontaminated" and alive Earth. They are bought by the wealthy as literal life insurance policies. If you need an organ transplant, no worries, you have a clone who can give up life in Clone-World so you can have a new organ.
The parallels I drew were between the idea of a Utopian society, like in Francis Bacon's New Atlantis. The difference is, the rest of the world new about this Clone World, while the clones knew absolutely nothing about the rest of the world. They lived in isolation and complete falsehoods.
Also, the concept of "playing God" should be noted, as the doctor and president of this clone company literally creates human beings. They are bought to life as adults, the same age as their counterparts in the real world. This reminds me of Victor Frankenstein and how he created a monster.
The movie raises a lot of ethical questions about cloning and humanity. Are these clones humans? They have emotions and relationships, yet they are killed at any point in time when their counterpart needs something. Is this right?
Is it right for Frankenstein to create a monster, and then want to kill him?
Can living with your head in the sand in isolation really by Utopian?
At first, the people in the movie live in a seemingly Utopian society. Everyone is equal, everything is bright, fresh and clean. Every day is the same. There are no politics or religion, or anything by which people can become divided. The characters are told that this Utopian place is the only location on Earth that hasn't been contaminated by some detrimental nuclear or chemical incident. The only location other than "the island," which is also uncontaminated, but has limited space, so the residents play a "lottery" to see who gets to leave and go to paradise, "the island."
As the movie continues you learn that these people are actually clones or real humans on a very much "uncontaminated" and alive Earth. They are bought by the wealthy as literal life insurance policies. If you need an organ transplant, no worries, you have a clone who can give up life in Clone-World so you can have a new organ.
The parallels I drew were between the idea of a Utopian society, like in Francis Bacon's New Atlantis. The difference is, the rest of the world new about this Clone World, while the clones knew absolutely nothing about the rest of the world. They lived in isolation and complete falsehoods.
Also, the concept of "playing God" should be noted, as the doctor and president of this clone company literally creates human beings. They are bought to life as adults, the same age as their counterparts in the real world. This reminds me of Victor Frankenstein and how he created a monster.
The movie raises a lot of ethical questions about cloning and humanity. Are these clones humans? They have emotions and relationships, yet they are killed at any point in time when their counterpart needs something. Is this right?
Is it right for Frankenstein to create a monster, and then want to kill him?
Can living with your head in the sand in isolation really by Utopian?
posted by Hayley at 12:42 AM
4 Comments:
I agree that if one has knowledge of the outside world, attempting to isolate oneself can never be Utopian. This idea was expressed in Rappaccini's Daughter. The scientific gardener, isolates her daughter from the world begining at her birth. She is cuious, but do to her father's poisons, she cannot leave the garden and engage in a normal life. Rappaccini believes he is protecting his daughter. He treats her as nothing more than another flower that must be protected from the harsh elements of nature. However, because she is aware of the outside world, the isolation only makes her more apt to put herself, or others in danger. Clearly, when she dies at the end of the story, this is a message that is meant to affirm the idea that isolation is not protection and certainly not ideal.
I have never seen this movie but it sounds really interesting and addresses a question I have been wondering about Frankenstein. If a person creates another being "from scratch" then do they have claim to take that being's life whenever they see fit? I think not, just like in the Island and in Frankenstein, once the being has life, the human creator now longer has any possession over that being's life unless given express consent. Whether they are clones or monsters, killing them is still murder in my book.
Word Kristian, word.
Many of the questions that you all bring up will continue to surface in our readings this semester. As far as the isolation of utopia problem, I would probably point to the fact that there might be multiple ways to define the utopian. Literary utopias technically must always exist in some kind of isolation since utopia literally means "no place." Implementing "utopian" ideals in the world, though, as Hayley points to, might be another matter. Could a real utopia exist?
(and if Utopia is an impossibility, what are its functions in literature? Or why do such representations exist?)
Post a Comment
<< Home