Jesus E. Garcia

March 6^th, 2019

Dystopian Society: A Film Director’s Treasure

Throughout our study of utopian and dystopian literature what has especially intrigued me is dystopian literature’s extreme capability for attracting public attention. It seems that, nowadays, every other television series or Hollywood film has some sort of utopian/dystopian influence. The list is boundless but to name a few—beginning specifically with only television shows—HBO’s Westworld, Netflix’s Black Mirror, Hulu’s The Handmaid’s Tale, Amazon’s The Man in the High Castle, and, my personal favorite, USA Network’s Mr. Robot. To further prove my point, in the category of films, the list goes: The Hunger Games, Divergent, Maze Runner, and The Purge. What is amazing about this list of examples is that it doesn’t even begin to describe the true extent of how much television and film production companies have exploited dystopian ideas. In order to truly define utopia and dystopia it is important to reflect on why this exploitation is not as noticeable with stories of utopian societies. Why aren’t all of our favorite television shows about perfect societies where everybody gets along and everything is shared? Why aren’t all of our favorite movies about societies where all the residents are in agreement as to the importance of using sustainable energy and where individual profit is nearly non-existent? These are questions that I look to answer throughout my study of the subject; however, in this particular paper, I look to further prove my point that dystopian societies serve as a more interesting subject when it comes to the silver screen, specifically through the use of my peers’ research posts, the research posts of students who have taken this course before me, and a little through my own initial research post.

In his research post, The Four Apocalypse: from Alas, Babylon to Children of Men Bill Clouse attempts to describe the appeal that an apocalyptic event can have for modern society. He begins with an interesting observation stating, “but even after the end of nearly half a century of nuclear tension between two global super powers, the collapse of the Berlin Wall having occurred almost 30 years ago, the idea of an apocalyptic event still intrigues us today.” What is it about an apocalyptic future that appeals to us? And, why aren’t we, as a collective, as entertained by societies that are completely or at least close to perfect? Blockbuster films are not typically the films where characters are sat down in the same room to have a conversation about economics and sustainability. Despite these being issues of our time, we seem to be more entertained by futures where chemical outbreaks make a majority of the population into rabid, brain-eating zombies, leaving behind only select few characters who have what it takes to survive such a terror. Bill Clouse, though not as concerned with the exact appeal of dystopian futures as much as their ability to influence how they shape the way societies behave, seems to vaguely present the same observation that I am trying to get across.

In his article, “I’d buy that for a dollar!”, Austin Green explores the lack of appeal that the 1987 film, Robocop, had in its initial debut. He makes some interesting observations, suggesting that the film somehow has become reality. It also is made clear in his paper that, over the years following its debut, the film did begin to gain more recognition than it originally had. Is it the possibility of such a future that brings appeal to such films? Why then are films such as The Maze Runner, The Hunger Games, Divergent, or 28 Weeks Later so popular? There are some over-exaggerated themes within these particular films, but is within them some hidden honesty that makes them appeal to such a wide audience? Personally, I think there is. Austin demonstrates the ability of Robocop to appeal to society particularly due to its probability and inevitability. Let us compare this idea to The Hunger Games. One theme that is prevalent in The Hunger Games and that we can all agree is definitely honest is that politicians are afforded the capability of doing awful things. This is not only so with politicians, however. The same could be said about military people, i.e. Ender’s Game; corporate moguls, i.e. Mr. Robot; and corrupt researchers, i.e. 28 Weeks Later.

We can look into the truthfulness of utopias versus dystopias, but it appears that both have an equal capacity for honesty. It is interesting to note the impossibility of a society such as Herland, while noting the more likely society depicted in Robocop. However, some would argue, that the disastrous futures depicted in dystopian literature are equally as farfetched as the harmonious futures depicted in utopias. Daniel Stuart brings up a good point in his essay, Utopia As No Man's Land: The Argument Against Utopia, stating that, “no one utopia can satisfy everyone.” This is a point that is often brought up in our seminars as well. It is often stated that one man’s utopia is another’s dystopia. I believe this to be completely so, and for this reason dystopian literature can be a lot more relatable than utopian literature. A person can relate to the characters in dystopian literature, delving deeply into the storyline, and always feeling that, if placed in a similar situation, they too would want to escape or revolt. While a character in a dystopian story only wishes to be free from communal oppression, individuals in utopian literature seem completely content in their prisons. Therefore, not only does utopian literature lack the qualities required to entertain, but its characters also lack the humanistic qualities that allow readers to even relate.

Dystopian literature is more appealing to film producers and directors for many reasons. Dystopias are more able to encompass conventions that make for an interesting watch. In dystopias we are faced with conflicts, dramas, and resolutions, while in utopias we are only lectured on a more effective way of living. While both dystopias and utopias can have a certain amount of honesty, the one with more capacity for honesty is typically dystopian fiction. A broken society where an evil conglomerate controls every aspect of life is much more feasible than is a perfect society in which every person acts exactly as the person to their left and right. Also, dystopias have a lot more room for the incorporation of characters with relatable attributes. A person can relate much more to a character acting in revolt to an oppressive force than he could a character playing his part in a perfect, harmonious society. These are only a few of the reasons that dystopias have appealed to countless individuals over the years. Not only are dystopias more commonly made into movies but they are also more commonly used as teaching resources in secondary school classrooms. Is the reason behind this fact deep within us as individuals or have we somehow been influenced?

Jesus E. Garcia

March 6^th 2019

Beginning to Understand the Utopian Point

Though having already been aware of utopian/dystopian literature’s existence, I can be forthright in saying that I never truly knew which were the exact elements of which it is comprised. Before my recent study, I knew that dystopias were popular in cinemas, and that almost all dystopian novels were interestingly becoming either major motion pictures or were made into a television series. Before, however, I could not tell you what were the similarities between The Handmaid’s Tale and The Hunger Games that classified them as dystopian novels. I knew from reading other novels that a utopia was a perfect society in which everybody shared everything and where poverty and sadness were nearly non-existent. However, I could not begin to tell you why anybody would consider writing about such a conflict-less world. I would dismiss such literature as utter fantasy, convincing myself there was no point in reading it because it would never be possible. One reads fiction for the conflict and the drama, but rarely considers its educational value and its ability for provoking deeper and meaningful thought. Utopian literature, unlike its action-packed counterpart, is more about instilling ideas and contemplations that the reader would otherwise never consider.

Utopian literature is difficult to define because, what to one author may be a perfect place, to another may seem not as such. Utopias differ depending on who is writing them out, but they can be classified simply by their suggestion of perfection as well as by some of their conventions. If we briefly consider a few that we have studied throughout our course, we quickly notice some differences in each society. For example, in Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a perfect society is one inhabited entirely by women. In a dissimilar second example demonstrated in Ecotopia by Ernest Callenbach, a perfect society is one in which the people protect and restore all of their natural systems. Nonetheless, both of these examples are about a perfect society. This idea of a perfect society brings about one of the most obvious challenges for utopian literature: the lack of conflict and action. The lack of action and conflict is one issue that makes utopian literature more of a niche than a popular form of literature. It seems that dystopias can be much more interesting to readers—specifically young adults—simply on the basis that they have more room for conflict, danger, and drama. Utopian literature tends to have a further emphasis on dialogue and debate between individuals regarding political or economic issues. For this reason, however, utopian literature can seem to be a lot more purposeful than dystopian literature.

The idea behind utopian literature is rarely to entertain. Its true motive is to inspire deeper thought and to demonstrate different ways of approaching certain issues of our time. Through utopian literature we can recognize certain issues that are relevant during our time and we can consider a number of different ways to go about solving those issues. For example, in Ecotopia, the reader is shown a number of different ways to be more environmentally friendly. Different suggestions are made regarding the recycling of materials and the production of foods. A dystopia demonstrates certain issues and has a character deal with them or escape them, while a utopia demonstrates issues as being already solved. In debate, people are able to weigh solutions to different issues from a number of different points of views. It is for this reason that dialogue is so heavy in utopian literature. A character in a utopian novel is able to better understand a different approach to an issue by witnessing its effectiveness first hand, and this second-handedly suggests the approach as a feasible option for the reader of the novel.

Characterization in Utopian Literature

There are certain particularities that make utopian literature. In any form of literature, small or large similarities classify a piece of work and place it into its specific category. Utopian literature is no different, having similarities such as in plot, setting, or characters. Though each select piece of utopian literature can differ slightly, they are all always similar in certain aspects. This is important, not only because it gives it a pattern that writers can follow if they aspire to create such a piece of work, but also because it makes it into a genre. These certain characteristics often help the utopian genre in achieving its intent, but sometimes also prove problematic in certain respects as well. For example, one thing that is common in Herland, Ecotopia, and Utopia is that the setting is away from the rest of the world. Another commonality is that there is always at least one character from outside of the utopia that visits or is entrapped by the utopian society. The story is often also told from the perspective of an individual that is unfamiliar to the utopian society. These are only a few of the similarities that describe utopian literature and shape it into what it is. What is important about these characteristics? Are they intended to help or deter the ultimate purpose of utopian literature?

The characters within the utopian societies are often extremely different to the characters who are visiting. This isn’t meant in the most obvious ways such as those shown in Herland. I don’t mean simply that the men are different from the women that inhabit the utopian society. They are different from the women, not only in appearance and physique but in so many internal, less-visible respects as well. The women who inhabit Herland are different in everything that they do. One of the most surprising things for the visitors is the way in which the women raise their daughters with a shared responsibility, as opposed to a single responsibility or partner responsibility. This difference is extremely significant in assisting the story to achieve its intended purpose. The idea behind Herland is not to suggest that a world with only women in it would be perfect, but instead is to suggest that the way that women are treated in regular society isn’t ideal. Even in today’s society, women are often expected to quit their jobs and to stay home with children after they’ve had them. While the man is allowed to continue his work and pursue it for emotional fulfillment in the way he sees fit, the woman is restricted to find fulfillment in the upbringing of her children and the caring for the household. Charlotte Perkins Gilman suggests through her utopian vision that if women could choose their route to emotional and life fulfillment they could be equal to men in every respect.

At the same time, these very same women seem to at times contradict the novel’s purpose by suppressing their individuality and being entirely like every other woman around them. While at the same time, the characters within the utopian society are important for the intended purpose of the story, they also sort of hinder it. The most conflicted individuals in the story are the three men who are entrapped within the utopian society. These individuals each have different characteristics, making them easily distinguished, while the women within the society only seem to blend into one another, often appearing as simple reflections of each other. This seems counter-productive to the utopian story’s intent. In a dystopian society, an individual is often forced by certain forces to escape such communal ways of living. It is for this reason that dystopian stories so often have much more room for action and conflict. The utopian societies point, nonetheless, is established and the issue is usually successfully placed within the reader’s mind.

Dystopian vs. Utopian Cinema

          As is apparent, the differences between dystopian literature and utopian literature are not only many, but they are also very significant, particularly when it comes to appealing to Hollywood producers and directors. It seems to be that the conventions within dystopian literature are more attractive to people involved in the business of entertaining, but the question is: why? I am personally interested in comparing and contrasting the conventions of dystopian and utopian literature, particularly those that are opposing or that are relevant in supporting this observation. What exactly is it about revolution that makes it more appealing to Hollywood than complete harmony and peace? Why are people more interested in watching a movie intent on entertaining than they are in watching a film that is intent on teaching? I’ve always recognized the fact that dystopian literature is popular, particularly for young adults; however, I have never truly understood the genre sufficiently to make an inference as to why this is so. Perhaps it is as simple as revolt being something that appeals to all of us. It could be that we are all obsessed with heroes and that utopias do not seem to have any room for them. While we are all, to a certain extent, willing to agree that a communal way of living could be beneficial, we can also agree that individuality is extremely important to self-fulfillment. However, is the fact that dystopian fiction is more appealing an indication that the individual self is inherently more important than a communal way of living?

One indicator that may also benefit this suggestion is the fact that dystopian literature is much more widely taught in secondary school classrooms than is utopian literature. Objective 3e proves an excellent starting point in the pursuit of research regarding this particular observation. It can be suggested that the reason that people lean toward dystopian literature as opposed to utopian is because of the historical things that have shaped us as a society. The emphasis that has been made on family is important in the individualistic emphasis as well. A man and woman, once having started a family, place on themselves the responsibility of that family. They are then responsible for the welfare and future of the children that they bring to this world. As caring as they may be, if another individual threatens the welfare of their children, it is their responsibility to act accordingly. For instance, a father with an altruistic mentality may desire to give a large portion of his earnings to charities or to less fortunate individuals, but if this charitable nature gets in the way of the raising of his own children then that father may become more inclined toward frugality. A further delve into this objective may help us track down the exact moment in history where familial responsibility became a thing and where and how it was most emphasized in American culture.

The emphasis on familial and individual responsibility is completely removed from utopian cultures. Individuals in dystopian stories are typically driven by such morals, while in utopian cultures they rid themselves of them. It is common for people in utopian societies to rid themselves of privacy, ownership of any kind, and of responsibility for their offspring. Objective 3d slightly deals with this particular issue of utopian literature. Getting to the bottom of this particular objective may prove useful in determining the reason behind dystopian literature’s appeal to modern society. A deeper understanding of this observation is necessary in order to better understand what drives us as a current society. While a utopian society is supposed to be perfect, so many people are more attracted to the dystopian drama and conflict resolutions. What does this say about us? What does this say about what is truly important? Are we to assume that the right thing is to be our brother’s keeper or is it okay to look out for number one?