Jesus E. Garcia

March 30, 2019

Dystopian Success and Utopian Failure in the Box Office

There are qualities present in much of utopian/dystopian literature and film that not only work to classify the work as such, but also give it an exceptional chance for success. But what exactly is it about utopian/dystopian stories that make them so appealing to modern audiences? It seems that there is something especially interesting about the possibility for a utopian society and the potential that it has for failure. Only recently, Jordan Peele gained much critical appeal from his post-apocalyptic debut titled simply, Us. But what is it about utopian/dystopian societies that make for such great film?

Radu Toderici suggests in the article, “Utopia, Dystopia, Film. An Introduction,” that “in some cases, the definition of the genre seems to be implicit—a film is utopian because it promotes escapism or artificially reconciles divergent societal norms or ideologies” (10). Perhaps this is exactly what is appealing to us as viewers. It’s safe to suggest that this cannot possibly be the single factor for the genre’s appeal. For certain, there are numerous other reasons working alongside this one for the genre to gain such popularity. There is a way to find some of these reasons. By recognizing that utopian societies are significantly different than dystopian ones and remembering that utopian films proved not such popular material, we can pinpoint some of the reasons within the differences that make dystopian stories more appealing for film. Toderici mentions, “probably the major difficulty with defining a utopian film genre is that, as Ruppert and Fitting have pointed out, there seems to be very few films that have adopted the narrative strategies of the utopian literature” (11). Dystopian films, on the other hand, are so commonly produced.

Toderici introduces some interesting insight as to the reason for dystopian film success compared to utopian film scarcity. It is mentioned in the article, “there are obvious reasons for this scarcity: the expository nature of most utopian novels makes them unsuitable for adaptation, and the few films that have translated this kind of material to the screen have often proven to be unsuccessful in financial terms” (11). This suggests that the utopian vision was so quickly assessed as not suitable for film, that directors and producers almost immediately strayed away from it. Contrarily, some of the last century’s most well received and financially successful films or TV shows were dystopian. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire grossed a lifetime total of $424,668,047 and an opening gross of $158,074,286 (Box Office Mojo).

In “The Ends of the Earth: Nature, Narrative, and identity in Dystopian Film,” Rowland Hughes presents us with another way in which dystopian literature differs from the utopian kind. He mentions of dystopian films that they often "can be seen to be responding to the prevailing environmental anxieties of their era—from fears of deforestation and overpopulation in the 1970s, to more recent unease over the potential impact of genetic engineering, cybernetics and virtual reality on a privileged conceptualization of human identity that is rooted in notions of the ‘natural’ and ‘organic’" (23).   

The possibility of the worst outcome is appealing because it presents us with an idea of what the consequences of our societal actions can be. Researchers have, for many years, warned us of the detrimental circumstances we may find ourselves facing in the future due to our general neglect of caring for our environment. Perhaps, it can be inferred, that a driving factor behind the public’s interest for dystopian storylines is guilt. We know that we are damaging our environment with actions such as paper production, the emitting of chemicals and gases, and the abuse of our natural resources; however, we are reliant on these things and must continue the actions nonetheless.

As is made apparent, there are numerous reasons as to why utopian/dystopian ideas have been so successful in film, but it is also important to note that dystopian ideas have eventually proven to be more effective at generating profit and public appeal. Stacy M. Jameson borrows from Susan Sontag in the article, “Dystopian film on the edge of a food coma,” stating that, “Science Fiction films invite a dispassionate, aesthetic view of destruction and violence—a technological view’ in which ‘things, objects, machinery play a major role” (46). In comparing any few examples of dystopian film, one can find classifications and attributes within the art form that are opposite to ones found in utopian examples. Perhaps a comparison of some of the most modern examples could prove helpful in acquiring a better understanding of why dystopian films have received their recent popularity and utopian films have pretty much died out.

Works Cited

Toderici, Radu. "Utopia, Dystopia, Film: An Introduction." Caietele Echinox, no. 29, 2015, pp. 7-26.

Hughes, Rowland. "The Ends of the Earth: Nature, Narrative, and Identity in Dystopian Film." Critical Survey, vol. 25, no. 2, 2013, pp. 22-39.

Jameson, Stacy M. "Dystopian Film on the Edge of a Food Coma." New Cinemas: Journal of Contemporary Film, vol. 16, no. 1, 2018, pp. 43-56.

“Post-Apocalypse.” Box Office Mojo, www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=postapoalypse.htm.