We dive into the sci-fi principle of non-interference with a run down of Star Trek’s prime directive and how it differs from other sci-fi series’ takes on the concept. And we run down the week in geek, including Sean’s first-hand (non-spoiler) review of Sucker Punch, more Captain America goodness (in the form of a 9-minute teaser), and CCP’s Eve -appropriate FanFest activity this year: chessboxing.
suh-frakkin-weeet
hee hee 
brilliant.
[launching planetary probes loaded with the interstellar encyclopedia]
Lt. John Matheson: “There are probably some who’ll say that by doing this, we are interfering with their culture.”
Capt. Matthew Gideon: “Probably. Screw them. We let the truth back into the room, lieutenant, and the truth can take care of itself. - Con is yours. Jump back to hyperspace. Continue on course to the next target.”
B5 “Crusade: The Visitors From Down The Street” S1 Ep 12
To be fair, this needs to be put into context, as the story leading up to this point skews the attitude of Captain Gideon. I can’t help thinking, however, that this is a “flip the bird” gesture to the moral high ground that the Star Trek universe lives in…:eek:
To be honest, I really enjoyed this episode…I encourage you to seek it out. Sort a reverse-Roswell feel to it!
gaf
I saw Sucker Punch last Friday night at the IMAX and I absolutely loved it. (And no, I’m not some teenage guy.) I could see where people might have issues with it, but I would like the clarify a few things.
First of all, I’ll refer to the institution as the first or primary level of reality. The burlesque/brothel house is the second level. The WWI/fantasy/kungfu/sci-fi train are the third level.
Babydoll is not her name. The first level of “reality” of the movie that we are shown gives us the situation that leads her to be institutionalized, but her name is never given in that level. She is given the name Babydoll only after she has moved to the second level of reality, that of the burlesque/brothel. In that reality, all of the girls have similar names.
She is not escaping into her own mind to avoid the lobotomy. As you suggested, that would be silly. She is visualizing her situation through a different lens, one that she is better able to cope with in order to allow her to plan her escape. I’m not even entirely convinced this is happening in her head and more that it is just a method of telling the story of her escape in a different style. This is even more likely when you consider all the sci-fi, modern weapons, and kung fu tropes used in the third levels of reality.
[spoiler]Not only that, but it’s possible that Babydoll doesn’t exist at all. Some have supposed that the entire film is Sweet Pea’s story and that Babydoll is just a part of her own mind that she made up to help her escape, to deal with the loss of her own sister, and Babydoll’s lobotomy at the end is actually Sweet Pea’s putting that part of her traumatic past behind her.[/spoiler]
While there is at least one attempted rape in the movie (possibly two depending on how you look at the opening part), no one is actually raped in the movie, so please don’t say that. It has been suggested that Babydoll’s dancing is actually a representation of her being abused (even raped) in the primary level of reality. This is a horrible notion, but showing it as her dancing in the second level and her fighting in the third level is a much more palatable way of telling the story than showing a girl letting herself be raped while trying to collecting things to aid her escape.
[spoiler]And if you accept the Sweet Pea as protagonist version, it’s her being abused not Babydoll. Not that it makes it any better.[/spoiler]
Visually, the movie is spellbinding. The fight scenes in the third level of reality are just incredible and I loved seeing things like battle mechs (with bunny decal) fighting WWI planes while the girls on the ground used modern guns (and anachronistic melee weapons) to fight clockwork zombie soldiers.
The music is also incredible. The cover of Sweet Dreams was actually done by Emily Browning (who plays Babydoll.) The rap/I Want It All mash up just kicked ass. And the White Rabbit bit was badass, too, especially the instrumental part during the zeppelin crash. I bought the soundtrack on Amazon mp3 the very night when I got home from the movie.
If this film failed, it might be in the empowerment department. I’ve never studied feminist theory and I won’t pretend to know what I’m talking about. I like boobs and I like cute girls in hot outfits, just like Sean. I actually found some of the shots to be much sexier than they would have been if they showed actual nudity. The amount of zettai ryuoki in this movie is off the charts. A friend of mine who is a very strong student of feminist theory loved the movie as well, but said that he felt guilty for it, and stuff about male gaze and other things I didn’t quite get.
I think there is some merit in portraying the abuse that is happening in the “real world” in the form of the second reality with the girls trapped in a brothel where they are being used as dancers and prostitutes. I like it even more that each time it happens, the actual event is shown as the girls fighting on the third level. In the end, though, we are left with the knowledge that something horrible was happening to someone.
[spoiler]Babydoll or Sweet Pea. I’m leaning with the latter.[/spoiler]
However, while that horrible thing was happening, the protagonist has the presence of mind to keep fighting.
I think it boils down to what your version of the actual story is, which reality is true, what happened to who and how that makes you feel. I found the movie to be not only visually stunning and a geek mash-up joy, but the tragic story of the real world to be compelling and interesting.
I haven’t seen the movie, but I did see a comment by the (I think) director complaining about the MPAA. He had a love scene in the movie, but the MPAA said if he left it all in he’d get an “R” rating. So he trimmed it, but what was left could (ironically) be interpreted as a rape, since some of the context was lost.
Talking about non interferance, I was playing mass effect 2 and the speech by the Scientist guy. It seemed to tie in very well.
[spoiler]
He talks about the fact that you have to have limitations to progress in society, you are limited by food, you learn how to craft spears to hunt for food, you’re limited by being cold all the time, you learn how to keep warm.
He then goes on to discuss that maybe if his race had not given the Krogan the ability to be spacefaring, then they may have ‘worked’ out their anger issues over the natural course ofevolution. However, by interfering, they basically gave tech to ‘angry teenagers’.
On a slight tangent - The Gilbert and Sulivan number is pretty cool.
[/spoiler]
Cave Drawings - That’s the problem with assumptions like that…That would be like basing a whole theory on how humans developed because you found my cave…a cave where I can’t draw although I might be a mean cook vs finding sean’s cave nearby…you can see the problems.
Not to mention the fact that there’s no reason to think that tastes didn’t change back then. That could have been the Paleolithic ‘modern art.’
Awesome write up homie. 
I would like to answer some of those points too. Please notice I don’t say disagree, because honestly I agree with you on many more points than disagree.
As I said in the cast it may have been a number of things that added to my not being into it.
I would argue Babydoll is a correct name if she is referred to as and answers to in the film the name “Babydoll” that is her name for all practical purposes.
As with any movie of this type how you interpret it goes a long way towards how you view the film, but the ending (which I won’t spoil for those of you seeing it) suggests any number of meanings one of which is that she met her end through mental destruction. The angel symbolism makes it high on my list there.
Nothing but love here homie but how is that the same as no rape? To my way of thinking, because they don’t show an explicit forced scene doesn’t mean they didn’t tell you it was happening.
Completely agreed. That was worth the price of admission right there.
Also, completely agreed.
Once more… completely agree with the thought that our own version of the story is what makes the real value of the film and what makes it worth while to each of us. As I tried to express on the cast there were far more people in the theater that liked it than didn’t. I do have my theory on what happened.
[spoiler]I think, as you so perfectly put it, (and I’m not trying to be smartass or mean when I say that) “something horrible was happening to someone” upon reflection, when I carried it through I think I know who that is and that almost the whole movie is actually happening while she’s being lobotomized and we were witnessing brain death. Which bummed me the hell out[/spoiler]
So really, I don’t think it’s a bad movie. It is (to me) a very sad story about a girl who didn’t deserve what she got out of life and I happened not to like it even though it had a bunch of action and visuals I did like. Basically that’s what I’m, on about if that makes sense.
Definitely. Even if my interpretation were used, it still may not be everyone’s cup of tea. I have no problem with someone not liking it, I just wanted to clear up a few things.
I would argue Babydoll is a correct name if she is referred to as and answers to in the film the name “Babydoll” that is her name for all practical purposes.
I agree that it is her name for all intents and purposes. Perhaps it was just the way I heard it in the 'cast, but it sounded like the idea that her name was Babydoll was silly when it actually made sense within the context. Even creepier, there’s a part of me that wonders if all the girls names aren’t just something someone whispered to her in the real world while the horrible stuff was happening.
As with any movie of this type how you interpret it goes a long way towards how you view the film, but the ending (which I won’t spoil for those of you seeing it) suggests any number of meanings one of which is that she met her end through mental destruction. The angel symbolism makes it high on my list there.
[spoiler]My own view is that Sweet Pea was institutionalized, invented the personas of all the other girls in her head and used them and her way of visualizing things to effect her escape. Babydoll’s lobotomy was Sweet Pea’s way of leaving behind the bad stuff that happened to her. This can only be inferred, though, so I may just be blowing smoke. It made the story work for me, though.[/spoiler]
Nothing but love here homie but how is that the same as no rape? To my way of thinking, because they don’t show an explicit forced scene doesn’t mean they didn’t tell you it was happening.
I was only stating that there was no rape shown on screen. I do believe there’s a huge difference between implied rape and explicit rape. It’s what makes a movie like Last House on the Left something I will not watch again. Again, from the 'cast it sounded like this movie was rape-a-palooza. I’m pretty sure it happened on some level, but I’d much rather it be implied than shown.
[spoiler]I think, as you so perfectly put it, (and I’m not trying to be smartass or mean when I say that) “something horrible was happening to someone” upon reflection, when I carried it through I think I know who that is and that almost the whole movie is actually happening while she’s being lobotomized and we were witnessing brain death. Which bummed me the hell out[/spoiler]
[spoiler]If Babydoll were real and she did get lobotomized at the end of the movie, then it does make the movie that much worse. I’m not sure if my interpretation is based on what I got from the movie or what I wanted to avoid, but I couldn’t accept that the protagonist lost in such a horrible way after going through all she did. I like the idea that Babydoll was just a persona, so her lobotomy is just Sweet Pea moving on. It makes the story more palatable for me. [/spoiler]
So really, I don’t think it’s a bad movie. It is (to me) a very sad story about a girl who didn’t deserve what she got out of life and I happened not to like it even though it had a bunch of action and visuals I did like. Basically that’s what I’m, on about if that makes sense.
It does. With that view, it is a very sad story. Even without that view, it’s a tragic story with sad parts. I just prefer the brighter outcome.
My main reason for coming out so strongly in defense of the movie is that the opinions of the GWC crew are important to us and can help form the decision of whether to see something or not. It sounded in the 'cast like this was a “don’t see” review and I hoped to turn that around a little. I think on visuals and music alone this is worth seeing and that some people will find the story compelling, too.
For whatever reason I keep thinking of the way this non-interference idea relates to history and the world in which we live…
The Conquistadors did many things that aren’t great, but they didn’t intentionally disease their potential labor pool. If I’m remembering correctly I believe it’s Jared Diamond (though he may have been quoting someone else) that showed that diseases got to the indigenous peoples in the Americas (for example, the Inca Empire) before the actual Europeans got there.
This discussion makes me think of all of the discussions and arguments about the conquest of the Americas by the Spanish and the ways in which they tried to justify their presence - they were saving the souls! and by the way getting lots of resources, too, but REALLY IT’S ABOUT IMMORTAL SOULS!!! (once it was decided that the indigenous peoples had souls… which was used as a reason that they couldn’t be made slaves, so instead they brought an enslaved African population). In their own rationalizations, they were taking the moral high ground. But in retrospect, we look back and the conquest appears to have been about God, gold, and glory (as a high school teacher put it to me).
This is also making me think about US history and the creation of American Indian Reservations - as an alternative to the “exploration” and conquest idea. I don’t really have that idea developed yet, but it’s something that seems like it could be an interesting comparison.
Also, I thought Worf’s only brother was Kurn? He’s got an adopted brother though, Nikolai, like Sean remembered
AKA Avatar 2.
The Conquistadors did spread European diseases to South America. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador
The diseases brought over by the Europeans spread far quicker than the Europeans themselves. So, the population of any given place in the Americas was usually severely reduced by the time any Europeans actually showed up.
That was accidental, BTW. There is a record of someone in the Northwest US contemplating using smallpox blankets as bioweapons but no indication if that was actually implemented. Aside from the obvious logistical problems, the blankets they were going to use were to come from a fort that had an outbreak of smallpox. A concentration of infected individuals was probably enough by itself to facilitate the spread of the disease.
Actually it was the Northeast (western Pennsylvania) during the French and Indian War:
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics
Ah, yes. I think it was a relative ‘Northwest.’
Well it’s North and West of you. 
Sean, this might be your most eloquent and deep-thots-filled post on the forums… ever. And even though (as I have posted elsewhere) I have decided not to see Sucker Punch, I am really enjoying the back and forth on it.
Definitely a perfect case of why MPAA should frak off. In what world is an implied rape scene ok but an actual love scene must get cut? I don’t want to live in that world!
El Jefe, your take seems totally valid. Any fwiw, I am a feminist who loves cute women and boobs. It’s possible. I just don’t think I could turn off the analytic parts of myself enough to enjoy the visual spectacle for this movie.
Not to hate on Avatar, but if that’s the story? Oh, dear.
Audra, love your talk of the Peace of Westphalia and the way that’s shaped what we study as (European) “History.” That was fundamental to my AP Euro class over a decade ago in high school.
I’m just throwing ideas out here (see above re: Indian Reservations), but I’m also thinking about the connections between Whig history (in short, the idea that humanity is on a beeline of progress towards some vague enlightenment. The reality of the past is much messier (as an example, many ideas that we might consider to be “postmodern” have analogues in the Early Modern European world), and I think that goes well with what you all were discussing about the ideal of the Prime Directive vs. the practicality of its implementation.
If we’re going to talk theory (and Starbuccaneer jump in if I’m forgetting something) I think that discussions of postcolonialism could be really interesting in this context. My favorite postcolonial theorist is Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (she’s dense, but awesome), but you might also try checking out Franz Fanon, Homi Bhabha, Anne McClintock, and this site from Emory (though the theorists listed are biased towards the Subaltern Studies school).
What stands out to me (and here’s I’m referencing Spivak’s 1988 essay “Can the Subaltern Speak?”) is the idea of judging another group of people based on criteria that we have developed based on our own society. Spivak argues that when the subaltern takes on a subject position that allows it to speak for itself it is no longer subaltern; at the same time, we cannot ethically pretend to speak “for” a group to which we don’t belong. The problem I see with strict non-interference is the same problem I see with extreme cultural relativism - I do think that there are universal rights and wrongs. Killing people, in my mind, is universally wrong, for example. Where I see non-interference to be most intellectually stimulating, however, is in those instances in which, in science fiction, we break from it. That therefore provokes us to examine why it is that the break might be justified, or not, in the context of the story. It makes me think of what Spivak terms “productive bafflement,” which I take to be self-explanatory.
Sorry for the wall of text! Can’t wait to hear what’s up in the conversation for next week
I don’t want to give you the wrong impression. I have no idea what the plot is for the next Avatar film. I just read your earlier post and immediately went there.