A Canticle for Leibowitz and Starship Troopers: The Movie
In this paper I intend to explore the attitudes toward the value of individual life vs. the value of a community as a whole expressed in A Canticle for Leibowitz and Starship Troopers: the Movie by analyzing their treatment of information control, euthanasia, and the idea of obtaining happiness through a sense of purpose.
Starship Troopers may be a satire of a fascist state or an apology for fascist ideology or neither (I don’t pretend to know which). In any case, it is a depiction of a possible state of affairs that could theoretically arise out of a futuristic fascist regime. The ideology advocated by this state, and for the most part by its subjects, is one that treats the state as something greater than the sum of its parts, as a benevolent machine that will take care of the people as long as the people are willing to sacrifice as much of themselves as necessary to keep it oiled. A Canticle for Leibowitz, at least from the perspective of the monks (again, this is not necessarily that of the author), takes a much more individual approach to pursuing the common good. In other words, it treats the community, or species, as exactly the sum of its parts; people are encouraged to further the common good by furthering their own good. Progress is a result of individual motivation rather than of a mandate of the state.
One way the difference between these two ideologies manifests itself is in the treatment of the control of information. In Starship Troopers, since everything is controlled by the government, so are all channels of information. In the movie, we see an unidentified hand (presumably that of the common citizen) happily clicking on the government-controlled...
... middle of paper ...
...ach relies on a different method of human motivation. Starship Troopers relies on an individual’s submission to the rule of the state and willingness to forget about himself in terms of his own psyche in favor of a collective identity. A Canticle for Leibowitz supposes that people are best motivated as individuals; that is, allowing people to act and exist as individuals increases their investment and interest in their own survival, which in turn increases that of the survival of the species. It also supposes that individuals can be trusted as such, without a controlling system. Maybe this difference is why we are so upset when the first main character in A Canticle for Leibowitz dies (after we spend about a hundred and seven pages becoming attached to him), but the characters in Starship Troopers are so flat and predictable that we really don’t care when they die.
In contrast to Aristotle, Roko Belic’s documentary “Happy” provides a fresh perspective that takes place far more recently. The film sets out to similar goals of Aristotle in defining the nature of happiness and exploring what makes different people happy in general. Unlike Aristotle, however, the film’s main argument refers to makes people happier. In this case, the film argues that merely “doing what you love” is what leads to happiness (Belic). The argument itself appears oddly self-serving, considering that message is what underlines the foundation of happiness, yet there is a subliminal message that a simpler lifestyle is what leads to what the film is trying to convince you of. The message itself is obviously addressed to Americans, considering
...ahlquist’s sacrifice highlights Heinlein’s belief, that the same self-sacrificing impulse that Winston had, might facilitate positive social change. Contrastingly, Le Guin highlights the continued anomalies in human morality where society willingly sacrifices its morals to meet selfish needs. Overall, people’s capacity to effect social change is relative to the prevailing social conditions, their ability to impact critical aspects of the prevailing conflict and their capacity to accept self-sacrifice as morally justifiable. Consequently, moral ambiguity prevails.
...s at that time who have come of age. Perhaps no film in recent history has captured more attention and generated more controversial debate. This film resonates the feeling and question that common people had about the JFK assassination in the 60s. As a result, the debate about the validity of JFK extended much further into the war-torn cultural landscape of America in the 1990s than most observers noted. The JFK was a telling incident demonstrating the larger cultural conflict over values and meaning in America and the competition to define national identity. The whole affair demonstrated how effective a motion picture can be as a transmitter of knowledge, history, and culture. As a result, the debate about the validity of JFK extended much further into the war-torn cultural landscape of America in the 1990s than most observers have noted.
The Nazis are not portrayed in a good or friendly manner throughout the entire movie, especially during the La Marseillaise scene. When the German soldiers, led by Strasser, begin to sing their patriotic song, ?Die Wacht am Rhein? in French territory, it does not sit well with the French patriots. This singing represents the German invasion of France in their government, culture and territory because the Germans come into foreign land with their military and control all aspects of society. The movie depicts the soldiers as drunk and tone-dea...
In this essay I will be looking at the topic of the countercultural movement of the 1960’s through counterculture film. The 1960’s were an extremely interesting time in history not only in the United States but all over the western world, as we saw the rise of the counterculture generation. The counter was a group of movements focused on achieving personal and cultural liberation and was embraced in many different ways by the decade’s young people. I have chosen this topic as the 60’s stand out for me as a revolutionary and often misrepresented period in history. The films I have chosen to look at are The Baader Meinhof Complex from director Uli Edel, Woodstock from Michael Wadleigh, Pirate Radio from Richard Curtis, and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas from director Terry Gilliam. I chose to analyse these films as I believe they clearly demonstrate the social and political issues of the 1960’s and societies response to them.
When I was 14, I watched “V for Vendetta”, a movie based on the graphic novel of the same name. It’s an action movie about a dystopian, Orwellian future in the UK, and one man’s attempts to bring freedom back. Many denounce the movie as merely anarchist propaganda, but I believe that it is more than just that. I believe that it is about modern moral ambiguity, taking responsibility for one’s own wants and needs, and freedom conquering oppression.
Many people value the tangible over the complex. However, viewing the world solely through this definite lens is an oversimplification. Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We explores this flaw in a society founded solely upon its government’s definition of the “ultimate happiness.” To reach utopia, it eliminates inefficiency, crime, and despondency, by promoting state-led happiness. Despite these admirable goals, the One State’s methods sacrifice freedom, individualism, and, ironically, happiness itself, ultimately failing its mission. Zamyatin explores the emotionless routine within the One State to assert that happiness cannot exist when controlled and rationalized.
Terrence Malick’s The Thin Red Line (1998) is a film that examines the Guadalcanal Battle of World War II, looking past the physical results of the violence, in order to uncover the deeper truths and ramifications of war. The film conveys themes and ideologies that are somewhat uncommon to war films, especially WW II films. In this dark, surreal, journey, Malick takes us inside the minds of soldiers experiencing this battle to capture a remote pacific island from the Japanese. We do not hear or see gruff, hardened soldiers, anxious to die for their country. In fact, there are no heroes in The Thin Red Line. There are only regular men, scared of fighting and scared of dying, who have been thrown into a situation that will forever change their lives. The fighting is not suspenseful or glorious just brutal. Using an ideological approach to the study of film, this paper will examine The Thin Red Line’s messages about the truths of war, and how it challenges our society’s stereotypical view of war as a valiant undertaking where brave men fighting for good battle the evil of the enemy. Consequently, the ideologies that are uncovered will then be used to look at The Thin Red Line as a war film, and how it fits and does not fit into the genre.
First, both are similar in how they spread their message across. Basically, both made the enemy seem like a cruel heartless monster who only has the capability to kill while the heroes are the country’s soldiers/citizens. Both play on the pathos of citizens. They paint this idea that citizens must fight because the enemy is filled with barbarians.
In discussions of euthanasia, a controversial issue has been whether euthanasia is morally wrong or not. Many people, the U.S. Government included, believe that euthanasia is not permissible when it is considered active. According to Warren’s view, however, euthanasia may not be morally wrong in some cases. Therefore, they disagree on whether euthanasia is morally permissible or not. In this paper, I will use Warren’s view on moral personhood to see what her verdict of euthanasia and assisted suicide might be. After that, I will use real life cases to see what Warren’s verdict is in a real life situation of euthanasia. Finally, I will raise two possible objections to her view.
Keown, John. "The Value of Human Life." Euthanasia, Ethics, and Public Policy: An Argument against Legalisation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2002. 39. Print.
This paper will address some of the more popular points of interest involved with the euthanasia-assisted suicide discussion. There are less than a dozen questions which would come to mind in the case of the average individual who has a mild interest in this debate, and the following essay presents information which would satisfy that individual's curiosity on these points of common interest.
...historical events in which it deals; and that ideology is disturbing.To protest the war is seen as indicative of a personality disorder; in fact, to protest anything is characterized as a psychological flaw, a self-destructive, self-indulgent neurosis.The epigraph for the film reads: "The world will never seem the same after you've seen it through the eyes of Forrest Gump."How true.How troubling, for it suggests that if our vision of history were as blinkered and our desires as ideologically vaccuous as are Forrest's, then all of our dreams (which we shouldn't have) will come true, and all of the world's conflicts (which are mere shams) would be solved.For Forrest Gump the film, life is indeed a series of chocolate-coated surprises--as long as you forget each chocolate the moment it is consumed and you desire nothing more than a steady diet of nuts and gooey centers.
A film bursting with visual and emotional stimuli, the in-depth character transformation of Oscar Schindler in Schindler’s List is a beautiful focal point of the film. Riddled with internal conflict and ethical despair, Schindler challenges his Nazi Party laws when he is faced with continuing his ambitious business ideas or throwing it all away for the lives of those he once saw as solely cheap labor. Confronted with leading a double life and hiding his motivations from those allegiant to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, Schindler undergoes numerous ethical dilemmas that ultimately shape his identity and challenge his humanity. As a descendent of a Jewish-American, Yiddish speaking World War II soldier who helped liberate concentration camps in Poland, this film allowed for an enhanced personal
Nelson Mandela was one of the greatest leaders of our time. In the movie Invictus, the devotion and love he had for the South African people is exemplified. The movie was named after a Victorian poem that brought President Mandela strength while in prison. The meaning of Invictus is “Undefeated”, a perfect fit for this movie. The opening scene of the movie shows President Mandela being freed from jail and driving past a field of young boys playing soccer. All the boys start chanting the Presidents name and running to the fences to get a better look. This is the first scene, and an obvious show of support and following for Mr. Mandela. Throughout the movie there are many different styles and approaches of leadership shown. Not only is President