Science Fiction & Politics

Politics from Trantor to Coruscant

[scifipol]

[scifipol]

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - the reprecussions of the battle of Endor...

[scifipol]

Star Destroyer in Paris... Watch more 

[scifipol]

Man In the High Castla Manga style: check out more!

[scifipol]

A message from the Emperor :) 

[scifipol]

Star Wars & Elections... 

[scifipol]

[scifipol]

This pre-1600 Yoda lookalike was found on a Medieval manuscript. Read more here. 

[scifipol]

[scifipol]

Politics of Jupiter Ascending

From the point of view of politics in science fiction, Jupiter Ascending is an interesting movie: while not an exceptionally good science fiction story, its politics are sound and reasonable.

In Jupiter Ascending, it is revealed that Earth is but one of many planets owned by powerful interplanetary houses. The point of such ownership: to create large populations which can be “harvested” – killed – for an essence that leads to immortality for the interplanetary aristocracy. Earth is owned by the powerful house Abrasax. There is a power struggle between the heirs of this house: the charming Lady Kalique, the handsome but devious Lord Titus and the outright evil Lord Balem. Earth is owned by Balem. However, according to the rule of the great houses, when a perfect reincarnation of a previous owner appears, he / she gets to claim the previous ownership. As it happens, the protagonist of the movie, Jupiter Jones is such a perfect reincarnation of the deceased mother of the Abrasax heirs. She gets to claim Earth, but all three heirs try to manipulate her for their own ends. In the end, of course, she prevails and gets to keep the ownership of Earth, preventing any future harvest.

The importance of genes

One’s status in the universe of Jupiter Ascending is determined by genes and thus, genetic lineage. While this seem absurd from a modern point of view, it would have made a lot of sense to, say, ancient Romans or medieval Europeans as well as to the inhabitants of Frank Herbert’s Dune universe. In ancient Rome, for instance, your genealogy meant a great deal; all those famous names we are familiar with – Julius Caesar or Augustus – came from a long line of Roman heroes. They knew little about genes, of course, but would have understood perfectly that those who can trace their ancestry back to the foundation of the Republic should rule Rome. No wonder they worshipped their Ancestors. In Frank Herbert’s Dune, the Bene Gesserit sisterhood manipulates breeding between aristocrats to produce the “superhuman” Kwisatz Haderach. Although the idea of reincarnation might be a bit far-fetched, it was not uncommon in ancient societies for previously unknown “heirs” – sometimes pretenders – to appear out of nowhere. Note how few people are actually surprised over this in the movie: the antagonists might hate Jupiter and try to kill her but they do not doubt her authenticity.

If a society is based on genes, wars between siblings can become the norm. In the early Ottoman Empire, fratricide – the killing of male siblings – was common to ensure there are no competing claims to the throne. Dynastic European politics is full of conflicts between siblings. So the feud between the three Abrasax heirs would probably be the norm in such societies.

Owning Earth

It is not a nice thought to think of Earth as being owned by an intergalactic family only interested in “harvesting” us when the time is ripe – but it is not at all different from how slave holding societies looked at their estates. If the most important resource in the universe can only be extracted from human populations that it makes sense to try to have as large populations as possible. 

Political system: Competitive oligarchy

There are two kinds of political actors in Jupiter Ascending. On the one hand are the families with their own agendas, armies and money, interested in their own power. On the other hand are institutions which seem to be “neutral”, benefiting the entire civilization: the Aegis police force and the rather Gringotts-like bureaucracy. While the latter is annoying, both seem to uphold some sort of common standard, respected – at least in appearances – by the houses. This type of system of government was common in feudal Europe: strong noble houses and weak – but impartial – central power.

The one missing element in Jupiter Ascending is the central power itself: in such political systems, you can usually find – a relatively weak – king, or emperor or other central authority. To whom do the Aegis report – and why to the house accept the jurisdiction of the central bureaucracy? These questions are not resolved.

Still, despite the sometimes silly plot, the all too frequent allusions to other fantasy and science fiction worlds – anybody else though Balem’s agents looked like Space Gollams? – Jupiter Ascending actually painted a politically feasible world. The Abrasax heirs play within the rules of the game, manipulating Jupiter but respecting genealogy, their respective power sources and the “impartial” players (while trying to trick the system when they can). Jupiter realises that her claim gives her limited power but adepts easily to the new rules. I would actually be interested to find out how the future power struggle between Kalique and Titus develops – certainly more so than looking at the wings of Channing Tatum...

Pics: wired; amazonaws; magnetic-effects; latimesherocomplex; 

[scifipol]

What Happens After the Rebels Blow Up The Death Star?

We are finally going to find out! A new book coming out this September will deal with issues like this: “"The second Death Star has been destroyed. Rumors are flying that the Emperor and his enforcer, Darth Vader, are dead. A new government is forming to replace the Empire. But the galaxy is a big place, and the fallout of this cataclysm will affect different worlds in different ways. Does everyone accept the fall of Imperial rule? Has everyone even heard the life-altering news? What rushes in to fill the vacuum the Empire has left? And who will try to stop them?"” Read more on Moviepilot! 

(Pic: madadventures.com)

[scifipol]

Chappie: Socio-Political Issues

The concept of this blog is to take every science fiction movie seriously within its owncontext. So, even with movies where the problems and contradictions are evident, I attempt to look at some of the political implications as if the setting was realistic. That is why it is worth exploring some of the political problems of CHAPPIE, Neill Blomkamp’s latest movie.

The story of Chappie is fairly simple. The Johannesburg police starts employing sentient robots for police work. Their inventor wants to take a step further and bestow real artificial intelligence on one of them. He succeeds but is kidnapped by some criminals who want to use a robot to help them steal some money to repay another criminal. Enter Chappie, the robot with the consciousness of a child. From then on, the movie is about “raising” Chappie, the criminals teaching Chappie to steal, the geeky inventor, to pursue other interests (like painting and playing). In the meantime, due to sabotage, a Mean and Ugly Robot appears trying to destroy our heroes. They survive by Chappie finding out how to transform consciousness from human to robot. Our “family” reunites as robots and live happily ever after. Or not.

The movie has been criticised a lot for being simplistic and not living up to expectations. Its socio-political aspects also raise some questions. Here are three interesting ones.

Naive tech enthusiasts vs. hardcore military guys

The movie presents a well-known stereotype of geek vs. military. There is the smart, young inventor – Deon Wilson – with black framed glasses, huge intellect and a combination of ego and naiveté. Then there is the hardened veteran of the special forces, Vincent Moore – played by Hugh Jackman: plenty of muscle, little empathy and an obvious weak spot for big guns. While Wilson wants to – and does – create a “cute” intelligent robot, Moore is interested in a big killing machine. Clearly we are to like Wilson and despise Moore. True to their nature, by the end of the movie, Moore is revealed to be a sadist, using his robot to decapitate his victim.

However: if you look at the story closely, it becomes clear that all the problems originate with Wilson. Wilson wants to create AI – even though his boss forbids it for security reasons. Wilson – trusting his intentions and intellect more than protocols – disobeys; steals the required hardware and bypasses instructions. This is what leads to the chain of events killing – almost – Wilson and unlashing havoc on Johannesburg. If it were not for the otherwise nice inventor, things would have turned out just fine.

On the other hand, Moore does nothing without permission. He has the Big Ugly Robot from the start – but without specific instructions is not willing to use it. He hates Wilson and manipulates the situation so that he becomes essential for his superiors, but does not move until authorised. Then, he receives orders to destroy Chappie; he is following – albeit in his own cruel way – his orders.

So, when you think about it, most of us would prefer to hang out with the well-meaning scientist – but the movie also shows why it is dangerous to put such people in situations requiring non-technical decisions.

Segregation and slums

District 9, Blomkamp’s signature movie was praised for addressing such issues as poverty and segregation. It also showed that the menacing-looking “aliens” can be more friendly than the “civilized” humans. In Chappie, however, the menacing looking criminals living in the slums are, in fact, menacing and dangerous. When Wilson refuses to cooperate, they casually want to cut off his leg. When Chappie demonstrates to a gang of youngsters that he is no threat, they immediately set him on fire. In fact, the whole notion that people – in general – are evil and malevolent is  rcurring theme.

One problem with this portrayal is that it seems to vindicate the police position: the slums are bases of criminal activity; people living there would not deserve to live anywhere else. When order breaks down, the inhabitants start looting and killing, reinforcing the worst – sometimes overtly racist – stereotypes. This was probably never Blomkamp’s intention, but the movie seems to reinforce the notion that “the poor are dangerous” and we are happy to have them segregated and under strong police surveillance. As the New York Times notes: “The director … doesn’t engage with the question of whether a police state is necessary; he just goes with the paramilitary flow”

The not-so-happy ending

The movie ends with our conscious robots reuniting and fleeing. We are probably to believe that they are to live happily ever after. But… Really? Does anyone seriously think that the first successful attempt of both AI and consciousness-transplant would just be let loose? No, a more realistic future is that they are captured and, if lucky, “asked” to help reverse engineer how they came to be. If unlucky, well, you can guess…

Pics: Allmovie.com; Indiewire.com; cd4.24.co.za; rasset.ie

[littlejanelle]

This raises some good points, but I also have to disagree with some because I do think there’s a combination here of overlooked details and oversimplification.

First of all, I wouldn’t say all of the problems originate with Wilson. Yeah, he creates the AI that sets all this in motion, but Moore isn’t an innocent bystander and this and he certainly does do things without permission. Sure, he listens to instructions not to use the big-ass Moose robot, but he also installs software onto Wilson’s robocops that effectively shuts them all down and sabotages Wilson’s project. And let’s not forget that in the very beginning of the film, he expresses frustration at hit budget being cut two years in a row. It’s hard to say how things would’ve turned out if he’d shut the bots down and Chappie didn’t exist, but he did create a situation for himself to step in with his own project and use it to be the hero. It’s not really fair to paint him as a by-the-book guy because he wasn’t one. 

As for Chappie’s interaction with the young gang, I took their treatment of him to be lashing out at a cop/technology that would normally be targeting them. I didn’t see it as them being unnecessarily malevolent—they were in a rare position of power of this robot. I would’ve loved to see the plot of the police presence explored more and in fact, from the first shot of the robotic police, that’s exactly where I thought the film was going. I’m not saying the treatment of that, poverty, and crime isn’t a problem, I just don’t think that was the focus. In fact, the focus for me seemed to be the way intelligence can be shaped, especially if you think of Chappie early on as a child who’s being shaped by the world around him and consider all the issues this raises.

I also didn’t think we were meant to think of that as a happy ending, mostly because of the state of things at the end of the movie. Yeah, they all manage to transfer their consciousness, but given the fact that they—most notably Chappie—are treated as fugitives, I don’t think the audience is meant to think they’ve run off into the sunset to live happily ever after.

It was definitely simpler and different than I expected, but I certainly don’t think that means it wasn’t a pretty great film—I think it’s absolutely worth seeing, and it would be unfortunate to dismiss it on these grounds.

[scifipol]

You’re right of course, all these points are for debate. The fact that the movie is open to such interpretations is proof itself that people should go see it and decide on their own; in no way did I want to encourage anyone to dismiss it; quite the opposite! 

[scifipol]

Could the Death Star Destroy a Planet?

In the movie Star Wars, the Darth Vader's Death Star destroyed a planet. Could this really happen? 

[scifipol]

“When Kimmel pressed Obama, telling him how Clinton claimed to have looked into government files on UFOs and found nothing, Obama replied, "Well, you know, that's what we're instructed to say."  

[scifipol]

So much universe, and so little time

Terry Pratchett. 

Rest In Peace

[scifipol]

Chappie: Socio-Political Issues

The concept of this blog is to take every science fiction movie seriously within its own context. So, even with movies where the problems and contradictions are evident, I attempt to look at some of the political implications as if the setting was realistic. That is why it is worth exploring some of the political problems of CHAPPIE, Neill Blomkamp’s latest movie.

The story of Chappie is fairly simple. The Johannesburg police starts employing sentient robots for police work. Their inventor wants to take a step further and bestow real artificial intelligence on one of them. He succeeds but is kidnapped by some criminals who want to use a robot to help them steal some money to repay another criminal. Enter Chappie, the robot with the consciousness of a child. From then on, the movie is about “raising” Chappie, the criminals teaching Chappie to steal, the geeky inventor, to pursue other interests (like painting and playing). In the meantime, due to sabotage, a Mean and Ugly Robot appears trying to destroy our heroes. They survive by Chappie finding out how to transform consciousness from human to robot. Our “family” reunites as robots and live happily ever after. Or not.

The movie has been criticised a lot for being simplistic and not living up to expectations. Its socio-political aspects also raise some questions. Here are three interesting ones.

Naive tech enthusiasts vs. hardcore military guys

The movie presents a well-known stereotype of geek vs. military. There is the smart, young inventor – Deon Wilson – with black framed glasses, huge intellect and a combination of ego and naiveté. Then there is the hardened veteran of the special forces, Vincent Moore – played by Hugh Jackman: plenty of muscle, little empathy and an obvious weak spot for big guns. While Wilson wants to – and does – create a “cute” intelligent robot, Moore is interested in a big killing machine. Clearly we are to like Wilson and despise Moore. True to their nature, by the end of the movie, Moore is revealed to be a sadist, using his robot to decapitate his victim.

However: if you look at the story closely, it becomes clear that all the problems originate with Wilson. Wilson wants to create AI – even though his boss forbids it for security reasons. Wilson – trusting his intentions and intellect more than protocols – disobeys; steals the required hardware and bypasses instructions. This is what leads to the chain of events killing – almost – Wilson and unlashing havoc on Johannesburg. If it were not for the otherwise nice inventor, things would have turned out just fine.

On the other hand, Moore does nothing without permission. He has the Big Ugly Robot from the start – but without specific instructions is not willing to use it. He hates Wilson and manipulates the situation so that he becomes essential for his superiors, but does not move until authorised. Then, he receives orders to destroy Chappie; he is following – albeit in his own cruel way – his orders.

So, when you think about it, most of us would prefer to hang out with the well-meaning scientist – but the movie also shows why it is dangerous to put such people in situations requiring non-technical decisions.

Segregation and slums

District 9, Blomkamp’s signature movie was praised for addressing such issues as poverty and segregation. It also showed that the menacing-looking “aliens” can be more friendly than the “civilized” humans. In Chappie, however, the menacing looking criminals living in the slums are, in fact, menacing and dangerous. When Wilson refuses to cooperate, they casually want to cut off his leg. When Chappie demonstrates to a gang of youngsters that he is no threat, they immediately set him on fire. In fact, the whole notion that people – in general – are evil and malevolent is  rcurring theme.

One problem with this portrayal is that it seems to vindicate the police position: the slums are bases of criminal activity; people living there would not deserve to live anywhere else. When order breaks down, the inhabitants start looting and killing, reinforcing the worst – sometimes overtly racist – stereotypes. This was probably never Blomkamp’s intention, but the movie seems to reinforce the notion that “the poor are dangerous” and we are happy to have them segregated and under strong police surveillance. As the New York Times notes: “The director … doesn’t engage with the question of whether a police state is necessary; he just goes with the paramilitary flow”

The not-so-happy ending

The movie ends with our conscious robots reuniting and fleeing. We are probably to believe that they are to live happily ever after. But... Really? Does anyone seriously think that the first successful attempt of both AI and consciousness-transplant would just be let loose? No, a more realistic future is that they are captured and, if lucky, “asked” to help reverse engineer how they came to be. If unlucky, well, you can guess...

Pics: Allmovie.com; Indiewire.com; cd4.24.co.za; rasset.ie

[scifipol]

Tomorrowland, coming May 2015