Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Movie Review - Why I Hate The Island

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Imagine that back in the 1960's, a movie was made about a dystopian future wherein a new medical procedure has transformed society. This controversial procedure involves a process where people with imperfect eyesight undergo laser surgery to achieve 20/20 vision. Who is behind this innovation? An evil corporation full of over the top, cartoonish bad guys straight out of a bad James Bond movie.

But there's a problem, only the evil rich (is there any other kind?) can afford to undergo this outpatient treatment. This has the effect of creating a dual society - those with perfect vision vs those who are forced to wear glasses. Those with perfect eyesight are able to attract a better mate, earn more money, and are generally more successful. Those with glasses are the poor, the downtrodden, the scourge of society.

In comes our heroes, who were born with perfect vision. But after seeing the injustice of how those less fortunate are treated by society, they break into the corporation and destroy all the machinery. The moral of the story is that human beings cannot and should not play GOD.

Now imagine a new movie with the same premise, albeit a different plot, except that it's about cloning instead of lasik. Sounds ludicrous, but that's THE ISLAND in a nutshell. The evil corporation in THE ISLAND is called "Merrick". There are several shots where a person's head obscures the corporate logo in the background so that it reads "Merck". Subtlety - thy name is not Michael Bay.

So cloning technology is bad because this will allow the rich to create identical copies of themselves - ultimately to be harvested for spare parts. Let's see…clones have existed for as long as humans have been around - except we call them identical twins. Do we see a situation in the real world where siblings are kept locked up in the basement for spare parts? Of course not. There have been cases where people voluntarily donated a kidney to a dying brother or sister. Should that be outlawed? After all, they're playing GOD!

Ok, so the premise is badly flawed. But is the movie any fun? Only if you like gaping plot holes, characters who act in nonsensical ways, millisecond edits, numerous low angle, slow motion, 360 degree helicopter hero shots, and stuff blowing up without rhyme nor reason.

The only good thing I can say about this movie is the cinematography and set design. It looks beautiful, as are the two leads, but it's ultimately empty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, everything seems like a remake of the 70's flick Parts: The Clonus Horror with some explosions thrown in. It is Michael Bay so it's got to have explosions, lots and lots of explosions.

Michael Bay was adopted by a lower middle class family and went to upper class schools so he has a hatred of upper class snobs etc etc so that is why his villains are always very well educated and or rich. It was in a recent interview I read somewhere but can't remember where. So now you can see the thread in all of his movies that villains will aways fall into a archetype.

To his credit though, he worked his butt off in Hollywood to get where he is. He started out doing practically volunteer work and worked his way into a file clerk. Then worked his way into music videos, then made Bad Boys, and the rest is big budget over the top movie production history.

But a live action Transformers movie?! ARGH! My childhood is ruined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I miss liking Ewan Mcgregor :thumbsup:

I used to be so in love with him; I have like all his movies on dvd. Many artists I used to like seem so have dropped off my respect radar lately. I used to be obsessed with Iggy Pop and now I can't remember the last time I listened to one of his records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I miss liking Ewan Mcgregor  :) 

I used to be so in love with him; I have like all his movies on dvd.  Many artists I used to like seem so have dropped off my respect radar lately.  I used to be obsessed with Iggy Pop and now I can't remember the last time I listened to one of his records.

I can listen to Nightclubbing and The Passenger again and again. But, and this is a big but; How is Iggy Pop still alive? Seriously. Look at him. I mean Keith Richards being alive is a testament to modern science and medicine but Iggy's continued existence is somehow for me a denial of A is A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People dont seem to realise that you can normally make more money by selling lots of things to poor/average people, than by selling a few things to the rich. Thats why we have computers and cars in most homes, and the girls getting breast impants arent all fabulously wealthy.

If cloning technology were developed, I'd imagine someone would work out how to make it widely available in order to maximise his profit. Not that I think cloning will necessarily be a good thing.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So cloning technology is bad because this will allow the rich to create identical copies of themselves - ultimately to be harvested for spare parts.  Let's see…clones have existed for as long as humans have been around - except we call them identical twins.  Do we see a situation in the real world where siblings are kept locked up in the basement for spare parts?  Of course not.  There have been cases where people voluntarily donated a kidney to a dying brother or sister.  Should that be outlawed?  After all, they're playing GOD!....

...The only good thing I can say about this movie is the cinematography and set design. It looks beautiful, as are the two leads, but it's ultimately empty.

I thought “The Island” was a good movie that integrated a Objectivist principles.

*************WARNING: SPOILERS************

The central theme of this movie focused on moochers enforcing the enslavement of innocent individuals, and the perseverance of these individuals to overcome their evil slaves masters and live freely. The island in the movie represents living a prosperous and happy life; an ideal that is used by the slave masters to coerce the innocents into sacrificing themselves for the lives of an unkown moocher. It is no wonder (and pretty obvious) that during the sex scene between Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson, Scarlett Johansson’s character whispers, “this is the island” to Ewan McGregor’s character now that they are out of captivity and able to love and live however they choose.

This movie wasn’t an attack against the rich, or even a direct attack against the dangers of cloning. Plain and simple, it was an attempt to display the perseverance of the human spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of us who have seen it.

....

Would someone have the right to create fully functional human clones of one's self and have them live in the same kind of enviornment as in the movie?

At first, I would be aghast at that question.

"Create a sparate, fully functional, individual for 'harvesting'?!"

But then I ask myself:

We will, in the future, have the ability to create specific organs on demand and for storage. This is a wholly moral medical endeavor given that the beneficiary pays for the materials in a moral way. But at what point and in what combination does a set of organs that are 'created' in this way become 'too much.' Does a clone's rational faculty, if brought to functionality, deny anyone's claim to the cloned material? Even if this 'material' happens to comprise a fully functional human being?

Where is the proverbial 'Line'?

Am I missing something? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would someone have the right to create fully functional human clones of one's self and have them live in the same kind of enviornment as in the movie?

....

Where is the proverbial 'Line'?

When the clone is a rational animal and has rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current state of cloning technology is very different than that presented in THE ISLAND or THE SIXTH DAY. The most likely scenario is that human organs would be grown from a few cells taken from your own body. The organ would then grow to maturity inside a pig or other artificial surrogate body (maybe inside a vat of nutrients). Then when it comes time for you to need a transplant, the pig is killed and a perfectly healthy organ (like a liver) is extracted and inserted into you with no rejection problems.

At best, the scenario presented in THE ISLAND is based on ignorance. At worst, it's fear mongering. Fear of new technology, fear of playing God (whatever the hell that means). In THE ISLAND, they come up with the ridiculous explanation - That originally organs were grown inside beings in a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS) - no consciousness whatsoever. But they found that without consciousness, without purpose, the whole organism would die. That's just crap! Remember Terri Schiavo? She was kept alive for 15 years in a PVS. Her organs functioned normally just fine.

For further reading, I refer you to:

http://www.reason.com/hod/rb122702.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't be a "fully functional human being" without the brain.

I feel I limited the context of "fully functional" in my example.

But to clarify,

"...fully functional, in that, the body is somehow constructed or facilitated in some way to allow the proper functioning of the processes of the body itself in the absence of the brain..."

I am trying to explore the, now hypothetical, extremes as the cloning process approaches the point where it creates an entire human individual and the limits of what is considered cloned 'material' as opposed to an entire human entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can listen to Nightclubbing and The Passenger again and again. But, and this is a big but; How is Iggy Pop still alive? Seriously. Look at him. I mean Keith Richards being alive is a testament to modern science and medicine but Iggy's continued existence is somehow for me a denial of A is A.

I saw him in concert last summer --I...don't..there are no words. Not only is he alive he's alive and kicking--literally. He was jumping around that stage like a mad man. 20 year olds who've never done heroin don't have that much energy.

Edited by Michero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw him in concert last summer --I...don't..there are no words.  Not only is he alive he's alive and kicking--literally.  He was jumping around that stage like a mad man. 20 year olds who've never done heroin don't have that much energy.

My point exactly. Given how smacked out he's been/is, how he can still perform with the ferocity he does, we may actually have evidence of use of cloned replacement organs. That actually may be the only rational explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone can go see the movie with the expectation that they will see a masterpiece, its entertainment first and moral/philosopic message second. Seeing a movie like this in my opinion, is like having an alcoholic drink, you will enjoy it for all the wrong reasons and as long as you are concious that in the end it is not a "great" movie, you can still enjoy it without becoming misled by the bad logic of the movie.

As a poster said above, there are ways to take out a positive Objectivist message from the movie, but in the end the plot has some weaknesses which cause serious problems. The biological science in the movie is completely and utterly incorrect. There can be no rational explanation for one of the main plot points in the movie, biologic or economic.

But, I thought the presentation of the movie was actually very good, with good set designs, good action scenes, and acting that actually fit what was needed (they talked as I expected 15 year olds to talk). I enjoyed it, fully aware that there were massive plot weaknesses, but I was able to have fun with it none the less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually agree with this analysis of the film after seeing it. I'd also like to add that it reminds me a lot of Anthem. You have the charactors being controlled by the society, and then you have the two of them who are falling in love and are not allowed to be in love. You also have him waking up out of his daze and taking her with him...frankly it's a lot like anthem..and she would make a great "Golden One". You even have Ewan making quotes about how the only truth is that everyone will do anything to survive (or something like that) which frankly was very Oist of him, and the first thing he really learns about the outside world. I think the film was well done...and honestly if I found out people were being grown and had rational intelligent minds and then were being chopped up, I would be very opposed to it, and I'm sure Rand would too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so the premise is badly flawed. But is the movie any fun? Only if you like gaping plot holes, characters who act in nonsensical ways, millisecond edits, numerous low angle, slow motion, 360 degree helicopter hero shots, and stuff blowing up without rhyme nor reason.

Its because of kill-joy remarks like the above that l go and see a film before reading such "reviews". l loved the film. lt was a great popcorn movie. l enjoyed every minute of it. l always watch the credits at the end of a movie in admiration of the number of people and talent and effort that went into the movie. Having worked in a lab for many years, l know the great effort that must go into the technical making of the film. Its very very hard to create something out of nothing. Yet all you get from some people is mock, mock, mock, scorn, scorn, scorn. As the famous saying goes, any fool can criticise. The chinese already sell the body parts of executed criminals. Do you think chinese leaders would let morals get in the way of getting body parts for their own use. The film was a warning of what can be.

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I remember reading this thread a while back. My fiancee made me watch the movie with her over the holidays and I have to say that I don't understand why some of you consider the movie to go against Objectivist principles. I thoroughly enjoyed the first half (before it becomes just another action flick with big explosions) and thought that it had some very good premises.

Of the biology, I have no opinion. If the message was that it's wrong to play God, then it would have a faulty message. But I don't think that was it. I think the message was that human cloning is inevitable and that, when it happens, society has to be careful to remember that the resulting humans are HUMAN and must be treated as such, rather than as guinea pigs.

Overall, an enjoyable dystopia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
I haven't seen the movie (I intend to); but you know why it will be awesome?

Because Scarlett Johansen is really hot. :lol:

You're definitely right about that.

I've just watched the movie recently, and really enjoyed the first act. Only after about 1 hour does the whole thing disintegrate into a mindless action movie. I think 'The Island' would be ten times as good, if it was a low budget movie (just watch Equilibrium to see what I mean).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...