I guess I could still write feelies, though I highly doubt the experience is the same. This fear brings me to my main point. Everything in the world of Brave New World is built around instant pleasure. In other dystopian novels, humanity are slaves to some form of externality. In Brave New World, however, the problem of oppression, I think, is on more of an intimate and personal level. Instead of just being controlled by an external force, people are controlled by their own desires. Instant gratification is the most important attainment during one’s life. No one has a mind for patience. With patience, there is a much bigger payoff. With instant gratification, there is certainly more payoffs. It’s a debate about quantity vs. quality; I’d rather have the greatest high than the most minor highs.

Leviathan

The most obvious trick, and yet one I had never thought to question upon my first viewing, is the implicit link between genetic engineering and totalitarianism. Throughout the entire film the audience is flooded with images and hints of fascism. From the simplistic, striped down style of the architecture, to the scene where the ‘genetically inferior’ people are being held up against walls for invasive questioning, to the gestapo like outfits of the police officers, and even to the mostly silent and oppressive soundtrack of the film. The implication is in almost every aspect of the movie, and yet it is never clearly stated exactly what government this futuristic society has. So why would these film makers go to all the trouble of making implications but never confirming them? Perhaps it is because so long as the totalitarianism is only implied and not stated, there is no need to explain why genetic engineering would be linked to it, and more importantly, there is less chance of the audience questioning or even consciously picking up on this link. Instead the audience member is only left with the almost subconscious feeling that genetic engineering will somehow lead us away from freedom and into oppression. Personally, I think it seems like a bit of a stretch to assume that the genetic modification of offspring to fix health problems and possible disabilities will somehow make everyone throw away their beloved freedom and democracy and start welcoming in fascism with open arms.

Following the totalitarian theme, the film also tries to show that these great developments in science and an acceptance of genetic engineering will endanger the privacy of our very DNA. For some reason in this futuristic world everyone’s DNA has suddenly moved from private property that only individual permission and warrants can access, to a free for all on information about every individual’s genetic information. Again, I find it hard to believe that just because we developed the means to learn everything from an individual’s DNA, suddenly means that we also stop respecting that individual’s right to privacy. In fact, all of the issues in the protagonist’s life arise because anyone is able to take his DNA and discriminate against him because of it. The film quickly informs us that this practice is illegal, but everyone does it anyway. Yet, how difficult would it really be to crack down on a practice like that? Any minor investigation into GATTACA would reveal that they were discriminating, and punishments such as fines and arrests could easily sway the company to stop. It seems that people in this society can also take any DNA off the street and have it sequenced for them seconds later without so much as a questioning glance. This practice is not even said to be illegal. I simply do not see any connection between genetic modification and flagrant violations of personal privacy.

The film does do an excellent job of bringing up the question of where the line should be drawn in genetic engineering and will we know when we cross it. However, I feel that the assumption it makes that genetic engineering will lead to a terrible loss of freedom and privacy are ungrounded and poorly supported, manipulating the audience into an overly negative view.

–Negative Nancy

No, I’d rather focus on the more subtle hints of Nazi aesthetic, especially in context to other propagandist Nazi films of the Wiemar period. And I specify films aimed towards influencing the public opinion because honestly? That’s what Gattaca aims to do. It may not be the ONLY goal of this film, but that’s definitely one of them. The film is extremely stilted in its portrayal of the society: our narrator, after all, has been at odds with it for his entire life. In contrast, most of the other characters shown seem to embrace what is considered “normal”: even Vincent’s mother tells him to give up his dream, and the doctor’s act of rebellion is still enabling the system by falsely giving information.

The Movie Poster for Kuhla Wampe, a movie that tried to involve many different emotions without any emotional input from the viewer

On the other hand, the movie gives enough clues and information to allow the viewer to make his own decisions about the society. There are no diseases and no defects; parents are given the chance to make their kids healthy and strong and smart. There’s no room for worrisome genetics or paternity debates. People who work at a job are qualified down to their DNA for it. Society is efficient and very little is surprising any more. All in all, it doesn’t seem like a bad place to live: if you were engineered. That the movie is thought-provoking and, with its information, invites the viewer to think and debate among themselves has a strong Brechtian undertone. Bertolt Brecht, a German author, helped write the screenplay for the famous(ly failure of a) movie Kuhla Wampe with the intent of extreme emotional detachment and intellectual stimulation.

This kind of detachment is strongest with regards to most of the engineered society. There are exceptions, of course: Eugene (clever name, get it? Get it?) is an extremely emotional character, and Anton has frequent outbursts of emotion, but most of the other “perfect people” generally have blank faces and empty expressions as they work, wait in line, or crowd around the program director’s murdered body. Even Irene, the love interest, generally shows little emotion for the importance of her role in the movie. Yes, she has her moments, but she still represents the machination of humanity, and for this reason she still seems more uncanny than Eugene.

On the other hand, the emotional connection that we have with Vincent, the one that guides us through the movie and allows us to sympathize with his plight and his problem with this futuristic, genetically-biased system, is representative of many Nazi-produced movies. For the Nazis, film was a way of emotional release. It was meant to rile the viewer up over certain issues (which were often controversial), leading them along a thought process whereas a more objective stance could have had more debate.

I could literally wax poetic about Nazi aesthetic for a year but I think this is a good question to finish it up with: Do you think Gattaca is propaganda? Does its emotional storytelling nudge you towards an opinion you might reconsider otherwise? Or is its intent too obvious?

- Kievan

This is the dual nature of genetic determinism.  If it is possible for people to surpass their designated potential, it is inevitable that others, like Jerome, will fail to reach theirs.  From birth, the genetic elite are conditioned to believe that they are the best.  The world is their oyster, so to speak.  They are expected to succeed in all endeavors and to fulfill their genetic potential by rising to the top of society.  This endless psychological conditioning has a powerful effect on the genetically superior.  They become accustomed to success to the point that they are unable to accept failure.

A NASA refrigerator magnet – the slogan certainly applies to Gattaca

To the genetic elite of Gattaca, failure is a foreign concept.  Like the teenager who believes he is invincible, they see it as an abstract notion that will never apply to them.  They honestly believe they will always be the best.  Well, anyone familiar with literature could predict the downfall that is likely to result from such hubris.  It’s as the proverb goes: pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

Jerome is a prime example of a devastating confluence of factors.  As a superior specimen, even among the genetically engineered – “quite a catch,” as it is put in the movie – he feels an intense pressure, both internal and external, to succeed.  The problem is that those with whom he competes are held to the same standard of perfection, and have been engineered to perform as strongly.  As a simple matter of logic, only one person can come in first.  All the others are losers, also-rans, failures.

As a biologist, I see a parallel between a person’s psychological response to failure and the body’s immune response to a virus.  If you have contracted a certain virus before, say a particular strain of the flu, then your body knows how to respond.  This is known as acquired immunity. Though you still feel the symptoms, you’re usually able to combat the virus effectively and recover before too long.  Facing failure is the same.  Once you’ve experienced failure, you build up a resistance.  The next time, you are better prepared to deal with it.  Most of us experience failure early and often, developing a healthy response along the way.  This is not the case for the genetically engineered society of Gattaca.  They have no “acquired immunity” – no psychological defense – against failure, because they have never experienced it before.  The results can be disastrous.

Raised on high expectations and completely unaccustomed to failure, Jerome is disgusted with his second-place finish, deeply ashamed of earning anything less than gold.  While it would be easy to assume upon first meeting Jerome that his inner demons are a result of his paralysis, in truth they stem from his inability to digest failure.  He cannot reconcile the disparity between his vision of perfection and his result, leaving him mentally crippled.

Still, just as two different people suffering from the same virus may experience different symptoms and to varying degrees, not everyone responds to failure the same way.  It is only fair to consider that there could be members of this perfectionist society who, despite all odds, are sufficiently able to cope with failure.  Jerome, however, is not one of them, and I think most others would have a similarly extreme response.

This raises the question of where failed elites such as Jerome fit into a society with no tolerance for weakness or failure.  Is it possible for such a person to retain his elevated socioeconomic status, despite having an imperfect mark on his record?  If not, and the failure is completely shunned by high society, can he fall back on becoming a member of the lower, natural-born caste?  Given the tension between the two parties, the likelihood of either one embracing this option is dubious.  Perhaps in the world of Gattaca, there is simply no place for a fallen star.

-Cletus

The society is based on its ability to control the supply of humans that enter the population. Some pretty progressive science comes into play. A single egg can be divided into 96 eventual babies and human embryos are grown in bottles on an assembly line! For some, it is hard to fathom that technology would and could do these things. However, scientists today are closer than you think.

No, the technology is not at all hard to buy into in Brave New World. The hardest part for me to get on board with is the World State’s total manipulation of the people.  Humans are dynamic beings. Despite the conditioning, the soma, and the social pressure, the World State’s civilization would break down.

In my head, I have the whole revolution planned out: Brave New World, the sequel. Maybe I think that humans have a certain amount of morality built in, inside of them.  Or maybe its pessimism, because I don’t think humans are capable of keeping perfection like the World State going for an extended period of time. Sixty years is at least twenty too many to keep even the people of the World State satisfied by soma and sex alone.  Sixty years is plenty of time for an individual to think. There would be too many Bernards and Helmholtzes.

I don’t care how strong the conditioning is! I don’t care how oppressive the social pressure is! If you take away love, adversity, and all the other things removed from Brave New World, you still haven’t taken away humanity. They aren’t robots.

I just cannot believe that the human race could ever be successfully harnessed as they were in Brave New World for any extended period of time.  [And I might get defensive if you tell me I have been conditioned to think this way]

-M

Everyday, in magazines and on TV, we are continually assaulted with images of models and actresses, their complexions pale and flawless, their bodies impossibly thin. We are taught, from a young age, that we must aspire to this unrealistic standard of beauty. We internalize these toxic images, becoming dissatisfied with our own less-than-perfect appearances.

And so we color our hair. We paint our faces with makeup. We starve ourselves. We undergo plastic surgery. We go to all of these extreme and dangerous lengths, all in the name of beauty.

There is a striking moment in the novel in which the World State citizens react to Linda’s haggard appearance. Trapped for decades in the uncivilized West, Linda has been denied the cosmetics, surgical procedures, and other beauty products that are so readily accessible in the superficial World State. The sight of Linda’s wrinkled, pudgy flesh and sagging breasts is utterly vulgar to a society accustomed to taut youthful bodies and flawless skin:

“Bloated, sagging, and among those firm youthful bodies, those undistorted faces, a strange and terrifying monster of middle-agedness, Linda advanced into the room, coquettishly smiling her broken and discolored smile, and rolling as she walked, with what was meant to be a voluptuous undulation, her enormous haunches” (139).

The physical process of aging has transformed Linda into a “strange and terrifying monster,” into something grotesque and repulsive. We may smirk at their seeming naïveté, but in truth are we really all that different from the World State? Isn’t our society just as beauty-obsessed, just as preoccupied with the pursuit of physical perfection?

Here, again, we see Huxley playing the role of social prophet, correctly anticipating a future in which physical perfection and youth are prized above all else. In the World State, medical advancements and scientific techniques have all but eliminated old age. In our modern world, likewise, we are essentially attempting to do the same. Old age—once a marker of wisdom—is now seen as repulsive, a sign of degeneration and decline. Individuals go to various extremes (Botox, face-lifts, liposuction, plastic surgery) in order to counteract the inevitable effects of time. God forbid we ever look like Linda, wrinkled and fleshy, a vulgar specimen of “middle-agedness.”

Like the World State, then, we are on a relentless pursuit of beauty and eternal youth. But the more crucial question is this: does beauty truly bring happiness? Does looking good on the outside make one truly satisfied on the inside? Yes, it would be nice to attain a “perfect” physique, but the reality is, as hard as we might try—no matter how many surgeries we undergo, how many beauty products we invest in—perfection continually eludes us. Personally, I’d rather enjoy life rather than focusing on these superficial trivialities. Thirty, forty years down the line, I may have a few wrinkles here or there, but I’ll be okay with that. Because a little bit of wrinkles never killed anybody.

—Anna D.

I realize that this is a radical proposition – how could a country that believes in the ideals of meritocracy parallel the monstrosities of predestination in Huxley’s society? We don’t sort our children into Alphas, Betas, Deltas, Gammas, and Epilsons, favoring some and neglecting others; we don’t breed some people for success and others for mediocrity; we don’t culture children to be content with their lot in life, no matter what rung of the socioeconomic ladder they’re on. Rather, we prize the concept of meritocracy, dreaming an American dream of social mobility, and claiming that every child has an equal footing to get to the top.

Except for one small detail: this is a false claim.

In our capitalist society, Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” creates winners and losers – and then passes that difference down through the generations. Today, different people have different resources, simply because of the vastly unequal dispersal of wealth. Some live in wealthy and active communities, enjoying vast property, strong school systems, and healthy and safe infrastructure; meanwhile, others struggle in high-crime areas, food deserts, poor school districts, environmentally toxic neighborhoods, and so on and so forth, because they’ve inherited a lack of resources or suffer from a lack of opportunity. All of this makes it close to impossible to trade their situation for a better one.

I say close to impossible because it’s the truth; it is possible to “beat the system” and make it to the top. It’s just that this almost never happens. Social mobility in the United States, particularly upward mobility, is at a near-standstill. This article from the Washington Post discusses it, with parallel articles visible in the Economist, the New York Times, and the Huffington Post, if you do a little digging; they all cite private and public studies discussing the “sticky” American social classes. This isn’t media panic, either; these studies are performed by institutions as respected as the OECD and the Institute of the Study of Labor. It turns out that the class that you are born into pretty much sets an identical course for your future, visible even in large brackets of socioeconomic fifths:

I don’t know about you, but I see predestined Epilsons, Gammas, Deltas, Betas, and Alphas in these societal fifths. And it’s eerie. (I borrowed this image from The Society Pages, so please credit them! — Edit: okay, so the image is cropped on this post, but if you click on the link it will take you to the full version. Please do. It’s a sobering image.)

Granted, maybe we don’t use hypnopaedia, or alcoholic arrests in the womb, to create these socioeconomic divisions, which are the bleak techniques for acceptance used in Huxley’s dystopian world. But that doesn’t mean we don’t culture our youth to naturally accept these differences, the same way that Alphas and Epilsons do. For example, in her text Unequal Childhoods, Annette Lareau makes the argument that children of society are naturally geared towards a certain life through patterns of parenthood, as well as through the advantages and disadvantages of their environments. Some political rhetoric repeatedly states that these divisions are “naturally sorted,” that people deserve what they get. In short, people accept this unequal playing ground as an aspect of living in a capitalist society.

It’s an aspect that Huxley and I could both do without.

-Julia Ray

Though my experience with both the film and literary genre is limited, I find it repetitive. I include Brave New World in this judgment.

I don’t understand all the hype around Brave New World.

Well, let me specify: I don’t read Brave New World as a groundbreaking  novel. I understand completely why it was so innovative. Whilst not an English major I am keenly interested in literary history, and I find the Bloomsbury group fascinating.  Thus I can acknowledge that Aldous Huxley was part of a band of forward thinking intellectuals.  His thoughts on technology, economics, politics, and humanity were and still are inventive and visionary. However, when considering the actual act of reading the novel, it’s extremely elementary. As I can assume we’re all well-read individuals, we’ve had our share of dystopian novels and films. Brave New World might have even been the first, perhaps read in high school, and rightfully so. It was one of the originals and a well-done one, at that. Yet reading it now has no shock value. And that, I believe, is the primary dilemma with most dystopian books and films. The common threads that binds them into the same genre – the trademark socialist or totalitarian government, some kind of scientific breakthrough that dramatically changes society, people largely without emotions, one central protagonist who has revolutionary morals and ideals- have become so customary that they lose their effect.

Of course, my argument doesn’t hold much weight. I can read a million Jane Austen books, and even the countless books that try to imitate Austen, that all involve the same comedic romantic plot, and never get bored.  But I still believe that when working within in a tried and true genre, it’s important to inject as much innovation as possible. So while I yawn at Brave New World, I find Gattaca completely refreshing. I want to spend the remainder of this blog commending Gattaca for its true innovation.

I had actually seen it before, and I still watched it as an entirely new film.  It didn’t really make sense, exactly, why I would be so attracted to Gattaca, because it has all of the same exhausted elements that I lamented about earlier. But with some more reflection I was able to pinpoint what makes Gattaca different, and it’s something we discussed extensively in class: The use of old to create something very new. When you watch Gattaca, it feels more like a period piece than a futuristic sci-fi. And this does more than costumes and set décor, and the general aesthetics. It invokes a feeling of timelessness, and then humanity, into the story. Gattaca is exploring the world of gene designing and the social implications of this – a world where one’s entire destiny is determined on biological matter. Yet it is infinitely relatable when it chooses to be reminiscent of pre-war Germany . When it links to our past (even a past none of us experienced) we find it more relatable than if it tried only to link to our future.

- Erin A.

Would a society like this be able to perpetuate itself?  If genes were used to determine ability, what would happen to human potential?  Those who are told they can achieve, will.  Or will they?  There are those, like Jerome, who was assured of his excellence all his life and still considered himself as falling short.  His psychological damage from being assured of his superiority and failing to meet it drove him to kill himself.  Society’s assurance of his superiority generated Jerome’s expectations for himself, which he did not meet.

What about those who are told their entire lives that they can do nothing?  Most would never try to be anything more than they are.  If you tell someone that they can’t do something enough times, they start to believe it.  Even Irene, one of the gifted, one of the elite, believes the limitations society sets on her.  In one scene, Vincent makes her run to escape from the police.  Afterwards she says: “You know I can’t do that.”  He answers: “You just did.”  She was actually capable of doing something she was told that she could not do.  Society pushed her to live below her potential.

http://www.listal.com/viewimage/1561642h

Genetic determinism, like in Gattaca, would destroy a functioning society.  There would be no more drive or push into something new.  There would only be living up to expectations, striving for expectations you cannot reach, or failing to reach the expectations one has for him or herself.  Human creativity, human curiosity and wonder would be greatly decreased.  With your life determined by your genes, and no forseeable way of escaping, people would lose hope and drive.  Without potential of exceeding expectation, of standing out and being unique, what would people live for?  With their lives and deaths already determined for them, what would be the point of living?

Elmore12

Cancer. Alzheimer’s. Male pattern baldness. Asthma. Obesity. Cleft palate. These genetic disease (and many more) may someday be treatable by gene therapy. I look forward to that day; in fact, nothing could make me happier than living without fear of mental disorder or bodily dysfunction. Or maybe even death.  But wait! Am I wrong? Could something actually make me biologically happier? Potentially, YES.

Scientists call the “happiness” gene 5-HTT .  This gene controls serotonin transportation in the body, which regulates mood, among other things. Apparently “happiness” genes are old news; according to time.com, David Lykken published a paper on the happiness gene back in 1996, defining happiness as “one’s sense of satisfaction in life”, and claimed that genes influence factors about personality, stress handling, and anxiety levels.  About 50% of a person’s contentment comes from genes, but still, people without the happiness gene might be more at risk for depression, or simply have a lower baseline level of happiness.

All in all, a disease curing and happiness boosting gene therapy package seems like a great present to me!

My birthday is next week; please send all genetic re-programming offers to my health care provider. I’ll pretend to be surprised.

So why, then, does the dystopian genre treat the genetic creation of “happiness” with such fear and horror? Take Brave New World for example.  Mustapha Mond, the Resident World Controller for Western Europe, says “the world’s stable now. People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can’t get. They’re well off; they’re safe; they’re never ill; they’re not afraid of death; they’re blissfully ignorant of passion and old age”.  All of this sounds good, not evil. This is what humankind currently searches for in the genome. Where is the horror in this? Because even as an advocate of gene therapy or genetic predetermination, I still feel that sense of repulsion when reading Brave New World.

I believe this feeling stems from the “other” 50% of happiness: the part not controlled by genetics.  As this article says, happiness also results from external circumstances, like style of living.  We, as individual humans, then, must exert control over what makes each of us happy. Obviously we can’t decide to simply change a tornado’s path of destruction, or an employer’s decision to fire an employee, but we can still choose our own path to happiness (or despair) in the midst of everyday life. In fact, the presence of true joy can arguably not be properly felt in the absence of sorrow. The circumstances of Brave New World takes all those options away.  The people are not only genetically bottled, packaged, and stamped with a letter, but also conditioned into a state of complacency or “happiness”, as the Controller sees it.  I, the reader, see horror in the fact that the characters don’t know what they’re missing, or that they’re missing anything at all, and thus make no effort to search for happiness.  Basically, the Controllers have crossed that thin, thin line from giving humans the best chance for personal happiness, to insuring one idea of personal happiness. The reader becomes John, the Savage, in some ways: we are the outsider, without the “close interpersonal ties and social support” that, according to this article mentioned earlier, are important for that non-genetic 50% of happiness.

Ultimately, this quandary appears to boil down to the question of boundaries or lines or borders of free will: when should we cross them? Should we cross them at all?

“You the people have the power, the power to create machines, the power to create happiness”. (Charlie Chaplin, The Great Dictator)

-Saraswati