Questions Questions Questions

This week in Science Fiction Films, we were looking at the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Science in Sci-Fi.  We began by examining the physics of space, and looked at a couple examples that exhibit correct physics (Wall-E and Battlestar Galactica) and then one that does not (Star Wars).  We learned about the science pf travel faster than light travel and the way to truly acquire “artificial gravity” in space (which is not by putting gravity generators in the floor, despite popular belief).  We examined a few space ships that were scientifically accurate, and the mechanisms that helped make them so.  We also examined other planets, how one would go about terraforming, and whether or not our solar system is actually all that unique.  During tutorials, a question came up that I found rather interesting: do science fiction films have a responsibility to be scientifically accurate?

This question I find particularly interesting, because films, tv shows, etc. can have a lot more impact than one might think.  For this entry, I would like to expand that question outwards from just the science in science fiction to films and tv shows in general: what responsibility do films have to their audiences? 

It is important to remember that movies are an odd combination— first, films need to sell.  Therefore, they need to pander some to their audience.  If the audience doesn’t like what they see, than they won’t spend money on going to see the film, or buying any merchandise that accompanies it, and they won’t encourage their friends to do any of the above either.  A film that makes no money is a flop, there’s no way around that.  In that way, filmmakers need to appeal to their audience with techniques, stories, and figures that their audience likes and understands.

At the same time, film makers need to be new and different in their films.  Films that borrow too many familiar themes and characters aren’t fun to watch— because the audience feels like they’ve already seen everything the film has to offer.  Therefore, a film maker needs to be slightly radical, try new things, introduce their audience to new ideas, while still creating a relatable story.

Films add another layer of complexity to everything as well, because directors, story writers, and actors will all put their values forward as well.  So while the movie has to pander some to the audience, it also expresses the things that are important to the creators.  Films are, after all, an art form, and in that way, they are the expressions of the artists creating them.

So I ask, what sort of responsibilities do film makers have when they are creating a film?  Are they obliged to represent things how they are, or are they allowed to skew things a bit for the sake of the story?  When films are placed in different worlds, do they have a responsibility to follow the rules of our own world?  How do we decide what the film makers is trying to say in their films?  How do we know what’s a satire, what’s a critique, what’s an endorsement?  Do film makers have an obligation to make it clear to their audiences? 

Films, in a similar fashion to novels, are an interesting medium because they tell a story, that may or may not have bearings in reality as we know it.  For instance, going back to science fiction for a moment, a story might take place on another planet, with alien characters and completely different rules.  How much obligation does the film maker have to make it accurate to what we understand to be true and right on earth?  I think that this grants a film maker liberty to explore many of the issues on earth in an interesting way that would perhaps be unopen to discussion.

On the other hand, many films do take place here on earth in current society as we know it.  Do film makers then have an obligation to show things how they really are?  Or can they imagine a future reality?  What sort of future realities are they allowed to show?  What is acceptable for them to show?  When a filmmaker shows a reality, whose reality are they showing?  Whose reality is it okay for them to show?  One can easily critique a film for having racist imagery, while at the same time complimenting the film for showing the reality of living under White Dominance.  One can argue about how women are portrayed negatively in a film, while at the same time complimenting the virtues expressed by those same characters.

Films, especially feature length films, are an extremely complicated art form— for they combine imagination, vision, and sound in extraordinary ways to tell a story.  They are the end result of hundreds of people working tirelessly on a project, and I believe it is important to remember, while we ask all of these questions of film, that it is art and it is an exploration of society and the values that we hold.  As society moves forward, it will be extremely interesting to see how film progresses for future generations to enjoy.