The Fly Reaction Paper

For me, this movie was very interesting. Although I didn't think that I would be drawn watching it seeing that it was an old movie, I kind of liked it despite the horrible things that happened to Andre, the passionate scientist.

First, I liked how they sequenced its events with the present first, then the flashback. It builds up its suspense and would make the audience tune in for what really happened. It was very brilliant.

I really admired Andre's enthusiasm about science. I admired how he worked hard to make his transport machine work. At first he tried it with objects, then, to living things. When he thought that it was already fine and ready to be tested for humans, something just went wrong. Personally though, I think it could have worked if it weren't for an unforeseen mistake- he went in with a fly with him. And that's when everything started to go gaga.

I think this movie was one of the first of its kinds at this time. And that's what makes it interesting. This was a huge step to the field of science- which will make people/scientists work harder, and film- which will make people/artists more creative of their plot and make them think out of the box.

Palaroan, Graciel M.
2013-60784

Reaction Paper The Fly

Tyrone Caballes
2009 - 78604

 The movie was, for me, engaging rather than being lost in translation in a manner of speaking. At first impression I thought it was going to be a corny movie but like any other production of that golden era, the substance meant more than the form. They did the most out of what they had in terms of filming equipment and knowledge.

 At that time, people were engrossed in science fiction and related events that movies like these came out. The genius was in how they portrayed the human dimension in something that is so out of this world. The scene where the doctor with his fly of a head was caressing and almost kissing his wife gave of the most universal human feeling of love but also gave us, the audience, the gross feeling of the thought of a big fly with its dirty "lips" kissing a person. Thus the wild reaction of the audience.

 Alas, I didn't have the chance to finish the movies since the movie went on after 4 and I had to be somewhere next. It definitely was a weird movie which left me with a wonder as I was walking out:

                                         "What were the people thinking back then?" :)

The Fly(1958)

The movie is one of the most successful movies at the particular time. It's plot or story is different from the movies that were made that time. It is the stepping stone for the Science Fiction, or it is one of the movies that started this genre of movie. It tries to guess what will the future be like, what inventions were made, and what lifestyle does the people have in the future. The teleporter, I think that the people in 1958 were thinking that the teleporter will be invented in the future (which is now). 

And I think that the fly in the movie, symbolizes the clash of the nature with science and technology. What can the environment do to do something unexpected. it is what I infer about the movie.

Now about the plot goes that the Scientist Andre Delambre is found dead. His wife told the truth that she killed him, but she is showing some strange behaviors. She said that she is obsessed with flies. And for her to tell the real truth, her brother lied that he has a fly, as an alibi. And then the flashback comes after. I find it unique, which makes it more interesting to watch. It has a catchy plot to make the audience curious. That is why overall, I like the movie.

Cuachin, Jason F.
2013-70864

The Fly Reaction Paper

Although I did not expect much from The Fly, knowing that it was made in 1958, I was quite surprised to see that it was quite interesting and entertaining after all. The writers did well in showing the murder first then elaborating the plot by doing a flashback which is narrated by the main woman, the wife of the man murdered. This draws in the audience and makes them want to watch the movie and pay attention, and this is what happened when I was watching the film.

Also, the plot itself is very interesting. We get a glimpse of the life of a scientist and in this case, we see how Francois Delambre is so immersed in his work that he, from my interpretation, kind of develops an obsessive behavior for his experiments and somewhat ignores or does not give as much importance to his family. And this is the reason why I think this film is a morality play.

In addition, I believe that Francois’s attitude towards his work applies to most scientists since most of them dedicated their whole lives to science. And this is where their view for the conduct of science comes in. One of the scenes that really stuck with me during the film is when the kid’s uncle was explaining why his brother, the kid’s dad, died. It was when he said, he died doing the most dangerous but noblest thing for humanity, “the search for the truth.”

The Fly also gives us an idea of how the people in the 50’s had great dreams for the future, with amazing breakthroughs in science like Francois’s teleporter. And it shows that people then were very optimistic and had high hopes for the science and technology possibilities in the future.

Hasmin Gaile D. Gavica

2013-16603

Reaction paper (The Fly)

Tenmatay, Jerico Charles B.
2010-78004

If there is one thing that I can take away from the experience, it's that it's quite enjoyable watching movies with a big group of people. It's always fun and it never gets old.

But seriously, the Fly reminds of of how dangerous human curiosity can be for the sake of scientific discovery. We can forsake human relationships, ethics, social norms, even our own mental and physical states just to be able to know if the things we think are right in our minds are truly and absolutely true and justified in the real world.

Granted, if we are right, then it justifies, in a sense, all the things we did to get to that point. But what if we are wrong? Does it fall under the token assumption that we did this "for the greater good"? That if failures of today justifies the successes of tomorrow, would it be worth it to try even it there is a large risk of losing yourself in all of it?

If history is to be believed, then the answer is yes because history only completely remembers the winners. But we should always keep in mind that buried under those successes are failures great and small. Unnamed, uncared for, and unknown.

The Fly (1958) Reaction Paper

Labrador, Ana Micaela B.

2011-02178

The Fly was an entertaining and interesting film because of how it depicts a scientist’s never–ending pursuit for knowledge, which is very much applicable to real life. Though the story might have been a bit of a stretch in terms of the capabilities of past and current technology, it still reflects how great scientific advancements will sometimes be discovered ahead of their time.

It was a commentary on how human beings are naturally curious creatures, and so they tend to push the limits when it comes to great discoveries, even when it may come at a cost. In the same way that people have traveled far into space, deep into the ocean, and to many other extreme and dangerous environments, the Scientist in The Fly pushed his limits and tried the experiment on his own self in order to experience the phenomenon first hand. It is definitely a morality play focusing on the aspect of curiosity, because of how the Scientist was willing to ‘play God’ by using live subjects in his experiments. Even though such methods may have been dangerous and questionable, he still performed the experiments for the sake of finding answers and making improvements to what he already had and knew.

The film reflects the view on Science and Technology during the 1950s in that it was a very ambitious depiction of what people thought technology could possibly do in the future. During the 1950s, technology was at a slow but steady climb; with the evolution and emerging of inventions such as the atomic bomb and other weapons, it wasn’t difficult for everyone to imagine possibilities for the future – whether technology would be used to create great things, but with destructive purposes depending on who was in control of such knowledge and manufacturing capabilities.

The Fly Reaction Paper

John Michael Marquez

2013-19628

The Fly is a mixture of science and horror. Initially, it seemed like one of those old movies that were sort of dull and boring. Yes, I found it uninteresting at first. But as the film moved on, I found myself focusing, paying attention and watching through the film to discover the mystery behind. That's why I found the film both entertaining and interesting given that the film was produced in the 1950s.

I guess that the film was trying to say to the audience that scientific and technological innovations, in the past and even nowadays, have ethical implications. We can see that if scientists have inherent desire for something, nothing can stop them until they get what they wanted. Though some time, it may come to a point wherein they get over the limitations and soon leads to risks and distractions.

The fact that the idea of technological innovation such as teleportation appears to have been growing during the 1950s demonstrates that science and technology is a discipline that is visible at that time. I just want to end this with a line from blogcritics.org, "After the family kitten goes missing during an experiment, Andre tests the machine on himself, but fails to notice one more detail, and now Andre has become The Fly!"

Reaction paper: THE FLY (1958)

The release of The Fly decades ago was a commercial success, partly because of the way it was delivered and partly, the subject it treated. Its relevance to the audience stems from its dealing with human nature as an inevitable obstacle to achieving flawlessness in science breakthroughs. The development of the plot made it interesting; it mystifies in the beginning through the questions posed by the lead characters (and the secretive attitude of the scientist’s wife), then unfolds efficiently the series of events that unlock the mystery in a manner that the build-up of shock gave the movie an overall element of thrill.

The film depicts the scientist as an ever curious man that refuses to settle with his progress until his humanity intervenes. This curiosity fuels his endeavour, as the quest for answers, or in the movie, “the search for truth”, is what a scientist goes through all his life. As long as he knows he is capable of executing an experiment whose results people may have never seen before, he continues the task in pursuit of a sense of achievement and a scientific discovery that will leave a mark in humankind and alter the course of events in history. Two traits common to scientists are manifested by Andre. These  are the lack of expansive vision; listing down the jeopardizing consequences of their research if put to universal use is not prerequisite to releasing that research to the world, and the far-fetched expectations of what their research can convey to humanity.  

Since the film was made during an era of scientific exploration, it might have served as a warning that more than the benefits of a scientific breakthrough, it is crucial for people in that kind of venture to consider the dangers not only to the person in the field but also to those important to him. Before Andrei was crushed using the hydraulic press, the grave effect of his engrossment in his project to family ties was emphasized. He was a bit estranged from his wife and his usual routine with his family was interrupted. Even in making up for the lost time, he found it impossible to part with his work and to avoid integrating this to normal daily activities. The message of the film about science is clear: It is always in our hands to make something as impactful as that beneficial for everyone.

Apple Czarline C. Cruel

2013-59992

Reaction Paper: The Fly (1958)

The film was about an experiment gone wrong. A breakthrough that could have changed the lifestyle of mankind if it were a success. It was about how an inventor created a teleporter with it successfully transporting the content to another tube, and also successfully mixing the atoms of that man and a fly. The film was very interesting to watch and I found myself comparing it to films of today. It was very fun to look at the differences and similarities in the characters, the way they dress, act, and talk. It was also entertaining how the machines and devices portrayed in the film, together with the special effects they used in the film would have been the lowest technology in the modern era.It was also altogether fun to watch how some of our classmates would react to surprising events in the film.

It was a commentary on the work ethics of scientists before, and may even still hold true for today. They portrayed scientists as people thirsty for knowledge, and sometimes it would get in the way of rational thinking. It also tackled morals of the different characters, and may still be within the attitudes of man today. The value of life was clearly debated on the story, yet that debate was not concluded. It included using animals for experiments, and humans included. It greatly dealt with killing the unsuccessful result of the experiment still a human or a thing, being a combination of the atoms of human and fly. It was intriguing how in the end, all the hard work they put into the experiment were tucked away in their memories as something to learn to, and yet still show the possibility of something similar happen again.

Denz Joseph R. Borrero

2009-37801

The Fly Reaction Paper

Despite being created more than 50 years ago, The Fly is still a film that is both entertaining and disturbing at the same time. Campy acting and near-primitive special effects aside, this film managed to sustain my interest, particularly because of the lens it provided on scientific experimentation in the context of the time period in it which it was created. It was surprising to realize that, even if the level of technological development in 1958 was far lower than it is in 2013, the wonder and trepidation that its original audience had towards science’s new frontiers is the same feeling many of us share today.

Through the course of The Fly, scientific discovery is described as a double-edged sword that can be detrimental or beneficial based on its use. As Francois tells Andre’s son in the final scene, the “search for the truth” is at the same time the most important and the most dangerous occupation on Earth. In this case, the quest for progress led Andre to disregard his family, and even his own principles (for example, never hurting animals, which he violated when he experimented on his cat and showed no remorse at its disintegration). The moral lesson the film offers is clear: science can be a powerful force for good, but it must always be approached with caution and a strong sense of ethics.

The idea of caution regarding scientific discovery is a telling remark about the way science and technology were viewed in the 1950s. Helene’s fear that science was “moving too fast” echoes fears in the 1950s about then-recent inventions such as satellites, missiles, and even atomic bombs. Interestingly, we share these fears today about the way technology has changed our lives, especially with the advent of military drones, biological weapons, and so on.

2013-20474

Marco Del Valle

REACTION PAPER (No. 2): THE FLY (1958)

Thea Selina G. Morales

2013-59204

"The Fly" (1958) is a science fiction film that is definitely both entertaining and interesting.  The movie begins with a sense of mystery, depicting a scene of a murder.  What makes it even more attention-grabbing, is the fact that the wife of the victim confesses to committing the crime.  As a whole, it possesses these attributes because of the scientific discoveries that appear to be out of this world and we are able to witness how the society at that time deals and reacts to such situations. 

       Science plays a big role in the movie as it centers on the main dilemma of the husband/scientist’s accidental fly mutation due to his invention malfunction.  He exhibits the negative side of being too attached to his work.  Andre spends more time in the lab than in the outside world with his loved ones.  And for the seldom times he goes outside, his mind wanders back to the walls within his lab.  In this way, he becomes indifferent to reality of the current society and becomes locked inside his own world of science.

              The American Heritage Dictionary defines morality play to be a something viewed as exhibiting a struggle between good and evil and offering a moral lesson.  I believe that “The Fly” exhibits this characteristic in the sense that killing another human being is evil but doing this for the safety of humankind is good. 

               As seen in the film, science discoveries were given boundaries.  I may say so because as the wife narrates the events leading to the death of the husband, the investigators perceive her as crazy.  From this situation, it can be observed that during the 1950’s, the public is depicted to be more close-minded compared to the society we have now.  Today, scientific and technological advancements have no limits.  New discoveries are neither seen as crazy nor impossible but seen as fascinating and wonderful.  

Reaction paper (Catching Fire): Tenmatay

First, is the film Science Fiction? Why or why not?

Yes, because the technology used in this world is plausible to those that we have in our world. Such is the definition of Science Fiction in relation to Fantasy Fiction.

Second, is the film a commentary on past, present and future human society?

I would defer to the side that says no, in the case of its political undertones, because there never really was a single powerful political entity that controls the world through force and coercion. There is always an interdependence to be considered between them and, really, no nation is weak enough to be subjected to that treatment.

It does, however, do a good job of doing a commentary on the festivities surrounding the hunger games. The games themselves remind  me of the gladiator arena battles that the Romans introduced in popular culture that served as entertainment to the masses, a source of pride and glory to its participants and a reminder to those they subjugated that they are nothing more than meat to be thrown to the grinder.

Third, How does science, technology and society fail or succeed in the world of the 13 Districts?

Ironically, in this dystopia, Science, Technology and Society worked too well for everyone. They were able to create clear lines of division between the districts and imposed a heavy system of checks, balances to keep it that way and used science and technology as leverage to do all that to suit their own needs and desires.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire Reaction Paper

Palaroan, Graciel M.

2013-60784

As defined by the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, a story is considered science fiction when it tells about “how people and societies are affected by imaginary scientific developments in the future.” Is The Hunger Games’ sequel, Catching Fire, a science fiction? Well, based on the definition above, I can definitely say yes. It was quite obvious because in the movie, the Capitol was so hi-tech. It used a very much advanced kind of technology- there were force fields, their practice place with the realistic graphics, Katniss’ dress, and of course, the game plan behind the arena where the game maker designs everything very easily with just a click.

The film can be considered a commentary on the past, present and the future of human society. Past, because all these rebellions, poverty, corruption, and dictatorship had already happened in our society just as Panem was experiencing it, and the Capitol was doing it. Present, because currently, as we all know, these haven’t been fully addressed yet. Some countries conflict with other countries, others are still really poor, and so on. And future because, who knows? One day if these are not resolved, it can lead to again, rebellions, wars. Just like a cycle. And it also gives us a mental picture of a possibility of how our technology might be like in the future.

                I think that no matter how advanced science and technology was in Panem, it still failed in the world of the 13 districts, because of the wrong usage of it by the Capitol. It was used to scare people of having a rebellion and make the people be scared of the government, instead of its supposed purpose of improving the lives of the people. And this lack of harmony between the government and the people (society) is what failed Panem as a whole.

Catching Fire Reaction Paper

From Star Wars to Transformers and Contagion to Cloud Atlas, there is no doubt that there is a wide variety of science fiction movies. From its name, we can say that science fiction movies are basically any type of movie which show scientific and technological advances that still do not exist in our current environment, thus giving a futuristic feel to it. Taking this into account, we can consider Catching Fire a science fiction movie since it depicts a society where new technological breakthroughs, such as force fields, holograms and genetically modified species, exist.

Considering the futuristic nature of science fiction, its narrative is not limited to future societies. As we are taken into the world of Panem in Catching Fire, we get a good glimpse of the inequality that exists between the Capitol and the 12 (or 13) districts. This kind of inequality can also be seen during medieval times when elite classes were first formed. And until now, this disparity is seen when we look at big capitalists and compare them to the people who live in poor countries, or in a more local sense, informal settlers.

Also, the concept of the “tributes” could have been inspired by the gladiators of ancient Rome during the 1st and 2nd century BCE. Both were taken, against their will, and were forced to fight each other to the death until they were the last one standing. And they did this all for the entertainment of others. The two ideas are actually very alike, the only difference is the technology involved.

Having said this, we see in the movie that people have greatly succeeded in the development of new scientific technologies. It is amazing to see these concepts, that are only in the minds of people today, come to life. But a problem presents itself when we examine how these people are using these technologies. Much scientific progress may have happened but the people who indulge themselves in watching the hunger games and find entertainment in seeing people kill people have returned to their barbarian ways.

Moreover, these technologies were used to benefit only those in the Capitol, the powerful and wealthy personalities, while the people who are less fortunate, those in the 13 districts, were left to suffer. Doing so was contrary to the entire purpose of the development of science and technology and to a certain extent, reduced the sense of humanity in these people which is why we can conclude that science and technology has greatly failed in this narrative.

Hasmin Gaile Gavica
2013-16603

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire Reaction Paper

Labrador, Ana Micaela B.
2011-02178

Is The Hunger Games: Catching Fire categorized as science fiction? First, it must be taken into consideration whether dystopian fiction is an exclusively separate category from science fiction, or if one can fall under the other.

Science fiction is defined as fiction based on an imagined scientific future, typically featuring technological advances and major social or environmental changes. It frequently portrays space, time travel and/or life on other planets. By this definition, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire may count as science fiction in that it features more advanced technologies and tells the story of a imagined future more deeply integrated into the technological advancements brought about by science, though it does not primarily use these technologies as the primary focal point, nor does it use these technologies as the defining feature of the world of Panem.

I believe the film is a commentary on society in general. Even in the past, war and disagreement within a population has brought about peoples’ failure to thrive as a whole. Presently the world faces a similar problem; aggression even in small groups such as neighbors within a community is a common thing. I believe that war and animosity will never truly be settled, even in the distant future. But, such as the main characters in the movie and in the novel, it is important to still strive for peace and equality despite hardships. Such an ideal society is only possible with the cooperation of all peoples, which is logically impossible, due to peoples’ conflicting personalities and ambitions.

The concept of the Districts presents itself as more of a failure than a success. In the book it is mentioned that the 13 Districts were once comfortable living by this kind of segregation, but because the Capitol was the center of sales and commerce, its leaders and population became more corrupt and took advantage of their rights concerning such power.

Society fails in that it bred a sense of inequality in certain parts of Panem, and that these parts of Panem were reluctant to change how things worked against the less fortunate and the oppressed. People who were in power were determined to keep themselves in power. Such inequality and injustice is what fueled the tension between the Capitol and the rest of the Districts, leading to war and destruction among these peoples.

Technology and Science aids in this failure of society through the development of weapons and other harmful paraphernalia. Though Panem harnessed these technologies to make things more efficient, such as building trains and aircrafts for easier travel, it was used to the advantage of the oppressors and brought about more destruction to Panem than help.

Burst Into Flames: Catching Fire Reaction Paper

According to Scalzi's Three Criteria for Science Fiction, a film or any work should have the following to be considered a science fiction: First, the work takes place in the future or what was the future when the work was completed. Second, the work uses technology that does not exist at present or did not exist at the time the work was completed. And lastly, events are, by and large, should be rationally based. In other words, even though important measures, circumstances and characters may in themselves be fantastical, science fiction assumes an explanation based on a rational universe. I consider The Hunger Games: Catching Fire as a science fiction because it portrays the abovementioned characteristics.

The film speaks a lot about the past, present and future human society. In my opinion, the film largely contributed in the future aspect. But, the thought of rebellion against the government before the creation of Hunger Games and after the participation of Katniss Everdeen in the 74^th and 75^th Hunger Games already existed / happened in the past and even at present. And, it could also take place in the near future subsequent to all the miscommunication and unhealthy connection between the government and the people. The government might be afraid to lose its power over its country. It only shows us a peek of what might happen in the near prospect. We can observe that people will make a way to gain that coveted power.

STS had succeeded in setting up a good start for the 13 districts to nurture their sources, to develop methods and laws, to assist the government, The Capitol, to aid other districts, and to help the society, The Panem, as a whole and as a country. On the other note, the 13 districts were deprived of exploring their society because of how the government had controlled these districts. I think, at some point, that freedom is in need in this societal structure. Things might have gone better if the government and the people were ale to work harmoniously for the betterment of the society.

John Michael C. Marquez

2013-19628

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Cuachin, Jason F.
2013-70864

The sequel is a science fiction. According to the dictionary, the definition of a science fiction movie is that "literary fantasy involving the imagined impact of science on society ." It affects the society. And as you can observe, starting from the costumes, the arena, the obstacles in the arena, up to the game itself, everything was fictional. The effects were too futuristic and unrealistic (as of now). Katniss' dress, which turns to flame which cannot harm her. The arena, which has been landscaped like a clock. The poisonous gas, the bloody rain, the screaming birds, and the lightning, was too fictional.

The movie can be in any of the three time frames, but in my observation, it had the most similarities in the past. President Snow, runs the government in the movie, and in the real world, specifically here in the Philippines, it is the time of our former president Marcos. They have many similarities, the Marshall law, which is imposed to avoid the Rebellion/Revolution. In the sequel, it is the Game, which the government had made. They also have some "distractions" to avoid the Revolution. And in the movie, it is the "love story" of Katniss and Peeta which the government made to distract the people.

And lastly, I think that in the 13 districts, the science, technology failed in the society. in the whole 75 years, the society didn't observe the development in the science and technology. but in the game maker's perspective, of course the science and technology was a success. everything from the arena, up to the gameplay, was a success. 

Reaction Paper: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

The film was science fiction. The film showed technology in a way not yet used by society, however, it may not be all impossible to develop machines and devices to that level. It may be fiction, but elements of current reality will still be seen throughout the movie. A lot of the things the poorer districts do are already done by people of the past. The capitol and the arena may be the leaders in terms of technology for the film and are the ones which are fictional in this time.

 

The film was able to convey the past and present of human society. The past was seen in the lives of the poorer districts, with its simplicity. Despite the difficulties they experience as laborers of society, they are also very close to nature in almost everything they do, since it is one of the ways they can keep alive. The arena battles also give a feel of medieval times especially with the weapons they use. The present was seen with the similarity in the usage of the technology they have to modern society. The usage reminds me of how social media is used today, and the extension of the so-called privacy to the prying eyes of those with access to certain media. Human nature throughout history has shown the capability for adapting to the ever changing environment, and this was strongly felt in the film. This was not only shown in the physical aspect but also in the political, emotional and psychological stands of the different characters. The future was not necessarily conveyed in the film as the future is not yet known and it may indeed be possible to reach that kind of future but there still remains the chance of it being entirely different.

 

Science, technology and society failed in building a balance in the film. Society was corrupted by the technological advancements they achieved. The people who became regular users of the growing technology, particularly those in the Capitol, were quickly swallowed by the convenience and accepted things as they are. It was a funny thing to actually see in the movie that the people from the Capitol encourage drinking something that would make one sick just to eat more food. Convenient, yet improper and seen as something normal. The movie was able to exhibit and amplify the flaws of human society which served as the baseline or the plot of the story.

 

Denz Joseph R. Borrero

2009-37801

Catching Fire Reaction Paper

  Science fiction is an inherently broad literary genre, which has for years provoked a considerable level of debate as to what exactly makes a certain film or book science fiction. However, science fiction is usually defined as fiction which focuses on alternative worlds that, while different from ours, still follow a certain defined set of scientific laws and technological principles. The film Catching Fire can thus be considered an example of science fiction, since extensive advances in technology and scientific research (hovercrafts, genetically engineered creatures, and so on) play a large role in defining and shaping the world in which the story takes place.

The particular characteristics of this world are what makes Catching Fire such a relevant film. While the idea of placing innocent people in death-matches for the sake of public entertainment is absurd, the world of Panem still acts as a telling allegory for current societal values. Concepts of freedom and governmental accountability play as big a role in our own lives as they do in the lives of Katniss, Peeta and Gale. The inequality between the citizens of the Capitol (who have so much food that they make themselves vomit just to eat even more) and the destitute miners of District 12 is no more pronounced than the difference between the starving multitudes in Africa and the wealthy billionaires of Wall Street. In the end, the world of Panem acts as a mirror to show us the problems of our own world in a different light.

It is the presence of these sorts of problems, and the extent to which they exist, that proves exactly how badly science and technology have failed in Panem. The whole point of scientific and technological advances is to benefit society as a whole, to make life easier and enable us to meet our basic needs as human beings. What has happened in Panem, however, is that science and technology have been used as oppressive mechanisms, in the sense that the distribution of technology within Panem amplifies the socioeconomic inequality between the districts and the Capitol, and that technological advances are often used more explicitly as weapons to crush any attempts at reform or rebellion. This means that instead of using its enormous resources and capabilities to help its people, the government of Panem has instead twisted and abused its scientific capabilities to preserve a brutal and unsustainable societal structure.

Marco Del Valle

2013-20474

REACTION PAPER(No. 1): CATCHING FIRE 

          The Hunger Games series is an example of a science fiction story.  According to Merriam-Webster online, science fiction is a genre composed of stories about how people and societies are affected by imaginary scientific developments in the future.  I believe that Catching Fire exemplifies these characteristics and it is evident in their lifestyle and in the way they run their society.

                The film is set in the dystopian future and according to the book, the state of Panem is raised from the ashes of a post-apocalyptic North America.  As you watch the film, it can be seen that there are various technological advancements that are not present in our current time and may only exist due to further scientific research and developments.

          I believe that science, technology and society failed in the world of the thirteen districts.  Strong evidence is the extinction of the last two districts during the movie, Catching Fire. Having these different districts serves as a hierarchy, district 1 and 2 considered to be the ‘careers’, which only promotes inequality and restricts the citizens of their capabilities. It is clear that the people in the capitol are living the extravagant lifestyle.  Their homes, clothes, manner of living and mindset highly contrast that of the other districts.  They even have this special drink that they may take when they feel full which will make them sick so they may consume a more wide variety of food. While on the other hand, people from other districts, such as district 12 are dying of starvation. 

               I think the main reason for this is their authoritarian form of government headed by President Snow.  The hunger games that is held each year reminds the people of how powerless and voiceless they are to the Capitol; how their living is not synonymous to their freedom. It is an instrument of fear they inflict among the people of Panem.  But in the movie, the character of Katniss Everdeen becomes a beacon of hope for the people.  She opens the eyes of the people to the cruelty of the structure of their society. She made them realize that something must be done and the time is now. The girl on fire gave them the strength not only to speak out but to act out. This led to the uprisings and eventually to the downfall of the system.

             The structure of the society is the main dilemma in the world of the thirteen districts. But it is with the aid of science and technology that allows this form of society to continue its spiteful ways.

Thea Selina G. Morales

2013-59204