| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
 Posted - 09/24/2006 : 12:12:27
|
I don't have a problem with Animal Farm as the animals are clearly anthropomorphous. But, my understanding of Animal Farm is it's an allegory of communism gone wrong, specifically the Russian revolution and the evolution of the Soviet Union.
So, it fails this requirement here:-
- An imaginary society that is a conceivable progression of human society.
as it's not imaginary (because it's an allegory of history). I haven't seen the movie though, and last read the book when I was about 15. Let me know if I remembered this one wrong. 
The problem with calling Animal Farm 'dystopia' is that it would open the floodgates, i.e., any historical work (allegorical or actual) set in a time when life was unpleasant would then be 'dystopia', which is not what it's supposed to be.  |
Edited by - Sean on 09/24/2006 12:16:50 |
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 09/24/2006 : 14:18:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I don't have a problem with Animal Farm as the animals are clearly anthropomorphous. But, my understanding of Animal Farm is it's an allegory of communism gone wrong, specifically the Russian revolution and the evolution of the Soviet Union.
So, it fails this requirement here:-
- An imaginary society that is a conceivable progression of human society.
as it's not imaginary (because it's an allegory of history). I haven't seen the movie though, and last read the book when I was about 15. Let me know if I remembered this one wrong.
The problem with calling Animal Farm 'dystopia' is that it would open the floodgates, i.e., any historical work (allegorical or actual) set in a time when life was unpleasant would then be 'dystopia', which is not what it's supposed to be.
Well, you can find both left and right-wing interpretations of the book. But I'd classify it as political parable rather than dystopia. IMHO. As the  says: Everyone's equal, but some are more equal than others.
|
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 09/24/2006 : 16:12:52
|
| I would exclude Animal Farm because it's just a metaphorical representation of a place that actually existed when it was made. |
|
|
|
Koli
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 09/26/2006 : 11:35:12
|
I'll be back when I find something more robust by way of an argument, but in the meantime here's a link to an article by one of my heroes, Margaret Atwood, in which she writes about Orwell having inspired her approach to dystopias in novels. Although she doesn't explicitly describe Animal Farm as a dystopia the implication is clear enough. And if Margaret Atwood regards it as a dystopia that's good enough for me. 
http://www.countercurrents.org/art-atwood160603.htm |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 09/26/2006 : 12:17:07
|
Can't recall whether it's already been mentioned, but Memoirs of a Survivor, based on the book by Doris Lessing and starring Julie Christie is mighty dystopic.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 09/26/2006 : 12:43:07
|
Fair point, Koli. I have always thought of Animal Farm as per this analysis in Wikipedia. I.e., it's historical, whereas 1984 & Brave New World are theoretical and futuristic.
So, does that make any difference? Possibly not, as one could argue that the use of animals and the liberal use of single characters to characterise whole social groups makes it allegorical and therefore arguably theoretical. I hope that makes sense. 
Another way of looking at it: If the Soviet Union had never existed, then I think Animal Farm could certainly be called dystopian according to the way I defined it earlier. It all goes to show the difficulty of pinning down a definition and a list for this concept. Without a doubt we could have the same argument about movies that are marginally film-noir.
BTW, the list of dystopian movies in Wiki here is more liberal than my accolade, i.e., it includes stuff that I haven't put in it, and yet they haven't included Animal Farm.
I'm not totally opposed to including it, but I am reasonably reluctant to include anything that's so heavily modelled on history, as it would be the only movie in the accolade that is. On the other hand I could do a Bart Simpson and just put it in there. This isn't a thesis.  |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 09/26/2006 : 12:47:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Can't recall whether it's already been mentioned, but Memoirs of a Survivor, based on the book by Doris Lessing and starring Julie Christie is mighty dystopic.
Sounds like a good fit. It isn't on fwfr though, so if someone adds it I'll add it to the accolade. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 09/26/2006 : 13:24:33
|
This topic made me remember a movie I saw on TV and I can't for the life of me remember what it was called. Its a futuristic movie about a time when abortion in the US is so illegal its considered a Federal crime and even an abortion performed abroad can be prosecuted - the woman is considered a murderer. It was done in a documentary form with interviews of the people involved. It seems to me it was based on a play or a novel but I can't recall more than one actress from the movie. Of course, I can't remember her name, but she's a very small woman with a particularly not-beautiful face (though terribly interesting looking) who has played many character comedy roles where she's a very tough woman despite her deminutive stature (I think she even played a Judge on one TV sit-com).
Any ideas what movie this is?
|
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 09/26/2006 : 13:59:22
|
| I haven't read the thread as I want to avoid spoilers, so I don't know whether this has been mentioned. |
Edited by - Salopian on 09/26/2006 14:00:02 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 09/26/2006 : 14:26:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Can't recall whether it's already been mentioned, but Memoirs of a Survivor, based on the book by Doris Lessing and starring Julie Christie is mighty dystopic.
Sounds like a good fit. It isn't on fwfr though, so if someone adds it I'll add it to the accolade.
Okay I've added it, but don't know when it will help your accolade because it's joined a pending mountain of about 150, probably a quarter of which are un-addeds. Can't say I didn't try, Senor Penguin. 
|
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 09/26/2006 : 15:51:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I haven't read the thread as I want to avoid spoilers, so I don't know whether this has been mentioned.
I have to disagree with that one, because it's about our own society in the near future facing what amounts to a natural distaster. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 09/27/2006 : 11:47:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
I have to disagree with that one, because it's about our own society in the near future facing what amounts to a natural distaster.
I think it's implied that human beings have brought the infertility and decay of society upon themselves. It definitely has a post-apocalyptic feel. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 22:47:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I haven't read the thread as I want to avoid spoilers, so I don't know whether this has been mentioned.
I have to disagree with that one, because it's about our own society in the near future facing what amounts to a natural distaster.
I think I have to agree with DT on this one. It appears to be post-apocalyptic. Sure, life has gone bad and it may have been man-made, but I'm not aware of anything significant in the post-apocalyptic society that could be considered 'wrong', ie, that could be changed for the better. I haven't seen the movie though.
BTW, Salopian, I've made an attempt at some 'rules of dystopia' on page three, third post from the bottom (the one with the bold type). You could safely go there and read that without seeing any spoilers. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 09/30/2006 : 11:59:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I think I have to agree with DT on this one. It appears to be post-apocalyptic. Sure, life has gone bad and it may have been man-made, but I'm not aware of anything significant in the post-apocalyptic society that could be considered 'wrong', ie, that could be changed for the better. I haven't seen the movie though.
BTW, Salopian, I've made an attempt at some 'rules of dystopia' on page three, third post from the bottom (the one with the bold type). You could safely go there and read that without seeing any spoilers.
Thanks. O.K., I didn't realise that you meant non-post-apocalyptic dystopia, but the film is only post-apocalyptic in feel; there has been no disastrous event that we know of. So what I consider a post-apocalyptic feel may amount to being quite similar to any dystopic situation. The only rule where there is any question whether it fits is the stability v. anarchy one, but it is basically a functioning society, just one that is much more depressed and hopeless than today. It's definitely the case that many aspects of the society could be considered wrong, most notably brutality by the state. |
Edited by - Salopian on 09/30/2006 12:01:30 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 09/30/2006 : 12:56:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
but it is basically a functioning society, just one that is much more depressed and hopeless than today. It's definitely the case that many aspects of the society could be considered wrong, most notably brutality by the state.
If you were to read this whole thread and still think it fits, then it probably does. Post-apocalyptic movies aren't necessarily excluded from the accolade, some may fit if the post-apocalyptic society could be considered dystopic. So, post-apocalyptic anarchy or struggle for survival doesn't count, whereas if a totalitarian state grew following the 'apocalypse' then I'd say it's OK. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Dystopia
