Skip to main content

The Island

My wife has beaten me to the punch in posting about it, but we saw the sci fi flick The Island last night. We didn't see it just because Scarlett Johansson was in the film, although that might be a fine reason. We've been seeing a lot of films in the theatres this summer, something we have not done much of for some time. I think we've hit most of the blockbusters and The Island, while not as good as could have been, is not a shabby flick at all. The film is also surprisingly friendly to pro life concerns - Ewan MacGregor and Johansson play a pair of runaway clones, fleeing the facility that created them merely to be an insurance plan for its wealthy clients - one of whom is the president of the United States. The film is beautifully shot, with some terrific lighting that reminded me of Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down. Scott had nothing to do with this one, however. Micheal Bay directed and he does a pretty fair job. For Bay that means he actually let the story build once and a while, in between long scenes of carnage and mayhem. The carnage and mayhem are well done and there is a highway chase that is almost as good as the one in the second Matrix film. My bones took a beating in that sequence. Still, I wish the story could have been given just a little more depth. It's missing a soliloquy on the sancticy of life. It offers instead Steve Buschemi explaining to MacGregor and Johansson that since they were created by men, they have no souls. The clones look on blankly, and from this I suspect we are to surmise that Buschemi is wrong on both counts. Look, I plant a seed in my back yard, but I can't take the credit for "creating" the plant. All I've done is supply conditions conducive to its growth. The film could milk the wrongness of its premise just a bit better than it does. The gunplay under a broken angel statue is a step in the right direction. The negatives include large, blatant product placement scenes for MSN and Cadillac, a somewhat too low key role for Johansson, and one gaping plot flaw. The plot flaw is that somehow we are to believe that MacGregor's character is the first of a whole batch of clones who has somehow inherited the memories and skills of his original. I'm at a loss as to how that is possible. A clone is built off of the genetic code of the original and that code does not include memories. There is even a name for this discredited theory, Lamarckism. This idea is utterly uncessesary to the film and it actually undermines the premise in some ways, ie. perhaps the cloning would be ok if the memories were not there? Better to just leave it out. If it really was possible to transfer the full identity of an original into a clone, you would have a very different film, one that raises very different questions. It would be less of a film about the sanctity of life and more of a film about the question of identity. If you're intrigued by the questions raised by the idea of 'cut and paste' identities Greg Egan wrote a good novel on the subject called Permutation City. See the Wikkipedia entry here. Egan writes really terrific hard sci fi. The biggest plus remains The Island's premise, which serves to show how a western free market countries can (and do!) engage in Lysenkoism, or the subordination of science to ideology - in this case the ideology of "choice" over all other considerations. Finally, I should mention that the movie is also very violent and not suited to young kids but could be an excellent starting point for discussion with teens. For more on The Island see here. A summer movie re-cap... Worth Seeing - The Island, Batman Begins, The Dukes of Hazzard, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Biggest Disappointment: Revenge of the Sith.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi