[work-in-progress]

I went to see the new sci fi thriller Elysium yesterday with my son. I don't get the cinematic experience too often these days. Unless it is a technology-driven movie that can't be adequately presented on TV, like Avatar, I more inclined to just wait till it's on TMN or HBO...Avatar, I think was the last movie I saw in a theater come to think of it!

Anyway, I was the one who wanted to see this one because I was intrigued by the basic plot outline: a future dystopian world in the middle of the next century, where the rich have abandoned Earth....after enriching themselves from its destruction, and built themselves the SF version of Noah's Ark, where they can escape the gradual destruction of the planet below. Maybe director - Neil Blomkamp was partly inspired by the new high rise luxury condominium developments being built around the slums in the middle of Mumbai....where just like on Elysium, our "betters" can look down and observe the misery of the destitute below them. And I think that is at least part of the reason why I noticed on the Rotten Tomatoes review page of the movie that Elysium has attracted many negative reviews from the entertainment press, and even the positive reviews complain about the message of the movie. I don't know if they are offended by that message, or they know their bosses...who finance money-losing newspapers all across the USA, will either be offended by that message, or just not want it presented in pop culture. If we go back 30 or 40 years, popular culture was full of lots of antiwar, anti-technology, anti-capitalism messages in the movies, and the press concentrated on trying to appear hip and trendy, rather than trying to control the message...but that was then, this is now! So, when this uncomfortable message gets out, just like "Occupy" and the "99 percent," the media watchdogs are expected by their owners to march into battle and do their best to attack or obfuscate that message. Like this one from Stephen Whitty, of the Newark Star-Ledger:

It's like one of those bad "Star Trek" episodes, when Gene Roddenberry stopped everything on the bridge so he could lecture us about the Cold War.

That's right Stephen Witty, it is like one of those old Star Trek episodes, where even us kids could see the analogies in a story with the Vietnam War, the Cold War, racism and other social issues that were raging at the time. And this is a bad thing if your boss wants the exact opposite message to Elysium...today's standard Neoliberal, meritocracy BS etc. So, Witty has to do his small part on the Entertainment page to earn his generous salary from the money-losing newspaper business, and express outrage over being presented with a strong social message in a sci fi movie. I would suggest to Stephen Witty....considering his present location, if he wants to get the real life, here and now presentation of the message of the failure of capitalism, all he has to do is drive down to a city like Camden - where the industries that built the town are long gone, and the poverty-stricken city is a burnt out shell of its former self.

Another thing that stands out to me about the theme of haves and have nots in this story, is the main plot point that inspires hero - Matt Damon's character to try to get to Elysium: to get the leukemia-stricken daughter of a friend to the paradise-in-orbit, where she could be cured of her leukemia if he can get her inside a special "healing chamber." Worth noting that there's no healing chambers on Earth, for those less fortunate! And that's a message that all of the techno-optimists - especially transhumanists need to take into consideration: whenever miracle cures and life extensions are available to allow someone to live to 100, 200, 1000 who knows....it's not going to be for you and me! At least, not unless it becomes incredibly cheap to do; because we live in a capitalistic society, where the rich already live longer and live healthier than people further down the economic ladder. So the healing chambers will be reserved for the Koch Bros., Bill Gates, or their future equivalents.

On other issues with the Movie...one frequent complaint that is coming up in both the critic and fan reviews is the performance of Jody Foster as the evil boss of Elysium; and on this I have to agree somewhat, although it wasn't a big issue for me. Foster's accent....some sort of British accent that Brits notice changes during the movie, might indicate that Foster either was still working on the character right in the middle of shooting, or maybe she just could not get comfortable with playing such an odious character. Or maybe, because of past work and reputation, our expectations are much higher than they are for Matt Damon and others...who knows.

So, to sum it up, I'll give Elysium thumbs up, as the late, great Roger Ebert would say.

[TheSkyHMaestro]

It's about as anti-capitalist as an Occupy rally. More or less typical white male lead against identifiable-but-not-TOO-identifiable ruling elite for a social issue that's not too offensive. I'd give it a 6.5/10 myself. Atop wooden acting, a weak story, admittedly impressive visuals but lackluster action, it feels like it's trying to be leftist but not TOO leftist so it can appeal to the moderates, neutrals and open-right. IOW, it tries to not offend so its message is weak.
Socialists and Marxists and anarchists and the like agree. Way too much missed opportunity. And transhumanists feel it's the usual "cyborgs bad, ill defined flesh and soul good" type of preachy cy-fi. All due to a looser than expected plot. So if even us transhuman Marxists don't care for it, I just don't see who else could. Maybe liberals.
All in all, I don't see what the defenders of this movie are trying to defend. It's an OK watch by all means - has nothing on District 9 however - but it's not that strong of a political movie. Maybe next time they won't be so scared of conservawhites but for this outing, as aforementioned, a 6.5/10 is my score. From a socialist.

[Soulflytribe]

I was excited to watch this movie because the trailler is cool and I thought the plot was about some kind of futuristic communist world wide revolution that ruined the world and forced the smartest brains in the planet to build a place to stay in space while the communists kill themselves in Earth (like they always do). But I started reading IMDB's reviews about Elysium and realized that the movie is just a politically correct garbage that blames capitalism and the lack of welfare for mankind's destruction. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the message behind the movie is that we should copy Cuba or North Korea or even bankrupt Spain if we want to avoid the destruction of the planet.

[TheSkyHMaestro]

Because capitalism is Jesus in Economic form of course, of which nothing bad will ever happen with it...
"Smart people"= rich whites; "Communists"= poor inferior mud people, I reckon? Don't even bother rebutting, I've seen this before and know that's what it'll end up being. They say liberals are horribly racist (they're not wrong) and I believe they're so open about their own illogicality that they've decided that it's time liberals come clean about their own sociopolitical contradictions. That's the only thing that gives me any reasoning to conservatives' mindset.

But what really catches me is that this isn't even really proper for this scenario and completely scares me shitless about the possibility of capitalists and libertarians and their methods of thought of how to deal with a post-capitalist system, particularly at the point where human methods of production are completely restructured to fit the needs of an artificial working class post-Luddite Fallacy. Already, I've met libertarians who claim that anything involving welfare in this world is socialist and must be discarded amongst thought, despite the fact that the world itself isn't even capitalist, with quite an almost obtuse chance for fascism to develop otherwise. It's not libertarianism that gets me. Not even close in fact. It's libertarians' reactions to the concepts of the Singularity, transhumanism, post-capitalism. Some outright reject it in the face of rapid advancements because they're too dense to look past 5-10 years (unless they want to look down the road and see a libertarian utopia that won't exist) or say "get a life loser" or they just say "Jesus will come back before then" or "Haven't you seen Terminator? Robots will kill us all"(...... I... I don't even know how to respond to this; you're basing your reality on a movie series, from the same group you just called Cultural Marxist progressive propaganda). I can understand why one might be ignorant to these advancements since the general feel is that any discussion of it is best left to nerds, geeks, the anti-social, and conspiratorial types. It's quite disgusting how prevalent this mindset is, and when news of a million jobs being taken by machines actually reaches their newsletter, they wonder where the hell it came from and how we got so advanced.
Others embrace it wholeheartedly but completely miss the point of its implications as I mentioned above, where they can only think about how it can further capitalism without realizing that, with the Death of the Luddite Fallacy, you kill the consumer cycle where the worker can no longer obtain a job (why would a sane capitalist choose a human if a machine-well enough advanced- could do their job far better with far more skill with far less of a cost?) and there goes the consumer base.
When you're a libertarian capitalist and do understand the nature of post-capitalism, then it gives me hope, especially when you finally accept the realization that this is what capitalism inevitably leads to.

All partisan thinking about it however, I realized that it signifies a possible post-capitalist state of affairs. Capitalism's very nature breeds technological progress (which makes capitalism a desirable shuttle, in fact a very desirable shuttle, towards the transhumanist reaches of a technology-based economy) so this will obviously lead to a point where machines would replace the working class, logically. Again, thinking about it, actually mounting the Luddite Fallacy and overcoming the materialist bridge alongside rapid gains in artificial intelligence/sentience would lead to such a world... though not as much as machine dexterity, something that has finally begun picking up especially with the creation of artificial muscles; in essence, the plastic/static motion of machines, alongside with their inability to make objective and subjective decisions have prevented them from replacing the working class because it's always become possible for humans to obtain more jobs from the creation of automatons. If technological progress speeds up (and with loosening of regulations, this will accelerate even faster), then a post-capitalist economy could be begun in 30 years.

All the rich would need to do is to offer a true technostic alternative to gaining wealth (i.e. productive machines; destroy the capitalist balance and usher in technocratic post-capitalism) and an Elysium-esque world could easily be created.

As for "copying Cuba or North Korea or Bankrupt Spain"- typical right wing dogma about the failures of socialism without understanding anything about socialism or anything besides Cuba/North Korea/Bankrupt Spain, right? That only the Jesus-blessed rich can solve problems with trickle-down economics, even in a post-singularitistic situation where no such chance for capitalism could possibly exist (though the movie completely buckles with this, portraying otherwise advanced if luddite machines but still featuring men working in factories). Completely ignore Degenerated Workers' States and neoliberal economics and all that frivolous nonsense or the fact that most anti-socialist sentiment is backed mostly by the rich nations.
Actually watching the movie, you'd see that capitalism doesn't work.
In the future that is. When capitalism's potential exhausts itself and the system evolves.
As I've said, it all involves that little nutcase theory of post-capitalism, which involves the tin-foil hat lovers "singularity" beliefs. The one that's never going to happen, ever, ever, ever, ever, not in a million years, has no basis, totally unfounded, just for losers and nerds, and is not actively being developed as we speak because it's impossible and should be cast to 1950s sci-fi.

Oh, don't worry. If technosticism works out well enough, and capitalism behaves for a good half-century or so, we'll never have to worry about these things again. Capitalism will evolve, and we'll be all and well. Unless Elysium occurs. I presume that's what the movie was trying to be about, but unfortunately it failed everywhere, all over the map.

It's an okay movie but it's sorely lacking. The acting's alright and the future's nicely dystopian with some trappings of transhumanism and the Singularity...
BUT NOT ENOUGH. It doesn't satisfy you one goddamn bit. It's just another action movie that just so happens to have some passing commentary on class and social issues. It's NOT the "working class thriller" some have been saying it is. It has a lot of tech for technophiles, but you nevertheless feel like it's insulting you at most turns.

In terms of sociotechnopolitics (social issues explored in the future, with the addition of AI and a robotic working class)- which, if you've been following my own Mother Meki story I feel is a very interesting concept and especially daring to play in this current Lowest Common Denominator-loving market- it completely ignores so many possible plots and instead says "here's the rich in their natural habitat away from the poor, and here are the poor screwed by the rich. Rich decide they want to be rid of the disgusting, ugly, lazy, inferior poor and move to Elysium."

Then it doesn't deliver on any real messages beyond that. There's no solidarity- just the usual rugged white male lead waging a one man war with some cybernetics that look even less impressive than the Emotiv Insight. 2150 trumped by tech from 140 years prior? Really? I get the whole "wasted Earth" idea, but you don't see the poor today using technology from 1870, do you? Oh god, maybe communists have taken over and turned the Earth into a King Jong Il Society!
So to me, there was an awesome concept that was completely and utterly wasted to appeal to moderately political SF types. Except that it doesn't capitalize on it. You've got libertards saying its communist; you've got commutards saying it's capitalist... It's actually closer to post-capitalist with some anarchist sentiments yet feels like it's trying to be libertarian with shades of transhumanism-gone-wrong. Doesn't pull off this schizoid mannerism well at all. It does more to piss people off, cause them to throw their hands up in the air and watch the explosions than start a debate about sociotechnology. Except if you're one of those paranoid right wingers who sees every last change- even blooming flowers- and shouts "CULTURAL MARXIST CONSPIRACY TO KILL WHITE PEOPLE AND SUCCESS!"- then this movie must've been funded by the evil George Soros, filled to the brim with sinister Satanic Muslim subliminal messages about how evil white people are and how obsolete the Bible really is...

It's not that epic movie that we were promised. It's not that kind of film people will be talking about 50 years from now. I barely want to talk about it right now. Elsyium is explosive for its explosions. Its tech is techy. But it's not memorable.

Overall, while it's a good watch I think, it fails to really satisfy you if you're into these things. It feels too science-fictiony. It doesn't have the draw of District 9. I wouldn't watch it again if didn't have to or if there was anything better airing.

I'd give in a 7/10 and that's being a bit generous. The acting was pretty good, mainly because Hollywood actor has begun nailing some of the nuances of performance. But beyond Max (lead character) I don't feel any incentive for character actions. It's just kinda like a decent satire of modern day America and its hypocrisies without trying to make it feel worthwhile to dwell on.

This film SHOULD have been a sociopolitical drama with some action scenes at absolute best. The way it presented itself just doesn't work well. District 9 did it almost perfectly. It's the kind of film we'll be talking about for a while, holding all other sociotechopolitical stories to its standard. Elysium falls well short of that standard.

If anything, capitalism is our best hope for bringing about technostic beliefs, but the movie's a poor indicator of that. Will we become socialist? Hell yes= bottom up socialism, or technostic socialism I've dubbed it is where a solid machine proletariat is created (currently beyond us, but not beyond thought), and the only possible method of wealth distribution is even distribution; we may become transhuman during this period. In the end, it may be completely inevitable for technostic socialism to occur, lest we become horribly fascist. Or who knows!
Do we have to become socialist first? Hell no. Socialism is openly anti-technology and subsequently anti-singularity. Capitalism is pro-transhuman and pro-Singularity, even though most if not all capitalists don't realize it. I do believe that this will come back to haunt capitalists when the time comes... They'll see capitalism, not collapsing but changing, and they'll be completely baffled by the developments and wonder if something went wrong, if the endtimes have begun, if the Marxists had won...
And I'll just say to them "You should've put your tin-foil hats on well before now, friend!"

[Wittmann]

Did Jodie Foster decide to ruin the film or was that a collection of other issues? In my mind I think I might be both

I live with a French person, if she was trying to do a French accent, I have no idea what part of France she is from.

[Rainbow Crow]

The complaints I've read pointed out how much it stole from the Battle Angel Alita manga series, and the fact that Elysium is basically the Hollywood Hills where Matt Damon lives and sends his kids to private school.

[philiphos]

I pretended to watch this movie for quite a long time but since I have many on my "plan to watch list" I was just delaying it and so after my daily 30 mins search for a movie ( I'm not joking it's really 30 mins sometimes) I happened to choose Elysium for the synopsis and trailer.

The movie itself, when I started to see it I immediately thought that this should be a funny one "A hollywood movie spreading a marxist revolution now that's something!", we can get fooled and think that that's the case about the relation between capitalist and proletariat ( Earthlings and habitants of Elysium) and the revolution that would bring a new society, etc, etc.
The point is that we're not talking about a Marxist movie, first Hollywood would be dumb to do that, second how would we be talking about a Marxist movie if we happen to marketting Bugatti Veyron ( I think everyone noticed, I think this "sensor" has become more accurate since I watched Zizek's Pervert Guide to ideology).
In the End the movie focused on Healthcare, so I wouldn't say this is a Marxist movie or an anti-capitalist movie at all, probably more anti-plutocracy and anti-Corporatocracy, promoting Universal healthcare, anyway this is just my opinion....

[quetzalcoatl]

Forget this movie and watch Battle of Algiers instead.

[philiphos]

Forget this movie and watch Battle of Algiers instead.

I have it on my "Plan to watch list" but now I will just finish to watch The Matrix Trilogy

[yiostheoy]

Too morbid.