Anyone who defines, looks for, attempts to unravel, or otherwise contends with what might be, what might not be, what might have been, whatever — and then who takes that understanding and tries to make it into something useful.One of the ways to "look for" new concepts to "contend with" is to read about them. A good book is like a lengthy conversation with a very intelligent person about the things that excite them the most. If the author has some wild tangents he wants to pursue, a book offers him the time and space to develop those ideas. I'm presently reading Brian Alexander's Rapture: How Biotech Became the New Religion and Carl Zimmer's Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea. I highly recommend both books. And here are some more reading suggestions from Phil. A movie doesn't provide the same opportunity to explore ideas as deeply. And Hollywood could do a better job offering movies that have thought provoking themes. Sometimes the movie industry acts as if making the public think will keep it away. In any event, I'm grateful when movies that challenge the mind successfully navigate the studio filtering system. Here are some examples: The first three films listed are near-perfect works of art. A.I. and Bicentennial Man are flawed, but are ambitious enough to be worth your time. I also have high hopes for this summer's I, Robot. Does anybody have any other movies they would suggest? Posted by Stephen Gordon at March 19, 2004 03:15 PM | TrackBack
I forced my daughter to sit through a screening of 2001: A Space Oddysey a while back. She wasn't as grateful for the experience as you would expect. The sequel, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, isn't nearly as good a movie, but still has some very though-provoking scenes.
Posted by: Phil at March 19, 2004 03:44 PMBrazil.
Terminator 2.
It isn't a movie (TV), but my favorite for thought-provoking right now is The Prisoner.
Posted by: Phelps at March 19, 2004 05:08 PMI thought seriously about including the Terminator series. I finally decided to exclude it because it's not "hard" sci-fi - (hard science fiction is science fiction that could come true based on what we know today about the laws of physics).
But you're right that those movies are thought provoking. Here's what I wrote last November:
I saw Terminator 3 on DVD this weekend. This was my second time to watch T3 and I still was left pondering the intricacies of the Terminator universe. If you don't like reading the philosophy behind works of fiction or have yet to see the film, stop reading now.
I've read mixed reviews from other bloggers. In particular, many hated the fact that the message of T2 - there is no fate - was completely thrown out.
I disagree. In the Terminator universe Judgement Day was postponed by the events of T2. If fate were all-powerful, postponement would be impossible. In a larger sense, if fate were all-powerful sending machines back in time would make no sense. It would be impossible to change events in the past if they were fated to occur.
I think the message of T3 is "there is no fate, but history has momentum." If the Wright brothers had decided to forget the flying machine idea and build motorcycles instead, I could ride a Wright Brothers motorcycle to the airport today. The airplane would have been invented in the first decade of the 20th century with or without the Wright brothers. This is not fate, but momentum.
In the first Terminator film Sarah Connor was left scratching her head because John Connor was the son of a time traveler sent back in time by...John Connor. This is not necessarily a paradox. In the pre-time-travel timeline, Sarah Connor must have conceived John Connor with someone else. The John Connor that resulted from Sarah and the time-traveling Reese was John Connor version 2.0.
The John Connor that experienced the events of T2 was version 2.1. Not a completely different John Connor, but a John Connor with different experiences from the John Connor v. 2 that sent the reprogrammed Arnold back to fight the T-2000. The John Connor in T3 would be version 2.1b I guess. Different from the John Connor 2.1 that was killed by the Arnold-shaped cyborg and, therefore, not fated to die that way now that he's been warned.
My "no fate, just momentum" theory is weakened by the introduction of John Connor's wife. Apparently, John Connor (version 2) had met his future wife just prior to the events of T2. The fact that she showed up again was strongly suggested to be proof that they were meant to be together.
Since this just doesn't fit with my theory, I suggest that the next film show John Connor sending a robot deer back in time to make sure he has his accident and ends up in his future wife's vet clinic.
Or maybe I should remember it's just make-believe. ;-)
Join the dots tidbit: the Dark Futures terminator books are written by Russell Blackford, extropian bioethicist and generally good guy:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/russellblackford/
He has a piece on the Longevity Meme:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/articles/viewarticle.cfm?page=1&article_id=5
Posted by: Reason at March 19, 2004 07:41 PMAnother honorable mention is "The Lathe of Heaven." I've seen both the original PBS version and the remake. I recommend them both.
This is another story where the sci-fi is a little soft to make the actual "Speculist Cinema" list (all it lacked was an intro by Rod Sterling), but it's thought provoking.
Posted by: Stephen Gordon at March 21, 2004 07:00 PMLathe of Heaven? Isn't that about a guy whose dreams can alter reality?
I hate stuff like that. :-)
Posted by: Phil at March 22, 2004 11:35 AM28 Days Later
Jurassic Park
Colossus: The Forbin Project
It's not SF, but I found Mindwalk to be a very good movie for provoking thought.
Posted by: wheels at March 30, 2004 12:57 PMMuppets love Viagra!
Posted by: Viagra at July 24, 2004 12:25 AM