by John Jason B. Santillan
2013-03535
Realistically, I think that the film won't be greatly appreciated by a twenty-first century audience because the elements of 'The Fly' have been overused and exhausted by hundreds of movies already. The movie also suffers from a lack of creativity, a so-so character interaction, a predictable plot and a lack of real-world scientific grounding which would make any viewer question its believability. On the contrary, If I'm going to watch it at the time it was released, I think it would have been a pretty entertaining film. The film tries to tackle a controversial question; to what extent can we manipulate the laws of nature and physics? This was a very relevant debate considering the plight of technology and the trend of more flexible moral standards at that time in the 1900s.
It was a commentary on the grey areas in which science and morality intersect. The message that it brings forth is that science is intertwined with the moral fabric; meaning, science is still under the jurisdiction of morality. I think it wasn't much of a morality play because it lacked a discussion on morality per se. The film focused more on the repercussions of breaking the moral code, e.g. mutation after a failed experiment. The problem with this is that it assumes that the moral stance of not playing the role of God is true by default without extensively proving its validity.
In conclusion, I genuinely think ‘The Fly’ was good attempt at breaking new ground. However, like any other movies, it compromised a huge chunk of valuable substance for the sake of theatricality and commercial appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment