OVERDOING SCIENCE

The plot revolved around what every scientist in the world is doing – overdoing science.  Andre Delambre did just that by trying to play the role of a supreme and all-powerful being.  In the movie, he created a machine that would enable teleportation possible by breaking objects (and even living things) into atoms, then transferring it (or them) to another place.  However, as other science discoveries and inventions predicted, some misfortunes were encountered along the way.  As Delambre tried to transport himself, a fly got into the apparatus, enabling the machine to mix up their atoms.  This led to Delambre becoming half-human and half-fly.

Coming from a school that specializes in science and technology, I have always asked myself if there is such a thing as overdoing science.  Should there be a limit to science?  Should science stop doing, creating and discovering things for the sake of human and morality? Should morality be taken into consideration in science?  In the movie, these are the questions I have found myself asking after watching.

In my opinion, there is such a thing as a limit for science.  Just because something is possible, it does not necessarily make it right.  The fact that people are trying so hard to have the characteristics of an all-powerful being makes it all wrong (for me, at least).  I think there is a fine line between what should be done and what could be done.  What could be is not necessarily what should be.  I believe that there are things that should be left undone to enable the world to function naturally, as it is.  For me, there is such a thing, as a God and that no one could ever equal his omnipotence – not even the smartest and strongest human being. 

In the movie’s ending, Delambre realized the effects of his ambitions (in the present) to his could-have been bright future as one of the greatest scientist of all time.  We’ve always been told to dream higher and to achieve the impossible, however, I still believe that there are some things that ambitions could not do.   

Kris Jeruta
2011-41018

Old, Weird, Disgusting, Creepy, Unrealistic.... EPIC!

I was very much entertained by the film and I found it very interesting how concepts such as teleportation and gene manipulation could be present in movies early this age. However, I'm also quite sure though that many people won't appreciate the film very much since it may come off as too unrealistic or overwhelmingly gross.

That moment when the whole audience screams... It's priceless! :))

The film also tackles the consequences of the misuse of science when ethics are not followed. Being set in the 1950's it's no surprise how the scientist in the film made such rash and unethical decisions due to the lack of a supervising "ethics group" to limit his work. In a way, one could say that the film is a morality play because it shows the consequences of "playing God" and putting ones own goals over other people's.

The movie really showed how ingenious people could be during that time. After all, it's sci-fi movies like these that bring about new concepts and technology that could be made possible in the future.

Strangely, I have to say that I really liked this film even though it had a lot of loopholes, and some "stupid" scenarios. The imperfectness of this movie is what made this film so perfect. This Sci-Fi film is one of the first of it's kind making it so much more special. I really thought that the lack technology and refinements to make this film made it look eerie, sinister and different (in a good way) compared to movies you see now a days. I really do recommend that people watch this just for laughs (unless you hate disgusting images). Old, weird, disgusting, creepy, unrealistic call it whatever you want, cause I think this is EPIC!

Weird but good

I think that the movie was good considering it was made from way back. Though it did not have much effects, you can’t blame them because of the limited technology that was offered at that time. The film is very classic, I mean the acting, clothing, lightings and all. Watching classic films is amusing. For me the movie was interesting and weird at the same time. It is weird because of all the possible animals they chose something very inferior although this may suggest or symbolize something. The plot was very interesting although it was somewhat predictable at times. I think that the movie was interesting in general. Specially the parts where Andre is fighting the fly within himself. For me, the film has strong points against the misuse of Science. It is not against Science as a whole but in the misuse of it. I would consider it as a morality play because the movie speaks of the classic “playing-god” and the consequences with it. They view Science and Technology like it is good but bad if misused with grave consequences.

Little Mistakes

The Fly (1956) is the oldest version of a movie and the oldest movie I've ever watched. What made me keep on watching was its loopholes like how come the device never mixed up the cat, the milk and its container. How come only the fly and the man got mixed up? But oh, come on! It's fiction so let it be. Like action movies defying the Laws of Physics (think Mission: Impossible movies and Lito Lapid's epic splitting of a bullet using a knife), or even the common sense (think of Da King, FPJ taking down around 80 people with just one hand gun and only one magazine), just let it be. Those impossibru moments in the movies actually serve as spices. They got your attention, right? The characters do stupid things (Yeah, I hate the scientist's wife because she can't catch the fly. She should've just let her son do it.) but those stupid things of the characters were needed to complicate and twist the story, making the movies longer and inducing gigil to the audience. That's why many of us were screaming and holding on tight to our seats and/or to our classmates.

Speaking of attention, I recall that was the problem of the scientist in the movie. He was too focused on testing his machine that he forgot to pay attention to his surroundings. He didn't notice that a fly entered with him. Hence, The Fly. That little mistake reminded me of the mistakes I usually make in my own life. Those little mistakes turned out to be the ones that drew the line between success (or better yet, passing) and failure. Lesson learned, paying attention to little details can save you because big problems can erupt from small mistakes we don't always pay attention to.

Reaction Paper: The Fly

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. 

UGH.

NOOO. The picture above really made me ick when watching the movie. The man with a head as a fly is tolerable but a freaking close up of a spider is a big NO. Anyway, the movie was really weird. A scientist that gets to have a head just like a fly is a cool concept. I do not even know if it is even possible but hey it is Sci-Fi Movie! The idea is great when you think about it. And in my opinion, the lesser the special effects made it realistic as compare to a movie that relies too much on effects. And I can't believe its a 1958 film!

Anyway, it is actually a great film to watch not to mention its a film where people scream just when the stars of the film is about to kiss. Mainly because the guy has a fly-head :) I heard it got a 93% rating at Rotten Tomatoes!

Playing GOD

by: Maria Angelica Pinon (2009-27411)

The film The Fly was a very interesting movie. It was partly amusing and intriguing. It really caught my attention by the point in the movie where the wife admitted the crime but can only answer with "I cannot answer your question". The movie was several decades old so the style at first I thought it was boring. Yeah I liked the wife's dresses but it did not seem so interesting at first, the dialogue seems draggy and the way of talking and acting seems off to me since it was from a different time. Then I became curious as the flashback starts.

The title of this post is from one of the lines of the wife. Something along the lines of: the speed of progress in technology her husband is doing is kind of scary, that it just isn't natural and it is being arrogant and an attempt to play as god. At the point I kind of had an idea why the husband would be killed. It feels as if the husband cannot be satisfied with what he had achieved. Well to be fair if it was me I would love to perfect it as well, but he probably should have perfected the tests on animals first (but that was not acceptable according to the wife and probably the society). It did feel like it is a morality play due to the wife's words. Even at the end when she starts considering the disfigured husband as more of a thing than a human being so it cannot be considered as murder.

I guess that's how the society feels about scientist at that time. They probably felt that they were being arrogant and they are to blame for the harm that they may cause themselves. They did not show any good resulting from technology, even the hydraulic press was used as a murder weapon as they seem to really inspire fear for technology and advancing. But the film did end with the words that the job of Andre' as scientist is to search for the truth which is beneficial to humankind.



Random thoughts during the movie:
When I watch Sci-fi films I had too many questions that would probably make the plot unusable. First how is it the the disintegrator-integrator (teleportation device) capable of not mixing the ice, the wine, the glass the container etc. but would mix two living organisms. How come the husband can still think and act as human when he has the head of the fly and probably it's brain as well, or did the brain mutate? The fly has the head of the husband and probably the brain to be able to know that it should shout "help me" to ask for assistance to be saved from the spider, or did it just mimic blindly? ? ? Why was the wife adamant on catching the fly with her own hands, if she had let her son (who is more capable and used to catching flies than her) problem would be solved. Why did he used himself as a part of the experiment when it was not tried as much with other species. He is the brain behind the project he should have tried it at least with other humans so if something goes wrong (and it did go wrong) he would be the one who can try and fix it. Why give up after two mere days? If the wife had presented the machine, just use objects to teleport, they probably would gain much for the patent, then they can probably use it to fund ways to catch the white fly or find a way to himself without the fly probably...