Talk:Gattaca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Merge with Genoism 2 Suited for Space Travel 3 Plagiarism? 4 Moved text from "Gattaca World" page 5 Copyright infringement? 6 GATTACA? 7 Deleted text 8 Criticism section 9 Swimming Competition 10 Political Orientation

[edit] Merge with Genoism

Support - the term genoism is key to the film but never comes up outside of it. Joestella 12:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suited for Space Travel

No mention of this then? The way they are all dressed when they go up into space? The surreal nature of the spaceflights surely deserves a mention... --Yyem 10:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You could mention it in the Trivia section. --Loremaster 12:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, is it that different from Star Trek and countless other sci-fi televion shows and movies where people go up in space in normal clothes rather than bulky astronaut suits? --Loremaster 16:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism?

To me Gattaca appears to be based in substantial part on Robert A. Heinlein's novel Beyond This Horizon, published in about 1940. Is that acknowledged publicly anywhere? Also, in Heinlein's novel Starman Jones, the protagonist (1) falsifies his background in order to get a job, and (2) has memorized a book on astrogation; both (1) and (2) occur in Gattaca. Michael Hardy 02:03, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lying about one's background in order to get a job and memorizing material in order to do it successfully are common plot points in fiction. -Acjelen 20:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. -vaceituno 09:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

In both stories, it was a book on astrogation that was memorized. Michael Hardy 20:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Talent borrows, genius steals. -Toptomcat 13:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved text from "Gattaca World" page

The following was moved here from a page entitled "Gattaca World". It has a strange structure: an essay written as if in the world of Gattaca. I have kept it here because it might just be useful in a writeup about the film: however I'm not sure all the detail here is necessarily drawn from the film. -- Anon, 22:43, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Being human is synonymous with being imperfect. If human imperfections were eradicated with the aid of science, then people would no longer be human.

Eventually genetic engineering advanced so far that it allowed humanity to tamper with the fabric of life. By the latter half of the 21st century genetic engineering has encompassed all aspects of human life. In fact, is has come to the point that it has become the basis for one's standing in life.

The majority of people are now made-to-order. What began as a means to rid society of inheritable diseases has become a way to design your offspring - the line between health and enhancement blurred forever. Parents are able to determine their childrens eye color, hair color, gender, and even skin tone. Everyone seeks to give their child the best chance but the most skilled geneticists are only accessible to the privileged few. Anyone who is a product of an altered DNA is proudly referred to as a "self-made man or woman" a "man-child". However officially those born with genetic alterations are known as "valids".

In addition, these people are genetically engineered to be void of terminal diseases, obesity, baldness, and a propensity towards violence. Many of them are also given alterations that have endowed them with advanced physical and intellectual capabilities. Valids compose the upper class of the society. They control all the corporations, the government, and the scientific community.

Those parents who, for moral, or most often economic reasons, refrain from tampering with their offspring's genetic makeup or who fail to abort a fetus condemn their children to a life of routine discrimination. Officially those that are born without any alterations are known as "invalids". Also called "godchildren", "faith births" or "uteros". They are the "healthy ill". They don't actually have anything yet - they may never. But since few of the pre-conditions can be cured or reversed, it is easier to treat them as if they were already sick.

All of the major corporations in the world won't accept any applicant that doesn't have the greatest genetic potential. Even though genoism, discriminating upon genetic background, is illegal, there are ways to step around the law. The microscopic particles that are transferred in a handshake, the saliva used to seal an envelope, and even a urine sample for a standard drug test can be utilized to peek into an applicant's genetic makeup.

No matter what skills or potential invalids possess, the only work they are suited for is janitorial in nature or some other base form of employment. People are no longer discriminated upon by their gender, race, or color. Only the content of one's blood and one's genetic potential are all that matters. Discrimination is now down to a science.

Many other of the key elements in the society are dependent upon genetic engineering as well. For example, there is a station that one can bring any piece of body material, such as a piece of hair, and find out all the genetic information about the owner of the material. Society has become more interested in what a person is composed of physically than what a person's personality is. People no longer think that they can achieve greatness through their own potential and skills. They now depend upon genetic alterations to give them the abilities they desire.

Even the police are overly dependent on genetic information as well. When doing a search at a crime scene, the police carry vacuums to pick up any strand of hair or other piece of body material that a criminal could have left behind. They are no longer able to identify a suspect by his face because they no longer keep current photo archives. DNA is the only identification card that they can verify.

In conclusion, the world has made numerous accomplishments that our societies could only possibly dream of emulating. Although they have conquered many aspects of science, they have grown too dependent upon it. Human character and potential have been set aside for the unvarying power of scientific achievement. It seems that as the society masters science, it also becomes a slave to it.

[edit] Copyright infringement?

The trivia section seems to directly quote much of the IMDb trivia page for the film[1]. What's the policy on this? -Branddobbe 11:52, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

• The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. But note that trivia are comprised of "just the facts", and are thus inherently uncopyrightable. The fact that Gattaca features Esperanto, for example, is something anybody can notice and write down. We might do some careful rewording here and there for the longer trivia, but there's no way copyright comes into play here. Aside from plot summaries and reviews, which are original material, pretty much anything from IMDb can be st... borrowed. 82.92.119.11 21:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] GATTACA?

This article was recently moved from Gattaca to GATTACA. Does anybody know why? - EurekaLott 18:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

From Special:Contributions/David_Shear: "2005-12-30 12:18:53 (hist) (diff) Gattaca (moved Gattaca to GATTACA: The film title, GATTACA, is intentionally all uppercase, since it is drawn from the ATGC genetic code of DNA. It should be rendered properly.) (top)".

Sony Pictures, IMDb, and Google disagree. I'm moving it back. — Jeandré, 2005-12-31t18:46z

Why? It certainly seems more proper...and the title on the movie cover itself is rendered GATTACA. And it is drawn from the DNA code bases. In this case, I think that the opinions of the sources really don't matter...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.95.202.104 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-08.

ALL CAPS in movie covers seem to be the norm, even when the movie's title is not. Looking at my collection here, the following are in all caps: Aliens, Antarctica, City Hall, Fight Club, Full Metal Jacket, Gattaca, Gandhi, The Hurricane...

The only exceptions I have: Contact and WarGames in drop caps, Control Room in old style title caps, and Firefly in all lowercase.

While the title comes from the base types, I stil think the centre and film's name is in normal caps. -- Jeandré, 2006-02-08t21:32z

Is this really worth fighting over? On one hand, online scources present this film as "Gattaca," while the film itself is entitled "GATTACA." In all honesty, what is more reliable: some 3rd party sellers or the packaging and title of the film?

[edit] Deleted text

I've removed the following (large) text from the article which was added by User: 24.91.143.186:

“There is no gene for the human spirit,” a statement to truly set the tone for Gattaca. In a futuristic world where human genes are altered in the name of absolute perfection. Absolute perfection, what is absolute perfection? So much time we spend on this perfection, now perfection has become the norm.

The norm as discussed in Gattaca, is the creation of humans through a sort of gene therapy, which eliminates any “chance” of diseases, ailments, etc. But people in this reality have become machines, feeling invincible because of these perfect genes. There are other ways in which humans have become machines, this has also become the status quo because society has began to treat them as thus. Take for example the entrance to Gattaca itself, it is one long line into which people must shuffle into and place their finger onto for a blood sample from each person. These pieces of technology which we have now become the slaves to, where before we were considered to be the masters of. What did we truly master? To have technology imitate the human characteristics? To mimic human emotion? To show us what the future could be?

Ethan Hawke’s character humanizes his own brother when he beats him in their own game of “chicken.” The differences between each other are part of what make us human, Baudrillard makes a statement which defends this eloquently, “For it is the difference which forms the poetry of the map and the charm of the territory, the magic of the concept and the charm of the real.”(Baudrillard, 1) I think what Baudrillard meant by this is that we are willing to accept the possibility of differences amongst each other, and that “charm of the territory” is trying to understand people that are different from ourselves, and being able to appreciate those differences.

One of the crucial points in the film that accentuates the division of realities between the “god” children and those that were engineered, is the scene in which Jude Law and Ethan Hawke are arguing about his discovered eye lash in Gattaca. “You still don’t understand do you?” states Jude. His view and perspective of his own experienced reality helps Ethan consider the fact that they may not find him. For Ethan he has not begun to understand his present existence within is own created hyper reality so defined by Baudrillard; “in this passage to a space whose curvature is no longer that of the real, nor of truth, the age of simulation begins.”(Baudrillard, 2) Jude understands this because he has already seen Ethan’s transformation, also because he(Jude) was once part of the “Valid” group which Ethan is simulating. Baudrillard explains this difference with his idea of “presence” and “absence.” “To dissimulate is to feign not to have what one has. To simulate is to feign to have what one hasn't.”(Baudrillard, 2)

What Ethan represents is a sect of society which might be deemed as the iconoclasts, defined by Webster’s dictionary as “one who attacks settled beliefs or institutions.” Ethan is even consciously aware of this stating at one point that he is a “de-gene-rate.” But his actions hold with them larger implications, consider also the other definition of iconoclasts, “one who destroys religious images or opposes their veneration.” His simulation directly relates to his ability to destroy those images and symbols by which society has granted so much more depth and meaning than might be truly deserved to them. “All of Western faith and good faith was engaged in this wager on representation: that a sign could refer to the depth of meaning.”(Baudrillard, 3) Perhaps his actions in simulating that which has been given so much reverence, and depth is to engage us back to that which speaks to the true meaning of things.

Ethan did not merely simulate Jude’s character, but in truth he already was his character. All his life he had prepared to navigate space. During the film, when people screen comes up “in-valid” there is a cross in the corner of the screen, whereas when the screens comes up “valid,” there is an infinity sign in the corner. This representation might have been taken within their society as the cross representing limited possibility, in opposition to the infinite possibilities of the “valids.” In all reality the opposite was true in Ethan’s case. “A gigantic simulacrum: not unreal, but a simulacrum, never again exchanging for what is real, but exchanging in itself, in an uninterrupted circuit without reference or circumference.”(Baudrillard, 3) Meaning that because of his spirit, his lifelong drive and pursuit of space travel, or just his general drive in life, the possibilities for him were truly endless. It also meant that because their society had become so obsessed with symbols and images, that they just began to loose the true meanings of things, and in so doing, these symbols became meaningless.

Baudrillard discusses the idea that people created representations of God to make god real, “the murderous capacity of images,” in his words, taking away from the idea that god is above and beyond the real, and that he cannot be placed into such a category. So is the case with Ethan’s character, his life predetermined and categorized because of symbols of genes, genes symbolize who a person truly is, their entire essence, and even who they will become. But genes do not account for emotions, knowledge, the subconscious drive, true to the theme of the film, the all encompassing spirit of a person. “There is no gene for the human spirit.” -Kevin Bradbury

Works Cited - (Excerpt) Baudrillard, Jean, Simulacra and Simulations, Stanford University press, 1998

I have nothing against Jean Baudrillard, but I do think we have to be very careful how we use the claims of any particular thinker. We should be citing them where necessary to support claims that are necessary for the article. Nothing more (as it were), nothing less. If he has written a cogent analysis of the film Gattaca in his writings - we should say so in concise summary form, with appropriate sources to reference what he has said. But putting in a lump of his writings without integration into the article is just not good wikipedia writing. The idea here is to write the best possible neutral, well-referenced article about the film Gattaca not to push the ideas of any particular thinker.

--Loremaster 20:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

On May 22, 2006, User:75.2.7.200 deleted the criticism section arguing that “if you're going to criticize, post a source for it“. I've restored the section with some minor improvements and provided a reference. --Loremaster 17:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:213.54.165.50 has changed the name of the section to Reactions. I approve this change. --Loremaster 16:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the Reactions section exclusively presents the views of one transhumanist thinker is not a legitimate reason to delete it so I've restored it. We should simply expand it to feauture the reactions of a broad experience. --Loremaster 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swimming Competition

It's been a while since I've seen this movie, but wasn't Jerome's second place finish an Olympic silver medal? If so, it should say that, otherwise it implies that it was just any old swimming competition. I'm sure that, prior to the Olympics, he had had to settle for less than first a few times, but didn't lose until he'd failed to achieve at the Olympics.

Theres no direct reference to the Olympics so for all we know it could have been at a local swimming carnival.

[edit] Political Orientation

I object, IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS to the marriage of the term LIBERAL to the term EUGENICS contained in this article. There is NOTHING LIBERAL about Eugenics. If anything, an Authortarian society is a RELIGIOUS society, is a CONSERVATIVE, perhaps even a COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE society. In my lexicon Authoritarian = Religious Fundamentalist = Communism = CONSERVATISM. There is no mention, much less identification of the term "liberal" with Eugenics in the book, either. --Danshawen

Have you taken the time to read the article on liberal eugenics? The term liberal is used to differentiate it from the eugenics programs of the first half of the 20th century, which were associated with racism, classism, and coercive methods to decrease the frequency of certain human traits passed on to the next generation. So I suggest you google the term and learn more about it before making such strong objections based on ignorance. --Loremaster 14:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

THEN YOU SHOULD BE CALLING IT: "21ST CENTURY EUGENICS", SHOULDN'T YOU? As opposed to "conservative eugenics", or "communist eugenics", or "libertarian eugenics", or anything political in connection with eugenics. Thank you for directing me to the other messed up articles. You will find a similar discussion there. --Danshawen 09:57, 15 December 2006 (UTL)

1. Please stop writing in capital letters since it sounds like you are screaming which is considered a breach of netiquette.

2. It wouldn't make sense to call it "21st century eugenics" since there are nation-states like China which have been accused of currently engaging in the same kind of (coercive) eugenics that was practiced in the 20st century.

3. Refering to the new eugenics as "liberal" is NOT related to the political views of the proponents of this form of eugenics; it only relates to methodology and practice.

--Loremaster 19:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well. since you seem unwilling to relent on this point, it is my intention to edit the content of the wikipedia article covering the filmography of Beavis and Butthead, and change every instance of the word "a$$munch" to: "conservative a$$munch", to distinguish it from an ordinary sort of "a$$munch". There is about as much justification for this as there is to adding the modifier "liberal" in the context of Eugenics (purportedly to distinguish it from 20th century Eugenics) as there is for that little bit of prosaic license. Who the heck is "Loremaster" anyway? Ann Coulter, perhaps? Do you even begin to understand? --danshawen 18:11, 18 December 2006 (UTL)

Danshawen, you are embarrassing yourself by this persistent, pathetic display of ignorance and antagonism. Have you read my reply to you on the Talk:Liberal eugenics page? That being said, I proudly consider myself a liberal so I find your insinuations insulting. --Loremaster 23:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't let him or her ruffle your feathers, Loremaster. Either danshawen/70.106.60.44 is confused about the nomenclature or he or she is trying to get a rise out of you. Personally, I think the former is more likely; other than the weird IP address/user name issue, danshawen's edits seem mainly to be good faith, as evidenced by bringing up the discussion on talk pages, &c. Lets keep a cool head on the subject, shall we? --mordicai. 14:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Loremaster 17:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to replace the term "liberal eugenics" with "new eugenics" in the Gattaca article only because of a version of the latter term is used in the film while the former isn't. --Loremaster 00:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)