Fractals

The fractals video was a bit trippy, but it gave me a better idea of what fractals are, as well as an understanding of why they are important. While I'm not usually the type of person who tries to see random patterns in the world, I find the concept of fractals to be quite fascinating.

In the novel Jurassic Park, each group of chapters includes a page indicating the prevelance of fractals, or iterations. The reason for these pages is their connection to Ian Malcom's ideas on Chaos Theory. Malcom asserts that Jurassic Park will fail simply because what is random and chaotic cannot be predicted or controlled.

Jurassic Park experiences the same setbacks as did similar projects before it. The iterations repeat themselves and a recurring pattern becomes visible. Attempting to control a complex system like Hammond's will always fail.

Frank·en·stein [frang-kuhn-stahyn]

"Dr. Fronkensteen?"
"It's Frankenstein!"

The quote above comes at a most crucial point in the movie Young Frankenstein. Dr. Frederick Frankenstein has just soothed the monster that he has created, and thus he deems it the perfect time to drop the farcical pronunciation of his famous last name.

Not wanting to be linked to a Frankenstein is understandable (see my post titled, "Branagh-stein"). For Frederick Frankenstein, it is near impossible to live-down the infamous reputation of his grandfather, whose reanimation of a corpse led to his own peril. But when given the opportunity to commence a project similar to his grandfather's, Frederick Frankenstein doesn't show the slightest bit of hesitation.

He, like many others before him, is attracted to the idea "playing god." This lure is common throughout science-fiction, and it almost always proves troublesome. In Frederick Frankenstein's case, he inadvertently places an abnormal brain inside the corpse he wants to reanimate.

The question commonly asked by scientists like Frederick Frankenstein is, "Can it be done?" Not so commonly asked is, "Should it be done?" He wants to reanimate a giant corpse, but for what purpose? Of course, Young Frankenstein is, in part, a satire, but it doesn't poke fun at the second question. The movie could have had much more significance if the writers had a satirical reason for the reanimation, one that highlighted the arrogance of the wild scientist and the recklessness of his ways.

Duck and Cover

The "Duck and Cover" video, which originally aired during the 1950's, has become a quite popular viral video in recent years as modern audiences look back and laugh at how such a foolish concept was infused into the minds of those Americans living during the nuclear arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

"If you duck and cover under a desk during an atomic blast you might as well be hiding under firewood" says one YouTube user in a post under the "Duck and Cover" video.

Looking back, it obviously seems futile for one to try to escape the effects of nuclear attack. Radiation and nuclear debris would still cause devastation even if the main blast could be avoided. Knowing these facts begs the question, "Why would the U.S. promote a video such as this one when it should have been clear that ducking and covering would prove useless when faced with a nuclear attack?"

My guess is this: rather than admitting the inevitable and doing nothing, the U.S. government wanted a way to give the illusion of safety, thus boosting morale in school children all across the country while also alleviating the immense amount of anxiety that existed during the time period. Imagine, for example, that the U.S. issued a video opposite of this one, proclaiming, "Persistence is futile. We are all going to die." The hysteria that would've resulted from such a message is easily seen. So if the choice was between a not-so-truthful, but very hopeful message, or a brutally honest and disturbing one, then it was really no choice at all.

Upon review, the "Duck and Cover" video, albeit an outright lie, might have been the best course of action for assuaging U.S. citizens during the uneasy time.

Branagh-stein

While producing and starring in Frankenstein (1994), Kenneth Branagh should have noticed how closely the story of Victor Frankenstein and his monster paralleled Branagh's own production. What happens when a overzealous creator becomes too invested in his brainchild? The answer, of course, is utter chaos, and Branagh is foolish for having thought otherwise.

Branagh plays Dr. Frankenstein, the aspiring physician-in-training whose desire to practice medicine stems from the death of his mother. But the medicine Dr. Frankenstein wants to practice is largely considered taboo by his colleagues. Nonetheless, with the help of an older and more unorthodox physician, Dr. Frankenstein is able to start trying to reanimate corpses. The irony here is that his best friend and source of moral advice is a character played by Tom Hulce from Animal House. If that's not a sign that things will soon go wrong, then I don't know what is.

Just as Dr. Frankenstein's project turns messy, so does Branagh's. Instead of remaining completely faithful to the 1818 novel, he adds his own offbeat elements to the storyline which includes violence, overly-dramatic music, and more violence. Perhaps Branagh was worried that an accurate retelling of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein would be too boring for modern audiences to enjoy. This concern would explain some of the more ridiculous displays of action and carnage such as the bungee jump style lynching, or the Yeti-like climbing skills with which the monster scales the Swiss Alps. Even more gratuitous is scene in which the monster, with nothing but his bare hand, eviscerates the heart of Dr. Frankenstein's wife. It is one of those cinematic moments that leaves the audience asking, "Did that really just happen?"

Unfortunately, it did.

Why Newman Is Perfect As Nedry

Wayne Knight may never escape being associated with his role as the conniving mailman Newman on the show Seinfeld, but as the movie Jurassic Park shows, this association is all but harmful. In fact, casting Newman as Dennis Nedry in the film's adaptation of the novel does great justice to Crichton's original character. The reader is first introduced to Nedry as Alan Grant and the others are in route to Jurassic Park:

They had picked up another passenger in San Jose, a man named Dennis Nedry, who had flown in to meet them. He was fat and sloppy, eating a candy bar, and there was sticky chocolate on his fingers, and flecks of aluminum foil on his shirt. Nedry had mumbled something about doing computers on the island, and hadn't offered to shake hands (76).

At an earlier point in the novel, Nedry remains unnamed but is shown to be in cahoots with a bio-tech company looking to steal embryos from Jurassic Park. Arguably the novel's only true villain, Nedry is written as a despicable character whose scheming and greedy nature represents the much larger and even more greedier nature of those looking to profit from the exploitation of science. In Crichton's seething introduction, he points out how the bio-tech revolution goes unchecked and is powered by greed:

But most disturbing is the fact that no watchdogs are found among the scientists themselves. It is remarkable that nearly every scientist in genetics research is also engaged in the commerce of biotechnology. There are no detached observers. Everybody has a stake (x).

To any Seinfeld fan, it should be clear by now why Newman was chosen for the role of Nedry (If not, refer to the episode titled "The Old Man" in which Newman and Kramer devise a get-rich scheme that involves stealing priceless records from a senile old man). He is perfect for the role of a foolish thief whose quirkiness and stupidity lead to his ultimate demise and failure. And in playing Nedry, Knight accurately characterizes all that Crichton believes is wrong with the bio-tech revolution and its glory-seeking scientists.

Repeat After Me: "Klaatu barada nikto"

After viewing The Day the Earth Stood Still (1958) in class last week, I found myself feeling almost entirely satisfied. The movie's effect on me was twofold: I was first deeply intrigued by its exploration of the science-fiction motif dealing with how mankind's seemingly thoughtless endeavors will ultimately hold catastrophic repercussions; Additionally (and, perhaps, more importantly), I was able to rid my mind of the unpleasant experience that was The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008) remake.

Although one would imagine that Keanu Reeves would thrive playing the role of an extra-terrestrial being who is almost incapable of showing human emotion (or any emotion for that matter), the 2008 remake proves that just the opposite is true. Reeves and everyone else involved with the remake fail miserably at capturing the same portent and significance which made the original such a success. Moreover, the remake's adaptation of Klaatu's purpose and message is simply trite and irrelevant. No longer does he admonish our expanding nuclear capabilities, but rather our lack of environmental concerns, to which he attributes global warming (gasp!). Originality in the remake is certainly lacking (see The Day After Tomorrow), but did the writers behind it truly believe that global warming would have the same credibility and fear surrounding it as did the threat of nuclear war with the Soviets and Mutually Assured Destruction? Ultimately, contemporary audiences are left with a messy and unclear movie that doesn't know whether it wants to be a remake of the original, or a supplement to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.