The film is
interesting because it started with the climax, wife killing her husband by
means of hydraulic press. There’s
the build-up, piquing the curiosity of the audience. And it all fell into
places: how man dared to tamper nature, the way he suffered the consequences
and how the wife tried to save his husband from nature’s antagonism. Another
great point about this film that made it more interesting is that criticizes scientists on their pursuit of explaining
everything. There is a fine line in science that would actually tell you when
to stop. But those who take the extra mile must be applauded for their tenacity
because of their willingness to sacrifice for the sake of the discovery.
The ending was
when the white fly pleading for help and the spider about to devour it was
smashed by a rock. The investigator killed a fly with a person’s head attached
to it. It was shown earlier in the film
that the reason why Helene killed him was because he had this head and arm of a
“thing”. She was about to get jailed for murder for killing him whose head is a
fly.
This is where
morality comes in. Where do you put the line between what is right and what is
wrong? Something is morally good if it is morally permissible, bad if otherwise.
In this case, did they do right thing in killing the man/fly? Can he (Andre) still be considered as a human
and the act that those two do be considered murder or just “pest-killing” like
what people do with cockroach? This is a morality play.
Another
factor that made the audience hooked-up with it was because it dealt with
futuristic science that is, in today’s time, far from possible. Is
teleportation through space even possible? And the concept of disintegrating
and integrating again is very imaginative. 1950’s was the time when people
think that everything through science is possible. Laughable? Yes, because they
are not equipped with the knowledge that we possess now. But can we blame them?
Zhedrik Chua. 2012-15340
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento