Panel Q & A Forum for Minority Report

The film I investigated was Minority Report. My argument was that the modern technology in the film serves as a method of control over the body. The use of surveillance over society complicates the division between the freedom over one's body and one's predetermined destiny. I raised the argument that Precrime takes on a God-like power by changing destiny and that the film argues that humans have free will rather than a determined future.

Feel free to ask me questions!!

Prompt 12

My reaction to most of the violence in Videodrome is of disgust. I literally had to turn away. However, you can't help but look either. Violence is something in our society that has a negative connotation. Videodrome literally shows violence but it also uses it to transcend and work on people. The violence controls Max and Max uses it to control others. In our mainstream media, it is the norm not to show extreme violence, especially if it is real. I think that Cronenberg uses violence because it is something that usually isn't shown, its different, but also because its different it evokes a sense of shock and disgust from its viewers. I think his message to the audience is to parallel this disgust for violence with this disgust for technology.

When we think of a world of chaos, we think of a world of violence. People against each other causing death, disease and turmoil, is what I picture when I think of a world torn down by violence. In Videodrome, this is what technology gives us. It is infectious. Violence is powerful and people react powerfully to it. It makes people vigilant. In a world of violence, or in a world of technology, people have to constantly be on guard, watching their backs and anticipating what could happen. I think the violence in the film also evokes this from the viewers. The gruesomeness seems to get worse and worse, so the viewer anticipates it, making them more and more disgusted.

I think the use of violence in Videodrome focuses the argument of body and technology. It is showing the violence to the body that technology can cause. Whether its death, distortion, or even mentally effecting the body so that you cause violence to others. It is effective in supporting his argument about technology and effective in evoking response from the viewers.

Prompt 11

The movie I have been assigned is Minority Report, a Steven Spielberg film from 2002 that is set in 2054. It is based on the idea of a future system called Precrime. It is a special police department that stops murder crimes before they happen. They use three humans that they call "precogs," that can see the future. The are kept hooked up to a machine and given nutrients and electrodes. The are kept not too awake but not too deep asleep either. The images that they see are projected onto a screen in which John Anderton, the Precrime officer, can sort through in order to find clues where the crime is going to happen.
There are many relationships that we see in this future setting between the body and technology. Each human has a chip in their eye that can be scanned to identify them. This helps the government keep track of everyone. There are scanners at the entrances of every building and metro statements and along the streets so they can keep track of where everyone is. This plays on the idea of power and technology and how it can be used by certain people to control others.
The "precogs" that can tell the future are the result of human technology. They are children of drug addicts who were given all kinds of experimental treatment for their survival. So the film is making to argument that technology can change how our minds work.
The overall argument, however, is that despite what seems like a perfected system, because the fact that is human-run and operated, there is a flaw. That because humans are imperfect, the system can't be. Sometimes the "precogs" disagree, creating a minority report. And in the case of this movie, the officer who runs the precrime operations is actually accused of murder.
I see how this resembles Neuromancer in a lot of aspects, from small details to the overall argument that humans will always be limited by their bodies no matter how much technology intervenes.

Prompt 9

I think that the most interesting and provactive body we are exposed to in Neuromancer is Molly. It is a female body of both feminine sex appeal along with masculine attributes. Most other women in the book are "whores," however, Molly differs from this normative view of the female body. She is a tough working girl who can defend herself. She wears mostly black, masculine clothing with black boots. Both her mirrored eyes and the blades in her nails are body modifications that defend her and help make her stronger. For Molly, using the body as a way to get what you want and transcend normal limits is why body modification is important. Her mirrored eyes keep you from getting to see her emotion and getting inside her, which would make her more vulnerable to another. The blades are purely an alteration to her body to be a defense mechanism. She looks at the body as a way to gain power. Which is opposite of the way Case looks at the body. He looks at it as "meat." I think that since we do not have cyberspace in our world, we look at the body more like Molly does, as a way to empower oneself. Technology has a productive relationship with Molly's body. This is different from most bodies we've encountered in class so far. Most have used technology to modify one's body for a personal meaning or because it is a trend. Molly's is productive; it actually does something.

Prompt 7

I think that mainstream body modifications are subject to the same arguments Pitt makes just as much as radical body modifications. Any modification has intersubjective meaning, as Pitt describes it. It has the meaning behind why the person does it to themselves, and it is "read" by society and then defined by other individuals. There are political implications surrounding the normative body modifications because they are still making a statement to society whether it is accpeted as mainstream or not. When a person works out and eats healty in aims of staying thin, they are still judged by society for doing so. They are making the argument that they care about their body image and they want to fit a normative view of what the body should look like. One may argue that someone who does not make an effort to be thin and lets themselves be overweight is doing so to counter normative standards just like someone who radically modifies their bodies. Yet their are also people who simply do not fit into normative standards. This creates radical, and very political, ways in which people try to modify their bodies to fit these standards. Things like diet pills, stomach stapling, plastic and cosmetic surgery, hair dye, and tanning beds, can all be taken to radical levels and have extremely taboo context. This refers back to the idea that "natural" is beautiful. People are just as much judged for taking part in normative body modification because that means that they are not naturally beautiful. So I think all the things I listed as "mainstream" body modifications, with maybe the exception of exercise to stay thin, are not promoted but are more accepted because they are ways in which to fit the normative view of beauty.

Prompt 6

The formal writing that we are forced to partake in during our academic careers entails a taught structured prose that we learn through imitation. It is a standard way to learn to express oneself through writing that is accepted in the academic world. It teaches us to communicate in an effective manner. A manner in which has been established by academics before us. We learn how to do it by reading other academic prose, essays and arguments written by academics that make an argument about a particular topic. As students, we then imitate the methodology others have used to make an argument. Whether it is a research paper, a descriptive paper or an argumentative paper, the way we write and present them to our audience are the same. We begin using this type of writing in school as soon as we begin to write essays in the 4th grade, and continue to write this way through our college years in which prepare us for the professional world. Even in the professional world, we are expected to communicate in a professional manner, which I believe is modeled after the academic writing we learn.
Generally, besides in our college classrooms, we express ourselves and communicate everyday through non-written acts. Everything we do to modify ourselves is making an argument about who we are or want people to think about ourselves. How we dress, do our hair, accesorize and do our makeup make a statement. It fits us into a certain group which we identify with. Working out and staying fit makes an argument to others that we are healthy. Even daily hygenic acts, like we discussed, communicates that we care about our bodies or don't, like shaving. We also communicate who we are by what we do. All careers, jobs and hobbies have a stereotypical person which fits into each of these. A lawyer is thought to be very different than a teacher, or from a model, so on and so on. Someone who rock climbs is a certain person and someone who sews is a different person. Also, art, in all forms, is an act of expression. Painting, sculpture, music, acting, dancing, photography, and many more are different acts we use to express ourselves through. In this way, especially, we take authorship and control.
However, whatever way in which you express yourself or make an argument through, there is a limit to how you can do it. A person can only do so much to themselves. Body modifciation can only go so far until it becomes harmful. Body modification can only break the norm so long until it becomes so popular that it is the normal trend. As Pitts argues, no matter what you do and the meaning that it has to you or you are trying to portray, it is limited by societies interpretation. It is intersubjective, she says, meaning you do not ever have complete control because it will be washed out by society. I agree with this argument. There will always be a limit to everything you do as long as you live within society and if you chose to live outside society than you are not making an argument to anyone.

Prompt 5

These two very different cultural artifacts give two different views of body modification. The National Geographic "Tattoos, piercings, & body markings" Gallery documents both traditional and modern primitivism as a cultural art that serves a particular role and/or meaning. The argument that this gallery makes is that body modifications are unique and extreme. It argues that is is against the norm for mainstream Western cultures besides the leading modern primitives yet a deeply historical norm for many other cultures across the world, including Africa and the South Pacific. It argues that this act of body modification needs to be preserved because of its cultural significance. The argument it makes about the body is that it is a medium in which one uses to express things about oneself. Things like status, beliefs, identity, beauty and faith.
The second cultural artifact, the NPR program, Marketplace's "Inc.'s a bit more at ease with ink," makes the argument that body modification has been increasingly incorporated into mainstream society. This in turn has made it more acceptable and part of the norm. Because of the popularity of tatooing, more people get them for no particular reason. It makes the argument that the body is a means in which one expresses their identity and portrays status and self-worth in a professional environment.
My own view point falls somewhere in between these two arguments. I understand the historical significance of modifications done by primitive societies because of their meaning and tradition. However, I do not understand modern primitivism. I do not believe that Westernized populations who partake in modern primitivism are making arguments to society. I do, however, believe that the body is a means to represent oneself to society, and when one modifies their bodies to extremity it is in means of resisting the cultural norm.