Thanks to the widespread connectivity that communicative
technologies afford our world, no other generation has been so
supersaturated with opinions than right now. From the color of a dress to what
unspeakable things should be done to animal abusers. Everyone has an
opinion about everything and thanks to the internet, we are all privy to
each and every one of them. Where the sharing of information and
opinions can potentially facilitate the progression of our global
society therein also lies the dangerous spreading of pathogenic concepts
centered around misinformation and sensationalism. One has only to read
a comment thread on social media concerning the current run for the
presidential nomination to see what I'm talking about. But more on that a
little later.
I recently held a lengthy discussion with a good friend centering
around a seemingly benign query. Which world would you rather live in:
the world of the film Blade Runner or the world of the Mad Max series? A
nerdy question indeed, but, one I already knew the answer to.
Obviously, I'd rather live in the Mad Max world. Now, if you're familiar
with both franchises you might be thinking why I'd go in this
direction. The world of Mad Max is bleak, sparse and severe where the
world of Blade Runner is full of sci-fi wonders and intriguing
environments. I mean who wouldn't want to live in a fictional universe where you can
live "off-world" and be awarded a synthetic human slave for doing so? On
face value, yes, this seemed like the proper decision. Yet, on further
inspection the reasoning for my decision can be elucidated from
information key to both fictional worlds.
Intrinsically, the worlds of Blade Runner and the Mad Max series are virtually
similar. Both are byproducts of nuclear devastation where the human race
struggles to survive. That's however where the similarities diverge. In
Blade Runner the world is lush with technology and scientific progress.
Conversely, the world of Mad Max is minimal yet alive with anarchic,
tribal societies. Thematically, both worlds serve the purpose of aiding
in representing the message conveyed throughout each narrative. Blade
Runner centers around themes of existentialism and identity. Whereas Mad
Max on the other hand, revolves around survival and the realities of
unfiltered human nature.
In Blade Runner, we follow alongside Rick Deckard as he tries to hunt
down renegade synthetic beings on their quest for prolonged life and
identity. The synthetic humans called Replicants are physically &
mentally superior to their human masters but are limited by a four year
life span. The setting is a futuristic Los Angeles cityscape populated
by gargantuan corporate structures, multi-ethnic cultures and morose
weather. Humans are coerced into leaving the planet to avoid propagating
genetic damage from radioactive remnants of a nuclear war to future
generations. By the film's end, we are left with questions as to whether
Deckard himself is or isn't a Replicant or if it even matters. Our
anti-hero leaves with the story's beauty who herself is a Replicant and
their fate is open-ended. If both are doomed to eventually succumb to an
expiration date is it really a "happy ending"? Moreover, if our destiny
is predisposed is there such thing as free will? All heady ideas that
were meant to be so open-ended that the producers forced director
Ridley Scott to fabricate a more"traditional happy ending" to placate
movie audiences. Clearly, they didn't understand what the film or its
source material were trying to say about the world we live in.
In the Mad Max franchise, the narrative is divided into four
distinct films. Throughout the series we follow our protagonist Max
Rockatansky as he tries to survive in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. He
goes from being a police officer, to a wandering loner, to a hero, then
to a ghost-like, mythic figure. Each arc in his journey he manages to
bring civility and basic morality to those he encounters. Something like
a punk rock version of the titular character in the film Shane or
Jesus from the Bible. He overcomes the myriad ugliness of humanity and
manages to
reluctantly do right in the face of endless adversity. Each story is
completed with some form of resolve and hint
of a better life somewhere down the line. It's in this notion that the
world of Mad Max is more attractive in my mind. In Blade Runner the
characters create their own truths or perhaps overlook them as a means
to avoid reality. Which even in a science fiction story is next to impossible if not highly improbable.
In the Mad Max films the characters are always trying to overcome their
reality and in various ways find hope. In the first film, Max overcomes the
murder of his wife and child to become the warrior we see in later
films. In The Road Warrior, it's the idea
that a feral child can grow older into a tribal leader. In Beyond
Thunderdome, it's the budding society created from children saved by
Max. In Fury Road, it's the future of a society freed from the tyranny
of a madman. In spite of all the hardships and horrors in Mad Max there
is
always hope where in Blade Runner there is only a secession to
hopelessness and the environment reflects this.
The reason I bring this story up is that I'm fully aware of the nuances
for both Mad Max and Blade Runner. As a writer I also understand
them on a technical level. I am aware of why the worlds these stories
take place in are the way they are. Blade Runner's city is a metaphor
for the inescapable reality of one's nature that's so grand and powerful
it reaches into the sky and rains down endless amounts of filthy water. You're
trapped by it. It consumes you. In Mad Max, the desert is representative
of hopelessness and when hope is found there is also some form of oasis
to harbor a better future. The desert is a place long used in
storytelling as a place of contemplative inner-space. And, because of
this in-depth
knowledge I was able to formulate a concise reasoning for my choice
beyond superficiality. My friend on the other hand, hadn't seen all the
Mad Max movies and the ones he had seen he didn't remember. He also
couldn't quite remember what Blade Runner was about either. He just
remembered that the city in Blade Runner was "cool looking" and that
informed his opinion and thus his decision. He made a superficial choice
based on a superficial opinion.
So, what exactly is an opinion? In essence, it's how we feel about or
view something that isn't necessarily based on facts or knowledge. It's
where Billy can love anchovies and Susie can curse their very existence. Where opinions can get dicey though is when
those opinions facilitate decisions that have meaningful consequences on
the lives of individuals or groups of individuals. Very much unlike the Blade Runner-Mad Max discussion. Vaccinations for
example are still a hot topic in the cultural mainstream, and in spite of
numerous scientific studies saying otherwise, there is a prevailing
group who think they are harmful. What's the meaningful consequence?
Diseases thought to be eradicated by vaccines reemerge and immune
deficient members of society, namely children and the elderly, are
placed in severe danger of contracting pathogens unnecessarily. Major consequences spawned from ill-informed opinions.
Which brings us back to the 2016 presidential nomination and social media.
Throughout many of the aforementioned comment threads I've read, there has been innumerable amounts of conjecture with little or no factual
basis.
Details like the specifics of a candidate's platform or their voting
history are overlooked for soundbites, memes and oversimplifications.
Most people generally have no idea what the realities of their
candidates are outside of what they've seen on television or told by the
media. It's all superficial thinking barely skimming the surface of an
important aspect of American life. That being that the selection of a
presidential leader in the United States is what democracy
is all about. By not informing oneself of these facts and thus not
having a clear picture of their candidates one belittles something that
makes this country so great.
Now, I've used a silly anecdote to illustrate something that I take very
seriously. It is important to imbue our thinking with opinions that
have some semblance of knowledge or facts. Or, as Speculative Fiction
writer Harlan Ellison so eloquently put it, "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion.
No one is entitled to be ignorant." Knowledge is power. Conclusively, our opinions
should be like a skin we can shed once more information becomes
available or is sought out. We can transform ourselves internally to
create a better world. Because if we don't allow our opinions to change, then we run
the risk of becoming stagnant or never progressing. Consequently, If our opinions are ill-informed then we make ill-informed decisions which have the potential for becoming long term negative outcomes. Our species, like countless others will then become like tears in the rain.
