Through watching the movie "Equilibrium" i have been confused about two thing. First, everything can make emotion for people such as pictures,books, CDs,...were prohibited. But, in the beginning of the movie, after the leader finished his speech all people applauded that they were happy with that. Second, the government said " No emotion, no war so no murder" but they have killed every body had emotion. That means they were making war with emotional people and they were murder by killing people. Is one theme of this movie inequality? Did you find out something weird in this movie ?
Post by woojongpark on Oct 16, 2012 1:43:14 GMT -5
At first, I thought that the applause didn't make any sense because it is a way of showing "how I feel about the speech" But I thought that people just applauded because it's formal. I don't think there was any emotion on the people, because their faces were stiff. You know, there are times when you involuntarily clap even though you are not surprised at it, but you want to show respect to the speaker. And I thought that the government banned the things you've mentioned because those things can bring nostalgia, and nostalgia can revoke people's emotions. If you notice the walls, ceiling, buildings, and even clothes of people in Equilibrium, they are all gray, black, or white. I guess this is to make people feel nothing.
I think the government killed people who had emotions not to start a war, but to eliminate any possibilities those people could start a war. If there are people who have emotions, they might instigate the ones who don't have emotions, and it will cause trouble.
One this i did noticed that towards the end of the movie where the "father" got angry when talking to John. John actually managed to hide his emotions, but the "father" suddenly yelled and go mad. o.O I'm actually wondering if the "father" takes the drug to suppress emotions. Yes, i think inequality is surely one of the themes. Ones who feel are considered as sense offenders that are immediately executed when caught, which is basically forcing people to be in a certain way.
I agree with you, Woojong that when people applauded maybe it was just a formal. But, I mean that the speech is one kind of causing emotion. Example: In the wars, the leader would do the speech to raise up the determination and effort of people,... About killing emotional people, the emotional people got more hatred and they would gather another emotional people to against the government.Also, during killing emotional people that they could be family member of unemotional people. So they wanted to revolt and against the government such as John.
Post by nadiraamalina on Oct 16, 2012 6:25:01 GMT -5
Also, when John was called to talk to "Father", there were armed guards with him. These guards are obviously trained to detect emotion, since they tried to kill John simply because he was sheltering a helpless puppy. So why didn't they pull out their weapons against the "Father" when he started yelling at John?
Another thing is, how come the death of the guards who tried to kill John and the puppy wasn't investigated? It's somewhat suspicious that the murder of some highly trained guards isn't looked further into, since it shows signs of being a crime based off emotions, and that only a really dangerous person could take down the guards.
First, people applauded as in the way of respecting the leader. Well, applauding might include some emotions that are so trivial that the society wouldn't even care about it. I don't think taking the drug suppresses the emotion to the point where people can't even feel pain, for example. But, I guess the people were just applauding without really noticing why.
Second, there needs to be some kind of a leader that makes sure people are equal, which means he or she can literally kill people if they don't listen. This is why the idea of communism and dictatorship is so terrible. They weren't making wars against people but were "controlling" them.
Well, I was paying too much attention to Christian Bale's attractive look that I couldn't find anything weird in the movie. Haha, well, honestly I found several but they aren't the focus of the movie. You might want to concentrate a bit more of how John Preston develops throughout the movie by realizing how precious an emotion is.
Post by lukejoo1092 on Oct 16, 2012 10:37:58 GMT -5
For the first point, I think it's more of like a tradition, not an emotional action. They do so because it was like that beginning from the past. We always applaud after a speech so it would be natural for them to do the same
For the second point though, I think you have a good point. They say that war must be eliminated but in order to do so, they kill those who feel. It's a bit contradictory I have to say. They kill people in order to stop killing people. A paradox. Maybe since they can't feel, they can't feel what's wrong about their current system of killing those who feel (it's just a hunch though).
Personally, I think Equilibrium is an awesome movie but did face some limits where the director just had to add some performances that may seem emotional in order to express the seriousness and reality of the situation. The movie probably would have been worse if there were really no emotions at all. So I think even though there are some errors in this movie, they actually add detail into it which makes it better.
Post by woojongpark on Oct 16, 2012 22:38:17 GMT -5
Oh, now I get what's the point. Yeah, I agree that speech causes people to feel. Actually, if no one was going to feel inspiration by listening the speech, then what's the point of giving the speech? What is the purpose? Is the government trying to justify their actions and brainwash people?
One more thing. I'm kinda confused at the part where "Father" slams the desk suddenly. That's showing anger right? Did he not erase his emotions? Or does he have the privilege? Or did I just miss something? To be honest, I can't hear what the characters are saying because it seems like they are whispering to each other.
I also thought that it was weird. They were like saying no murder or whatever but they murder people who has feelings and emotions. That is a bit weird. When you talked about the clapping part in the beginning of the movie, i thought that it was not because of the happiness. I thought it was because of a law. They have to clap whether they like it or not. Maybe inequality isnt a symbol because EVERY people have to do the same thing.
First I also thought the same no emotion but they have emoition problem is that the people who was in the movie are human so they have emotion. Also plausing wasn't the only where they showed emotion. Some people like his new partner he got showed emotion almost end of the movie for example him going and screaming "There must be mistake sir I am not inecent or something" shows anger. Later after that him seeing the main character again gave him a smile which shows emotion.
Second one they thought where there are no emtions there will be no wars. The people started to lose emotion after they injected those little chemical the reason was by the leader saying no emotion cause no war. This made many people believe there will be no war. But they didn't notice that as soon as they injected those chemical the war has begun between the people with emotions and people with no emotions.
I personally thought equlibrium was a great movie it's just that the whole movie coudln't really go and have people feel no emtion since they had to act that out which is very hard. Also the leader in that movie reminded me of the handicap general in Harrison Bergeron which might help some people who look at this post on there easy.
First of all, I absolutely agree with you. I mentioned this in woojang's post but while I was watching the movie, I was keep thinking that most of the people in the movie seemed like they actually had emotions. Even the black guy who always chased after the main character. He really had an emotion. The way they react with each others, the way they fight, the way they kill, and etc. All of them I though they had an emotions. It is really weird. Also, about the second point, if there's no emotion, there's no war?... Well, I kinda agree with that point because its kind of true, every fights and wars starts from human's greed and anger. However, like you said, they fought. They fought against the people who has an emotion and they're having wars with the people who has an emotion and they're even fighting against the animals. I really thought there are a lots of plotholes..
First I think they don't have emotions but they are human they have emotions also black guy show he has emotions when they fight and when they react eacch other. Second if there's no emotion, there's no war? I think it is true because they can not fear they are not get angry. But they have war people has fear and who is against them.
I agree with you too woojoung. people who started to eliminate the people who had feelings could start a war and the society will go out of control. I definitely saw emotions in everyone in the movie. The african american guy definitely had feelings, even though he took those pills and suppressed his feelings, the actions he had showed towards Christian bale, especially in the scene where he punches christian bale when he finds him crying on the floor. If you had no emotions, you would not punch someone, you would simply talk to them and take them with you to the dupont.
Post by agneslianaputri99 on Oct 23, 2012 5:57:44 GMT -5
I think the people who take the drugs to make them "not feel anything" should be feeling something right? they still talk to each other. That means they still care.. I don't know I just find that weird for me. I'm still confuse abut this movie..