MovieChat Forums > Surrogates (2009) Discussion > Gripe with the 'dreads' (potential spoil...

Gripe with the 'dreads' (potential spoilers)


This isn't a criticism of the story's structure or anything, though I did think there were plot holes. However, this is more of an annoyance with a semi-common theme in movies that revolve around humanity and technology. Another example of a movie that casts humanity in a similarly uncomfortable way is the Matrix trilogy (particularly, the second movie.)

What I'm getting at, in this case, is the human population that was actually still human, the people that refused to become surrogates. In this movie they were portrayed as relatively filthy, poor people. I suppose that's plausible enough, given that nearly all of the earth's population were surrogate users (though, it's difficult to imagine, I have to say, that the hungry and poor in third world countries the world over could afford surrogates, while people living in formerly prosperous parts of the USA became destitute. But that's sort of a plot hole, and not really what this topic is about, heh.) The point that bothers me more even than their less civilized life style, though, is how they developed mentally and spiritually.

The dreads, at least those shown in this movie, were massively intolerant, posting "no machines" signs and being generally hostile, even to outsider humans, as with the treatment of Willis' character when he entered the community in the flesh. They were also more or less mindless zealots, hanging on the words of the Prophet as if they were gospel, the words spouted to them over loudspeakers at all hours of the day. The people who presumably sought to hold onto their humanity had lost it as much or more than those that were surrogates.

Since I mentioned the Matrix films, I should probably justify the connection here. Granted, the humans in Zion had much more reason to begrudge machines (since they were, you know actively committing genocide against any awakened humans) but the general mindset of those no longer enslaved to the Matrix were still part of a zealous mindset, and their version of civilization was very primal to the point of being depressing, what with the horrific "club dancing" scene in the second movie, the one that took place alongside the decidedly unromantic and not-so-tender love scene between Neo and Trinity.

Maybe it's not really inaccurate, but...doesn't this ever get any other viewers down? It always seems in situations like this where it's "humanity" versus "everyone else", even those that have supposedly retained their humanity have, in reality, lost it, in a way as or more profound than those they seek to rise up against? It's a very grim portrayal of humankind that's very cynical.

reply

Well said!!

reply

[deleted]

Must have been fundamentalists.

reply

Hey the christian fundies have been going ape$hit over microchips being installed in people as being "the mark of the Beast" so it only makes sense that to them these robots are the last sign before Armageddon and God's Kingdom. No surprise there that these lambs are easily controlled by hate-filled power speeches full of empty catch phrases and slogans.

reply

I have to agree with the OP, I think the time frame in the movie from when the surrogates were introduced to the movie's 'present day' was about 12 years; I didn't find it realistic at all that the only members of society to not embrace this technology were unsophisticated god-fearing hill-billies... I still have one or 2 family members that have yet to upgrade their VCR to a dvd player, and it's not for a lack of affordability or a primitive mind-set. It would make more sense if they were a combination of surrogates and humans living in the same environment as opposed to everyone being devided into territories. I'm usually all for suspending reality for the benefit of enjoying a movie, but that did seem a little extreme.

reply

"I have to agree with the OP, I think the time frame in the movie from when the surrogates were introduced to the movie's 'present day' was about 12 years; I didn't find it realistic at all that the only members of society to not embrace this technology were unsophisticated god-fearing hill-billies... I still have one or 2 family members that have yet to upgrade their VCR to a dvd player, and it's not for a lack of affordability or a primitive mind-set. It would make more sense if they were a combination of surrogates and humans living in the same environment as opposed to everyone being devided into territories. I'm usually all for suspending reality for the benefit of enjoying a movie, but that did seem a little extreme."

What we saw was one enclave though. There were hundreds of these just within the US it seemed, according to a map we were shown somewhere in the movie (if I remember rightly). Perhaps each had its own sort of culture, and like gravitated to like--we just happened to see one with a "rednecky" bent or whatever. And "the Prophet" might not have had the same influence in every enclave either. There could be other enclaves of future-primitivists or hippie-types or new age spiritualists or Amish or whatever too.

What the living conditions indicated to me was poverty, perhaps imposed by the wider world. Perhaps getting a decent-paying job is extremely difficult if one doesn't have or refuses to have a surrogate. Surrogates might have more productivity (fewer physical constraints, no illnesses, etc.) and would therefore be preferred by employers, with "meatbags" largely suffering discrimination and subsequent marginalization. That was the impression I got from the squalor anyway. They seemed to be dumped in something similar to the "black homelands" of South Africa--places the government claimed were "sovereign nations" yet were completely enclosed and movement-regulated by the apartheid government of South Africa in the late 70s.

So the people in those places probably had a whole lot to be angry about, too, if they were victims of actual oppression like that.

reply

I agree with you. Only thing I can think of is if places for employment had requirements to run surrogates. Also odds are large business owners, corporations and other people that provide employment might all be for using them, so they would not be outsourcing jobs to non surrogates. The territories that outlawed them, may not have had enough businesses to be anything but poor. Mind you I am just guessing and not sure if this is what they was going for.

I think they showed them being redneck, poor and violent to show a negative group against them.

A man can change his stars

reply

I think it's more a symptom of living on the fringe, outside mainstream society. There's definitely an element of anarchy in rebel movements. In this case, they have rejected not just surrogacy, but everything else: location/proximity, shelter, hygiene, and so on. And the process of this type of rejection is not a peaceful one. So, humans being what we are, would tend to present criminality and violence as a much more prevelant factor in these rebel communities which are in some ways uncivilized in their very nature.

In this movie, you also see overarching elitism and classism. The "meatbags" are on the persecuted low end of the totem pole, living in "ghettoes" by need as much as by choice, and most likely committing as much violence against one another as they do to outsiders and machines. Sound familiar?

With that said, this is very cynical and you see it repeatedly in films. The AI Artificial Intelligence "Flesh Fairs" come to mind. But in AI we are given a more balanced/realistic picture of human nature.

reply

They were so one dimensional as the prophet was such a cartoon character.

Only a bunch of fringe trailer park white trash would be against surrogates?

There are people today who dislike Twitter and Facebook and all other internet social media, but they aren't considered fringe.

Me fail English? But, that's unpossible.
http://www.store.fredjung.com



reply

"Only a bunch of fringe trailer park white trash would be against surrogates?"

We saw one enclave, of what seemed like hundreds scattered about the US (I think I remember seeing a US map showing these enclaves, somewhere in the movie). The enclave we saw may have had this type of (sub)culture, whereas other enclaves may have had other subcultures predominating. I could see free-love hippie-analogs forming communes in some enclaves, Amish or Mennonites predominating in some rural enclaves, various primitivist or spiritualist cultures in others, etc. And there were enough of them, not too far apart from each other, that for even poor marginalized people it wouldn't be too hard to choose a nearby enclave of like fellow-travellers to drift to--and as like attracted like, each enclave would thus develop a distinct culture of its own.

reply

I have not yet seen this film, but I have read synopsis from wikipedia about it.

I realize that the movie ending differs from the book where the destruction of all the surrogates is inevitable, thus making Greer's choice to destroy them all very subjective.

Who is he to singlehandedly decide that nobody should use surrogates any more?!

reply

To pick a point...the hostility they had towards Bruce Willis's character was brought upon by the fact that he first entered their camp 'as' a surrogate.

The guard at the entrance, in particular, may not have known that exactly, but he would have seen the similarity to him and the surrogate that was hanging from the post in the middle of their camp.



It's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care.

reply

Directors have always sought to pith mankind against the dangers of giving in to technology, I, Robot springs to mindSource:Movie Review For Surrogateshttp://moviereviews.noskram.com/2009/11/movie-review-for-surrogates

reply