![]() The problem is, there are some flaws that are hard to overlook. I think with all of this going on, I wish Splice were a better film. Now, on the philosophical front, Splice deals with what Francis Fukuyama called the “post-human future.” It asks the question, if we are able to manipulate and control the fundaments of new life, how does that change our own moral standards? Brody’s character even says something to the effect of ‘after what we’ve done, how can we call things right and wrong?’ For instance, if human life can be perpetuated without parents, at what point does love start to seem supercilious? This transition is symbolized in the main characters’ romance falling apart. So as the two lovers drift apart, the clone becomes less humane. Later, when the human clone comes into the picture, it personifies the way the scientists feel toward each other. Initially, when they create genetically altered animals, the new beings are blissful things, but when the scientists are put under huge stress, the creatures turn ugly. If you do decide to watch the film, take note of how the creatures’ actions are always precipitated by discord between Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley’s characters. To address the psychological aspect first, I’d say that Splice operates much the same way Hitchcock’s classic The Birds did, in that it uses biological creatures as the external (visual) versions of what the characters themselves are feeling and thinking. On one level, it’s a psychological exploration of its two main characters, and on another it’s a critique of scientific advances. Splice though functions on two levels simultaneously. They first create two weird amorphous lumps of life, then proceed to make a quasi-human specimen. To broadly summarize it, the story of Splice involves two researchers who are a couple (Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley) cooperating to create genetic hybrids that would produce proteins capable of saving human lives. I’d speculate that American audiences saw Splice only as a ‘don’t play God’ sort of movie, and missed out on what else the film had to say. ![]() I think that’s part of the reason why surrealism didn’t catch on in the States the way it did in Europe. In general, I’d say that we Americans take things pretty literally, especially that which we see upon the screen. I think the other reason why it didn’t do well is that audiences didn’t know what to make of it. I’d sooner categorize it as sci-fi than horror. Similar to Cronos which I just reviewed, Splice is for the most part a family drama, just one that involves cloning. I think part of the reason it didn’t do well was that it was advertised as a horror film, even though it hardly was. ![]() Then, in theaters, it only made abotu 17 million, which is especially unfortunate because it cost 26 million (by the way, 26 million is pretty cheap in terms of Hollywood money). Vincenzo Natali had wanted to film the movie for years before backers finally came through (among them Guillermo del Toro). Splice wasn’t much of a success when it came out. The movie is in many ways flawed, and I’m sure a lot of people aren’t going to like it, but underneath all of the imperfections, there is a lot that lends itself to psychological and philosophical discussions, which is more than I can say for a lot of more successful blockbusters. I think sometimes movies and books should be applauded simply for trying something different and for including interesting ideas, even if the end product is not particularly great. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |