The Invasion

sHiZo963

Jedi
An interesting movie is coming out on Aug. 17 called The Invasion... check out the synopsis:
"The Invasion" is a nightmarish journey into a world where the only way to stay alive is to stay awake. The mysterious crash of the space shuttle leads to the terrifying discovery that there is something alien within the wreckage. Those who come in contact with it are changing in ominous and inexplicable ways. Soon Washington D.C. psychiatrist Carol Bennell (Nicole Kidman) and her colleague Ben Driscoll (Daniel Craig) learn the shocking truth about the growing extraterrestrial epidemic: it attacks its victims while they sleep, leaving them physically unchanged but strangely unfeeling and inhuman. As the infection spreads, more and more people are altered and it becomes impossible to know who can be trusted. Now Carol's only hope is to stay awake long enough to find her young son, who may hold the key to stopping the devastating invasion.

Do not trust anyone. Do not show emotion. Do not fall asleep.
The trailer can be found here: _http://theinvasionmovie.warnerbros.com/

Invasion of psychopaths or lizzies, anyone? Or rather, the Body Snatchers!
 
Thanks for the link.

Having watched it, a thought occurs to me.

The concept is humans, or simulacrum, that don't feel and are taking over.

This seems to be inline with what has been happening for a long time, eh?

But Hollywood is putting this out, and making it very much look extreme.

This looks like programming.

Make it look so ridiculous so the hook (that some people are not quite the same as most), that something deep down that people "sorta" know is there and exists (but don't know how to quite put their finger on it), is presented in "extreme", so that the little feeling in the back of their psyche is relegated to the "ridiculous" compartment in their minds.

This might be like "V for Vendetta". Put out a movie that people resonate deep down with, hope that a "fad" catches fire, and the more it does, the easier people ascribe their deep sentiments to "being moved" like an amusement park ride and forget the actual elements of importance (and why it touched a nerve to begin with).

:/
 
Looks like this movie is presenting an awesome opportunity to inform people about the invasion of ponerology. We can write reviews of how closely related this alien takeover is to our human condition - and spread it all over the web. Quotes from Political Ponerology and other esteemed psychopathy texts can be used, as well as referring people to some of the recent video's that have been made; maybe we can get the group video that's being worked on in this thread ready in time for the release of the movie. Since we have the synopsis of the movie, rough drafts could probably be written before hand.
 
Shane said:
Looks like this movie is presenting an awesome opportunity to inform people about the invasion of ponerology. We can write reviews of how closely related this alien takeover is to our human condition - and spread it all over the web. Quotes from Political Ponerology and other esteemed psychopathy texts can be used, as well as referring people to some of the recent video's that have been made; maybe we can get the group video that's being worked on in this thread ready in time for the release of the movie. Since we have the synopsis of the movie, rough drafts could probably be written before hand.
This is what I meant when I spoke of the "fad" factor. It is a sort of like a sinkhole that distracts from the central issue.

"Riding" on the coattails of what mainstream feeling that might be generated by this movie, and attracting, or "bringing out" those lurking in the woodwork that recognize the issues, and THEN pulling them in, ASSOCIATING them with the fad, essentially folding them neatly into the "fad", is a means of disposing their serious and real view of the subject with regards to the less knowledged (but suspecting).

Maybe I'm not being entirely clear with what I'm trying to say.

As much as Hollywood production is a means to push a directed and subtle message, it DOES have to take a read on what is the most likely entry point into people's current subconscious, current malaise, i.e. what is surfacing a few layers beneath the mainstream, projected to come up eventually if "unhandled".

This could be a marker of the reaction to psychopathy pre-entering mainstream thought.

Need to circle the outer scope/lines (Periphasee? perifacy? ) (in French: perimetre) on this a little more.

It's subtle. And yet, it may only be a cigar.
 
Azur said:
This is what I meant when I spoke of the "fad" factor. It is a sort of like a sinkhole that distracts from the central issue.

"Riding" on the coattails of what mainstream feeling that might be generated by this movie, and attracting, or "bringing out" those lurking in the woodwork that recognize the issues, and THEN pulling them in, ASSOCIATING them with the fad, essentially folding them neatly into the "fad", is a means of disposing their serious and real view of the subject with regards to the less knowledged (but suspecting).
This probably holds true for quite a lot of people, but I don't know if it will be effect everyone. There may be a few who could get something out an association to a strong signal such as ponerology. Those who are deep asleep and want to stay that way will continue to sleep, but an opportunity could be there for those rousing from slumber. Perhaps your points should also be mentioned if people choose to write a review.

I could be identifying with the initial thought of a review though; what do others think?
 
Sounds like an attempt to associate the ideas in Ponerology with "aliens", thereby 'ridiculising' it. Then again, it may also present an opportunity for people to become familarised in a general way with the idea that some people simply cannot feel they way normal humans do

Joe
 
This discussion reminds me of this article I recently read about the "zombie" theme in film history.

They walk among us, or What I learned from watching zombie movies.
By Douglas Rushkoff
Discover
August, 2007

The undead are everywhere these days. The popular summer movie 28 Weeks Later pits them. against the U.S. military. The comic series Marvel Zombies has them eating the Silver Surfer. The video game Dead Rising lets players attack them with weapons ranging from hockey pucks to shower heads. A recent CBS pilot, Babylon Fields, imagines what would happen if the undead tried to integrate back into their former lives.

No other horror creatures invite quite the same breadth of paranoid speculation as zombies, perhaps because they embody such a pure, reflective sense of terror: animated corpses dependent on living flesh for survival. No wolf mythology, no castles, no capes, no fangs; just dead people eating flesh. In short, except for the "being dead" part, they're just like us. I'd venture this accounts or their popularity over decades of cinema, as well as their more recent migration to other popular media. Zombie movies force us to figure out what, if anything, differentiates us from the monsters on the screen.

The zombie legend originated in the spiritual practices of AfroCaribbean sects that believed a person could be robbed of his soul by supernatural or shamanic means and forced to work as an uncomplaining slave. Canadian ethnobotanist Wade Davis studied Haitian voodoo rituals in the 1980s and determined that a kind of "zombie" state can be induced with powerful naturally derived drugs. In horror films, people become zombies by whatever process is deemed scariest by the filmmaker of the era-magic, possession, viral infection-but the result is the same. The victim becomes a walking corpse, a human without a soul.

In this Sense, all movies are zombie movies. Lifeless frames of celluloid passed in front of a bright bulb 24 times a second yield moving images convincing enough to make us believe there are living people up there on a screen, moving about with purpose. If the craft is done right, we care about those phantoms as much as we do for real people-alas, sometimes more than those we see suffering on the evening news.

Indeed, zombies are the perfect horror creations for a media-saturated age overloaded with reports of terrorism, famine, disease, and warfare. Zombies tap into our primal fear of being consumed and force us to come up with something-anything-to distinguish ourselves from the ever-hungry, animated corpses traipsing about the countryside and eating flesh. Deep down, these schlocky horror flicks are asking some of the most profound questions: What is life? Why does it depend on killing and consuming other life? Does this cruel reality of survival have any intrinsic meaning?

The way in which zombie movies pose these questions has changed significantly over time, telling us more about ourselves, and about what we most fear, in the process. Zombies have been a staple of American filmmaking since the indie flick White Zombie (1932), best remembered for its eerie shots of undead slaves staring into the night. In that movie, Bela Lugosi plays an evil sorcerer who promises to turn a woman into a zombie so that her spurned lover can control her forever, presumably as a mindless sex servant. Perfect fare for a nation finally reckoning with its own population of former slaves, as well as one of preliberated females just beginning to find their own voices. Back then, though, the big questions seemed to have more to do with whether a walking dead servant or wife could fully satisfy a man's needs. (Given the outcome, apparently not.)

By 1968, George Romero's classic, low-budget Night of the Living Dead had reversed this dynamic. Now it was up to the film's human protagonists to distinguish themselves from the marauding bands of flesh eaters-and to keep from being eaten. Racial conflicts among the film's living characters end up costing them valuable time and resources; against the backdrop of attacking zombies, the racial tension of the late 1960s seems positively ludicrous. The film's African American hero survives the night but is mistaken for a zombie and shot dead the next morning.

The film's sequels had survivors holing up in places like shop ping malls, through which zombies would wander aimlessly all day, as if retracing the steps of their former lives as consumers. Of course, the real consumption begins when the zombies find humans on whom to feast-an irony not lost on one tough guy who, as his intestines are being eaten, has enough wit to shout, "Choke on 'em!" What makes the humans for whom we're rooting any different from the zombies by whom we're repulsed? Not much, except maybe cannibalism, and the technical distinction that our humans are living while the zombies are "living dead."

State-of-the-art zombie films-most notably 28 Days Later from 2002 and its sequel 28 Weeks Later-now use the undead to explore today's hazier ethical climate. Instead of fearing magic or consumerism, we are scared of the unintended consequences of science and technology. Perhaps that's why rather than reaching zombification through magic or rampant consumerism, the undead in this film series have been infected by a man-made virus called "rage."

Playing to current apocalyptic fears, the zombies in 28 Days Later wipe out the entirety of England, which has been quarantined by the rest of the world in a rather heartless but necessary act of self-preservation. Like the hilarious but unironically fashioned book The Zombie Survival Guide (2003), here's a zombie tale for the 9/11 era, when fantasies of urban chaos and duct-tape-sealed apartment windows are no longer relegated to horror films; these paranoid scenarios became regular fare on CNN.

In 28 Weeks, well-meaning American troops attempt to re build England by putting survivors in a protected green zone and, even firebombing the innocent in a desperate attempt to quash a zombie insurgency. (Warning: Spoiler ahead.) The movie's undead ruthlessly attack anyone for flesh, and its weaker characters choose to save their own skins instead of protecting their wives and children. The film's heroes distinguish themselves and redeem our view of humanity through acts of self-sacrifice. It turns out, however, that they've sacrificed themselves on behalf of a child who carries the virus and goes on to infect the rest of the world. Humanity, like civil liberty, is no longer a strength but a liability. It's not a totally cynical or unpatriotic outlook: At least this Iraq war satire assumes America has the best of intentions.

Leave it to the truly soulless medium of television to bring the zombie archetype full circle with CBS's Babylon Fields, an hour-long series the network describes as a "sardonic, apocalyptic American comedy-drama where the dead are rising and as a result, lives are regained, families restored, and old wounds reopened." Sounds positively heartwarming. According to early reports, the undead are now trying to reconnect with old friends, jobs, and romances.

If they succeed, television will also have succeeded in broadcasting its ultimate message: "Melt into that couch: You're dead already." Consider it the new voodoo potion. They don't call the stuff on television "programming" for nothing.
 
For some reason, it is eerily reminiscent of 'The Body Snatchers'?
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_the_Body_Snatchers
 
It's a rewrite of the original Body Snatchers. They've changed a few of the plot details but the outline remains the same. Wachowski Bros. are involved in this one as well.
 
beau said:
Wachowski Bros. are involved in this one as well.
Hi beau. I can't find the Wachowski brothers credited - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427392/fullcredits#cast . Do you know something else?


They are keeping the lead characters' surnames the same as the 1956 original ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049366/ ) and 1978 remake ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077745/ ), Bennell and Driscoll, but the genders are switched.

Also, the second lead characters in the original and 1978 remake are also present, the Bellicec couple. Veronica Cartwright, who starred as Nancy Bellicec thirty years ago in the remake, is starring in a new character in the 2007 version.

I was hoping that they'd work Kevin McCarthy into this one too, but he is 93. He was the star in the original and had a cameo in the 78 remake. Too bad they didn't.

Both previous version were very good and good for me respectively. I think I imprinted on the original as I saw it as a teenager when it came out. Also, the 1978 remake had unnecessary nudity thrown in which I didn't care for. The movie makers had just started doing this practice, why is anyones guess -- it added nothing and actually detracted for me.


Cyre2067 said:
I wonder if it'll have a happy ending... the original, and the first remake did not.
I'll make a guess that they will continue true to form with the past. I they do make that change, it will be interesting to see how they do it. All three are credited as based on a Jack Finney novel of the same name as the original, and I am surmising that the endings have been as he wrote it.

I'm looking forward to seeing this, but may wait until it is released in DVD.
 
Locksmith said:
beau said:
Wachowski Bros. are involved in this one as well.
Hi beau. I can't find the Wachowski brothers credited - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427392/fullcredits#cast . Do you know something else?
They are mentioned in movie's trivia:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427392/trivia
Originally wrapped in early 2006, the film underwent massive reshooting in 2007. The reason for this was the studio which didn't liked the cut director Oliver Hirschbiegel delivered. To change that, Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski were brought in for rewrites and James McTeigue to direct the new scenes.
 
In my case I read about it in a freebie mag that was at the theater when I went to see The Simpsons. Got me interested in this movie and in Stardust.
 
Thanks Keit and beau!

I would never have thought to look under 'Trivia' for something so nontrivial. Wow, what an expensive, and I would think embarrassing, endeavor that must have been.

McTigue and the Wachowskis work well together, and they also have worked a lot with Silver, who is one of the credited producers.

I am really looking forward to this remake. I may not wait for release of DVDs.

The reason I like DVDs is that I most often miss things (sometimes a whole lot of things if spatial activity is intense, particularly with dim to dark scenes) in the theater that I am able pick up on with digital jumps. The first time I saw The Matrix I came away bewildered and thinking "WHAT was that?" A few years later I started buying DVDs. After I saw V, I bought the Matrix trilogy set in order to analyze the Wachowski's work. I gained a whole new respect for them and actually understood and liked the plot of the original. That was only 6 years after my first viewing of it.
 
Shane said:
Azur said:
This is what I meant when I spoke of the "fad" factor. It is a sort of like a sinkhole that distracts from the central issue.

"Riding" on the coattails of what mainstream feeling that might be generated by this movie, and attracting, or "bringing out" those lurking in the woodwork that recognize the issues, and THEN pulling them in, ASSOCIATING them with the fad, essentially folding them neatly into the "fad", is a means of disposing their serious and real view of the subject with regards to the less knowledged (but suspecting).
This probably holds true for quite a lot of people, but I don't know if it will be effect everyone. There may be a few who could get something out an association to a strong signal such as ponerology. Those who are deep asleep and want to stay that way will continue to sleep, but an opportunity could be there for those rousing from slumber. Perhaps your points should also be mentioned if people choose to write a review.

I could be identifying with the initial thought of a review though; what do others think?
I agree with the comments on ridicule. Also, someone who is in their slumber or just impressionable could conclude that emotions will make you 'food' when just the opposite is true. Emotions (observed and regulated:) contribute to our sense of humanity and compassion for others. That, along with the Work will get us outtahere!
 
Back
Top Bottom