It does, actually. In the prologue. Stupid people have children they can’t afford, who have more children they can’t afford because they inherited stupidity from their parents.
I don’t think the movie suggests this is really the case, it’s just an excuse to get the US to an apocalyptically stupid state so as to examine modern consumerism and anti-intellectualism writ large.
Via the mechanism of recliners with built in toilets and new, improved french fries featuring more molecules. Of course.
From the synopsis :
America indulged in the compulsory sterilization of those it deemed to be genetically unfit, which conveniently turned out to generally be the poor or racial minorities. Often without being told what it was for; they were told it was for something like appendicitis and had to figure out on their own that they’d been sterilized, many years later. All considered perfectly legal and noble at the time.
It’s best not to get too wrapped up in the movie’s explanation of how society got so stupid in 500 years. Idiocracy is supposed to be distorted mirror of early 21st century America. Even though some overly serious people may see unfortunate implications to the film, it’s not an argument for eugenics.
Of course it isn’t. Hey, I can’t help noticing more than a whiff of Ayn Rand in the film, myself, but for me it seems mainly to be Mike Judge’s lament for the culture of instant and effortless gratification, with a dollop of contempt for the sort of aggressive anti-intellectualism that factually exists in a broad spectrum of Americans. The thing that strikes me the most is just how bitter and depressing much of this ostensible comedy is. Yes, the situation is at root absurd, and the seams certainly show due to the non-existent budget under which it was filmed, but there are numerous brilliant bits and generally wonderful performances in spite of it all. I found it effective enough that by 2/3s in, Luke Wilson’s horrifying predicament was almost unbearable to watch. I’m mighty happy such a scenario is indeed unlikely, because if I were trapped in it, I’d be suicidal within hours.
Just my opinion, but one of the more interesting movies of the past few years, regardless of what one thinks of the morality of the premise.
We must have watched different movies, and entered into this discussion with different objectives. (Peruses OP…funny…cautionary tale…present and future state of human culture and knowledge. Nope, nothing about genocide via forced sterilization being alluded to or encouraged by either the movie or my proposed discussion, from my perspective). Even though I started this thread, I’m gonna stay very far away from it from now on.
The fact that anyone can come away from that movie thinking that it suggests a support for eugenics of the poor is astonishing to me. Do you really think that the portrayal of the rich childless couple was sympathetic? If possible they’re made to look even more ridiculous than the overly fertile people.
It’s about how our fucked up priorities–across the board, rich and poor (NOT inherently smart and dumb)–the educated classes and the uneducated classes–how our fucked up priorities will lead to our own eventual downfall.
To get eugenics out of that is mind boggling to me.
I really didn’t expect Idiocracy, of all movies, to be a Rorschach test in movie form, but we’re getting some really interesting responses here. People who didn’t see the movie probably should refrain from basing a thesis on it, even in their own head, much less in public. I don’t think getting into that habit is something that can help foster rational thought or discussion on any subject. I doubt actually watching the movie would change anyone’s opinion if they go into it with strong preconceived notions. As we see, time and again in many political threads, ppl tend to find whatever truth they’re looking for.
But Brawndo has electrolytes. It’s what plants crave.
Is the fact that there is a licensed Brawndo drink (licensed by a company that specializes in licensing real versions of fictional products called Omni Consumer Products, no less) funny or sad? I think it’s amusing myself, but some have commented on the irony of an actual product coming out of what was meant by a satire of consumer culture- one that the studio tried to bury, no less. (Omni also brings us Sex Panther cologne and Tru Blood.)
This turns out…not to be the case. During the Middle Ages, the rich reproduced more than the poor, an effect that Greg Cochran convincingly pieced together in A Farewell to Alms. This occurred concurrently with a number of factors pointing to increasing future time orientation, including falling interest rates and lower homicide rates. This argues that upper-class values, including future time orientation, diffused downward over the centuries. We are not descended from the entirety of the feudal people, but from the middle and upper class.
Don’t believe that genetic change can occur on that small a timescale? Look at The 10,000 Year Explosion.
Meanwhile, there’s solid evidence from throughout the world that the lower classes have more kids than the upper classes. Women who go to college, for example, have on average one fewer child than those who do not, and the perverse incentives for welfare fecundity are well known.
I was suggesting that it was ironic that you made a basic language error while quoting this particular movie. And I’d love to know who your connection was, that you have your hands on an actual copy of the screenplay. (If you really were copying directly from an official screenplay and you’d noticed the error, wouldn’t you have put *sic *after it, anyway?)
Poor people don’t have more children; people who don’t use birth control have more children. Poor people have access to free or seriously discounted birth control; I should know, I was one of them when I was a broke-ass student. So, the people who have lots of children are those who are too stupid or too ignorant to use birth control. Now, “too ignorant” might not be their own fault (thanks, bullshit abstinence-only “sex-ed”), but that doesn’t mean the next generation is going to be any **less **ignorant **if **the education system stays the same.
Not “more,” but certainly “just as.” But I’m guessing **Der Trihs **hasn’t actually **seen **the movie–he just read a summary somewhere and decided to rant about it.
If I may clarify (and quote myself), since this thread seems to have gotten contentious: I thought the movie was fun. “Because you talk like a fag, and your shit’s all retarded.” is hilarious. I also think that Mike Judge came across as arrogant. His stuff abut language really made me shudder at his ignorance.
I think we should be careful to not think that those who are responding negatively to its overratedness necessary dislike the movie entirely.
:slight resurrection:
My wife and I saw it last night. The corporate logos are hilarious and the language was funny, but the movie was almost too long at 85 minutes or so.
I liked:
Carls Jr.'s logo/motto: Fuck you! I’m eating!
Uhmerican Exxxpress: Don’t leave home!
ButtFuckers. I just love the slow pan to the children’s party…at Buttfuckers.
The Carl’s Jr drive-through voice-over (which I believe is an uncredited Tom Kenny) is one of the funniest performances in the movie. “Would you like to try our new EXTRA BIG-ASS TACO, now with more MOLECULES?”
My girlfriend and I speculated that other countries didn’t go through what the US did in the Idiocracy-verse and so the they could have imported stuff in.
A) It’s not a serious attempt to foretell the future.
B) It’s possible for people to be technically adept in a specific area and still behave like idiots in general.
Sounds like much of Cafe Society.
I wonder if the congresscritter from South Carolina who heckled Obama during the health care speech is a fan of this movie…?
“I’ve got a solution… you’re a dick! South Carolina, what’s up?”