The opening scene has no mention of genetics. Just that stupid people raise stupid children. Yes, in real life, a child can break free of bad parentage, but it’s rare and outside the scope of an 84 minute movie. In real life, the stupid people would be way, way more mean spirited, but that would make for a bad comedy.
Yeah, but it is because the rich people in modern times didn’t have kids while poor people were, even having significant resources given to them to allow them to survive and reproduce.
I don’t know if they were portrayed as “rich”, but just a couple that was very careful and considered about everything. A clean and organized and empty house being a consequence of that. While trying to fit children in “properly” they never found the time.
Certainly the two preserved people were not rich.
Also, I don’t think the message was that “poor people” should not reproduce " as your eugenics claim asserts, think the takeaway would be that folks should find some happy medium, the people let planning and anxiety get too in the way of having the children they wanted, and the other example needed at least some more responsible sensibilities.
It’s a fair criticism but imo it’s not too hard to write off that bit of absurd narrated exposition at the beginning and instead think of it as being about anti-intellectualism and broken institutions, since the rest of the movie seems like more of a satire of those things, and the plot doesn’t really land on eugenics as a solution to its problems.
We live in polarized times, which means that for every ‘Idiocracy is a documentary!’ take that goes around, there’s also a critique that argues that Idiocracy is a celebration of eugenics. Have you thought about that interpretation of it?
Well, yeah. I mean I’ve actually read that a couple of times. But to me, I thought the opening made it very clear that whatever side you take, nature and nurture are both covered in that. That guy is clearly not a good father. I mean, there’s a kid with a motorcycle in the front yard, and no one’s paying attention to this. He’s just irresponsibly knocking up different woman, and proud of it. It’s not like he’s a good, upstanding role model for the kid. So I think it’s pretty clear here that, whichever one it is, [nature or nurture], there’s some combination of both. I obviously don’t believe in eugenics. I think you could look at it both ways—you have this couple that’s trying to be so responsible that they end up never having kids. Then there’s another couple who just irresponsibly keeps having them and not raising them right. So, you know, if the other couple adopted the other kids. I’m sure they would probably be better off.
Yeah the eugenics take always seemed a weird one. No implications that the family reproducing like rabbits shouldn’t have any children, just that maybe it would be good if they had a reasonable amount of kids responsibly. Also the couple that never had kids despite wanting kids shouldn’t have been so cautious as to miss out.
Well I can kind of understand it, because it pins the cause of a problem of declining population level intelligence on who is having children, which is a controversial idea to say the least.
The thing is, the movie itself is fine. It is self contained satire that never tries to pass itself off as more than an absurd joke. It’s that everyone is citing it as prophetic or relevant that’s the issue. Ironically, the people that can only process real events through their favorite fiction aren’t nearly as smart as they think they are.
I tried watching it after hearing about it here a few times… I was shocked at how it’s basically just a comedy for rich white conservatives. If anything its message is supportive of fascism; the whole premise is that poor people are stupid and rich people are smart, and humanity 500 years in the future has gotten stupider because the rich people failed to control the poors and got “great replaced” by stupid poor people…
I don’t see how it favors rich, white, or conservatives.
The smart people are not explicitly described as rich. The couple in the intro just are overly cautious and miss out on kids. Certainly the two people preserved from the past are by no means rich.
I also don’t see conservative values as somehow aligned.
I didn’t see any racial split.
There was no implications that anyone should have “controlled” anyone. To the extent there was a message, it was that some people are overly cautious and should love a little, and other people might could use a bit more self restraint and raise children responsibily.
Though it showed the people who were not having kids, as middle class, and it showed the people having kids, as poor, it wasn’t a point in the story that the rich got replaced, only the smart people.
Wealth was never a point or even a subtle representation in the movie. It was certainly a movie written by a rich white man though, and can definitely be critiqued as having those biases.
Judge has shown time and again that he is very against institutional controls and concentrated power in general. All the “pro fascism” stuff you’re taking about are your own ideas for “solutions” to the problem Idiocracy poses.
It’s also pro eugenicist anti-poor nonsense.
The opening scene has no mention of genetics. Just that stupid people raise stupid children. Yes, in real life, a child can break free of bad parentage, but it’s rare and outside the scope of an 84 minute movie. In real life, the stupid people would be way, way more mean spirited, but that would make for a bad comedy.
Aren’t the wealthy in Idiocracy also, well, idiots?
I thought the thing was everyone was an idiot
Yeah, but it is because the rich people in modern times didn’t have kids while poor people were, even having significant resources given to them to allow them to survive and reproduce.
I don’t know if they were portrayed as “rich”, but just a couple that was very careful and considered about everything. A clean and organized and empty house being a consequence of that. While trying to fit children in “properly” they never found the time.
Certainly the two preserved people were not rich.
Also, I don’t think the message was that “poor people” should not reproduce " as your eugenics claim asserts, think the takeaway would be that folks should find some happy medium, the people let planning and anxiety get too in the way of having the children they wanted, and the other example needed at least some more responsible sensibilities.
It’s a fair criticism but imo it’s not too hard to write off that bit of absurd narrated exposition at the beginning and instead think of it as being about anti-intellectualism and broken institutions, since the rest of the movie seems like more of a satire of those things, and the plot doesn’t really land on eugenics as a solution to its problems.
Mike Judge made a statement about it in an interview:
Yeah the eugenics take always seemed a weird one. No implications that the family reproducing like rabbits shouldn’t have any children, just that maybe it would be good if they had a reasonable amount of kids responsibly. Also the couple that never had kids despite wanting kids shouldn’t have been so cautious as to miss out.
Well I can kind of understand it, because it pins the cause of a problem of declining population level intelligence on who is having children, which is a controversial idea to say the least.
Idiocracy is not at all positive about selective human breeding.
The thing is, the movie itself is fine. It is self contained satire that never tries to pass itself off as more than an absurd joke. It’s that everyone is citing it as prophetic or relevant that’s the issue. Ironically, the people that can only process real events through their favorite fiction aren’t nearly as smart as they think they are.
XKCD 603 has never been more relevant than this
I tried watching it after hearing about it here a few times… I was shocked at how it’s basically just a comedy for rich white conservatives. If anything its message is supportive of fascism; the whole premise is that poor people are stupid and rich people are smart, and humanity 500 years in the future has gotten stupider because the rich people failed to control the poors and got “great replaced” by stupid poor people…
why anyone on Lemmy thinks it’s good is beyond me
I don’t see how it favors rich, white, or conservatives.
The smart people are not explicitly described as rich. The couple in the intro just are overly cautious and miss out on kids. Certainly the two people preserved from the past are by no means rich.
I also don’t see conservative values as somehow aligned.
I didn’t see any racial split.
There was no implications that anyone should have “controlled” anyone. To the extent there was a message, it was that some people are overly cautious and should love a little, and other people might could use a bit more self restraint and raise children responsibily.
Though it showed the people who were not having kids, as middle class, and it showed the people having kids, as poor, it wasn’t a point in the story that the rich got replaced, only the smart people.
Wealth was never a point or even a subtle representation in the movie. It was certainly a movie written by a rich white man though, and can definitely be critiqued as having those biases.
Judge has shown time and again that he is very against institutional controls and concentrated power in general. All the “pro fascism” stuff you’re taking about are your own ideas for “solutions” to the problem Idiocracy poses.
Yeah some of the memes are funny but the themes of the movie are pretty regressive :(