Hacker News Reader

Comment by beebmam | Hacker News Reader

I found it really hard to relate to any of the characters in the film, to the point where they were barely recognizable as humans.

Does it make sense, in a world like the one in Gattaca, for a person that is part of a discriminated class, to go into space, instead of trying to change the society around him to be less discriminatory?

It seemed to me like the whole effort was a self-motivated, flaccid revenge fantasy that wouldn't make any material difference to the others suffering from discrimination on earth. All of that effort, for what?

Anyway, I didn't hate the film, I just found it bizarre, alien-like.

View on HN

> Does it make sense, in a world like the one in Gattaca, for a person that is part of a discriminated class, to go into space, instead of trying to change the society around him to be less discriminatory?

Most people in discriminated classes in the real world don't go out trying to change society.

...and the few that attempt to change society almost always fail, or don't live to see the change they fight for in their lifetime.

> Most people in discriminated classes in the real world don't go out trying to change society.

What is your evidence for this claim? I'm not as certain as you that a majority of people in discriminated classes don't try to change their society for the better. Maybe it depends on exactly what you mean by "change society", but at least for me, I see even small discussions like the one we're having here as potentially changing society.

By the way, I'm curious, and please correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm not trying to misrepresent your beliefs): Are you making a normative claim here too, like "Discriminated classes shouldn't try to change their societies"?

Yes, it absolutely makes sense for one lone individual to pursue self-actualization against the odds rather than embark on a crusade to remake the world around him against even greater odds.

Moreover, systemic change results from lots of stories like this piling up, proving that the underlying narrative driving the discrimination was always false.

I think this is a little naive.

Why should every member of an underclass have to fight the good fight vs improve their own personal position? IMO, the latter is much more likely.

And when the news gets out a underclass achieved something great it may change things.

definitely - look at sports, academics, etc. Once something "impossible" gets completed, it gets repeated more frequently and widely than you'd expect.

History is filled with counterexamples. Discriminated people who do great things are discounted as once-offs, ceremonially inducted into the in-group or ignored entirely.

It’s also filled with pro-examples.

Why can't things be self-motivated? Not every story has to be about changing society...

Of course, and that's totally fine! I'm glad the film was made, and like I said, I didn't hate the film.

I was just commenting on my own perspective on the film: that it was unrelatable for me.

if you are broadly discriminated against I think it makes perfect sense that you focus on one, important thing and try to overcome that. Otherwise you'll just continually be beat down and get nowhere. I think the film does a good job showing this realistic path.

One is not obliged to do the best thing possible, or even to choose the “better” thing, as long as one does good.

In my imagined ending he _does_ die in space, but after accomplishing something great and as a result the obstacles he overcame to get there become known and contribute to the very slow process of realigning society.

lol how exactly do you expect him to change things if he stayed? Once he's back he'll be able to actually make a difference with the status/resources he got by leaving.

It tells you something about HN that there are like ten replies arguing that he should have the right to be selfish, and only one that recognizes that he was doing exactly what people from minorities did in the past to overturn the belief that they couldn't do anything.

I think the reason is because I am an actual mintority who is doing the same thing. It's exactly why I relate to the movie despite being a woman.

I'm glad you relate to it because it is amazing but if there is one criticism I could level, it is that the only female character seems like she is ~drugged~ for most of the movie. Uma Thurman is a good actress so I have to assume it was the direction/script.

Edit. Sorry, I was getting hyperbolic. There just isn't much development of her character so it is hard to see what the relationship between her and Ethan Hawke's character is even based on.

She was written that way to show what effects their cultural expectations would have on somebody's emotional expressiveness.

It's not just her who acts that way. It's every valid portrayed in the movie.

> "it is hard to see what the relationship between her and Ethan Hawke's character is even based on."

As implied in the movie he sees in her a person who, despite being a valid, is limited by the fact that she has a disability. The same kind of disability he has. Only she buys in to it and allows cultural expectations to limit her. He wants to "fix her". To show her that she may not be so limited if she has the fortitude to push past her limitation.

Also they probably find each other physically attractive too.

I mean, it's fair to be selfish and to recognize that people are allowed to be selfish. It's a big expectation that discriminated peoples should devote their life to changing the system that was unfair to them. We're all human and still want to achieve personal goals in our lifetime, many of which don't necessarily have to do with social justice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com