Abbott’s reading depicts how movies echos with society. For instance, the idea of a moving city seems unrealistic, but is built for very realistic reasons in movies. Such as the rising sea level in Flood(2009), ice age due to human-engineered failure in Snowpiercer(2013). These environmental and social crises are inspired by real-life issues such as global warming, then exaggerated through movies to act as a warning to society. But why setting in a movable city instead of a normal one? In my opinion, the limited space in them makes movies more likely to criticize the seamy side of society and humanity. For instance, the train seems to be a utopia at first, but revealed to be a prisoner to the lower classes due to unequal distribution of resources. In addition, the movable city also redefines the concept of a city that is not only about land, but the people themselves.
Ho Ka Wing Chloe (3035934535)
I appreciate how you explored the relationship between fiction and reality. Can you clarify how the ‘limited space’ in these films allow for critiques of society?