In response to the movie, I have consulted with the noocytes who run my thinking division.

We thought that the movie was an interesting account of man's relationship with technology. Parts of the movie emphasized many of the same ideas that we have explored in class such as technology going awry, and technology as a force to be reckoned with. Amazingly the progression of the man into the fly reminded me of the same progression that took place between man and the noocytes in Blood Music. Both cases involved an eager scientist who, on the spur of the moment, decides to dive head first into their own experiment. As a result, both men are eventually consumed by their creations, but in Blood Music the effects were catastrophic for the entire world. One begins to wonder what kind of role man is, or should be playing, in the world of technology. Are we guiding the wave, or just riding the wave? The Fly clearly indicated doomsday for technological achievement.

A few subtle details in the movie really impressed me. It was interesting that the scientist did not like driving, this representing a possible angst towards machinery, but at the same time he worked incessently on the telepods. Another part I liked was when he rolls onto the piece of computer while he is having sex. This action showed how technology can be physically damaging, as well as everpresent (even while one is getting laid).

Over all I gave it two thumbs up.

Sincerely, Zack

Watching The Fly as a college student and not a naive 11-year-old, I realized several things that were not so obvious the first time around. First, I gained a deep appreciation for the fact fizzy hair, shoulder pads, square ties and tight jeans disappeared from sight by the end of the last decade. I also realized that this film might possibly have the worst dialogue of any main stream film made during my lifetime. Most substantially, I comprehended what the film actually intended to say, instead of simply being repulse by the sputum. The Fly's intent was to give the world a wake-up call to itís expectations on technology. Broden pushed Nature beyond its limits. Unsatisfied with our advancement in automobiles, airplanes and even sea travel, Broden tipped the scales to overcome time and space through tele-portation. Though this idea sounds fabulous on paper, it should make us wonder -how far can we really go? When is society going to realize enough is enough? We have tampered with Nature as much as we can? What if this is as good as it gets? Nevertheless, Western schools of thought do not foster these feelings; there always seems to something bigger, better, greater and faster than we have now. It is the search for ìthe bestî which is the American ideal. As Broden said to the baboon, he was sorry he killed his brother, but at least it was in the name of some good - as humans can we accept this? Sorry, we destroyed our water by pollution, but it was in the search of some greater good. Sorry, we killed millions of people through atomic bombs and poisonous gases, but it was in search of some greater good. Why should things be destroyed for the creation of something new, perhaps this loss of life is Natureís way of telling us we have gone too far.

There are some things that our beyond our sciences and theories. There is flesh. There is some sanctity in life that should not and ultimately cannot be tampered with through technology.

I thought the movie we watched today was similar to the book Blood Music in many ways. The major similarity was the transformation of a human into some other type of being. In the movie, Seth was being transformed into a human/fly. He was gradually being transformed. In Blood Music the characters were also gradually transforming. Their genetic code was being changed, much like Seth's.

A major difference between the movie and the book is that in the book the transformation of humans into something else is not portrayed as a terrible thing. The transformed humans seem as though they have achieved some sort of peace that humans are not able to achieve. In the Fly, Seth's transformation is ghastly. It is a horrible occurance and it makes him angry instead of peaceful. He becomes almost crazy. The similarities between The Fly and Blood Music definitely stood out as I watched the movie today in class.
Britt Heeter

Does humanness lie in the genotype, the phenotype, or the character (soul?) of a being? Veronica, the only character in The Fly who meets all three criteria for humanness, struggles with the hazy distinction between external "humanness" and internal "humanity." She attempts to distinguish between "us" and "them" in order to ensure her safety, but she cannot determine to whom "us" refers. Should physical appearance, genetic makeup, or character define the in-group? Veronica's ex-boyfriend possesses the human genotype and phenotype. He looks like a human, and genetic tests would suggest that he is a human, but his unctious character makes him seem less than human. He may possess humanness, but he does not demonstrate humanity. Conversely, Seth does not meet the human aesthetic or genetic standards for humanness.

Yet Seth demonstrates compassion and empathy, and he'd probably pass the Voigt-Kampff test with flying colors. In Seth, the *inhuman* becomes *humane*. Even the insecto-cyborg (part-human, part-insect, part-machine) Seth demonstrates mercy and possesses empathy. So it might seem that humanness lies in one's character. Why, then, does Seth want nothing more than to regain his human phenotype and genotype? Is looking like a human really more important than acting like a human? Do his progressing genotypic 'contamination' and phenotypic deformation really signify the defeat of his humanness? The Fly suggests that attempts to localize 'human nature' or 'humanness' are difficult--perhaps even futile.
Shannon

It seemed to me that The Fly was, for the most part, an '80's mad scientist movie. The main concern of the movie seems to be the interaction between Seth and Veronica and how they react to Seth's "disease". There is some quasi-science in the movie, but the main point of the movie does not seem to be directed at whether, for instance, scientists should attempt things like matter transportation. This sets The Fly apart from most other mad scientist movies which try to show that science has overstepped its bounds. Here, Seth does not overstep the bounds of science, instead his emotions and weaknesses -- his humanity -- lead him to make a mistake which causes his downfall, his transformation and the loss of his humanity. The movie then seems to me to be more concerned with people and how they react to each other and love each other when faced with adversity, which may be caused by technology, disease, or simply human weakness.

The Fly, like most movies, is very affected by considerations of audience and economics. In order to make a major motion picture, which is always very expensive, the director, writer, and producer need to create something that appeals to a relatively large audience, and this is obvious in The Fly. First, the use of attractive actors and the love story elements of the movie all appeal to a wide audience (though they are, in some respects, balanced out by the gore). Special effects and violence also appeal to a wide audience. Additionally, there are other elements that would have appealed to a 1986 audience. One is the idea of dealing with a strange and frightening illness. In the mid-80's, AIDS was just begining to gain widespread attention. Another element that would have been "cutting-edge" at the time was the use of a computer capable of sophisticated 3D graphics, speech, and voice recognition. Another interesting appeal to 80's audiences is an arm wrestling match. For whatever reason, this was a popular scene in many movies and at least one entire movie was made about it. To Cronenberg's credit, these elements are put to good use and manage to refrain from being too laughable to contemporary audiences.
Kierstin Helsel
11/5/97

As Seth and Veronica drive to his laboratory and he admits that he doesnít like vehicles, the reference intended to forecast the need for his telepods, alludes to his transformation from one life "vehicle" to another. The melding of a flyís DNA with that of Seth allows Brendlfly to coexist in one body. Sethís desperation pinnacles when he realizes that this genetic sequence is ubiquitous, he cannot rid the "vehicle" of the fly gene only weaken their dominant characteristics by adding a third human to the equation. The profundity of Veronicaís words, ìI have to deal with the residue of another lifeî is illustrated by Sethís metamorphosis. His genetic structure will always include the residue of another life. Life lingers in every cell of this one body. But, Seth and the fly struggle to retain separate identities despite the biological union.

The unity of fly and human demands the dominance of insect characteristics over human. However, both lives influence the final structure of the ìvehicleî. The residues of three elements coalesce when the telepod is combined with the Brendlfly. This raises the question to exactly what is the genetic makeup of a machine? Or what is the mineral, chemical, and electric makeup of a human that make it possible to combine it with a fly and a telepod? Nevertheless, the vehicle has changed once again. The original boundaries of Seth, fly, and telepod have become confused and now it is hard to identify which is genetic residue and which is the original vehicle. Residue sounds like something that should be wiped off your shower curtain, but the movie implies that residue, in its most diluted form, maintains genetic clout. The marriage of the three elements also carries the residue of their ancestors. Perhaps, Seth is speaking for his DNA when he says he dislikes vehicles. The birth of new life, of new vehicles could be a method by which the DNA sequences can mutate and alter every vehicle without eliminating any residue until one vehicle contains the every remnant of every residue ever created.

I don't really know what to say about this movie as it relates to our class. No one really seemed to question what "life" means; the Brundlefly is definitely alive, but, from a human perspective, his life seems less than desirable. In the middle of the movie, the interesting question seemed to be "What kinds of improvements/changes can we make with a gene splicer?". Wouldn't it be interesting if humans could climb walls like flies...But by the end of the movie this question is no longer viable because Seth is taken over almost entirely by the fly; he seems to have little human left in him. Therefore, we can't really make any changes because in the end one of the life forms we splice together becomes dominant and everything is out of control. Furthermore, the movie clearly advocated that remaining "pure" is best when the Brundlefly accidentally merges with the teleporter and Roni has to shoot it in the head.

The use of information is sort of odd in this movie. Seth programs the computer to change objects from thier physical manifestation to their informatic parts or components back to their physical manifestations. However, in the computer doesn't understand flesh...Seth has to tell it what flesh is. I really wanted to know how you explained to a computer what flesh is. I think if this had been a book instead of a movie we might have had a chapter or two on the subject, but since the movie is visual, trying to explain this concept would probably disrupt the movement and pace. The movie, however, does not even remain consistent about information and computers. At the beginning, they are "dumb," and Seth has to reprogram his to understand flesh. But suddenly in the middle, the computer can make decisions....have two objects...don't know what to do with them...let's turn them into one. I don't believe that Seth programmed the computer for this, so why did it decide this? Also, in the end it is kind of like the Bat Cave computers....Seth can just ask it a question, and suddenly it is spitting out the answers. The computer is no longer dumb.
Tshawna Adam Vrbanic Well, having just vomited on my lunch, I thought I would give the secretions some time to do their job. So here I sit, baboon in lap, to bang out a response to Cronenberg's film, "The Fly."

After watching "The Fly" Tusday in class, I was left with a certain residue from the film, a sensorial afterbirth, if you will. I use the term "afterbirth" because I found the film to be dominated by images of impregnation and birth. This started with Cronenberg's construction of the "telepods," which by no accident resembled a sort of womb from which a mutated, recombinant life form would be "born." The second instance which caught my attention was the wound on Brundle's back. This wound respresented to me an orifice which was penetrated by the body of the fly.

Although there is definitely a sexual aspect of Brundle's sudden procreative explosion, I don't think that the ideas of penetration and impregnation are purely sexual in this film. Instead, it is the idea of one organism entering and growing inside, or fusing with, the body of another. The most obvious and "traditional" (if you can call it that) image of birth in the film is that of Geena Davis' beautiful larvae-baby. The idea of this creature existing within the body of Davis provides a glimpse of the obviously parasitic nature of a fetus which we tend to forget in the miracle of childbirth.

I think that it is Cronenberg's intention to "impregnate" the viewer with alien ideas so that these strange new thoughts can germinate within us, and so that we might give birth to new strains of thought.

It's interesting to look at The Fly in terms of what we have studied in thisclass. Similar to Blood Music, The Fly is a scenario where a reclusive scientist takes his own creation upon himselfand undergoes a transformation. In each intance, the transformation seems positive at first; Vergil's health improves, his eyesight is corrected etc. Brundle seems changed for the better at the beginning too. His strength and reactions are heightened. However, both transformations take turns to the macabre. There is something very sinister and frightening about a dissolvation of the human form, which is of course played up in the movie. It would have been much easier if Brundle had simply begun thinking like a fly, because his appearence would have remained comfortingly human. But, as soon as he began undergoing what we percieve as disgusting physical transformations (though I imagine a fly would have thought them normal and even for the better), it becomes a much more frightening scenario. Some of the scariest movies I have ever seen, ones that I remember giving me nightmares when i was younger, involved the mutation of the human form. I think fear of becoming something distinctly non human underlies many people's opposition to genetic research, a fear played upon by such movies as The Fly.

Almost immediately after the movie started I related Brundell to Vergil from "Blood Music." Both men were working on things they thought would change the world. And I guess their work could have changed the world if something wouldn't have gone wrong. They also seemed to have similar characteristics. Both were kind of the nerdy scientist, spending alot of time on their work and not much else. Neither really had a life, weren't succesful with the women, and weren't really given much credit from their peers, or atleast taken very serious. But then I guess you could say they both got lucky, picking up women with no problem. I also thought it was very similar how both actually become part of their own experiments, Vergil injecting the lymphocytes into himself, and Brundell going through the telepods. And of course it didn't really work out for either of them. They also both went through a mutation. At first they both had a lot of energy, but they continued to mutate. And there was really nothing they could do about it. They lived their own experiments. They became something other than a human being. So for me I just saw an immediate relationship between "The Fly" and "Blood Music," and Vergil and Brundell.

There are two ideas I would like to explore here. The first is the relationship between Seth Brundle and his machine. The machine's capabilities are limited to Seth's. At first, both do not understand the flesh. Seth knows very little about the flesh before he meets Gina Davis's character. Only after their affair can Seth enter the needed information about flesh into the computer. Once the computer is told how to react to flesh it can learn how to transport it. The machine feeds off Seth. Seth, also feeds off the machine. It is through this invention he begins his relationship with the reporter. He uses it as an excuse to get her to his house. He also uses it to impress her. Before his relationship, seth is devoted to his work(the computer). He lives for it. He even structures his life around it. The clothes in his wardrobe are all the same so he can spend more time with the computer. The relationship between Seth and his machine is symbiotic.

The other idea I would like to explore is how the movie addresses what it means to be human. Seth and the Fly's genes are spliced. At first the change is not very noticable. He gains strength and sexual appetite first. These things can still be attributed with human beings. We are still seeing Seth, not BrundleFly. We are lead to beleive Seth is still human. As time progresses, we begin to see Seth as BrundleFly. The first mutation is the hair on his back. Then he begins to deform more rapidly. Only when these physical changes are evident do we meet BrundleFly. Seth is aware that he is no longer himself. At this point, Seth refers to himself as BrundleFly. We have accepted him as this fly creature in the end after he is no longer recognizable as Seth Brundle. It is only at this point that Gina Davis's character is able to destroy the hideous creature. I believe the movie is suggesting that in order to be concidered human you really only need to look the part. Only when Seth's body is mutated can we see him as BrundleFly, not before. It is O.K. to kill BrundleFly because it is no longer Seth. If the creature had looked more "human" we would have had a different ending all together. The movie placed great emphasis on looking human, not being human.

As I was saying in class, I think language and the ability to use it is a big distinguishing factor in determining what is and what isn't human, and to some extent alive. The most telling scene is when Brundel is so far transformed into the fly that his voice is no longer recognized by the oscilliscope on the computer. He has lost his ability to speak and thus is no longer human.

An important side thought is that the computer, which is treated as if it is alive, must recognize speech. Not only does it "learn," but it is talked to as if it were human and alive. At the moment when Brundel loses the ability to speak/when the computer can no longer recognize his voice, it's humanity/life-characteristic is eliminated and we are reminded that it is a machine.
Steve Blivess