ASRM Today: Equity, Access, and Innovation, Episode Four: Gattaca

Explore Gattaca’s dystopian vision of genetic engineering, equity, and ethics in this insightful ASRM podcast episode, featuring film expert Dr. Joseph Watson.

Are you ready to be at the forefront of family building and reproductive health? Join us for ASRM 2024 in Denver, Colorado, October 19th through the 23rd. This year's event features expanded meeting spaces, more seating, and a new global health track as part of a comprehensive program that goes beyond infertility to cover all aspects of reproductive health. We welcome members, trainees, and colleagues from every corner of the globe.

Join us for an unforgettable experience at the ASRM 2024 Scientific Congress and Expo. For more information and to register, visit asrmcongress.org. Welcome to ASRM Today, a podcast that takes a deeper dive into the current topics in reproductive medicine. I'm Jeffrey Hayes.

In this season, we're looking at equity, access, and innovation as our major theme leading up to ASRM 2024 in Denver. So far this season, we have tried to and wrap our heads around our theme. And on the show today, we're going to come at it from the medium of cinema, specifically Gattaca, a 1997 film by Andrew Nichol with Ethan Hawke, Jude Law, and Uma Thurman.

This sci-fi film is set in a dystopian future where genetic engineering determines one's social status. The story follows Vincent Freeman, a man conceived naturally and considered genetically inferior who assumes another man's identity to pursue his dream of space travel. The film explores themes of identity, destiny, and the ethical implications of genetic manipulation.

Joining us to discuss this film is Dr. Joseph Watson, who's an assistant professor of film and media arts at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He's an award-winning scholar and filmmaker. His research focuses on the intersections of rhetoric, cinema, and pedagogy.

He has also been active in professional film, media, and theatrical industries for 30 years as a stage and film actor, director, writer, designer, and I'm happy to say he is an old, dear friend of mine. Joey, welcome to ASRM Today. Thank you for having me.

Yeah. All right, so let's get into it. Gattaca, do you remember, this isn't the first time you've seen Gattaca, right? No, no.

Do you remember the first time you saw it? In the theaters, late 80s, or excuse me, late 90s. And I remember it being, you know, sort of a standout science fiction film for its approach to the topic, but also for its kind of really unique production design, visual aesthetics, you know, fantastic. If we're talking about dystopian visions, this is probably an excellent example of uniformity across the design, you know, in terms of there being this kind of sterile environment.

It was a cold film and in the recent revisit, I had the same kind of emotions about sort of the atmosphere of the movie. It has sort of a cold starkness to it. Didn't you think that the coldness, well, in talking about cinematography for a minute, the cinematographer on this film was also the cinematographer on Kieslowski's Blue and The Double Life of Veronique, which are favorites of mine.

I'll just be honest. I saw it more as, I agree with the coldness in the tone, but there's the attempt at there being sort of a warm glow sometimes, especially lots of sunsets. You know, we're rarely in full light, right? Like it's always seems to be night or sunsets and all of this.

And I found that as an odd sort of composition, that it was strange. I mean, it almost is like, because of Blue and The Double Life of Veronique, you know, these are essentially fantasies, right? These are films that deal with fantasies. And here we're dealing with science fiction.

So do you think that's an intentional tonality then? I mean, to... Well, to me, I know what you're talking about. And there are these sort of periods that remind us of the kind of nature processes that go on that are not manipulated and that recur without our intervention. And so I think those moments are critical because they allow some contrast to sort of the predetermined nature of just about everything else in the movie, right? From how the desks are arranged to what people are wearing to, you know, what's on the walls.

That seems to be much more sort of uniform. But then we have these kind of nature disruptions, right? That allow us a little bit of warmth that remind us a little bit about the human nature of things and the things that we cannot necessarily predetermine or control. The sun will always rise and the sun will always set, so to speak.

Right, right. Did you get a little Logan's Run vibe from this? Oh, definitely. Definitely, definitely.

And a little bit of Blade Runner as well. I mean, you know, I think it's difficult to watch science fiction today without hearing the echoes of us, particularly in production design. It's difficult to not have echoes of the past that sort of recur and just remind us of those kinds of places that feel familiar, you know, to us.

But yeah, you know, this one sort of takes a little bit of a different stance because we're, you know, we're dealing with genetics, but this isn't replicants like Blade Runner. It isn't clone troopers like Star Wars, right? I mean, this is a much different beast in terms of what it's trying to tackle. And so some of the things that come out in terms of the, you know, the thematics of the movie, you know, Gattaca is really a film about discrimination to me, and it's just kind of wrapped in a science fiction structure and design.

And, you know, we can trace those themes throughout other sci-fi, but in this particular one, it seems to be really going at, you know, science versus nature, God versus man. You know, some of those thematics are as old as Mary Shelley. But at the same time, you know, the way that this film sort of replaces ism language, right, like whether it's racism or sexism or with all of that seems to be moot at this point in Gattaca's world, right? It's all about genoism.

It's about- I was going to say they have their own term for it. Yeah, it's genoism, yeah. Yeah.

You don't want to be a degenerate, degenerate in this movie in reference to the language that exists throughout. So, you know, films have such a great social currency. And, you know, they affect the way that we talk about things, the way that we dress in clothing, the music we listen to.

And I think subtextually, or sometimes overtly, they can address social, cultural, political fears, anxieties of the day. Yeah. I mean, here too, as we're looking at questions of equity and questions of access, you know, this film basically posits a new caste system, right? It's just the- there's no longer a middle class, it's just literally haves and have-nots, right? It's- Valids and invalids, right? Gold and bronze, right? In Plato's terms, gold and bronze.

But, you know, it's fascinating because I also found myself wondering as I was watching this, is this a neo-noir? We've got voiceover, we've got flashback, we've got a murder, we've got social questions. A lot of people forget that noir dealt with social issues originally, you know, back in the 30s and the 40s. I mean, what do you- do you think that's a far-fetched stretch? Oh, not at all.

I think, in fact, the first sort of act of the movie is really kind of the setup for the dystopian kind of rules and discourse, right, about how this discrimination takes place between valids and invalids. And to me, that's some of the most fascinating parts of the movie, right? And then once we get past an hour, we get into act two, there's a murder, right? And so now we have to sort of spend time investigating the whodunit, basically, and if someone is going to get away with the murder. And so with that, you have kind of a stylistic kind of film noir component mixed in with this dystopian vision.

And so I think, in some ways, that's where the film kind of slows down and meanders a little. Yeah, I feel like it's MacGuffin. You know, it had to have some sort of central action happen that causes something to move forward, right? And in this case, Nicol decided on having a murder, which I thought- at first, it's very enticing, but then, like you said, it's just sort of meanders.

It sort of bogs it down and becomes a little bit of a problem because we have, you know, the main genesis of the movie is Jerome. Of course, that's not his real name. He's pretending to be someone else.

So it's a mistaken identity, fabricated identity kind of story, someone pretending to be something or someone that they aren't. And so right from the beginning, it becomes a kind of, will they get away with it? And it kind of carries that through. But the murder component, the film noir components, you know, they do kind of, I think, meander it and wander it a little bit off course until it tries to resolve itself in the third act, so.

Did you find it any time while you were watching this? And I found myself because, like most science fiction, it's always- it rarely looks at the positive aspects of something. And in this case, we're talking about eugenics, genetic manipulation, CRISPR, the whole nine. I found myself kind of getting a little annoyed with it because I was just like, well, in this world, are there any positives to it? Is it- can it not also be argued, I would think, that this could be beneficial to society? Not necessarily creating an upper class, but definitely saying that we can repair genetic heart murmurs, like that we find out that the Ethan Hawke character actually suffers.

He's actually projected to die at the age of 30, like at birth, which is what was- is like one of the more frightening things I think about, like when watching Gattaca, it's just like, oh my God, from the jump, they know you're- when you're doomed, you know? I mean, it's just- did you find yourself just at times, I guess it was just too much, like there was no positivity about it, like whatsoever? Well, yes. I mean, and there wasn't enough acknowledgement. I mean, it's a very quick scene where, you know, they're sort of going over the positives of the pitch, right? To do the predetermined kind of birth.

And it's, you know, it's kind of scoffed over. There are some good things, right? We can avoid certain diseases. We can, you know, we can make sure that certain perilous things are avoided with the body, right? Which I would think those would be positives, right? You know, I want to avoid the susceptibility to inherit this or that, right? That might negatively affect my quality of life, you know, while I'm here.

But I think there's a lot of time spent on kind of setting it up as, well, why wouldn't you just automatically choose this over, say, their terms, the film's terms, a faith birth or a utero birth, right? Those are seen as negative connotations in the movie. And so it's really more left to this just sort of understanding of, well, since these resources are available, why would you choose to leave everything to chance, right? Like, why would you do that when you have these other options, which are so obviously positive without having them sort of shown or spelled out in a more clarified way in terms of examples, right? Well, right. And also, you know, the very confusing aspect of smoking and drinking in the film to me, like, where I'm just like, hold on a second.

Like, I don't think this would exist anymore. You know what I mean? Like, to see like, rich, these genetic people who are high up now and know their genetics are high up to be smoking and drinking. I was kind of like, well, that kind of didn't make sense to me, quite honestly.

Well, it's interesting because, you know, the movie makes a very strong point of saying there is no gene for the human spirit, right? Like, there's this sort of, there's no gene for fate, right? These are lines that pop out. So it does lead one to consider if you did end up being a valid, right, versus an invalid, somebody who has these, the benefits of the predetermined nature, would you in human essence or the evolution of the human spirit, would you reject that at some point and try to work against it by drinking or smoking or, you know, choosing to engage in behaviors, right, that seem antithetical to what you've been set up and designed to do, right? I mean, we see that in everyday life, right? I mean, you see children who enter a world of privilege or resources, but yet still reject those things and work against the grain and make bad choices, right? And so I think there should have been a deeper exploration of who are the valids that go wrong and why, and what is sort of the psychological exploration as to why they would have made those choices, you know, which, what are the examples of the ones who have gone awry, right? Well, I mean, we do have it with Jude Law. Right, right.

You know, I understand why he drinks and smokes because he feels like he's been cheated, even though he caused his own fate, you know, with the car and everything, and then the very dark ending. But I agree with you, there should have been some more examples, just a couple scenes, I felt like that could have been. Maybe a side character here or there, you know, you could always just, you know, somebody is purchasing something at a convenience store and you run into somebody who has, you know, and there's a small dialogue scene there between a valid and an invalid and you, you know, you just sort of see the valid's behavior being questioned or why, you know, something that would give us a richer understanding of what it's like to be on the other side and reject that or to not want it, as opposed to us always being on the opposing side, which is the end or the other side of the equation where you're an invalid always wanting to get to that other side of the fence where the grass is allegedly going to be greener.

Right. It's interesting you bring up the point, but I also want to point out real quick, I just love the idea that there's like a 7-Eleven, you know, sitting around somewhere where they're going for like protein packs or something. Where they would run into each other.

You never know, you never know in the world. You never know. But, you know, this wanting, right, this wanting of a different life with Ethan Hawke's character, Vincent, you know, I wonder if it's a minority feeling, you know what I mean? Like that his character reflects more minority or perhaps, you know what I mean? This is other unanswered questions that the film possesses.

And I don't, I think the film, the running time is fine. It's about an hour and 40 minutes. And, you know, it's pretty, it's pretty Soderbergh in the way that it's, you know, cut to the cut to the bone as far as far as it can, as far as it can story wise.

But I mean, did you feel, you know, that you wanted a little bit more, again, of that, of this exploration? You felt like the movie could be longer? Yeah, I think it certainly could have been woven into the murder story. If you're going to include a murder, it could have been wrapped into there in some way, shapes or forms. You know, you could also look at the beginning of the movie in the first act when they're setting everything up and you see Vincent with Anton, his brother, right? Vincent was born the natural way.

Anton was not. And so you see that sort of competitive nature. There's always that sort of wanting Vincent, right? Of, you know, I, well, I'm shorter, I'm not growing as fast, or I can't swim as fast.

I have a, you know, I have something that's working against me. I think it did really nicely build his sort of character motivations for always wanting to prove that despite these things, I'm still capable of accomplishing my dreams and my goals. But he goes about it through unethical or deceitful means, right? He's pretending to be a valid.

And in reality, the tests that he's going through for his heart, for his physical stamina, everything's a sham. He would not have passed those things, right? And so the film does kind of hint at that and illuminate those things. But I think it's sidetracked for more of the kind of really bizarre love interest story angle that's wrapped in with Uma Thurman's character.

And then, and then of course, there's the murder mystery stuff as well. So I think, I think there are some other areas that could have been tapped, but that, you know, we all make choices as filmmakers and storytellers. And, you know, it just didn't go in that direction.

You know, it went with, you know, sort of more generic genre components from different hybrid genres. What do you think, in your opinion, you know, Nicol, I would also say Ridley Scott, probably Alex Garland, all attracted to this dark dystopian or darker themed science fiction. I mean, what's, what's the appeal? Yeah, let's not forget James Cameron as well.

Or James Cameron, yeah. Yeah, I mean, I think that you very rarely see science fiction explore utopian ideas. I mean, it exists, right? But it's, but it's, it's much, it's much rarer.

And so I think that the dystopian kind of aspects draw out more of the dramatic conflict, the things that make fiction stories work really well. I think we also have, many of us today have a kind of a doomsday sense, right? We're expecting to see, well, just how bad are things going to get? You know, I mean, even Alex Garland's last film, Civil War, you know, explores those kinds of concepts, right? You know, how bad can it get, right? So it's always been, I think, a draw or a tendency. I mean, I think the flip of that would be something like Star Trek or, you know, something that explores, you know, well, we've solved sort of the earthly problems of our climate or, you know, those kinds of things that we've, we've discovered.

We've made first contact and we've understand that there's more of a galaxy-wide universal kind of utopian that needs to be protected and maintained peacefully, right? You see some of that, but no, most of, most of the exploration, particularly in American science fiction is, you know, how does it end? How bad does it get? And what are the processes that the humans that do survive have to go through to start over and to build again? And to, you know, and that's usually where the hope exists in those stories, you know, is the essence of human resistance and resiliency. How do they respond to those things and come out of it? So I think, you know, it certainly is more interesting from a visual standpoint to imagine the destructive stuff, you know, and you can go so far as to say something like WALL-E, right, is really a wonderful example of how you can go with the dystopian stuff, but then leave us with that sense of hope and sentimentality that humans will survive, we will come back, we will rebuild and hopefully get it better next time. So I think it's just from a cinema perspective, it allows for great visual storytelling and it also just creates some of that kind of classic dramatic conflict that we see from the genre.

This had a definite Alphaville vibes as far as, you know, again, talking about aesthetics and sort of that weird French New Wave art, neo art deco, you know, this is the future. And they're you know, Buckminster Fuller stuff and it just it's fascinating that that's where it gravitates towards, you know. Yeah, but notice Gattaca is a beautiful movie.

I mean, the cinematography is beautiful, the music is gorgeous, you know, and the performances are really strong and the writing is really good, I think. But it writes itself into that corner. And so it's got to find a way out.

And I'm not quite sure that it resolves itself satisfyingly for everyone. You know, he also had that problem because he wrote The Truman Show, you know, and that that still infuriates me to no end, like the end of The Truman Show where I'm just like, OK, OK. I took that ride for this.

Did you leave were you were you left with a sense at the end of Gattaca of hope or resiliency or. No, he got away with it. He got away with it.

One of the oldest things in the book, he got away with it, you know. Yeah, I just my hope with in life and in science and in technology is that we have to figure out a way to to find the middle ground. You know, so that we don't have such disparities, so that there is equity and access through these innovations, you know, that that we're not shutting doors, we're opening.

Right. Yeah. You know, that's kind of kind of where I'm left with at the end of.

Well, and we don't to your point, we don't get any kind of indication as to how much this resource technology, medical technology is democratized for. You know, can everyone afford it? Can you know, I mean, you know, is it available across the board? You know, I mean, we're we're left pondering those things because we're not given any specifics about how you get access to those things. Other than there's that quick, like grease in the palms thing, you know, that he goes into the room with a guy and the guy's just like got the cup for him to urinate in.

And, you know, he's just like this supposedly there's one quick mention of, you know, there's supposedly a law that's supposed to regulate things, but that isn't how things are done or something. It's the line is something along those lines like, you know, that that everybody seems OK with the way that this this class system has now developed. And there's a haunting line that I want to point out that really it's in the voiceover narration, but he says my real resume is in my cells.

And that one struck me because I couldn't disagree more. You know, I mean, I mean, I know that it's within the context of the Gattaca world. That's you know, there are no real interviews anymore.

People don't really care what you look like. They don't care what you say. They're just going to check the blood and that, you know, they're just that was the interview.

Yeah, that was the interview. Right. That was the interview.

Yeah. And so that to me was a very haunting line, because I just think, no, that's only one. That's a component, an aspect of so much right about a human being.

So that's where the film, I think, is really kind of chilling, you know, and it's in its dystopian vision of how far, you know, and obviously this is a real extremist example of how science can be taken. But I don't think that it's fair to necessarily demonize all, you know, medical technologies or research or the things that are going on in these areas, because, you know, outside of the of humans, you know, we have all kinds of stuff going on in agriculture, food production, all of these things that are GMOs, different kinds of things. But they're not necessarily all bad.

There is some good. Right. So like you're saying, try to find the median ground and look for the positives.

I think the problem is that there's another P that gets in the way of this and its profits. And that's where that's where it gets problematic. Right.

Yes. I think that that's a whole separate conversation that we'd have to go down that road if we were if we were going to go down it. Unfortunately, we're out of time.

Joey, thanks so much for coming on the show and talking to our audience about this. Of course. Thanks for having me.

Absolutely. And if you would, please rate, subscribe, download the show however you do it. Google, Podbean, Spotify, wherever you get your podcasting needs taken care of.

And until next time, I'm Jeffrey Hayes. And this is ASRM Today. This concludes this episode of ASRM Today.

For show notes, author information and discussions, go to ASRMtoday.org. This material is copyrighted by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and may not be reproduced or used without express consent from ASRM. ASRM Today series podcasts are supported in part by the ASRM Corporate Member Council. The information and opinions expressed in this podcast do not necessarily reflect those of ASRM and its affiliates.

These are provided as a source of general information and are not a substitute for consultation with a physician.