Senior Lecturer Mihai ENE, PhD
University of Craiova
The Imaginary of Fears and Anxieties in
Contemporary Dystopian Film and Literature
Abstract
As utopian discourse is a construct which reveals the major aspirations of society, dystopian
discourse is a construct which hides the most terrifying and profound concerns of the people.An
analysis of dystopian discourse in film and literature is an opportunity not only to classify the main
concerns of the 21st century society, but also to reveal and to understand the relation between
imaginary constructions, the real-world threats and the Power discourse.
In the last twenty years, numerous film and literary dystopias have been released, from The
Notre Dame de Paris Mosque (2005) by Elena Chudinova to Michel Houellebecq‟s La Soumission
(2015) and from Battle Royale (2000) toThe Hunger Games (2012) or Divergent (2014).The texts and
films that I have chosen for my analysis are important not only for their aesthetic performance, but also
for their impact on the society by their mass audience and/or controversial reception. These dystopias
are at the same time the expression of the contemporary anxieties and the construction of them.
My interest is focused on the social and political issues. I wish to discuss and analyse the real
background of the dystopian imaginary, but also the problem of manipulation, the possibility that a real
political system could take advantage of the dark vision proposed by dystopian discourse. The main
question may be put in these terms: is there a real political threat in our society, a possibility which
could lead to a future oppressive society? Classic dystopias, such as George Orwell‟s 1984 or Ray
Bradbury‟s Fahrenheit 451, were conceived in the proximity of a totalitarian pattern (the Stalinism or
the Nazism) – is there a major totalitarian pattern in the 21st century that could create this political
threat or is it only a stratagem of the actual status quo to prevent any critical and radical discourse? Is
this only an even latent reality transposed into fiction or could one talk about a fictionalised reality?
These are the most important issues which my essay will seek to address.
Keywords: dystopia, imaginary, contemporary literature, contemporary film, political system,
status quo, manipulation, social concern, revolution.
Introduction
As utopian discourse is a construct which reveals the major aspirations of society, dystopian
discourse is a construct which hides the most terrifying and profound concerns of people. An analysis
of dystopian discourse in film and literature is an opportunity not only to classify the main concerns of
the 21st century society, but also to reveal and to understand the relation between imaginary
constructions, the real-world threats and the Power discourse.
Political oppression, surveillance, limitation of freedom, resource control, economic and social
alienation, poverty, ecological fears, fundamentalism(s), genetic engineering, they are all reflected in
different proportions in the contemporary dystopian discourse in film and literature. Less than sciencefiction productions, these texts and films do not intend to anticipate the future aspects of human
society, but more to express people‟s anguish and discontent. For that reason they can be considered
as a sui generis litmus paper of society‟s major concerns. And every century, even every decade, has
its own specific anxieties, beyond the general concerns (as political abuse and poverty), which
overpass the entire modernity. For example, in the „50s and early ‟60s, the threat of a nuclear war was
a major preoccupation for the western civilization, but plagues such as HIV/AIDS or Ebola did not
exist. Likewise, in only fifty years, ecology has become a crucial problem – in the „60s or even „80s, it
was just a general topic related to the industrial society etc.
The Dystopian Pattern
Dystopias seem to follow the pattern imposed by George Orwell‟s 1984or Aldous Huxley‟s
Brave New World. After a devastating nuclear or civil war, a natural / ecological disaster, or as an
effect of evil technical progress (robots or other type of artificial intelligence who threaten the human
order), a totalitarian regime controls the entire society by means of fear and submission. Most people
are only a silent mass of slaves who work and live for the good of the political regime and the Ruler or
the ruling class. The society is often organised around several castes based on their social role, as the
traditional Indian system, or their personal skills. At the same time, there exists, within this society, a
group of rebels who are fighting the regime from the inside or outside the system. When there is no
organized resistance, it will start a revolution, usually after an individual or collective incident. In both
cases, a charismatic leader plays an important role in inspiring, organizing and leading the revolt. If
one looks at the major dictatorships in the South America, the terror, the class system, and the Ruler
profile, and also the popular resistance and the main figures of the different revolutions, one finds that
the pattern is quite similar. One need not wait a nuclear war or a natural cataclysm to deal with the
same situation; one just has to look more carefully at Central and South America‟s history during the
20th Century. At the same time, classic dystopias, such as George Orwell‟s 1984 or Ray Bradbury‟s
Fahrenheit 451 were conceived in the proximity of a European totalitarian pattern, Stalinism or
Nazism, both of them obsessed with control, surveillance, mass extermination and political dogmas.
One could also notice that dystopian scenarios are radical, maximal, beyond the average
limits, placed in the worse of all possible worlds. Authors and film directors alike are pushing the limits
as far as their imagination is capable to conceive Evil, but not beyond the point where this Evil fails to
be identified as such by their audience. In fact, there are some aspects of the totalitarian regimes –
such as different kinds of torture, widespread famine (for example, in 1932-1933 Ukraine, when Stalin
wished to teach a lesson to the unruly peasants), or exploitation – that simply defy imagination. And
here in lies the paradox: the violence of those aspects could be considered unbearable and even
farfetched in a fiction story by a wide majority of people. In fact, the representation of a future
dictatorship, as it is conceived in films like The Hunger Games, Divergent or Equilibrium, is less
atrocious than the majority of totalitarian regimes in the 20th Century.
The Dystopian Deconstruction
The most important element in these dystopias is, in fact, the deconstruction of various ideas
which could flourish in the contemporary imaginary as a response to the general discontent regarding
the social and political system and the people‟s different anxieties. At least in a minor part of the
society and sometimes even in the main political discourse there are some ideas which could (still)
fascinate; for example, increasing the security system against the migrant waves or the terrorist threat,
the idea that a better society could and should be raised on a more organized system, as the caste
system, or a military hierarchy, the idea of a charismatic Ruler who knows better than us all what path
one should follow, etc.
Dystopian project is an imaginative effort on the part of any human being to acknowledge the
boundaries, the consequences and the implications of these powerful, albeit false, solutions. The
dystopian imaginary tries to find what the world would look if these ideas were put into practice. The
spectre of a post-nuclear world in dystopian discourse brings together all the social and political fears
and anxieties of the contemporary Western society. A simple rational negation of these ideas seems
not to be sufficient for the audience who believes in their utopian possibilities. But a mass fiction
product could create the specific climate to reject them, as one knows that a blend of story and image
is more powerful than any other kind of discourse.
In conclusion, the dystopian discourse is the deconstruction of a subsequent utopian
discourse. I will try to follow and analyse these ideas related to the specific concern they hide.
The Strength of a Totalitarian Regime and the Weakness of Democracy
The dystopian imaginary activates different types of the totalitarian society. There is
unanimity regarding the worst human society pattern: the dictatorship. This is a direct consequence of
the dramatic experiences of the 20th Century, when Europe was under the control of the totalitarian
dream, with a powerful and charismatic Leader, who could activate the deep forces of nationalism
solidarity and mass action. Hitler –the Fürer, Stalin – the Father, Mussolini – Il Duce, but also Salazar
in Portugal, Franco in Spain, Horthy in Hungary, Tito in Yugoslavia, Marshal Ion Antonescu and then
Nicolae Ceauşescu in Romania, they share the same pattern of a uniform and controlled society, in
which the Leader is sanctified. At the same time, after WWII, the Western World was convinced that a
democratic society is the best type of government imaginable. The situation was different in Eastern
Europe.
Novels such as We by Yevgeny Zamyatin, 1984 by George Orwell, or even Fahrenheit 451
by Ray Bradbury imagine a future society dominated by fear and control. All these society aspects
refer to Nazism, Fascism or Stalinism, but also to all their variations. The proximity of these extreme
experiences makes the configuration of this dystopian pattern understandable, because the trauma
was recent and deep. But what about contemporary dystopias? At the dawn of the 21st Century,
European regimes are all democratic, and even across the world, the democratic pattern is dominant.
(Even Russia and China are light years away from true dictatorships.)It may be less of a surprise to
find that one of the most interesting contemporary dystopian novels, The Slynx, was penned by a
Russian author, Tatyana Tolstaya.
Secondly, this imaginary pattern is the result not only of the excessive regime‟s direct
observation, but also of the increasing rise of the Far-Right across Europe. The totalitarian pattern
flourished again in „weak‟ democracies and during social and economic crises. The “inconveniences”
triggered by personal freedom have provoked immigration, instability, and a diminished sense of
security, to which one can add a growing terrorist threat. Accordingly, the conservative response is, as
always, the restriction of personal freedom, an increase in social control and the military budget, and
all this for the greater good of the people.
In fact, the actual so-called democratic societies are on the edge. And the extreme totalitarian
societies depicted in dystopian fiction give people the mental comfort that our world is far from their
danger. But is it?
The New Dystopian Order
Recent dystopian novels and films as The Hunger Games or Divergent are the best examples
of the contemporary vision on a near future post-war society. They depict a very stratified society,
organized on districts or factions. The 12 districts depicted in The Hunger Games are based on the
main activity people have to do for a living. The factions depicted in Divergent are based on the main
virtues each individual has to display when submitted to a psychological test at the age of 16:
Abnegation (the selfless one), Amity (the peaceful one), Candor (the honest one), Dauntlessness (the
brave one), and Erudition (the intelligent one). He or she can also choose one of the five factions in a
subsequent Choosing Ceremony, different from the test recommendation, but after that no one can
switch or return to another faction. The individuals who cannot adjust to the rules of a faction or leave
the faction become a pariah, with no rights in the society system.
Both societies seem to be logically organized and designed for the good of their own people.
But then one notes that both of them are fraught with serious problems. The logic of the factions is
disturbed by the so-called divergents, the individuals who do not have a dominant virtue, in fact they
have all the virtues, but none of them is prominent. They are hunted and chased away because they
are less controllable and a threat to the system‟s purity. This is a very good metaphor of the superior
marginal, ostracized because of his non-conformist profile. On the other hand, the districts depicted in
The Hunger Games are not the same. The opulence of the 1st district contrasts with the humble life of
the 12th district. In fact, all the other districts are working and suffering in a semi-slavery social state for
the welfare of a decadent elite, depicted as a neo-Roman aristocracy (even their names are all Latin).
And the “Hunger Games”, a reality-show in which a boy and a girl, named tributes, from each district
are randomly chosen to fight for each other to the death is another form of control. But the Power
propaganda presents it as a game of conciliation, a tribute brought by each district to the post-war
peace. The President controls the games and his demiurgic position in the artificial world created for
the murderous TV spectacle reflects his power position in the real world.
If The Slynx is more like a Tale of a Tub, in The Hunger Games there‟s no place for aesthetic
artifice. The first part of the trilogy can also be discussed in relation to Battle Royale, a Japanese
dystopian film, depicting teenagers who must fight for their lives whilst stranded on a remote island.
The pattern of all these dystopian societies is not very different from that of the 1984, Fahrenheit451
or the Brave New World. What makes the difference is the social and even political approach. There is
no class conflict in those novels; a solidarity movement able to confront the existing Power seems out
of the question; one can only encounter a relationship between human individuals and totalitarian
Power.
The Dream of a Revolution
In classic dystopias, there are no rebel movements because society is conceived as a
condemned world. The outcome of Orwell‟s 1984 is not escape, but re-education. In Fahrenheit 451,
there is a group of people who live in the woods, as the free alternative to a oppressive society. They
can be considered as a form of cultural resistance, their only reason being to conserve the world‟s
cultural patrimony, but not to fight the System. And the Power tolerates them because they are out of
the society and considered dead by the rest of the people. The same trick was used by communist
regimes in Eastern Europe: propaganda had always spread the rumour that the public figures who fled
to the West were dead.
In recent dystopian fictions, there is always a hero or a group of people who organise
opposition to the System. Some of them, as V for Vendetta, use a popular hero figure, but in The
Hunger Games and in Divergent, the leading role is played by a young woman who does not wish to
fulfil this task and who seems ill prepared to play such a role. In classic dystopias, the main character
is always a man, the woman‟s role being to change him and open his eyes to the true reality problems.
On the contrary, Katniss Everdeen and Tris are two girls who want just to survive: Katniss has to
participate in the Hunger Games, taking the place of her little sister, who would become a certain
victim, and Tris has to face her divergent condition. Both of them have to confront an unjust situation
and a set of absurd rules. They never plan a rebellion, they do not take part in a secret society or a
revolutionary committee, they just happen to incarnate the symbol of an expected reaction. Step by
step, they are forced to take action and to respond to the Power‟s attempt to annihilate them. They are
the sparkle of the revolution and provoke a reaction among ordinary people who would not otherwise
have the courage to confront the regime.
This pattern of solidarity with a public figure, not a politician, but an ordinary individual forced
to deal with an extreme situation is a hallmark of all revolutions in the last decades, from the 1980s
revolutions against communist regimes in Eastern Europe to the Arab Spring in 2011. From the
Prague Spring (1968) to the Arab Spring (2011), all the revolutions have had several central nonpolitical figures as Jan Palach and Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa and Adam Michnik or Mohamed
Bouazizi (who committed self-immolation as Jan Palach and Ryszard Siwiec did in 1968) and Suheir
al-Atassi (the secular activist leading female of Syrian opposition).
The contemporary dystopian imaginary follows, in fact, the pattern of all revolts against
oppression in the whole world during the last half of century. But they also represent a memento for all
human individuals: one can confront tyranny and win!
Conclusions
Recent dystopian films and fiction generally follow the pattern of the classic dystopian
imaginary, but with several important distinctions. The anxieties they activate and express are
different, society being more concerned about the terrorist threat, social injustice and the possibility
that our current democratic system might turn into a totalitarian regime for security reasons. The
constant presence of an organized resistance movement and the permanent dream of a liberating
revolution emphasize the power of the people in extreme political situations. Also, the presence of
young women, who are distributed in leading roles of revolutionary hierarchy, is suggestive of the
change of gender perspective. But this type of dystopian imaginary may also serve the purposes of
the current establishment discourse, thus becoming a rhetorical weapon against any possible major
protest. The spectre of a worse social order is touching the surface of the contemporary political
imaginary and can annihilate any critical discourse, thereby shaping up a consolatory slogan, which
says that, well, we may not live in the best of all possible worlds, but at least we do not live in the
worst of them.