Source Code: What is Wrong and What is Right
Exploiting what should not be to Advocate Respect for the Dead
Having watched the film Source Code, I cannot but agree to the satisfactory ratings and positive reviews given by film critics for the film. After all, the writers and the producers of the film did have a unique and ingenious idea, around which the film revolved. The cast were true to their characters. The cinematography was excellent, and the director and scriptwriter did a good job in making the film turn out to be one that does not only provide a source of entertainment, but also touches the hearts of the moviegoers.
What is Wrong: An Inconsistency in the Storyline
Nevertheless, the film is not without its shortcomings. In fact, there is a major inconsistency in the plot that defies logic and reason which the film makers ignored because, frankly, they do not have a choice. They will not be able to work this story out, and they will end up with only an idea but without a film.
The main flaw in the plot is that where Captain Colter Stevens investigates is neither the place and time of the incident as a result of time travel (as Dr. Rutledge has made clear) nor a parallel universe. Stevens is supposed to be only going through the memories of Sean Fentress. Because of this, Stevens' actions inside Fentress' memories should only be limited to what had been in Fentress' consciousness during that time. Hence, he should not be able to see the bomb because Fentress hadn't seen its location. He should not have been able to call people or ask people to search for certain things. He should also not have been able to get out of the train. He should not even have been able to go to the train car's second level. However, the people behind the film neglected this inconsistency, taking the chance that people might overlook this too, because there is little Stevens can do if his actions have been limited to where Fentress had been before he died.
What is Right: Letting the Dead Rest in Peace
One thing that made me like this film is the sense of ethics that is in the people behind the film. In showing the film, they are, in a way, telling us of the disrespect a number of people have for the dead. These disregard for the dead is not limited to the film's exaggeration of taking advantage of a dead soldier's mind to save many (sure, many have been saved on the sacrifice of one dead who was not allowed to rest, but he should have been allowed to rest in peace). The campaign for the people to respect the dead can target those who desecrate graves and those who refuse to let people bury the dead either by refusing to give them the body, or by telling them that the body could no longer be found. Most probably, the team of Dr. Rutledge had either desecrated Stevens' grave to get his body's upper half, or denied his father his body by declaring him missing in order to use him for such a simulation, and for such an experiment. The use of dead people for studies and for experiments is, in fact, one of the not-so-rare realities that happen in the world today. Had those who do so watched the movie, they should have been made aware of what they have been denying these men.
More by this Author
“Students are given the liberty to come to school dressed according to their individual tastes but they are urged to adhere to the conventions of good grooming. While inside the University premises, they are...
"If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well." (Mt. 5:40) As I was listening to the homily last Sunday on the Gospel Mt. 5:38-48 where apart from the verse above, Jesus...
Being environmentally friendly is the in thing nowadays. Many products are being advertised as biodegradable, environmentally harmless or carbon neutral. Among these are biofuels which are now gaining a good following...
No comments yet.