In Equilibrium when references to the tetragrammaton are made, is it referring explicitly to YHWH? Or do they have their own customised four letters they venerate as the new tetragrammaton? Or is the word "tetragrammaton" just being used bombastically in the film to sound esoteric and erudite with total disregard to any meaning it might have?

That is unclear. I suspect that it was done to imply the name of God, but it could just as easily be the case of the film trying to sound esoteric and erudite.

It's pretty much this. There is no real meaning given by the film to the word, beyond just using it as a nifty sounding name for the organization.

That said, if you want an action flick with some nifty gun-fu fight scenes, Equilibrium isn't a bad choice.



-k

Well, the guy calling all the shots is referred to "the Father." And the Grammaton Clerics keep being referenced to "doing the will of the Father."

Yeah, though I always read this as being cribbed from 1984 and Big Brother.

This. The society depicted in the movie is one where all citizens (including children) are legally required to be on an emotion-suppressing drug, and everything that might provoke an emotional response (books, paintings, music, etc.) is banned. Sort of a pastiche of 1984, Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451. There are no references to a state religion, or indeed any religion aside from the word "tetragrammaton."

On a semi-related note, was anyone else bothered by the fact that, for a guy who's supposed to be on an emotion-suppressing drug, Taye Diggs spent way too much of the movie smiling?

Well, to paraphrase TV Tropes, his smile is essentially meaningless - he's like a shark, he's just showing teeth. There's also the throwaway line that he needs to go to one of the centers to have his meds adjusted.

Yeah, you'll notice that in every scene where he's smiling, It's like a machine would smile - there's no meaning to it, it's just part of the programming.

Which makes it all the more contrasted to Preston, who IS feeling emotion but displays almost none.




-k

I just figured he was an arrogant sod who happened to be part of DuPont's li'l inner circle and thus didn't have to take prozium at all, demonstrating to the audience that the society is rather corrupt as well as misguided. After all, DuPont was quite hypocritical--he mocks Preston, quotes Yeats, and openly makes a play to save his own sorry skin, for god's sake!-- so I wouldn't be surprised if he had a few underlings with similar privileges. If nothing else they'd make for better conversation.

I figured it was like any other vaguely emotive response in a society like that: when young, you learn that if someone says something nice, you smile and thank them. If someone points a gun at you, you widen your eyes (way too much emotion on the grunts in that movie too). The first time I sat down and watched it with my brother I kept interrupting it in the first 10 minutes asking why the leader guy hadn't been executed yet (his "inspiring speech" at the beginning), and then when the crowd stood and cheered, I expected all of them to be executed by the guys with automatics standing all around them.

Or, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Stop reading into it so much.

Are you upset or something? I'm not really trying to nitpick the movie here (I think Equilibrium is pretty flawed at best, but not because of Diggs) and ultimately whether you read the Brandt character as having an insincere smile because he's on prozium or because he's a slime ball villain doesn't really detract from the movie. I don't even really think it's reading much into things to say that the smile comes off as fake, either. Diggs' role was the first major character to be cast and there is this li'l quote from the writer-director, Kurt Wimmer to consider as well: “I thought that anybody who had a smile that perfect had to be lying about something." So clearly the director was happy to have the character be a vaguely unsettling presence and I don't think there's anything wrong in wondering a bit at what his motivations (if any) were. One explanation is just as good another, in this case, since I don't think they really addressed it very directly.

No, I am not upset; it's just that as I watched the movie I noticed far too many people displaying things that may be construed as emotion in a society that is supposed to execute people who show emotion.

It could also be that the drug isn't particularly effective. It curbs emotion slightly, but doesn't eliminate it entirely. If it eliminated emotion entirely than there wouldn't be any people who don't take the drug, because the only reason not to take the drug is to feel emotion, and the only reason to want to feel emotion is to already be feeling emotion. This is pointed out fairly clearly when it is revealed that the kids stopped taking their drugs because their mother was killed. If the drug was in fact effective at completely eliminating their emotions, they wouldn't have cared that their mother was killed (She was just another female, and she was just another criminal). This would also be supported by it needing to be taken so often and regularly. It is only through large and regular dosages that it manages to work to the degree it does.

So, the soldiers are afraid because the drug curbs the emotion somewhat, but fear is such a strong emotion that it breaks out regardless. The inspirational speech is given both because of tradition and because on some level it helps. The cheering is likely to be a learned response. You cheer to show your support of something. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have been emotionally inspired. It's just a more noticeable way (especially in a crowd) of nodding your head in agreement.

Of course this could all just be giving the movie more credit than it warrants.

I suspect this. I mean, the film is basically a rehash of Farenheit 451, 1984, and Brave New World - I watched it to see Batman do visually stunning Gun-Fu and save puppies.

Even so, I get the feeling that the drug really isn't that effective. Heck, it might not even actually do anything, and simply be a means of detecting those who aren't taking it, as well as a false layer of control for the rebels to go after. The fact that even children are able to make it seem like they're under its effects makes me think that it does little to nothing, and it is more of a placebo effect and general conditioning.

No where near as effective as the 1984 conditioning of course