Discussion:Technological Prototypes

Discussion:Technological Prototypes

Discussion:Technological Prototypes

ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT: Discussion:Technological Prototypes

MDSC64H3 – Media and Technology

Note: Students who do not meet course prerequisites will be automatically dropped at the end of Week 1.

Course Description

From the first depiction of a cyborg in Metropolis (1927) to the Web-based surveillance devices
of Minority Report (2002), science fiction film is central to organizing cultural discourse around
technology through its ability to popularize specific images of new technologies—those real,
those imaginary, and those coming “in the near future”. SF film simultaneously suggests,
critiques, and contributes to a range of cultural attitudes about technology, spanning from the
technophilic to the dystopic. In doing so it encapsulates what Raymond Williams refers to in The
Long Revolution (1960) as the “structure of feeling—not only formally held systematic beliefs
but the meanings and values as they are actively lived and felt in a specific time and place. The
course therefore interrogates the cultural and social meaning of technology as it is presented in
selected films and other representations drawn from popular media by examining how they
depict and ideologically frame new technologies for their spectators.
The course is divided into three interrelated parts:

Part I: “Designing the Future”: Film and Technological Prototypes

Examines the relationship among filmic representations of technology and the development, acceptance, and social diffusion of new technologies
Films viewed: Moon (2009), Destination Moon (1950), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968),
Minority Report (2002).

Part II: “Thing-like imitators of humankind”: Robots, Cyborgs, and Replicants

Examines the “Thing-like imitators of humankind” that directly express “the interactions
between the human and the technological that lie at the very heart of science fiction”1
Films viewed: Metropolis (1927), Forbidden Planet (1956), RoboCop (1987), Blade
Runner: The Director’s Cut (1997).

Part III: Intelligent Agents and the Contemporary Technological Moment

Examines how selected films configure the idea of the virtual and their meaning(s) for
those embodied on this side of the screen
Films viewed Her (2014), ExMachina (2014), Black Mirror episode (2014)
1 J.P. Telotte, Replications: A Robotic History of the Science Fiction Film, 1995
2

Course Learning Objectives

1. Develop insight into how SF filmic representations encode and promote specific ideological understandings of technology
2. Develop insight into how SF filmic representations reflect and contribute to cultural attitudes, both technophilic and dystopic, toward new technology
3. Develop a deeper understanding of critical media studies theory and the applicability of theories of technology, cyborg subjectivity, and virtuality to understanding film as a media form
4. Develop greater appreciation for historically significant SF films

Course Readings

There is no textbook. All required readings are available on Blackboard or via links to the
University of Toronto library.
You will be expected to screen some films outside of class via University of Toronto library and
other online sources. Copies of films may also be obtained from course instructor.
Please complete all readings and view films before we meet.

Method of Evaluation: 3 Exams

Exam I = 25%
Exam II = 25%
Exam III = 25%
Participation = 25% (based on film reviews on discussion board, contributions
to/comments on other reviews on discussion board, and contributions to class discussions)
Exam Part I and Exam Part II will be administered online and will test your understanding of
course content, including lectures, readings, and film content/plot. Students will have 2 hours to
complete the exam, which will consist of multiple choice, true/false, matching, fill-in-the-blank,
short answer/short essay.
The final exam is scheduled by the Registrar’s Office and will be announced in class. The final
exam will require your physical attendance and is not administered online.
3

Grading Scale

 

Percentage	Letter Grade	Grade Point Value	Grade Definition
90-100	A+	4.0	Excellent	Strong evidence of original thinking; good organization; capacity to analyze and synthesize; superior grasp of subject matter with sound critical evaluations; evidence of extensive knowledge base.
85-89	A	4.0
80-84	A-	3.7
77-79	B+	3.3	Good	Evidence of grasp of subject matter, some evidence of critical capacity and analytic ability; reasonable understanding of relevant issues; evidence of familiarity with literature
73-76	B	3.0
70-72	B-	2.7
67-69	C+	2.3	Adequate	Student who is profiting from the university experience; understanding of the subject matter and ability to develop solutions to simple problems in the material.
63-66	C	2.0
60-62	C-	1.7
57-59	D+	1.3	Marginal	Some evidence of familiarity with the subject matter and some evidence that critical and analytic skills have been developed.
53-56	D	1.0
50-52	D-	0.7
0-49	F	0.0	Inadequate	Little evidence of even superficial understanding of subject matter; weakness in critical and analytic skills; limited or irrelevant use of literature.

 

Academic Integerity

Academic integrity is essential to the pursuit of learning and scholarship in a university and to
ensuring that a degree from the University of Toronto is a strong signal of each student’s
individual academic achievement. As a result, the University treats cases of cheating and
plagiarism very seriously. The University of Toronto’s Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters
(http://www.governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/policies/behaveac.htm) outlines the behaviours that
constitute academic dishonesty and the processes for addressing academic offences. Potential
offences include, but are not limited to:
4
IN PAPERS AND ASSIGNMENTS:
• Using someone else’s ideas or words without appropriate acknowledgement.
• Submitting your own work in more than one course without the permission of the
instructor.
• Making up sources or facts.
• Obtaining or providing unauthorized assistance on any assignment.
ON TESTS AND EXAMS:
• Using or possessing unauthorized aids.
• Looking at someone else’s answers during an exam or test.
• Misrepresenting your identity.
IN ACADEMIC WORK:
• Falsifying institutional documents or grades.
• Falsifying or altering any documentation required by the University, including (but not
limited to) doctor’s notes.
All suspected cases of academic dishonesty will be investigated following procedures outlined in
the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters. If you have questions or concerns about what
constitutes appropriate academic behaviour or appropriate research and citation methods, you are
expected to seek out additional information on academic integrity from your instructor or from
other institutional resources.
Visit http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/using-sources/how-not-to-plagiarize for guidelines
on how to avoid plagiarism. Plagiarism is an intellectual offense in which you try to take credit
for someone else’s ideas and language. This includes “cut and paste” internet papers. Plagiarism
can lead to severe academic penalties.

Accessibility

Students with diverse learning styles and needs are welcome in this course. In particular, if you
have a disability/health consideration that may require accommodations, please feel free to
approach me and/or the AccessAbility Services Office as soon as possible. I will work with you
and AccessAbility Services to ensure you can achieve your learning goals in this course.
Enquiries are confidential. The UTSC AccessAbility Services staff (located in S302) are
available by appointment to assess specific needs, provide referrals and arrange appropriate
accommodations (416) 287-7560 or ability@utsc.utoronto.ca.
5

Discussion:Technological Prototypes

Discussion:Technological Prototypes

Discussion:Technological Prototypes

Course Outline

Part I: “Designing the Future”: Film and Technological Prototypes
Week 1 – Sept 4 – Course Overview
Screen in class: Moon (2009; 97 minutes), directed by Duncan Jones
Week 2 – Sept 11
Film: Moon (2009; 97 minutes), directed by Duncan Jones (you must view before
class)
UTSC Stacks VD 2013
Johnson, Brian David. 2013. “When Science Fiction and Science Fact Meet.” Computer
46.1: 81-82.
http://resolver.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/resolve/00189162/
v46i0001/80_wsfasfm.xml
Johnson, Brian David. 2011. “The Men in the Moon.” Chapter 5, Science Fiction
Prototyping: Designing the Future with Science Fiction. Read pp. 55-74.
http://books1.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/viewdoc.html?id=/
ebooks/ebooks2/morgan-claypool/2012-05-13/1/s00336ed1v01y201102csl003
McCalmont, Jonathan. 2009. “Review—Moon (2009).” Ruthless Culture (blog).
http://ruthlessculture.com/2009/07/23/review-moon-2009/
Kirby, David. 2010. “The Future is Now: Diegetic Prototypes and the Role of Popular
Films in Generating Real-world Technological Development.” Social Studies of
Science 40.1: 41-70. Read pp. 41-47.
http://resolver.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/resolve/03063127/
v40i0001/41_tfin.xml
Week 3 – Sept 18
Film: Destination Moon (1950; 92 minutes), directed by Irving Pichel (view before
class – film will not be screened in class
UofT at Scarborough Stacks VD 2016
Kirby, David. 2010. “The Future is Now: Diegetic Prototypes and the Role of Popular
Films in Generating Real-world Technological Development.” Social Studies of
Science 40.1: 41-70. Read pp. 57-63.
http://resolver.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/resolve/03063127/
v40i0001/41_tfin.xml
Vieth, Errol. 2001. Excerpt from “The Nature and Function of Science,” Chapter 4,
Screening Science: Contexts, Texts, and Science in Fifties Science Fiction Film.
(pdf)
6
Westfahl, Gary. 2011. “Pitfalls of Prophecy: Why Science Fiction So Often Fails to
Predict the Future” in Science Fiction and the Prediction of the Future, Gary
Westfahl et al., eds. (pdf)
Week 4 – Sept 25
Film: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, 139 minutes), directed by Stanley Kubrick
https://media3-criterionpiccom.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/htbin/wwform/006?T=M68650
Kirby, David A. (2011) Excerpt from “Scientific Expertise in Hollywood”, Chapter 1,
Lab Coats in Hollywood: Science, Scientists and Cinema. Read pp. 1-14.
http://site.ebrary.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/lib/utoronto/detail.action?docI
D=10479193
Kirby, David. 2010. “The Future is Now: Diegetic Prototypes and the Role of Popular
Films in Generating Real-world Technological Development.” Social Studies of
Science 40.1: 41-70. Read pp. 63-66.
http://resolver.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/resolve/03063127/
v40i0001/41_tfin.xml
Mateas, Michael. (2006). “Reading HAL: Representation and Artificial Intelligence” in
Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey: New Essays. Robert Kolker, ed.
http://books2.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/viewdoc.html?id=/
ebooks/ebooks0/oxford/2009-11-30/3/0195174526
Week 5 – Oct 2
Minority Report (2002; 145 minutes), directed by Stephen Spielberg
https://media3-criterionpiccom.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/htbin/wwform/006/wwk770?t=F07550
Kirby, David. 2010. “The Future is Now: Diegetic Prototypes and the Role of Popular
Films in Generating Real-world Technological Development.” Social Studies of
Science 40.1: 41-70. Read pp. 47-53
http://resolver.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/resolve/03063127/
v40i0001/41_tfin.xml
Krahn, Timothy et al. 2010. “Novel Neurotechnologies in Film—A Reading of Stephen
Spielberg’s Minority Report.” Neuroethics 3: 73-88.
http://link.springer.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/article/10.1007%2Fs12152-
009-9038-8
Hillis, Ken and Jonathan Lillie. 2003. “Spatial Technologies for the Mobile Class: Life in
the ‘Cooltown’ Ecosystem.” Geography 88.4: 338-347.
http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/460693

Discussion:Technological Prototypes

Discussion:Technological Prototypes

Discussion:Technological Prototypes7
Exam I – Friday, October 5, 3:00-5:00 pm
(Covers Moon, Destination Moon, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Minority Report and readings and
lectures through Oct 2)
Part II: “Thing-like imitators of humankind”: Robots, Cyborgs, and Replicants
Week 6 – Oct 16
Film: Metropolis (1927), directed by Fritz Lang (view before class)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn8Pk4dyCR8 (English intertitles)
John-Paul Trutnau. “Fritz Lang’s Metropolis and Its Influence on the American Science
Fiction Film” (pdf)
Jenny Sunden. “What Happened to Difference in Cyberspace? The (Re)turn of the SheCyborg” (pdf)
Week 7 – Oct 23
Film: Forbidden Planet (1956, 97 minutes), directed by Fred M. Wilcox (view before

Discussion:Technological Prototypes

Discussion:Technological Prototypes

Discussion:Technological Prototypes

class)
https://media3-criterionpiccom.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/htbin/wwform/006?T=M56250
Worland, Rick and David Slayden. (2002) “From Apocalypse to Appliances: Postwar
Anxiety and Modern Convenience in Forbidden Planet” in Hollywood Goes
Shopping, David Desser and Garth S. Jowett, eds. (pdf)
Roberts, Ian F. (2010) “Oppenheimer’s Heir: Morbius and Atomic Technology in
Forbidden Planet.” Journal of Popular Film and Television 38.4: 170-175.
http://resolver.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/resolve/01956051/
v38i0004/170_ohmaatifp.xml
Fisher, Kevin. (2010) “Information Feedback Loops and Two Tales of the Posthuman in
Forbidden Planet.” Science Fiction Film and Television 3.1: 19-35.
http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/460672
Week 8 – Oct 30
Robocop (1987, 102 minutes), directed by Paul Verhoeven (view before class)
Pheasant-Kelly, Fran. (2011) “Cinematic Cyborgs, Abject Bodies: Post-human Hybridity
in T2 and Robocop.” Film International 9.5: 54-63.
http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/460674
Nishime, LeiLani. (2005) “The Mulatto Cyborg: Imagining a Multiracial Future.”
Cinema Journal 44.2: 34-49.
http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/460675
8
Week 9 – Nov 6
Film: Blade Runner: The Director’s Cut (1997, 117 minutes), directed by Ridley
Scott (view before class)
https://media3-criterionpiccom.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/htbin/wwform/006?T=F07550
Gold, John. (2001) “Under Darkened Skies: The City in Science-fiction Film.”
Geography 86.4: 337-345. http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/460676
Kerman, Judith B. (1991) “Technology and Politics in the Blade Runner Dystopia” in
Retrofitting Blade Runner: Issues in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner and Philip K.
Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Judith B. Kerman, ed. (pdf)
Exam II – Friday, November 9, 3:00-5:00 pm
Part III: Intelligent Agents and the Contemporary Technological Moment
Week 10 – Nov 13
Film: Ex Machina (2014, 110 minutes), directed by Alex Garland (view before class)
https://media3-criterionpiccom.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/htbin/wwform/006?T=MON2042
Ray Kurzweil. The Singularity is Near (introduction and Chapter 1) (pdf)
Anne Balsamo. “Designing Culture: The Technological Imagination at Work” (pdf)
Angela Watercutter. “Ex Machina has a Serious Fembot Problem)
https://www.wired.com/2015/04/ex-machina-turing-bechdel-test/
Week 11 – Nov 20
Film: Her (2014, 126 minutes), directed by Spike Jonze (view before class)
https://media3-criterionpiccom.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/htbin/wwform/006?T=W201237
Lupton, Deborah. (1995) “The Embodied Computer/User.” Body & Society 1.3-4: 97-
112. http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/460680
Strange, Adario. (2014) “Why ‘Her’ Is the Best Movie Ever Made About the Singularity”
Mashable. http://mashable.com/2014/01/15/her-singularity/
Week 12 – Nov 27
Screening in class: Black Mirror episode / optional student presentation(s)
9
Final Exam scheduled by the Registrar’s Office
Cumulative. Covers material from entire semester, with more emphasis on Weeks 10-12. The
exam will consist of multiple choice, true/false, identification, and short answer/short essay