1) I love the way they characterized David Lightman as a typical "computer nerd" stereotype that we all follow. Just as in E.T., the name of the main characters reflects the plot of the film. The last name Lightman just sounds technological and reminds me of the word 'light speed'. The official definition of light speed is: the speed at which light travels in a vacuum. Not exactly computer related but I think of that every time I read the name David Lightman. Here is a picture of light speed:
To me, this picture reminds me so much of all the different color cables and wires that used to be involved with computer technology back in the 80's.
Also, as stated in the reading "The WarGames Scenario", "Lightman spent much of his life exiled in his locked room, unsupervised by his parents, playing on his home computing system, unmotivated by high school academic and extracurricular activities." These are all stereotypical characteristics of a computer nerd. David doesn't have any friends, is late to school because he's busy playing an arcade game and then receives an F on a test, and his parents are so clueless to everything going on in David's room.
2) The film foreshadowed the ending which angers me! When David first comes across Joshua and the computer "games", he types in Global Thermonuclear War, and Joshua replies with "Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?" In the ending, after Joshua learns that there is no way to win the global thermonuclear war game, he suggests again a nice game of chess. This computer system is supposed to be so complex and so it is during the film, constantly learning from it's mistakes and it seems impossible to stop. But then the way to stop the machine and save the world is through a game! It angers me that the solution is so easy yet no one thinks of it right away.
3) The reading also points out that WarGames famously concluded that the "only winning move" in Global Thermonuclear War was "not to play". I thought this to be quite interesting that they threw this message into the film, considering the time this movie came out was when Reagan was president and a lot was at stake with nuclear war. While WarGames introduced many to the world of the internet, it also was influencing audience's thoughts on war.
That being said, I never felt the danger from this film. While watching it, I was never unsure about the conclusion of the film, that David would somehow stop Joshua from creating World War III and everyone would live happily ever after. That took the excitement out of the film for me as well. I didn't like these characters or sympathize with them ever, so I honestly didn't care what was to happen to them. I related to Falken in the movie when at first he really did not care that Joshua was going to blow everything up. In many ways I didn't like this film, and thought that overall it was stupid and that the events occuring in the film were stupid. As I stated, WarGames just seems too absurd to make an impact on me.
I agree with you on your point about this film being pretty unbelievable. It does seem extremely odd that his parents wouldn't have any clue what he was up to with all those computer parts. In the article it mentions how back then everything had to be purchased separately so the cost would have been crazy expensive. How would his parents not be wanting to be involved if they were spending that much on equipment.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I didn't really get the sense that David didn't have any friends. There was the young boy at the arcade that I would consider a friend in a way. He also seemed to have his little group in the classroom. The way they were all huddled together and snickering at his joke. Maybe they weren't super close but he didn't seem like a total loner.
I agree with you that the film was extremely predictable. My question is how the hell did he pay for all the computers?! Back in the 80's a set like his could not be cheap! I got the vibe that David wasn't a total loner and he did have friends. I thought it was a typical teen romance with David and Jennifer as well. The whole film was terribly predictable!
ReplyDeleteA couple of people have pointed out that the name David Lightman is interesting. One of those things that makes teaching fun--it is interesting, and I never thought about it before.
ReplyDeleteNot liking a particular movie is sometimes an important thing to do, because if you pay close attention to what's bugging you, sometimes you get really great insights. In this case though, I wish you'd focused just a bit more on the threat of nuclear war, and the ideas of how it might be accidentally set off--particularly in terms of 1980s concerns about the developing internet. It might also be useful to know that the military at the time really literally did calculate win/lose scenarios of nuclear war, and how many thousands of civilian casualties constituted "acceptable losses." There's a lot to think about that's not in the least about the fairly standard Hollywood plot.