MovieChat Forums > Rollerball (1975) Discussion > who needs 'freedom' when you have luxury...

who needs 'freedom' when you have luxury?

posted 12 years ago by stazza
21 replies | jump to latest

For discussion: who needs "freedom" when you have luxury?

I get the point of this movie: the corporations have taken over EVERYTHING and people have less "freedom" but don't notice because the corporations provide comforts and luxury...

Ignoring the facets of the society that are NOT shown in this movie and therefore don't exist in THIS universe, like slums, inequality, systems breakdowns.. etc, not in this movie, so lets go ONLY with what we know....

So, the movie says the people have CHOSEN to give up freedoms for luxury.

Right or wrong, I.... no wait.... I don't see the WRONG side of this.

1. We ALREADY live in a society without freedoms. If we were completely free there would be no police enforcing other's policies on us. We HAVE to work to pay for food and shelter - instead of just going out and making our own (some do this, but lets focus on the ruled majority). Not saying no police is a great idea at this point, it is sort of needed now because people are dicks.

2. There is a governing body OVER us, making our decisions. It is the most inefficient governing body of anything on this planet (in the USA anyway) and most BUSINESSES (corporations) that remain in business are much better at handling things than government.

As a people, SOMEONE has to be over us, keeping everything working. I mean I INDIVIDUALLY don't understand how to create fresh drinkable water like the manned water plant down the street. Or how to generate electricity or keep the networked internet or cell phone system working. We desire to have someone bigger than us to look up to: pop/movie stars, models, sports athletes, and a something-acrocy above us> England still has queens and such, we elect puppet presidents and a large staff of old farts who make 8 times what I do accomplishing very little and working maybe 6 months out of the year. We even look up to the uber-rich as something we wish we were but aren't probably never will be... but we put them above us in that regard.

If you've ever spent any time in public social situations, you are aware that natural leaders float to the top, often Alpha Males/Females, and non leaders happily look to them for leadership. Not everyone can be, nor wants to be king. It is just how it is, and there is nothing wrong with that.

All that said, this movie claims the corporations remove individuality, yet provide comfort and luxurys - seems like the corporations ARE providing what the people want --- since, as she said, the people have chosen it. THEY MADE THE CHOICE probably because it was way better than the way government ran things. After all corporations are BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE - the lead corporate guy is a HUMAN BEING, not a robot or alien.

We too have made that choice - in almost every facet of our civilizations. We are already there.

What is so wrong with it? And what are the freedoms I am missing as an individaul?

[–] cabal24 12 years ago

Ill take a stab at this. I am not the most eloquent of communicators so Im sure there will be gaping holes that others can fill in.

What you would be missing is the freedom of choice and the freedom of being an individual and the freedom to fail/succeed.

In the Rollerball society, the corportations make sure you dont starve or live in poverty. Its even mentioned when Jonathans ex wife maintains "we are free- free from poverty". But the freedom sees that she doesnt is the decisions you make to determine your life's path. Right now we have some basic freedoms- where to work, where to live, what we want to do, who we want to marry, etc. In the Rollerball world those basic freedoms dont exist.

The Executive class determines what people do. Jonathans wife was taken from him (not as in she left him, but as in an executive wanted her so she didnt have a choice) and now the same executives are telling him he cant do what he wants to as a job anymore.

We do not live in that society today. We have a ton of choices we can make every day and nobody is dictating that to us. In fact, we have the freedom to fail, which I might add is something I believe strongly in. Theres a difference between having to work for basic necessities and having that work forced upon you.

[–] stazza 12 years ago

excellent reply, thanks!

The movie definitely shows there are LESS freedoms, but it also states that the people (majority?) have chosen the corporate provisions over poverty even at the expense of freedoms. And they don't seem too upset about it. Maybe the choice was in the lack of an uprising against it? Maybe it was simply that corps did it better than government did? I mean, no more wars, no poverty, how is that bad?

When this movie came out, it was cool sci-fi because people always want to keep freedom and FEEL like they are free, even if they aren't. Now days, we have already surrendered a good number of freedoms, via the forms of "laws" etc that are way more strict than even in 1975. I believe the choice of surrendering freedoms will continue by generations going forward. And they won't think twice about it, nor miss something they knew nothing about.

For ONE example, let's go with TRAFFIC CAMS and SECURITY CAMS. People loose their freedom of driving crazy, fast, or stupid because big brother is watching and charging fees for acting "free" while driving. BUT, people are SAFER now because less accidents kill their loved ones at intersections BECAUSE of the traffic cams reducing bad driving. So the people CHOSE to allow this. Where I live, not ONE traffic cam has been vandelized, nor voted out of existance. IE The people have chosen, or chosen by inaction.

We don't live in the Rollerball world right now, but what about tomorrow with the slow, and very gradual changing of ideas? I bet compared to people in 1775, we DO live in a freedomless police state where we are no longer in charge of our destiny. People are slowly accepting the lesser freedoms for more protection like in this movie.

With your examples of freedoms, I would like to further by stating that as long as people are allowed to make ONE free choice, they will FEEL like they are still free even after every other freedom has been removed, or misdirectedly replaced with something perceived as "better". So, if they got to choose only the COLOR of the overalls they wear to their corporate work camp, they will say, "HA! See?? I still have FREEDOM!" yeah, to choose one color of one thing. It IS still freedom, right?

I dunno. I'm just rambling about this topic as I find it interesting. I do think people will gladly give up EVERYTHING for the easy life. Since we are already doing some of that.

Personally, I'd prefer TOTAL freedom to live on a prarie, build my own home out of chopped wood, kill for my meals and have NO government nor police, nor laws nor lawyers. But that is not realistic..... anymore. Even though it is way closer to our real nature over the technological and ruled modern world we have created for ourselves.

I think, what I am saying in summary is I already see people choosing less freedoms, sacrificing that for whatever they are getting in return,

[–] cabal24 12 years ago

This is a great conversation to have.

People have always traded freedoms for security. That was something Ben Franklin wrote about even then. But people will only do this to a point IMO. At some point they will rebel against it. call it human nature, call it self determination but history has shown over and over again there is a breaking point.

Usually that breaking point comes multiple generations later. The first generation is fine (they put whatever the change was in place). The 2nd was molded directly from the first so they usually go along with it. The turn starts to happen in the 3rd, when the originators of the idea arent around any more. Then by the 4th all hell starts breaking loose.

And it doesnt matter what it is- Soviet rule, the labor movement, european governments, etc. I predict China is going to have major problems in the next couple of generations. Thats like 60 years maybe?

[–] stazza 12 years ago

I agree with your breaking point idea, but see it as an uphill SAW TOOTH: lets say 5 steps are taken, then a breaking point that drops it back 1 step, then 5 more steps, then another breaking point dropping back 1 point... after a couple generations they are already PAST the previous generations breaking point by a couple steps but okay with it. In the end - over a couple generations - the freedoms are lost anyway EVEN WITH the breaking points being a slight backstep at that time.

In RollerBalls movie case, I found it interesting about his individuality being the main objective... yet in the end, of THAT society, I bet it meant nothing the next day when everyone forgot. UNLESS there was a bloody revolt shortly after, which is like the 1 step back (displacing current corporations as governing body) which then leaves society messed up enough to need leadership to fix things on a large scale: 3 more steps forward because the people can't deal with the rubble.

Thus, Rollerball for all its individuality-speak really wasn't effective for society anyway.

When the corporation that makes food is shut down, there is fighting in the streets just to get food to survive, so instead, people find something efficient enough to make food for the masses and resort to: the Corporation :)

[–] cabal24 12 years ago

I get exactly what you are saying and I wrestle with that myself from time to time.

Historically speaking, there are very few times where the "evil overlords" maintain control in teh long term. In France, the masses banded together and executed the aristocrats (and did unspeakable things to their wives and children too). In Russia the Czar was killed in bloody uprising (though what followed was really no better). And in Africa you cant go 5 minutes without a dictator being overthrown and put to death.

So, depending on how one defines freedom, there should be light at the end of teh tunnel.

[–] stazza 12 years ago

I hear ya.

I live in America where things have strayed far beyond reality. We NEED a bloody uprising to reset the will and rights of people - but it will never happen because people NEED the system they want to reset. :) Thus, Rollerball already exists to us. Like it or not, WE chose it. :)

And, parrelleling our discussion here, in my observations, I do feel the masses will ALWAYS require a ruling party or royalty or higher classes to exist. I don't know why, I just know it exists and probably always will. Not saying it is WRONG (or right), just that it always exists. In rollerball case, the corporations run by this elite group of old guys. In our world, the governments we prop up as above us, the royals in Europe that, TO ME, don't even seem to be governmental (I'm probably wrong, I just don't follow those politics), and also in America we put rock stars/actors ABOVE US as being better people, more superior and LEADING.... I dunno... just the state of being human... always wanting there to be differing classes of people: something to reach for, someone to step over I guess.

Is there anyway around that that is NOT communistic forcing everyone to be "equal"? Seems like there isn't.

Enjoying our discussion, BTW, love your comments and perspective - one of the more intelligent replies I've seen on IMDB without the childish thing going on. :) So, thanks for that!

[–] cabal24 12 years ago

FWIW I also live in the US- in Ohio. I definitely see a lot of what you are talking about. The Founding Fathers would be appalled at how we willingly trade teh perception of security for freedom. But like I said before, the willingness to give up these freedoms is temporary. At some point the pendulum will swing back.

Part of the reason we are like that here is because we are the only democracy I know of that never really had a bloody revolution based on economic class. Closest thing was the civil war but that was more rural elites vs industrial elites.

Whats the best outcome? Definitely not communism. Maybe in its truest sense but not in what communism has become. Ill say the best result I can see is a tightly regulated capitalist state. Meaning we make sure buisnesses arent exploiting our citizens and people arent stealing from us but otherwise you can pretty much do what you want. There has top be a safety net to prevent people from starving on teh streets and teh elderly and children need to be protected. And somehow enough jobs need to be created that people who can work have the ability to work.

But all that said, Imi not a smart enough dude to have a plan to fix the worlds ills. I also appreciate the discussion.

[–] stazza 12 years ago

recent events drive my point home: we WILLING give up "freedoms" for the benefits of doing so....

For a decade now people have complained about big brother and all those security cameras getting installed (I don't like being watched either, but I don't go around breaking laws) yet those same security cameras recently assisted in tracking down terrorists.

Are we REALLY losing freedoms with this, or actually gaining security?
I don't have a need to "get away" with anything in public, to feel free. I don't really care if some camera is watching me. But I understand how that seems BIG BROTHER like... but is that any different than having police men everywhere too? Which was my very first point way up top there. :)

[–] cabal24 12 years ago

I see where you are going and I dont have a problem with these cameras as they are being used in this case.

But there is a difference between using surveillance camera to catch a public threat and using cameras to intrude on our daily lives. Usually violent crime is where I tend to draw the line. for example, using a camera to watch your store and then you ID a guy who raped a woman or set up a bomb is perfectly fine by me. But using that same camera to track down a guy to abandoned his car in front of a buidling is something else.

Citing your red light camera example, I do actually have a problem with those. And thats because 1) running a red light that doesnt cause an accident is a minor thing (no injuries ) and 2) technology doesnt have the ability to use a case by case basis. And in a nutshell, that is my problem with BIG BROTHER. Laws are meant to keep people from being harmed, not as a means just to bust people. And laws were meant to be enforced on a case by case basis. Does a cop bust a guy for jaywalking? Yes if its in teh middle of the busiest street in town at rush hour. Not at 4 am when nobody is out. A well trained officer knows the difference. An inanimate object doesnt.

[–] stazza 12 years ago

won't the dumbing down in the breeding of future generations simply accept the whole big brother thing and not think a thing of it?

if so, at that point OUR concept of not punishing the 4am jaywalker would be moot. He'd willingly accept the ticket as easily as we do the one at the busy intersection.
I bet our founding fathers would consider some of OUR laws insane and unneccessary if they came back from the dead.

By odd coincidence, recntly, I was looking up the most accident prone intersection in my town - turns out I go through both of them every day! AND noticed recent additions of flashing traffic cameras now covering both of them.
The accident info was found from insurance company stat gatherings (underwriters) and the cameras were set up "for free" by the camera company just splitting the profits or whatever.

So, Insurance corporation runs the state intersection. Sounds like corporations running the peoples to me! :D ROLLERBALL IS HERE!

[–] cabal24 12 years ago

I dont buy that. What you are basically saying is that people will willingly accept tyranny if they are socialized to do so. History, IMO, doesnt bear that out. Yes it will work in the short term. But as we have said before, how many times have we seen it where future generations, personalities, norms or technology change and then the whole mindset changes?

So while in the future our jaywalkler at 4am may willingly accept the ticket, there will inevitably be those who wont be willing to do so. Thats human nature.

I dont think ROLLERBALL is here at this point. We may not be too far off (a corporation is a person and has rights ? Really?)but there are big leaps that would have to happen before people are OK with real tyranny in the United States.

[–] stazza 12 years ago

Well, I will be happy to help lead the bloody revolution, and die for the cause, but I think most people are too dependant on "the system" to take up arms when that time comes.
"WAAAAH, I won't have health insurance!!"
"WAaahhh! I won't get a paycheck!"
"WAAAAAHHH WAAAAHHH humans can't exist without Social Security!!!"

Meanwhile, kids growing up ALWAYS having lived with traffic cameras and 4am j-walking tickets, consider it baseline normal and accept it without issue.

With government controlled media forcing us to see nothing but negative gun use in the news (when was the last time you SAW a report of how a gun SAVED someone?) eventually the kids will give up thier guns and gun rights, then the government will have the army and people have no defense as all against government tryanny ...Rollerball world! :)

[–] cabal24 12 years ago

The Devil is in the details. The kid who has totally lived under government scrutiny doesnt always just go with it. I mean if that were the case there woudl never ever be a revolutuion because things usually stay under control for decades at a time. And we know for a fact, uprisings happen all the time.

Im curious as to your mindset though. Is there a freedom we give up for social security or health insurance? I mean I get the guns argument (Im an NRA member after all) but I dont see what freedoms I would give up for the two financial programs you mentioned other than paying more taxes, which Ill do begrudgingly if it helps the country as a whole.

[–] stazza 12 years ago

I'm just grasping straws for discussion. ;) Actually, conversations I've had with people brought them around to the point of IF they hated the guberment and wanted to do SOMETHING about it, they would lose something that was important to THEM (selfishly), and go back on their idea that something needed fixed. This was more than once, after drilling down into the conversation long enough to really analyze it.

It's been like:
"Yeah this is terrible of the governement to (insert anything here), and we should do something about it! Oh wait, without the gov (disabling it to fix the previously mentioned thing), I lose my running water, electricity and, GOD FORBID, my medicare and social security.... soooo... well, I guess my original discontent with that one major thing no longer really exists."
nullified by other related potential selfish loss....

.... thus, people dependant on the system be it gov or Corporations as in Rollerball.

In short, I guess the freedom in life of just NOT being governed by the system - the same system we rely on for so many things.

[–] Belforse 11 years ago

If you have guns and are fighting for destruction of the government.......to be ruled by Corporations, get it?

Freedom based on humanistic design doesn't work. This thread proves it.

The strong must rise and rule. Modern day hegelian dialectics is just a scam between capital and labor. The truth is, governments are in the process of being abolished.

[–] decalt 11 years ago

Nice thread!

I want to add a detail: people on Rollerball are numb, because corporations give'em drugs all the time; maybe that's why they accept the lack of freedom so easy.

[–] cabal24 11 years ago

What do you mean governments are in the process of being abolished? Are you saying we would revert to chaos or something else?

[–] mobocracy 11 years ago

My guess is this is the basic political "bargain" that countries like Russia and China are going for right now. Hoping that rising economic standard of livings distracts people from the political tyranny they live under.

As the long as the people in those countries continue to enjoy new TVs, cars and all the consumer trappings of life they will continue to ignore the fact that Putin is basically a dictator or that the Communist Party controls the government.

Of course this is a concept almost as old as politics itself, the Roman writer Juvenal coined the phrase panem et circenses, "bread and circuses".

[–] cabal24 11 years ago

Ill say again (because I firmly believe it) that political bargain only lasts a short while. After a few generations, people get antsy and want something more. And even in today's technological world, a whole mass of angry people will, in the long term, win out over a smaller elite. We have seen this happen historically time and again.

But yes, China (and to a lesser extent Russia) is trying to do this. But honestly I think the Russians would be better off just plying folks with liquor because the weather is too crappy and there aren't enough material comforts to buy the people off.

China is in a different category and part of it is cultural. Asian culture is vastly different from the western world. Asians have a history of being authoritarian. Even so, its still only a short term thing IMO.

[–] iPadCary 10 years ago

I absolutely would love to live this life! 6 Corporations are in control and everybody's happy?
Who wouldn't want that? I didn't see not ONE person who looked hurt or oppressed.

B .... I .... L-L-T .... E-T-L-E-YYYYYYY Bill Tetley!

[–] Stevicus-2 10 years ago

Interesting discussion.

I can see your point about living in a society without freedom. Obviously, there can never be such a thing as true, absolute freedom. There are always limits, even in a so-called "free" society.

There's also the question of whether the ends justify the means. What we see in Rollerball is some kind of near-idyllic society with no war, no poverty, etc. - although we are only given a vague idea of what exactly happened to lead them to that society.

How much would the world's population have to be reduced in order to produce a global society with no war or poverty? How would this have been accomplished? Did the Corporate Wars involve massacring entire populations?

What about the unemployable, the disabled, the sick, or anyone else who would not have any practical function that could serve the corporations' interests? Would they have been left out in the cold to starve or die of disease? This would mean that the only ones left would be the lucky ones, the ones who are "free of poverty," yet with a lot of blood on their hands and a population of guilty consciences.

Skillfully crafted propaganda and historical revisionism could make most people "forget" whatever it was that led them to where they are, so they'd have no continuity or coherent connection to their own past and culture. This could prove to be detrimental in the long run, as such a society could ultimately stand still and remain stagnant for centuries to come.

I don't think it's really a matter of freedom, wealth, or luxury, but more a matter of progress and advancement - at least in terms of determining the viability and quality of any given society. A society which stands still, fails to progress, and fails to see the next challenge - this is a society which will ultimately fall.

Another thing which might be a problem in the Rollerball universe was when Moonpie is heard referring to a "privilege card." What the hell is that? Does that mean that there's still a class society and that some people are more privileged than others? This would mean that there's people at the top (executives), people in the middle (rollerballers, junior executives, other social climbers), and then presumably those at the bottom (clerks, janitors, etc.).

In this sense, there would still be some concept of being "poor," which would mean that poverty still exists - even if it may not be that bad. Just like in the United States, those who are below the poverty line are still relatively better off than those who are poor in other countries. Or compared to how poor people lived in the 18th or 19th centuries, the poor in the United States today might be considered to be living in "luxury." Yet, most people seem to agree that it still sucks to be poor - not necessarily because they're starving or that they lack freedom or some means of sustaining themselves - but just because they're at the bottom of society and they know it. So, that would be another serious drawback which could lead to dissension and instability in such a society.