Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, pseudonymously by A Square, is a classic 1884 novella which perhaps uniquely lies at the intersection of mathematical treatise and social satire.1I admit the social commentary completely eludes me; Abbott was a proponent of education for women but from reading Flatland in isolation I do not see the intended message. Perhaps this is because I am separated by 140 years, however I am not the only one to have difficulty as the author added a preface to the second edition more explicitly explaining himself. The book explores life in a fictional 2D world, and one of its inhabitants’ journey in understanding higher dimensions.
Of course, this is not what I am reviewing here.
Flatland, the movie, is a feature-length 2007 animated movie by Ladd Ehlinger Jr, based on the novella, not to be confused with Flatland: The Movie a 2007 animated short also based on the novella but featuring Martin Sheen.3Of the latter, wikipedia says “The film received positive reviews from mathematics publications.”. Of course I usually check the AMC journal for the latest on film reviews.
The movie is available from its creator for free on youtube – spoilers ahead.
Flatland is a surprisingly faithful adaptation of the book, in that major plot points are brought over one-to-one into the film. However being a fairly short novella, the movie expands significantly on the events from the book with embellishments and new plot elements added entirely, especially with the political context of Flatland.
From the adage show, don’t tell one would certainly expect a book primarily about geometry to transfer very well to video. Abbott’s simple line figures and textual descriptions of Flatland vision are effective but animation has the potential to let the viewer see how it works in action. Unfortunately I suspect the movie to be nigh incomprehensible to anyone unfamiliar with the book. This is not because the adaptation of Flatlander vision is inapt – indeed I think the movie does quite a good job of bringing Flatland to life. Rather, this is mostly because the movie entirely omits A Square’s long opening expository section which introduces the reader to Flatland in favor of moving quite steadily in progressing the plot. Indeed it explicitly cautions the viewer against bothering to understand some of the finer details.
However I did find the movie to be appropriately and tightly paced for an audience already familiar with the book – which admittedly includes most of the likely viewers. In particular the movie jumps right into exploring the consequences of the social stratification of lines, polygons, and circles without having introduced the social caste system at all. These “consequences” frequently consist of priestly circles ordering the execution of lower class Flatlanders. Flatland is surprisingly violent!
The one aspect of the movie I strongly dislike is its portrayal of women, a weakness which seems to be universal among adaptations of Flatland. One of the central purposes of the original book was to argue for the education of women by satirically presenting a world of extreme inequality; this tends not to translate into modern media well, perhaps in part because I am not sure it was well-executed in the original either.
The movie hits its stride as it transitions to three dimensions, becoming a bit more playful and lightly humorous at times. Per other reviews, the events here are supposedly an update of Abbott’s satire to a modern American context but if so the American satirical elements once again completely eluded me.
Spaceland is visually intriguing and overwhelmingly busy with details, which helps to convey Square’s disorientation with seeing a whole new dimension. The emphasis on basic geometric objects like spheres and cubes, and highly smooth, symmetric motions, gives the Spaceland portion of the film an artistic style not wholly unlike that of 2001: A Space Odyssey. (Those who know my movie tastes recognize that as a significant compliment.)
Random trivia: by advancing frame-by-frame it appears that decks of card in Spaceland are made of 10 identical sets of cards numbered 1 through 10, and that Sphere had commissioned a deck of cards specifically to commemorate his millenial visit to Flatland.
Square, being a true believer in the gospel of the 3rd dimension now that he has seen it for himself, tries and fails to convince Sphere of the existence of the 4th dimension before being whisked away to a senate hearing, another plot element novel to the movie. The overlapping dialogue, the incessant camera flashes, the increasingly insistent gavel, the camera spinning and cuts… we feel Square’s struggle as he argues for the continued survival of Flatland before succumbing to exhaustion from fighting gravity. The half-dead Square is returned to Flatland to the tune of Wagner’s Götterdämmerung, one of the few times in the movie the tone of the music was not inappropriately peppy.
This review has sat in my incomplete drafts for about a year because I don’t really have any conclusion. I find the main appeal of the movie to be in its artistic decisions, especially in Spaceland which has much more going on visually than in the Flatland segments. The movie is weird and trippy and you should go ahead and watch it if you’ve read the book.
I admit the social commentary completely eludes me; Abbott was a proponent of education for women but from reading Flatland in isolation I do not see the intended message. Perhaps this is because I am separated by 140 years, however I am not the only one to have difficulty as the author added a preface to the second edition more explicitly explaining himself.↩︎
Recall from the book that squares have pentagonal sons, and hexagonal grandsons. In Flatland: The Movie, A Hex is A Square’s hexagonal granddaughter.↩︎
Of the latter, wikipedia says “The film received positive reviews from mathematics publications.”. Of course I usually check the AMC journal for the latest on film reviews.↩︎
Follow RSS/Atom feed for updates.