Customer Reviews

Flatland: The Movie

5 star:		(25)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This review covers both versions of "Flatland" released in 2007, one by Ladd Ehlinger, Jr. with a mostly unknown voice cast, and the other by Jeffrey Travis with some Hollywood big names providing the voices.

The source material for both is the 1884 novella by Edwin A. Abbott, but the approaches of the two films differ radically. The book is a staple of science fiction, and one of the few to address mathematical issues at its core. Being a product of its time, the book is technically naive, and politically incorrect based on current sensibilities.

The Travis film is visually slicker, but significantly shorter, and tackles philosophical issues relative to the passage of time from initial publication. As such, it tampers with the plot to mixed effect. Unlike some others, I have no problem with some of the revisions to the underlying plot since they do help bring some of the book's major issues into somewhat sharper focus. On the other hand, they also add a "feel good" and politically correct sensibility that seems out of place.

The Ehlinger film is much truer to its source material, which is both a strength and a weakness. Given a current perspective, its 19th century depiction of the political and social subjugation of women is a distraction that the Travis film avoids. It's also a longer film and could have been more effective with some of the same plot and editing license employed in the Travis film. Where it does tamper with the plot, some of the decisions are questionable as other reviewers have pointed out.

So which is better? In my opinion, the short answer is the Ehlinger film. Despite its length, political incorrectness, and technical inferiority (the animation of the Travis film is much more sophisticated), it resonates at a technical level to a degree that the Travis film can't match. As a scientist, this means a lot to me. On the other hand, the Travis film resonates on an emotional level that the Ehlinger film can't match. So the answer may be whether you're looking for technical insight or emotional satisfaction.

Most jarring in the Travis film is that, unlike the Ehlinger film, the animators never quite caught on to the implications of a two-dimensional universe. It is filled with objects which are instantly recognizable to us, yet would be clearly impossible or meaningless in the film's reality (e.g. the protagonist's daughter has toys which only make sense to someone with a 3-D perspective, and how does he open his briefcase?). The cover art is an obvious first impression example. The Travis film's characters look more human, but ask yourself how their eyes work. One detail of the book is that looking at a Flatlander from above, all of his internal organs are clearly visible, as they should be. Travis' animators hint at this, but don't meet it head-on. The Ehlinger film's animators may not have had the resources to make as slick a film as Travis', but they obviously gave a great deal of thought to what they were doing (or maybe not, since the necessary designs were all in the book). In short, Travis had the budget, but Ehlinger had the passion for the project - albeit perhaps a bit too much respect for the source to create a truly superior adaptation.

The differences reflect different target audiences, though. The Travis film is an educational short film which was obviously meant to be viewed by classrooms of middle school and high school students. As such, it had to be socially inoffensive while conveying concepts of geometry that would never occur to non-mathematicians. That it includes recognizable names voicing the characters will help it grab a bit more attention - an educational short film for the "X-Files" generation. The Ehlinger film would mostly appeal to people with a college level interest in mathematics, or others who are already familiar with the book.

Neither film is perfect, but I'm giving the Ehlinger film a rating of 4 and the Travis film a rating of 3. Depending on your sensibilities, your conclusion may be exactly opposite of mine, so I hope this review includes enough information to guide you to an informed selection.

Or, like me, you could simply buy both... ;-)

"The book of nature is written in mathematics."

-- Galileo

From Euclid forward, mathematicians have kind of served as reality's accountants alterting us to mathematical truths and their impact on the lives we live.

That's why when a lifelong mathematician like Edwin Abbott Abbott takes the time to sit down and write book in parable form about a basic mathematical truth...well...it's probably worth our time to sit down and read it.

In Abbott's 1884 classic masterpiece Flatlands, Abbott told the story of A Square...a resident of Flatland who comes to discover the existence of the third dimension. For those who haven't yet read the book, I would recommend Ian Stewart's brilliant Flatland Annotated in which Stewart (himself a lifelong mathematician) verbatim goes through Abbott's book annotating it along the way with helpful explanatory tidbits and information. In some cases, Stewart's annotations explain Abbott's points in terms of the basic mathematics or history. In other cases, Stewart provides information about the development of mathematical theory since Flatlands was written.

In one line of developments, for example, Euclid's fifth postulate is overturned and in another the idea that any one mathematical system can find all mathematical truth is iself overturned...both significant findings. For more on these developments or other interesting math issues, you can turn to Stewart's follow up Flatterland, the Dover publications treatment on Mathematical Fallacies and Paradoxes or even the highly readable Choas, Coincidence and All that Math Jazz.

But for those not interested in reading but simple and quick exposition on the issues raised by Flatland, I would suggest this movie. For one thing, it slowly goes over the issues involved. The graphics are just wonderful. And for that matter so is the voice work by such notables as Martin Sheen and Michael York.

If like me this movie picks your curiosity please consider reading the following titles by way of follow up: The Fourth Dimension by Charles Hinton, The Fourth Dimension Simply Explained, Flatland Annotated, Flatterland, Sphereland, The Plainiverse, and finally Michio Kaku's Hyperspace. In so doing you'll discover that our world is more strange and fantastic than you ever thought and like A Square, you might just find yourself looking one dimension higher!

As an elementary teacher, I was impressed at how the filmmakers tell this story in a way that it is visually appealing and engaging for children, while at the same time thought provoking for adults.

I was lucky enough to catch this film about a month ago, and I highly
recommend it for anyone who loves math, learning, or great animation.
It's beautiful and visually stunning; the acting is great, and the
story manages to explain difficult math concepts in an engaging and
creative way. Wonderful film for use in classrooms or at home. I heard
several kids in the audience say this is "my favorite movie ever!"

Additionally, the on screen interviews with Martin Sheen, Kristen Bell,
Tony Hale and Michael York are superb. Hearing them encourage students
to learn about math is refreshing and should be a great motivational
tool. There's also a wonderful featurette about the 4th dimension - even I
could almost understand it, thanks to the amazing visuals!

The original book has always been one of my favorites. I've taught it in my geometry classes every year. It was great to be able to incorporate this film into it to entertain the kids but also teach them. I know my students loved it! This version is so much more accessible to kids today compared to the tough language of the book. I recommend it to all math teachers, thank you for making it!

I reviewed the "educational edition" before, but meant to put this down for the personal as well...In my opinion this is the best treatment of the book to be put on film. It's smart and funny. It explores not only mathematical concepts but larger political and philosophical themes. It also touches on very real concerns of state authority dissent while avoiding partisan pandering that would freeze it too much in our own time and place. Ultimately kids (and adults) who watch this version of Flatland are prompted to think more not just about math but about how they exist in the world they inhabit.

FlatLand:The Movie is a math lesson viewed in the entertainment dimension. The script is adapted from the book by Edwin Abbott. The film focuses on the educational heart of the story by introducing concepts of spatial dimensions, while rightfully neglecting the outdated social and political commentary of the 100 year-old book. The film features great actors like Martin Sheen, Kristen Bell, and Michael York whose voices breathe life into the geometric characters. There was nothing "Flat" about their performances! The animation creates vividly colorful and geometrically pleasing 2-Dimensional & 3-Dimensional worlds that draw viewers willingly into the dramatic story of expressive characters who have a chance to open their minds to something new. Viewers of the film will have the same opportunity. The music easily guides the audience through the action and moods.
In summary, FlatLand:The Movie will hold the attention of both the Freaks and Geeks in math or physics class. BRAVO!

As a mathematician I was thrilled to learn that the classic novel Flatland had been made into 2 different movies, so I purchased and watched both. This version is far superior!

My non-mathematician wife and I watched both movies and both agree this version is far superior.

The graphics are amazing! The film even shows what a hypercube might look like.

The plot is fun and helps a non-math person comprehend dimensional geometry and the possibility of a geometric 4th dimension. This film brings Edwin A. Abbott's classic book to life and makes it fun and easy to understand for anyone.

Professor Banchoff's commentary is thought provoking and insightful. The commentary really finishes off the film perfectly.

I highly recommend this movie for anyone regardless of their level of math experience.

I am a high school mathematics teacher and have shown this film to my geometry accelerated classes for the last 3 years. I have also shown it to math students of different ability levels. They all seem to love it, including the extras at the end of the DVD. It is thought-provoking, entertaining and educational on many levels. I understand that "Sphereland - the Movie" is in the works!

I'm a high school math teacher, and for the past couple years I have shown my students this movie whether they were in a lower-level or Honors-level class. Regardless of age or skill, they have absolutely loved it. Watching and discussing the movie is consistently among their favorite memories of our class. More importantly, their curiosity about tesseracts (fourth-dimensional analogs of a cube) and string theory (which hypothesizes eleven dimensions) extends well beyond the classroom.

When I began teaching, the only popular movie about math was Donald in Mathmagic Land, a Disney film from 1959 featuring Donald Duck. As enduring as that movie has been, I can say from experience it doesn't connect as well with modern students.

Flatland: The Movie doesn't have that problem.

There are a few notable differences from the book, which should be expected when trying to condense all the original material into a half-hour production aimed at children. Women are no longer the lesser of the sexes (they are polygons just like the men; one woman even serves as a boss), and the main character, now named Arthur Square, is given a granddaughter (appropriately named "Hex").

The differences here, though, don't hurt the movie. If anything, students who enjoyed the movie were enthusiastic about reading the book.

This should be required viewing for any twenty-first century math teacher.