BEHIND THE SCREEN · B2/C1 · 50 min

Gattaca

A man born with a "flawed" genetic profile borrows another man's identity to reach space. How much of his engineered world is already real?

Today: you'll tell the story of Gattaca — a man judged unfit before birth who steals another man's genetic identity to reach the stars — discover how much of its world of engineered births is already real, and master how English talks about arranging for things to be done for you or done by someone else: the causative (have/get something done).
Before we begin — talk it through: If you could know, the moment you were born, every illness you were likely to get and roughly how long you'd live, would you want to know? And should parents ever be allowed to choose their children's genetic traits?

The words for today's story

Work through the four short activities. Each word is shown in a situation that gives its meaning away — no need to know the film yet. Say your answer out loud first, then reveal.

A. Infer from context — what does the bold word mean?

1. Some runners train for years to get fast, but a few sprinters seem to arrive with the gift already innate — there from birth, needing no lessons at all.
innate (adj) — existing in someone from birth; natural rather than learned.
2. The surgeon checked every instrument three times before the operation began, so meticulous that not a single tray was a centimetre out of place.
meticulous (adj) — extremely careful and precise about every small detail.
3. Long before the race began, the outcome already felt predetermined — everyone somehow already knew, with total certainty, exactly who would cross the line first.
predetermined (adj) — decided or fixed in advance, before it happens or before anyone can influence it.
4. The watch looked flawless on the shelf, but the buyer soon found a defect: the second hand stuck on the number six, every single time, without fail.
a defect (n) — a fault or imperfection in something, often one that stops it working perfectly.

B. Closest in meaning — which one is nearest?

5. fraudulent is closest in meaning to: (a) generous   (b) deceitful   (c) genuine
(b) deceitful — fraudulent (adj) means based on deception; obtained or done dishonestly to trick someone.
6. surpass is closest in meaning to: (a) fall short of   (b) copy exactly   (c) do better than
(c) do better than — to surpass (v) means to exceed or go beyond what was expected or achieved before.

C. Which meaning fits? (choose a, b or c)

7. Even after paying his debt to society in full, he carried a stigma that made neighbours cross the street to avoid him.
A stigma is: (a) a reward for good behaviour; (b) a mark of shame that makes people judge you unfairly; (c) a type of legal document.
(b) — a stigma (n) — a mark of disgrace or shame that society unfairly attaches to a person, group or condition.
8. The guard nearly waved him straight through, but something about the badge looked wrong — he was an impostor, not the man he claimed to be.
An impostor is: (a) someone in charge of security; (b) someone recently promoted; (c) someone pretending to be somebody else.
(c) — an impostor (n) — a person who pretends to be someone else, usually to deceive others.

D. Infer from context — two bigger ideas

9. She had never touched an instrument before, yet the teacher noticed an unusual aptitude in the very first lesson — she picked out melodies by ear that took other students months to learn.
aptitude (n) — a natural ability or talent for learning or doing a particular thing.
10. Under the customs officer's scrutiny, every pocket, every seam of the suitcase, and every label was checked twice before he was finally waved through.
scrutiny (n) — close, careful and often critical examination or inspection.

Now use them — out loud

Talk it through before we watch:
  • Using predetermined, stigma and defect, predict: what kind of society might judge people before they've had the chance to prove themselves?
  • Which of these words describe something a person is, and which describe something a person does? Sort them out loud.

The film, in three parts

Andrew Niccol's Gattaca (1997). Read each part, try the quick check from memory, then discuss. (There are spoilers ahead — that's the point; we're here to talk about it.)

Part 1 — Born the old-fashioned way

In the near future, a blood sample taken minutes after birth can tell you almost everything: your likely illnesses, your probable talents, even a rough estimate of how long you'll live. Parents who can afford it have their children's genes selected before implantation, screening out disease and weakness and building in strength, intelligence and good looks. These "valids" grow up to fill society's best jobs. Vincent, however, is conceived the natural way — a "faith birth" — and the hospital computer instantly predicts a high risk of a heart disorder and a life expectancy of around thirty years.

Vincent grows up an "in-valid" in a world that quietly discriminates on genetic grounds — a practice everyone calls illegal and no one takes seriously. His younger brother Anton, engineered for perfection, is always faster, always favoured. As boys, the two play a dare called "chicken," swimming out to sea as far as they can before turning back; astonishingly, Vincent keeps winning, refusing ever to hold anything back for the swim home. But wins in the water don't change the world on land: Vincent's dream of joining the space programme at the Gattaca Aerospace Corporation is closed to him. His genetic profile qualifies him only for menial work, however sharp his mind or fierce his ambition.

Quick check — answer from memory, then reveal:

1. Why is Vincent treated differently from most other children in this world?

2. What does the "chicken" swimming game reveal about Vincent?

1. He was conceived naturally rather than genetically selected, so his blood test predicts disease and a short life; society quietly discriminates against people like him.

2. He wins by never holding anything back, even against his "superior" brother — a hint that determination can outweigh a genetic advantage.

Discuss:
  • Vincent's whole future is estimated from a blood sample taken minutes after birth. If that estimate is only a probability, not a certainty, is it fair for it to shape how society treats him?

Part 2 — Borrowing a better set of genes

Determined to reach space, Vincent turns to a black-market broker who arranges an illegal trade: he will live and work as Jerome Eugene Morrow, a genetically "valid" former swimmer who won silver, not gold, and afterwards attempted suicide and was left paralysed. In exchange for money and company, the real Jerome supplies Vincent with an endless daily supply of his own blood, urine and skin — smuggled onto Vincent's body in tiny bags and pouches so that Gattaca's constant genetic checkpoints always read "Jerome," never Vincent.

The transformation is gruelling: leg-lengthening surgery, months of practising to write with his other hand, coloured contact lenses to match Jerome's eyes. It works. "Jerome" rises to become one of Gattaca's top navigators, preparing for a coveted mission to Titan, Saturn's largest moon. He falls for a colleague, Irene, who carries her own hidden imperfection — an elevated heart-disease risk that has quietly capped her own ambitions, even though by the world's standards she counts as "valid."

Quick check — answer from memory, then reveal:

1. How does Vincent pass Gattaca's genetic tests every single day?

2. What does Irene's own secret reveal about the "valid" system?

1. He uses samples of blood, urine and skin supplied daily by the real Jerome, whose genetic profile he has bought and is impersonating.

2. Even "valid" people carry hidden genetic risks that quietly limit their opportunities — the system is more fragile and unfair than it pretends to be.

Discuss:
  • Jerome sells Vincent his identity but keeps his silver medal and his despair. Is Jerome as trapped by his "perfect" genes as Vincent is by his "flawed" ones?

Part 3 — The eyelash

Days before launch, Gattaca's mission director is murdered, and a police sweep of the crime scene turns up a single stray eyelash — Vincent's own "in-valid" DNA, dropped inside a building he was never supposed to be able to enter. Detectives begin hunting for an intruder inside the company, and one of them turns out to be Anton, Vincent's own brother, now grown into a genetic-profiling detective. The net tightens daily around "Jerome."

It emerges that the director killed the administrator who had threatened to cancel the mission — Vincent was never the murderer, only the accidental suspect his own DNA implicated. Irene, meanwhile, works out the truth about who "Jerome" really is, and chooses to protect his secret rather than expose it. In a final confrontation in the sea, Anton challenges Vincent to one last round of "chicken" — and loses again, forcing Vincent to save his own drowning brother and finally explain the secret of every childhood victory: he never saved anything for the swim back.

On launch day, the company doctor — who has clearly suspected the truth for some time — lets "Jerome" board the shuttle to Titan anyway. As Vincent finally leaves Earth to live the life he was told he could never have, the real Jerome, his part in the deception now complete, takes his own life.

Quick check — answer from memory, then reveal:

1. Whose DNA is actually found at the murder scene, and who really committed the murder?

2. What choice does the company doctor make on launch day, and what happens to Jerome?

1. Vincent's own stray eyelash is found; the real killer turns out to be the director himself, who murdered an administrator threatening the mission.

2. The doctor, apparently already aware of the deception, lets Vincent board anyway; Jerome, no longer needed, ends his own life as the shuttle launches.

Discuss:
  • The doctor seems to have known all along and let Vincent through regardless. Was that an act of mercy, or a quiet admission that the whole genetic system is a performance?

Grammar — the causative

No film needs this structure more than Gattaca: a world built entirely on people arranging for other people, or other processes, to act on their behalf — parents who have their embryos screened, a man who gets his identity forged. English uses the causative to say that you didn't do something yourself — you arranged for it to happen.

Two patterns, two focuses:
• have/get + something + past participle — focus on the thing that receives the action, not on who does it: "Wealthy parents have their embryo screened for disease." "Vincent got his height increased by surgery."
• have/get + someone + do (bare infinitive) — focus on the specific person you arrange to act: "Vincent had a broker find him a genetic donor." "He got a specialist to test the sample secretly." (Note: have someone do, but get someone to do.)
Feel the difference:
• "She had her hair cut" = something was done to her hair; we don't care or need to say by whom.
• "She had the hairdresser cut her hair in a new style" = we name the person who performed the action for her.

1. Something done, or someone to do it? Choose the form the meaning needs

Read the meaning in brackets and complete the sentence.

1. Before the embryo was implanted, the couple (their embryo / screen) for any sign of serious disease. (focus on the embryo, not who screened it)

2. Unable to trust the daily test to a stranger, Vincent (Jerome / prepare) a fresh vial of blood every single morning. (focus on the specific person doing it)

3. To hide any trace of his real identity, Vincent regularly (his living space / clean) of every stray hair. (focus on the space, not the cleaner)

1. had their embryo screened (have + something + past participle)

2. had Jerome prepare (have + someone + bare infinitive)

3. had his living space cleaned (have + something + past participle)

2. Fix the form

Each sentence has the right idea but the wrong form. Write the corrected verb phrase.

1. To disguise his true height, Vincent had his legs (lengthen) by a risky operation. (something done to his legs)

2. Desperate for a donor, he got a black-market broker (find) him a matching identity. (a specific person acts)

3. Every applicant today can have their genetic profile (analyse) in minutes, without ever meeting a doctor. (something done to the profile)

1. had his legs lengthened (have + something + past participle)

2. got a black-market broker to find (get + someone + to + infinitive)

3. have their genetic profile analysed (have + something + past participle)

3. Complete the story — mix both patterns

Fill each gap with the correct causative form. Read it aloud when you're done.

Every week of his double life, Vincent quietly (fresh samples / deliver) to his apartment by Jerome. Before any interview that felt risky, he (his contact lenses / check) so his eyes never gave him away. And whenever the daily blood test loomed, he (Jerome / prick) a finger for one more vial, just in case.

had fresh samples delivered · had his contact lenses checked · had Jerome prick

Notice the pattern: naming only the thing affected uses have/get + something + past participle; naming who acts uses have/get + someone + (to) do.

Carry this into the Speak tab — Vincent's whole double life is one long list of things he had to have done, and people he had to have do them, without ever being caught.

The Real Story — how much of this is already true?

Gattaca imagines a world of near-total genetic determinism — where your DNA all but writes your biography before you're born. The honest answer is: some of its science is real and already in clinics today; its central premise — that genes fix your future — is the part it exaggerates.

🧬 "Genoism" — a word from the film, a fear that's real

The film's word for genetic discrimination, genoism, was coined by writer-director Andrew Niccol for Gattaca itself. But the fear it names is genuine: in 2008, the United States passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), which makes it illegal for employers and health insurers to discriminate against someone based on their genetic information. It is a real law, aimed at a real anxiety — that the kind of quiet, systemic genetic discrimination the film shows could start happening for real. Tellingly, GINA does not cover life, disability or long-term-care insurance — a genuine gap that shows the fear the film explores hasn't fully gone away.

Screening embryos is real — but for disease, not for a "perfect" life

The film's embryo selection has a real-world counterpart: preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). During IVF, doctors can biopsy a single cell from a very early embryo and test it for serious single-gene disorders, such as cystic fibrosis or Huntington's disease, before deciding which embryo to implant. This genuinely happens today, in fertility clinics, for couples at risk of passing on a specific serious illness.

What the film invents is the leap from "screen out disease" to "engineer perfection." Selecting embryos for traits like height, intelligence or eye colour — rather than avoiding a known illness — is far more restricted, and in many countries not permitted at all. And in 2018, the scientist He Jiankui shocked the world by claiming he had used the gene-editing tool CRISPR to alter human embryos before birth; the resulting births were widely condemned, and germline gene-editing of embryos remains illegal in the United States and most other countries specifically because of the risks Gattaca dramatises.

The part the film gets wrong: genes are not destiny

Here is the film's central exaggeration. Real genetic science increasingly relies on polygenic scores — statistical estimates built from thousands of genetic variants that each nudge a trait very slightly. For most complex traits — behaviour, personality, even most health risks — these scores are, at best, weak predictors: research consistently finds that genetics explains only a modest share of the outcome, while environment, upbringing, chance and effort explain the rest. A gene can raise or lower a probability; it essentially never guarantees an outcome the way Gattaca's blood test implies.

The film even makes this argument against itself. Vincent, statistically written off at birth, outperforms both his genetically "superior" brother and the flawless Jerome, who ends his own life despite his perfect genome. That's not just a nice ending — it's close to the real, well-supported scientific point: genes set probabilities, not certainties, and the gap between the two can be the story of a life.

Take these into the discussion:
  • Before this lesson, did you assume genetic testing like Gattaca's already existed for traits like intelligence or personality? What's actually possible today?
  • If genes only predict probabilities, not certainties, why do you think a "genetic underclass" like the film's in-valids feels like a real risk to some people?
  • Is a law like GINA enough protection against genoism, or does the gap in what it covers worry you?

Speak

This is the heart of the lesson — do it all out loud. The timer keeps you going; fill the time with detail.

Useful language: reach for the causative to talk about arranged actions — have/get something done ("he had his identity forged") and have/get someone to do ("she got a specialist to test the sample"). For opinions: "What's striking is…", "You could argue that…", "On one level… but on another…".
Time remaining: 4:00
Task A · Tell the story (4 minutes)

Tell the story of Gattaca in your own words, as if to someone who has never seen it. Move through the arc: the world of engineered births and genoism → Vincent's rejection and his deal with Jerome → the daily deception at Gattaca and the murder investigation → the eyelash, the brothers' final swim, and the launch.

Work in at least five key words (innate, meticulous, predetermined, defect, fraudulent, surpass, stigma, impostor, aptitude, scrutiny), and use the causative whenever Vincent arranges for something to be done: "he had his blood samples prepared every morning."

Task B · The impossible choice (4 minutes)

Vincent commits fraud — stealing an identity and deceiving an entire company — purely to pursue a dream the system says his genes disqualify him from. Build an argument: is breaking the rules justified when the rules themselves are unjust, or does the fraud undermine his achievement, however admirable the goal? Bring in other examples you know — whistleblowers, forged documents, people who "passed" as something they weren't to survive discrimination.

Task C · Should we engineer our children? (4 minutes)

The film imagines parents routinely selecting their children's genetic traits before birth. Where, if anywhere, should the line be drawn between removing disease and designing a "better" child? Make your case.

Stuck for an idea? Pick one of these and run with it:

  • Whether you would want to know your own genetic risk profile, if it were offered to you.
  • A time someone underestimated you (or you underestimated someone else) based on a first impression.
  • Whether genetic testing for serious disease is different, ethically, from testing for traits like height or intelligence.
  • A real scientist or public figure you admire who succeeded against the odds people set for them.
  • Whether workplaces should ever be allowed to ask about a candidate's health or genetic history.
  • A film, book or story where someone's "true self" was hidden behind a borrowed identity.

To finish — the bigger questions

  1. The film's real subject isn't genetics — it's whether determination can outweigh a disadvantage you were born with. What in your own life have you had to overcome that wasn't your choice?
  2. Vincent survives on borrowed genes and sheer will; Jerome has perfect genes and no will left at all. Who was truly free in this story?
  3. Genetic screening for disease is real and already saves lives; the film's version — near-total genetic prediction of a life — is not. Should society worry more about where that line might move in future?
  4. Before you go — from memory: give one sentence with have/get something done and one with have/get someone to do about your own life, and explain the difference in focus.