I, Robot
Set in the year 2035AD, Detective John Spooner (Smith) is brought in to investigate the death of Dr. Alfred Lanning (James Cromwell), a robotics pioneer, at the USR conglomerate who has a monopoly on the sale of robots. His prejudice and his investigation leads him to suspect a rogue NS-5 robot, USR’s latest robotic offering, of the murder. Of course, this is inconceivable given the sacred Three Laws of Robots. The far reaching implications and potential danger to a human society so dependant on robot labour is almost impossible to imagine. Yet, in a film where 21st Century storytelling hits a 1950′s original story by Isaac Asimov, the impossible becomes all too likely.
I wasn’t expecting much from I, Robot, but I can say I am pleasantly surprised. Maybe it’s ’cause I haven’t been to the pictures for a while. Oo-er, aren’t I feeling like an old codger using words like the “pictures”. Marvellous. Indeed.
I guess the Asimov fan base will be divided, very much like the Lord of the Rings groupies. Some will applaud it as a story that finally should have been told. Others will scoff at the Hollywood make-over. To be honest, and don’t tell anyone this as they will revoke my SF/F Membership Card, I have never read any of Isaac Asimov’s novels. I think for me, like many, Asimov’s genius in robotic morality was always acknowledged but never really explored. I suspect there are some out there that will never have heard of the author at all.
But this film has showcased his genius to me and has encouraged me to actually explore his works further. Sitting in the film theatre, it wasn’t the fact that this was Will Smith back after a brief hiatus or even demonstrating that he can do serious; it wasn’t the cool fact that Audi had survived looking like an iPod or that those frightful 2004 black leather Converse shoes had survived so long (Converse, in my opinion, should always be made of canvas and the company should stop pandering to celebrity and fashion); nor was it even the shooting and the brilliant CG/FX that were sexy enough to draw the crowds.
Nope, for me, it was the storyline. The concepts that were presented. I’m accused of tiring easily about rehashed storylines and concepts. And I am in my right since most of the crap out their hitting the screens is nothing but same old concepts packaged up with new stars or new locations. I, Robot can be accused of being the same. We’re all familiar with the concepts. Nothing in the film remotely suggested some mind-blowing new concept. I’ve seen it all in Terminator, Robocop, 2001, Ghost in the Machine, The Matrix, and slew of other science fiction and anime films.
But you know what was the deal closer for me? It was the fact that Asimov was the first. The aforementioned films can probably all trace their concepts back to Asimov’s works, of which I, Robot was published circa 1950. Robocop had his safety protocols hardwired into him. They are surprisingly similar to Asimov’s Three Laws. Terminator and The Matrix all lend their concepts of a man vs. machine showdown to Asimov’s questioning of issues concerning robotics, technology and science as a whole. In my mind, I, Robot was about the moral responsibility of science and technology. Just because we can, should we? Fine, maybe not a new concept even by Asimov’s standards since we, as a civilisation, were discovering the social issues around an increasingly mechanised world.
The fact that over reliance on science and technology is potentially dangerous despite the benefits it brings is obvious. What was less obvious was the main point of the film in my opinion.
Ghost in the Shell and other anime works all lend their ideas of something or someone being more than just a sum of their parts, and their programming. This was already an explored possibility by the grand-daddy of science fiction back in the 50′s. This was perhaps the most profoundly insightful aspect of the film. As we blindly unravel the genetic make-up of life and discover that DNA programming may be responsible for certain behaviours and characteristics, I, Robot’s suggestion that a mere robot can be more than just it’s programming should serve as warning to us.
While the film demonstrated that a robot can become more than the sum of its programming (essentially protocols based on human experiences), humans too should not sell that birthright down the drain. Just like our DNA programming contributes a lot to our behaviour and existence, so too are our experiences part of that programming of behaviour. Will Smith’s character too demonstrates that he too can be more than his programming. Mind-blowing in that Asimov probably had no idea about DNA or it’s science back when he wrote the book.
When you watch this film, you might think you have already seen this film. You have. Just remember, these concepts were hammered out long before Arnie was sent back in time to kill Sarah Connor; even before Mr. Anderson become Neo; or even before Masamune’s Kusanagi explored the possibility of robotic conscience.
