I, Blogger …

Well, you probably couldn’t see title coming, could you?

Well, could you?

Not with this film, anyway …

Now, I’ll admit that sometimes, my feelings on “The Film Of The Book” can be a touch mixed; if the film in question is of a book I’ve not read — or read and not cared for — I’m not too worried if the film isn’t representative of the book.

Saying that, I do know that the movie version of Angels and Demons has got me thinking I should go read the original novel; Friends have been raving about it for long enough.

At any rate, tonight has seen More4 air the Alex Proyas directed, film version of I, Robot.

And if, like me, you’ve any time for the work of Isaac Asimov, the man behind the original short story collection, I’m going to suggested one thing.

Just one.

You avoid this like the plague.

Seriously, avoid it!

The film version is a great Will Smith action flick, it really is; don’t get me wrong, there.

Set in Chicago, 2035, it follows Smith as the cynical — and very technophobic* — Detective Del Spooner, as he investigates the death of Dr Albert Lanning. Apparently at the hands of a prototype robot Lanning had created.

That doesn’t necessarily get my goat; after all, the script writer managed to at least come up with a vaguely — vaguely — satisfying explanation for why a robot with Asimov’s Three Laws can, theoretically kill. Even though Asimov, himself, does that so much betterº.

This is where the movie really hacks me off, though.

The fact is that — beyond a couple of character names; or three of them,to be precise — and the Three Laws of Robotics, the Alex Proyas film has little to do with the Isaac Asimov short story collection of the same name.

And, I think, it also rests on a big misunderstanding of one of the short story collections Big Ideas.

The film sees VIKI, the supercomputer running the USR building and most of urban Chicago, deciding that, in order to protect humanity, “… some humans must be sacrificed”. And making it perfectly clear that, by “ sacrificed”, it means killed.

That DAMN Frankenstein complex.

A phrase frequently used by Alfred Lanning, in the book, to describe many lay people’s unfamiliarity with — and consequent fear of — technology.

But, in The Evitable Conflict, one of the short stories in the pages of I, Robot, the iconic and ever icy Dr Susan Calvin explains to World Presidentª Stephen Byerley that the Machines — the positronic supercomputers that humanity has turned control of its economy to — aren’t developing glitches, or faults. The Machines are allowing small amounts of harm — demotions, transfers to less responsible jobs, that kind of thing — to come to individual humans, in order to prevent a great deal of harm — total economic collapse, and guaranteed wars over increasingly scarce resources — to come to humanity as a whole.

And that the Machines have kept very quiet, about that: as the collective psychological trauma humanity will suffer, is on the same sort of scale as the projected collapse.

Dr Calvin^ happens to think the Machines are a good thing, as are their actions: that the Machines can be trusted with humanity’s future.

Much more than humanity can be trusted with it.

I’m thinking that is something that the film’s writers and director, completely overlooked.

Which is why I’m suggesting — no, outright TELLING you — don’t see the film version of I, Robot.

I’m a thinking the films producers really missed the point …

* And even now, I can mentally hear Dr Alfred Lanning — the real one, in the pages of the book — and Isaac Asimov, himself, muttering “That DAMN Frankenstein Complex!”

º It goes like this. You find a glass of poisoned milk, for example. And tell Robbie the Robot to make sure no-one drinks it, because it’ll kill them. In this case the Second Law — that a Robot has to obey an order given to it, so long as this doesn’t conflict with the First Law — is reinforcing the First Law, which says a robot may not harm a human being, or through inaction, allow a human to come to harm. So Robbie leaves the poisoned milk in the kitchen, prior to getting rid of it, and goes off to clean the toilet.   He’s got to finish the washing up, before he drains the sink and pours the poisoned milk away.   However, along comes Ritchie the Robot, who — not knowing the milk is toxic — gives it to another member of the family. Ritchie the Robot kills them, and breaks the First Law in the process, because he didn’t know the milk was poisonous. You don’t need a techno-widget, really!

ª Or World Co-Ordinator, as Asimov calls him.

^ Dr Susan Calvin … Phew! How on EARTH does one explain the complicated, driven, woman that — in Asimov’s Robot universe — is Chief Robo-Psychologist to the US Robots Corporation? Bridget Moynahan does a competent job of playing the character. But for a better picture of the character, you’d be better off imagining her being very similar to Seven of Nine, or T’Pol, in the various “Star Trek” series. Or as Granny Weatherwax, on Terry Pratchett’s Discworld. If any of them doesn’t frighten you.

There’s also a quote, from Evidence, where she’s asked if robots and humans are different. Her response? “Worlds different: robots are essentially decent.” As she explains, herself, the Three Laws are really, good moral guides for all of us.

V For Vendetta: Voraciously Verbose

Well, FINALLY!

We got through a bag of crisps!

AND had a third person with us … !

It’s a Saturday, and, as you can probably tell by now, it’s been a quiet one.

A quiet Valentine’s Night, actually, as myself, Paul and Adrian either are all single, or who have partners un-available, tonight.

And, before the Smug Marrieds amongst my readers sit back and smirk, it is – in some parts of the world, – Singles Awareness Day so Nyah!

But I’m digressing, aren’t I?

As you’ll know, myself and Adrian – joined by fellow movie night regular, Paul, tonight – usually get together to dig up the contents of various DVD collections.

As you’d’ve noticed: one gangster, a thriller, an s-f trilogy, and THAT chap in kevlar, just don’t turn up out of nowhere.

And I should mention tonight’s science-fiction movie.   One directed by James McTeigue, who’d worked in various assistant directorial posts on the various entries in the Matrix series, and scripted by  Larry and Andy Wacholski.

V for Vendetta.

You know, I thought that some of the knife throwing sequences had a familiar feel to them … 

But, as with the Matrix franchise, it’s a film that has plenty of action to it, a nicely riveting plot – concerning one man’s attempt to gain revenge on those who’d tortured him, overthrowing the dictatorial government his tormenters had established – and food for thought, for those of us wanting to look for it.

Political, rather than the more mystical tone of the earlier Wachowski films.

The best way I can explain that is to quote the main character himself, though – “People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.”

Soundbite?   Maybe, but sometimes a truth has to be point simply, to be understood by as many people as possible …

Either way, though, V For Vendetta IS an enjoyable, well put together flick, although – as Adrian pointed out – one can overdo it.   He has seen it a few times.   Not that he was complaining too much, as, from what he’s told me over the years, it’s one he doesn’t mind seeing again, every so often.

Paul hadn’t seen the film, though, and was rather keen to.

Now Paul has a mild advantage on many of us with this movie.

You may not know it, but the film version “V for Vendetta” is another adaption from the work of writer Alan Moore, who I first came across, when he scripted various strips for 2000AD, many years ago.

And it’s one that, as with From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Alan Moore took his name from: mostly over concerns that the producers would dilute and change the meaning or intent of the work.

From the little I know, something he felt had happened with both previous films.   For me, that’s not a MAJOR worry, so long as I see an enjoyable movie for my hard earned money.

But definitely something I can sympathize with: if that was my book being put on screen, I’d want to make sure the producers got it right as well!

And this is where Paul has me, at least, at an advantage: he’s read the original.

It’s something I usually try and make a point of doing, knowing that Hollywood has a reputation of being a bit … ah … liberal, shall we say, with the story-line of a book they’re turning into a film.

One book that certainly suffered, in my view, was Isaac Asimov’s “I, Robot”.   Now, I’ve seen the Will Smith movie of the same name, and it’s an enjoyably entertaining film, but a very good example of what I mean.

I’ve read Asimov’s original short story collection, and the Will Smith film of the same name has very little to do with the original short story collection in terms of plot line, despite the title, some of the character names, and, importantly, the Three Laws of Robotics. 

That made it a film I’d’ve felt more comfortable avoiding, frankly.

It’s also why I’ve encouraged people who think well of Dr Asimov’s work to avoid the Will Smith film.   As enjoyable as I believe Will Smith’s I, Robot is, I feel it has very little to do with Isaac Asimov’s work.

It’s kind of why reading the original novel before watching the film of the book is an ideal I always try and aim for, even if I don’t always manage to do so.

It’s why I’ve always felt that the Peter Jackson epic film version of the J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings does well, as does the 1991, Jonathon Demme directed version of Silence of the Lambsº.

They’re both entertaining films, and good, fairly faithful, re-tellings of the respective novels*.

Yeez!   I’ve just seen the time!   I have to get up for work, in the morning!!!

Let me summarize, quickly, here.

I’ve had some good company, tonight, and seen a very entertaining film.

But I think I want to go and look the original graphic novel up, at some point; – just to make sure of what Alan Moore had in mind, when he wrote it …

*   I’m no kind of expert, but it does occur that there’ll scenes in a novel that just won’t be technically possible in a film version.   There’s also a limit to how long an audience is prepared to sit still.   And let’s face it, J. R. R. Tolkien and Peter Jackson didn’t exactly have the same kind of worries about the budget …

º   I should point out that the Ridley Scott directed version of Hannibal, by contrast, is a good counterpoint.   Whilst most of what’s in the film is on the pages of the books — including THAT scene with the bone saw, an antique dinner service and the contents of Ray Liotta’s head — in filming Hannibal, Mr Scott and the writers changed the ending.   Where do I start … ?!