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.
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.
