July 8, 2004
By Matt Savelloni
“THE DANGER OF THE FUTURE IS THAT MAN MAY BECOME ROBOTS.” – Erich Fromm
When I arrived at Boston University in September of 1990, there was one man I was intent on meeting: Isaac Asimov. Like the mysterious Wizard behind a curtain in Oz, Asimov stood like a mythic figure in my mind, one of many fueling my own aspirations to write. Alas, I never did get to meet Asimov before he finally passed into the cosmos in 1992. Nevertheless, his presence carried on, indelible and eternal like his seminal work, I, ROBOT.
Published by Gnome Press in 1950, I, ROBOT remains today the bible of robotics, not necessarily in a technological sense but certainly in a philosophical vein by establishing the three laws of robotics:
(1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm
(2) A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law
(3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law
Within these nine stories, Asimov explores the evolution of the robot, from childish toy to global power broker. The three laws, like all laws, are skirted, misinterpreted and broken along the way. Even as Asimov paints a picture of the future where mankind slowly and willingly becomes obsolete, the carriers of his ruin suffer a similar plague of challenges, conflicts and sins. Rather plaintively and subtlety, Asimov positions I, ROBOT as an apocalyptic struggle occurring almost by accident at the top of the food chain. It asserts that no matter whom the victor – man or machine – they will be braced with as many curses as spoils.
“ARTISTS ARE, ABOVE ALL, MEN WHO WANT TO BECOME INHUMAN.” – Guillaume Apollinaire
 |
There is a framing story, a tender thread, involving a character named Dr. Susan Calvin throughout I, ROBOT but she is merely a vessel upon which to portray the numerous challenges of android development rather than a plot device. Asimov’s theme, though, is very consistent: during man’s pursuit to increase efficiency, liberation and industriousness, he becomes more inhuman while his creations seek to become more human. There is all-encompassing knowledge and sophistication in Asimov’s robots by I, ROBOT’s end but what is still very much uncertain is the humanistic concept of emotion and abstract thought. The robots look past mankind for a bigger purpose – a universal rationale for their own existence – even as they subvert and patronize their creators. Humanity, meanwhile, reverses that examination by shirking questions of principle and perpetuity in an effort to fully exploit the present. Asimov’s ultimate revelation is rather alarming: mankind and robotkind have come to share exactly one trait—the stifling presence of ego.
It’s difficult to measure the impact of I, ROBOT. We start be asking at what point does fiction end and real-life muse begin? Asimov belongs within a cadre of legendary fantasists whose influence reaches far beyond the printed page. How many scientists were created and motivated by the likes of Asimov, Jules Verne, Arthur C. Clarke, etc.? How many technical innovations were first sparked in the minds of respective inventors by the pages of a science-fiction story? If not providing an outright systematic imperative for such great achievements, writers like Isaac Asimov most definitely carried the vanguard of progress while simultaneously warning us against worship at its altar. The metallic creations of I, ROBOT will become a reality and Asimov’s vision of sixty years prior will one day walk among us. That much is assured. What is not certain – and this is what almost always our vexation with achievement, Asimov attests – is whether or not we will pay as close attention to his spiritual cautions and highlights
“IT HAS BECOME APPALLINGLY OBVIOUS THAT OUR TECHNOLOGY HAS EXCEEDED OUR HUMANITY.” – Albert Einstein
And nowhere is Albert’s claim more apparent than in modern filmmaking. The wave of CGI and non-three-dimensional filmmaking fills theaters with more weekly filth than a garbage scow cruising the Hudson. Even when artful – THE LORD OF THE RINGS, SPIDER-MAN 2 – CGI nevertheless jerks an audience out of the world onscreen. Not that audiences seem to mind. Judging from the box office haul of special-effects-for-the-sake-of-special-effects movies like THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, the modern filmgoer has willingly turned into a newborn clapping idiotically at a colorful mobile and giggling “Shiny!” Suspension of disbelief is no longer required, only a solid “Whoa” factor that people can talk about during a movie. The awe so deftly engineered in films like the original STAR WARS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, BACK TO THE FUTURE and THE MATRIX is a rarity compared to the wet dream video-game style graphics of fanboys now in charge of film effects. The PC whiz-bang serves a story no longer; it has become the story.
 |
Isaac Asimov wrote a series of great stories in I, ROBOT but nothing about the “film” bearing his name seems to suggest even the slightest affinity to the classic novel—indeed, the official credit is “suggested by book.” This Will Smith summer vehicle seems simply constructed as an action movie in the pseudo-futuristic clothing that makes up Hollywood’s idea of science fiction. And if the reports of the studio simply slapping Asimov’s title on the screen and asking Oscar-winning scribe Akiva Goldsman to add a few of the novel’s stylistic bon mots to the script are to be believed, then this is about as close to the real thing as low-carb chocolate.
The one aspect of I, ROBOT that gives me hope – besides Bridget Moynahan, who I would intently watch knit a sweater – is director Alex Proyas. He has provided two idiosyncratic genre successes in THE CROW (the best superhero movie outside of Donner’s SUPERMAN) and DARK CITY (a truly unique science-fiction-cum-noir-head-spinner that was unfairly overlooked in 1998). His GARAGE DAYS is also a pretty, if overly amped, musical fantasy that exhibits more of his distinct visual pizzazz. Proyas is our one hope that I, ROBOT will turn out to be something more than the same loud, prepackaged PG13 drivel infesting the months of April through August.
It amazes me that Hollywood even bothers trying to draw parallels between its weak sister products and the archetypal works they bastardize. The audience that will make Will Smith’s I, ROBOT a $100 million hit is not the same audience that holds the novel near and dear to their hearts. The people who will eagerly line up to drink 72 ounces of Coke from a Robot Cup at the local Gazillion-Plex do not know anything about Isaac Asimov; they probably think he is a new Russian rapper. Equating his significance with a popcorn thriller holds no marketing advantage for the lemmings already primed to see it and only succeeds in pissing off the purists. Now if only we could enact three immutable laws ordering Hollywood not to bring any more harm to filmgoers, we would really be getting somewhere.
“Fashion is something barbarous, for it produces innovation without reason and imitation without benefit.” – George Santayana
E-MAIL THE AUTHOR |
ARCHIVES
