Skip to main content

I wasn't broken. I was sad.

The Machine
(2013)

(SPOILERS) The Machine is an impressive Hollywood calling card from writer-director Caradog W James, but only in respect of the latter skillset. There’s little original in his well-worn script concerning an AI created by everybody’s favourite Bond villain Toby Stephens. Actually, James also steals a whole lot in terms of visuals. But this is a stylishly put together futuristic thriller, making the most of its low budget. So much so, it’s easy to give the scrappy plotting and rote characterisation a pass, until the thought crosses your mind that James may genuinely think he’s saying something profound or significant.


He isn’t. This is economical B-movie making to an appreciably high standard but sadly, and predictably, rather than using the opportunity to explore its familiar but still resonant themes James chooses to cut to the chase. Did he chop The Machine down to 90 minutes from a more extensive storyline, or is the conceit of a Cold War with China (announced on the opening subtitles) less an announcement of a thought-through world than a glib homage to post-Escape from New York dystopias? Probably the latter, but while much of the movie consciously recalls ‘80s movie filmmaking, it’s crucially absent the sense of humour and irreverence that marked out the likes of Trancers; cheerful knock-offs of the big blockbusters. James is clearly using Blade Runner as a yardstick in his visuals, along with a host of other Hollywood visualists from Lucas to Cameron, although the machine consciousness angle is more inspired by other AI movies (2001, even Robocop). Crucially, a being’s discovery of self-awareness isn’t interrogated in Ridley Scott’s classic; it’s all after the fact (Rachel is self-aware, she just isn’t aware she’s a replicant). The main hat doffing to Blade Runner here comes with the Turing Test, or Voight-Kampff for short, and references to Skin Jobs


Stephens, a very English British actor who never seems quite able to disentangle himself from natural starch, is scientist Vincent, employed by the Ministry of Defence to develop an android for military purposes. He has been testing his work on damaged veterans, some amputees, others severely brain damaged.  Many of these individuals guard the research facility, possessing implants that render them mute aside from incomprehensible (to others) interactions with each other. Vincent is driven by the desire to find a treatment for his afflicted daughter, and when Ava (Caity Lotz) joins the project it looks as if a breakthrough will be possible. But Thomson (Dennis Lawson), the commander of the base, is ruthless in pursuing the goal of a weaponised machine and will not let anything as flimsy as ethics stand in his way.


James’ movie is big on atmosphere but short on depth. He starts things off effectively, with as mentioned, a scene that mimics Blade Runner as a newly implanted soldier fails to show he is sufficiently human and takes to Vincent and his assistant with a scalpel. The cinematography of Nicolai Bruel here, and throughout, is a major boon to James, even if he rather overdoes the lighting rigs and lens flares in order to divert attention from the threadbare sets (it appears that they filmed on a disused industrial site).  Much of this will seem familiar, from the glowing eyes of the implantees to their Ben Burtt-esque verbal communications (actually Farsi). The physical effects, also aided by lighting, are mostly impressive; prosthetic arms and android endoskeletons. The synth score too, from Tom Raybould, adds enormously to the mood.


But the characters are a clutch of clichés. Vincent is the single-minded yet sympathetic scientist (he needs the daughter sub-plot to make him sufficiently relatable). Thomson is utterly loathsome, doing thoroughly nasty things just because he can. Lotz barely gets a look in as Ava, but she gives a good performance as the sexy android version. Like most of the content here, it isn’t what’s on the page so much as the realisation that makes it worth a look. Lotz conveys the android’s growing awareness and childlike innocence well, but the devices used are predictable (a fear of clowns, her manipulation by Thomson; “That man killed your mother”). The AI’s suggestion that an android could be used to infiltrate and assassinate the Chinese leader is remarked upon by Thomson as a good idea but surely that would be one of the first things he’d have considered? And just what did he expect Vincent to be working on, such that as soon as the project is successful he wants the results curtailed (“Conscious machines are the last thing we need. Have you any idea how dangerous that would be?... The technologically advance tribe always wins”).


Besides the AI aspect, there’s a touch of Splice to the creature that falls for her creator, but James doesn’t is only skin-deep in his exploration of his Skin Job. A physical relationship is presumably not feasible, and the plot quickly settles on a base-wide revolt for its action-focused third act. Which is decently realised, but underlines that this is not the most thoughtful of movies. It serves to render the would-be provocative last scene, in which the downloaded consciousness of Vincent’s now deceased daughter would rather interact with her new “mother” than her old father, flat. So what? And all the portentous talk of the machines being part of the “new world” lacks a crum of achievability. An android and a motley assortment of cyborgs are somehow going to inherit the Earth? How? Perhaps in a nebulous sense, over the course of centuries.


In the best of both worlds this would be smart and flashy, but we just have to make do with flashy. The Machine momentarily puts its brain first whenever its director wheels out the Turing Test, but he can’t sustain that edge. Still, if James can produce this kind of ‘80s-future chic with less than £1m, it will be more than worthwhile investigating what he is capable of when equipped with a decent budget and someone else’s script.


***


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for