Skip to main content

The second protocol exists because we don't know what can be beyond the second protocol.

Automata
(2014)

(SPOILERS) Gabe Ibáñez’s assured sci-fi B-movie is an unashamed throwback. Heavily influenced by Blade Runner, it surrounds itself with sand rather than rain but is otherwise a similarly imagined world of holographic animations, old school sci-fi sound effects, and probing questions over the nature of consciousness. In the latter respect, it scores over the more recent I, Robot, although both movies rely heavily on Asimov’s laws of robotics (redefined here as protocols). Indeed, the first 40 minutes or so suggest this could be something special, a B picture rising above its limitations through sheer force of well-expressed ideas. It’s a shame, then, that Automata settles back into standard pursue-and-destroy plotting during the last half.


Ibáñez certainly makes the most of his $15m budget and cost-conscious Bulgarian shoot. This world is spartan and derivative, but precisely devised. So too, the robot designs are distinctive and memorable. There’s no money for the Apple-tech of I, Robot, but the use of physical animatronics lends welcome tangibility.


Antonio Banderas is Jacq Vallan, an insurance investigator for the ROC company (about as prestigious a job as Chris Pine’s compliance officer in Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit), manufacturer of robot helpers called Pilgrims. It’s 2044, and solar flares have devastated the Earth’s population to a miniscule 21 million; the robots are able to operate in the inhospitable, irradiated desert environment while the humans make do in fortified cities. Vallan is called upon to investigate an apparent case of robot self-modification, an act running strictly against their protocols; they are (familiarly) unable to harm humans, and also prevented from altering/improving themselves or others. As Vallan’s investigation proceeds, searching for the clocksmith (one who upgrades robots on the black-market) responsible, so the ROC Corporation acts to bury the evidence.


Ibáñez and co-writers Igor Legarreta and Javier Sanchez Donate incorporate many familiar elements from the cinematic legacy of Philip K Dick. The modified sexbots suggest Blade Runner’s pleasure model replicants, even though these are decidedly rudimentary by comparison. Vallan, like Rick Deckard, is burnt out and wants to leave (perhaps in a nod to the studio-dictated 1982 release conclusion of Blade Runner, Vallan wants to escape to a mythic ocean of his childhood memories). Dylan McDermott’s dodgy cop Wallace is a vision of greedy ‘80s pestilence, slicked back hair and permanently-in-place shades. He wouldn’t look out of place in a Trancers sequel. His pet name for robots (“Clunkers”) is similar to the vernacular adopted in Blade Runner with its “skin jobs”. There is even a cylinder of boiling eggs, although no one puts their hand in it.


There’s also an elegant score from Zacarias M de la Riva, underlying that the picture is aiming to be as much of a thought piece as it is a revel in dystopian gloom. Then there’s the duplicitous company, a futuristic mainstay from Alien onwards. More recent still, the mass garbage dump outside the city, where trespassers are shot on sight, recalls the singular (as in one-note) vision of Neill Blomkamp.


Automata’s best plot element relates to the conundrum of how these robots could be modified to the point where they can achieve self-actualisation. This is beyond the abilities of the best clocksmith; amending the robots protocols is memorably expressed as trying to hold a soap bubble in one’s pocket. The backstory, when it comes, offers the kind of tantalising intrigue the picture loses as it progresses.


The first created Pilgrim wasn’t bound by the limitations of the protocols, and its understanding progressed exponentially beyond that of humans; after nine days, “we stopped being able to understand it”. Why that robot then (in the eight days previous?) obediently put in place the protocols for all that came after is unclear, as is why/how it was allowed to wander off on its own into the desert (unless this is another robot imbued with understanding; if so, Ibáñez and co have not made themselves clear). Nevertheless, it’s an arresting idea that travels if isn’t poked at too closely.


One thing the manhunt of the second half allows is exploration of the robot consciousness. Sure, the Clunkers are given some clunky lines (“To die you have to be alive first” Clara “sarcastically” parrots back at Vallan when he expresses concern for the robots’ safety; earlier he used the same sentence to disparage her) but their implacability is winning. They refuse to take Vallan back to the city (“If we go back to the city we will die”, they repeat as a mantra), but do their best to uphold the first protocol by feeding him bugs and manufacturing a water condenser.


If Vallan’s transit from disinclination to care isn’t entirely convincing, mainly because we never really believe he holds the robots in callous disregard in the first place, Ibáñez wholly succeeds in creating empathy for his automatons. From the first scene, where one shields its face before Wallace blows it away, it’s evident whose side he’s on. This continues with a robot self-immolating, several cruel instances of robot massacres, and the crescendo of protests that accompany Wallace threatening Vallan (“Stop sir, you are putting a human life in danger”).


Unfortunately, this all leads towards a rather clumsy speech in which the original robot (if that is who he is intended to be) considers the passing of humanity on a cosmic scale, and the continuance of the robot race (“Surviving is not relevant. Living is” it replies when Vallan notes the Pilgrims were supposed to help humanity survive). The problem with the reveal of the original is that this robot with a brain the size of a planet can’t possibly impress us accordingly (even if it isn’t the original, it’s surely been out in the desert longer than the nine days it took that robot to advance beyond the point where humans could understand it; maybe it’s having to dumb itself down to chat to Vallan?) On the other hand, reformatting automaton kind into the form of the most attuned survivor, the cockroach, is a neat touch.


Ibáñez is unable to create the ambient coherence of Ridley Scott’s masterpiece, but he includes the occasional notable element. The child assassins who turn up at the door of Melanie Griffith’s clocksmith are a suitably sick touch. The subplot involving Vallan’s wife is a damp squib, though, and bringing her out to the desert seems like a really desperate plot choice. It doesn’t help that Birgitte Hjort Sørensen is rather annoying (I found her to be so in Borgen too, so it’s probably just me).


The supporting cast are suitably B-reliable. McDermott has fun being a bit of a dick. Robert Forster is dependably grizzled, while Griffith looks so surgically modified she might be an automaton herself. Her vocalising of Cleo is beautifully modulated, however (Javier Bardem also provides a robot voice). There’s a Brit contingent here too, with Andrew Tiernan, a mystifyingly underused Geraldine Somerville (did all her scenes end up on the cutting room floor?) and a tiresomely and rather OTT-motivated Tim McInnery. Banderas is solid enough, spending much of his time acting against robots, but he’s a more engaging actor when he’s allowed to express a bit of brio.


Automata isn’t anything special, then, and it drags once its plot decelerates into formulaic bad guys chasing the good guys/bots, but it’s a reasonably engaging and undemanding B-movie. Ibáñez knows how to create a milieu, and if this is a Hollywood calling card it won’t be long before he’s playing with the big guns. They just shouldn’t let him write his own scripts, though; he may have more ideas than a Blomkamp or a Paul W Anderson, but as yet he’s unable to pull his material together into something satisfying.




Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There