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.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

They Live * (1988) (SPOILERS) Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of They Live – I was a big fan of most things Carpenter at the time of its release – but the manner in which its reputation as a prophecy of (or insight into) “the way things are” has grown is a touch out of proportion with the picture’s relatively modest merits. Indeed, its feting rests almost entirely on the admittedly bravura sequence in which WWF-star-turned-movie-actor Roddy Piper, under the influence of a pair of sunglasses, first witnesses the pervasive influence of aliens among us who are sucking mankind dry. That, and the ludicrously genius sequence in which Roddy, full of transformative fervour, attempts to convince Keith David to don said sunglasses, for his own good. They Live should definitely be viewed by all, for their own good, but it’s only fair to point out that it doesn’t have the consistency of John Carpenter at his very, very best. Nada : I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

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.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.