Bicentennial Man

Year 3, Day 210 - 7/29/11 - Movie #931

BEFORE: The last Robin Williams film, at least for now. Ending the chain on this one will make more sense when tomorrow's movie is revealed.

THE PLOT: An android endeavors to become human as he gradually acquires emotions.

AFTER: This is based on a short story by Isaac Asimov, and his famous Three Rules of Robotics are prevalent, at least at the start of the film. (Namely: 1. A robot may not harm a human, 2. A robot must obey humans, unless doing so conflicts with Rule #1, and 3. A robot must protect itself, unless doing so conflicts with Rules #1 and #2).

Williams plays Andrew, the android, who seems to be unique in that he possesses a spark of creativity, and is gradually taught to think for himself, and eventually wants to experience the concepts of humor, love, freedom. It's too bad that this means covering some of the same ground as other characters like Pinocchio, that kid from "A.I." and Data from "Star Trek". And also Williams' old role from "Mork & Mindy", where he played a space alien who desired to learn all about human culture.

But there are more questions here about the nature of robotics and technology - namely, can a robot be programmed with emotions, made to feel? We can build a player piano, but can we build one that enjoys the music? This movie suggests that doing so is possible, after all, Rule #1, to not harm humans, is a sort of programmed compassion. It's (relatively) easy to program a robot to tell jokes, but can it find the humor in them?

I thought I had a good Nitpick Point - when one of the daughters in the family tells Andrew to jump out of the window, it would seem to violate Rule #3, to protect itself - but Rule #3 is void when it conflicts with Rule #2, to obey humans. So the movie did get it right.

But don't think I didn't spot the implication that it might have been the FALL from the window that "broke" Andrew (or fixed, depending on how you look at it), making him uniquely creative, or sparking something akin to humanity within his circuits. Crossed wires, a short circuit - or fate?

I'm curious about the nature of the visual effects in the film. I know that Robin Williams, mega-star, probably didn't clunk around the set in a robot suit for hours, and probably for the first 2/3 of the film provided just the voice of the character, with a stand-in wearing a suit with a Robin Williams-like face. I can't help it, I need to know how the movie magic is done. Considering the number of puppeteers listed in the credits, it looks like the appearance of high-tech was actually done in a low-tech way.

Speaking of technology, you know what we really need? Some sort of device in a shoe store that would let you know what shoes they have in your size. I bought sneakers today, and the process was just ridiculous - I had to hold up each sneaker and ask, "Do you have this one in size 13?" (pause while the clerk checked the back room) "No? Well, what about THIS one?" "How about THIS one?" Are you kidding me? It took like an hour to find something in my size. Why show me a wall full of sneakers, and force me to play the guessing game? What they need is an array of sneakers on little platforms, and when you go to a computer and punch in your size (and width, I have wide feet), then all the designs the store has IN STOCK in that size would, I don't know, light up or something. Don't say it can't be done, because I believe it can. Then I'd know right away which 3 sneakers were available in my size, I'd be done quicker, and I'd be a happy customer.

Lest you think I'm crazy, I've been calling for years for someone to invent a better umbrella, one that doesn't make water go down the back of my shirt - the Nubrella (seen on "Shark Tank") is a great first step. I also had the idea for the pot that stirs itself, so your hands are free to do something else - and along came the RoboStir (as seen in late-night commercials). So come on, shoe stores, lets put technology to use - please, steal my idea! (I'm still working on that reverse microwave concept, it still needs some fine tuning)

This film doesn't claim to have all the answers about advanced robotics, which I appreciate, but at least it dares to ask some important questions - what makes a human human? Is it the potentially short lifespan, or is it the anatomy, the chemistry (I always liked Vonnegut's description of humans as "walking bags of chemicals"), or is it something more intangible, like emotions or a soul? Or are those concepts just shared illusions formed by our brains?

I also appreciate that the film shows both the positive and negative side of being an artificial life-form. Living forever is a positive, but it also means watching your friends and family pass away as you outlive them. Which would only be a problem if the robot had emotions - oh, crap, he does.

I look back on what I've written sometimes and wonder if I'm too negative - not about these films, 'cause, well, screw 'em - but about life in general. I try to strike a balance, I don't consider myself an optimist or a pessimist - I aim to be a realist, and if that comes across as cynical, then so be it. But I see the good and bad in most things. I had a lot of fun at Comic-Con, but I also wore out my body and my sneakers. The NFL lock-out is over, which I guess is good, but it also means that once again the Fox Sunday animation line-up is going to be aired at irregular times (really, we can't invent a DVR that can compensate for sporting events that run long? Or impromptu presidential speeches? COME ON!)

Since tonight's movie ended the chain on a positive note (umm, I guess...) I'll try to do the same. If there's an overarching theme for the last week's films, it's this: no matter whether are lives are short ("Jack") or long ("Bicentennial Man") it's important to seize the day (duh) and appreciate the people we love ("License to Wed"), plus try to make a positive difference in the world ("According to Garp"). And it's OK to appreciate the special moments of our life ("One Hour Photo"), but not to get obsessive about them, and when things go wrong, we should try to put them right ("Jumanji"). And, umm...Popeye. Don't watch it.

How's that for non-cynical?

Also starring Sam Neill (last seen in "Omen III: The Final Conflict"), Embeth Davidtz (last seen in "Fallen"), Oliver Platt (last seen in "Kinsey"), Wendy Crewson (last seen in "Air Force One"), Hallie Eisenberg (last seen in "The Insider"), with cameos from Stephen Root (last seen in "Everything Must Go"), John Michael Higgins (last seen in "Couples Retreat"), Bradley Whitford (last seen in "Scent of a Woman"), Lynne Thigpen (last seen in "Anger Management").

RATING: 7 out of 10 grandfather clocks

EDIT: NITPICK POINT (You just knew I'd find one, right?): Try as I might, I can't justify the supporting (human) characters' ages in a way that backs up the claim that Andrew is 200 years old at the end of the film. When he is first activated, the character of "Little Miss" is about 6 or 7, and years later Andrew returns when she is a grandmother - let's say she's 70, so Andrew is about 64. At this point her granddaughter, Portia, is about 16 (the first age when a girl might resemble her adult grandmother) - so at the end of the film, this would make her 152? Sure, there's some talk about DNA serums and futuristic anti-aging techniques, but come on. I have to call shenanigans.