Good question Steven, anthropomorphising android “drives.”

Yes I know I did promise a five second or so critique on gravity, but I have been busy doing other things dammit. (I am in the process of writing a play about a drama group performing Lear – how is that for a logline.)

OK but to the case in point – Gravity. This is a film that takes itself way too seriously. It has what I would term – manufactured gravitas. Big budget, bankable cast and very sophisticated technology. Mummy please can I have their budge for my next project? But people (please pay attention now, this is the important part!) – GRAVITY IS A BORE!

It is turgid, predictable and or so sloooowww in depicting a very limited and overly engineered story line. OK we have the naughty Russian playing Nuclear Russian Roulette half a world away and this causes a massive pile up of space debris which is coming our way. Oh gee the tension is too much to bear. This is so frightening I won’t be able to sleep for a week.

But seriously folks, this is old school, so called “mainstream sci fi.” In other words it is sci fi for two year olds. This derives from the early pioneering days of science fiction when John W. Campbell was penning “Who Goes There?” which later was transformed into “The Thing” (from another world, galaxy or universe – take your pick.

But here’s the thing, even in the early days of science fiction the story and the hook on which it was based were the keys that drove both the narrative and tensions which drove those involved – yes the character development – give that man a lollipop. Well done sir or madam as the case may be.

Now we all know that there is nothing new under the sun. Writers steal. That is their bread and butter. In science fiction however, the writer plays a different game. It is called: What if?

What if our world travels between two binary suns? What if I am a cloned duplicate sent to assassinate/retire my original self? What if I decided to hitch a ride with aliens and travel to their world? You get the idea. Science Fiction has been playing this game for years. Some of the ideas have been outrageous, some fascinating and some down right pedestrian.

Robert A. Heinlein, in my humble opinion one of the greatest narrative writers of all time, stated: “Writing is nothing to be ashamed of – but do it in private and wash your hands afterwards.”

So read “Stranger in a Strange Land” or “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” then do a comparison with the narrative exercise in Gravity. I’m sorry but Gravity comes a very poor third. I mean it doesn’t really rate a mention. It is so pedestrian it makes me yawn to even think about it.

One note on sci fi movies in general. Most sci fi adaptions lack the ability to stand up to any sustained examination. There are rare exceptions: Blade Runner is a stand out. Most however suffer horrendously at the Hollywood treatment. A prime example would be Starship Troopers. The film is a travesty – almost a a farce – when compared to the source material. It loses so much in translation that it must have Heinlein spinning in his grave.

Let me name some sins of interpretation or omission. Juan Rico (Johnny) the lead character in the book was of South American extraction. So was Carmen, his girl next door. Carl dies on a research station on Pluto. He is not a telepath and he doesn’t spout idiot slogans like: They are afraid. More to the point the film while not anti-military, does ask questions about the rights and responsibility of citizenship in ways completely lost or neglected in the film.

The main casualty in the film however is the developing relationship between man and machine. Johnny Rico is a member of the MI, the mobile infantry and the Mobile Infantry wears powered armor with a jet-pack and weaponry capable of leveling a small city. This doesn’t even get a mention in the film. The concept being deemed too expensive to develop at the time.

This is not the main casualty however, the real tragedy is that Johnny Rico, in the book develops and grows. He has plenty of characters to meet and interact with. There is Kitten Smith, Ace, Red, Sergeant Zim, Johnny’s father and most of all Colonel Dubois the figure in the background giving moral guidance and making him think. All this s lost in the film. Oh some of the characters survive, but as poor, pathetic, cardboard cutouts when compared to the original. To encapsulate the ridiculous nature of the film, Denise Richards may be the centre of many a juvenile wet dream, but as Carmen Ibanez she is an hysterical mistake of gigantic proportions. That together with a screenplay which beggars the imagination and full of cringe worthy nonsense just puts the cherry on the gingerbread.

Well now that I’ve got that out of my system, I’m a whole new man.

So back to the raison d’etre of today’s little diatribe – we return to Gravity (Oh must we? Yes we must. We must. Oh all right then.)

I am reminded of one of the great one liners of Dorothy Parker – she of the Algonquin Table aka The Vicious Circle. Her comment: This Is Not a Novel To Be Tossed Aside Lightly. It Should Be Thrown with Great Force.

The capitals are not mine but I do share the sentiment when it comes to Gravity. It is a poor thing of little worth and no excitement. That it has been allowed to live is a pity. It shows little interest in the human condition and excites nothing except a feeling of wasting two hours watching grass grow in space. It is film to be avoid except as an exercise in how NOT to make an entertaining and engrossing science fiction opus. Of course I could be wrong. You are perfectly entitled to go and see and voice your own opinion. Me, I have better things to do.

Now let’s see, where was I …..?

“The story is the essential progression of insights that occur to the hero in pursuit of their one goal.”

” The story can only be interesting because we find the progress of the hero interesting.”

“As long as the protagonist wants something the audience will want something.”

“What’s love got to do with it – do with it? What’s love but a second hand etc” I am interested in the Turing Test and the philosophical question which can be stated thusly: If a machine is constructed in shape to closely resemble a human being and is capable of emotionally reacting to a situation, then can it be defined as just an android – or does it become human in essence if not in fact?

To put it another way, can the replicant replace the being it is modelled on – outperforming, even surplanting it? As well as: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” there are other science fiction stories that enter into this realm of memory implantation and stolen identity. “Good night Mr James,” by Clifford D. Simak is one of my favorites – adapted for TV in The Outer Limits as “The Duplicate Man.”

Hollywood does not have a very good record in this department. Indeed in the whole realm of sci fi good renditions are the exception not the rule. I won’t catalog my favorites here, but I would also classify myself a hard sci fi aficionado – which has lead me in the present context to an unrequited quest for such fare at every turn. And yes I do write scripts for this mileiux , but not exclusively so.

That however in no way sets the criteria for what questions should be asked of other writers and their works. The critical parameters are not limited to my choice of standards or values, nor do I assume that to be so. On the other hand, I can and will express my dissatisfaction if a writer/director/producer comes up with an end product which I believes falls short of the mark. That is my right as an audience member and a critic. One a work is released into the public domain, it is fair game for anyone to make their comment and give their critical appraisal.

I am a critic – as essential to the theater as ants to a picnic. -Joseph Mankiewicz

Praise and criticism are both frauds. -Anonymous

A critic is a man who knows the way but can’t drive the car. -Kenneth Tynan

If you can look into the seeds of time,
And say which grain will grow and which will not,
Speak then to me, who neither beg nor fear
Your favours nor your hate.
Shakespeare’s Macbeth

“I exist” said the man.
“But” said the universe,
“That creates in me, no sense of obligation.” — Stephen Crane

“You must stay drunk on writing so reality cannot destroy you.” – Ray Bradbury

Wittgenstein, a good but impatient teacher, left the profession in April 1926, after striking a student who had disappointed him. He worked as a gardener for three months, before returning to Vienna to help build a house for his sister. His return to Cambridge in January 1929, while heralded, was also greeted with some dread by those familiar with his difficult personality: “God has arrived,” John Maynard Keynes wrote to a mutual acquaintance of his and Wittgenstein’s. “I met him on the 5:15 train.” Anon

As a writer-director, myself, I fully realise that such a case of non-human sentience is a hard sell emotively to a human audience, but why not tackle that challenge squarely if you are allegedly dealing with the AI question in the first place?

Whether Garland was ever aware of this philosophic nuance, or not, I think it has been ignored in the above comments. Androids capable of love are easy on the “popcorn munchers”, but is that an authentic portrayal of android psychology?

Thank you for your considered answer, John. I can totally see your point.

Looking forward to your thoughts on Gravity! (That one didn’t work for me one bit, while the rest of the world went crazy over it.)

It is valid to examine a piece through the lens of the the writer’s intent. But it is also valid to operate in the dark as an audience member and decide on the experience as it unfolds – on subjective grounds how you found the experience. An objective examination is a nice fiction which is open to debate.

There are no arbitrary absolutes on how character is revealed, but my own view is that most successful character builds come from how the character reacts to conflicts and adversary situations. As the scale of difficulty grows so does the frustration of the character. How the character is able to find their way through the labyrinth of narrative helps us gain insight into their thoughts and the core of their being. This is the revelation that I referred to above.

My key frustration with most depictions of android/humanoids in film relates closely to the Turing test, but in a secondary and even tertiary level. It comes down to the frustration of being human. Most depictions of androids has to date, been shallow and under developed. In this case there is a level of sophistication in the style and presentation, but the character of the android is still on the level of a cipher. We have nothing to relate to in the way of the human emergence or yearning for transformation onto a higher level.

I will give two examples where the Turin test comes into play. There is a short novelette where alien shape changers may have created one of their creatures in exact duplication of human form and the replicant escapes into the city where men exists, but is killed in the process. The other possibility is that they have captured a human, bent his mind out of shape and then allowed him to escape. The question then becomes: Was this creature human?

The other example is Rick Deckard, the Blade Runner. After his adventures “retiring” a number of replicants and becoming involved with one – he learns that his own memories are suspect and that he may be a replicant himself. Irony abounds but the existential framework gets a good working out in the process. Our identification with Deckard becomes even stronger as we share his feeling of alienation and finally ends up with questions that cannot be answered – only endured.

Chalk one up for Riddely Scott. Ave and all that. Drum roll and muted applause. It works.

In this the Turing Test or “Voight-Kampff” Test – is only a tool which introduces us to the first step of the conundrum. The flaw in the process is deciding what is human? Then there is the other question: What is reality – and do I want to be there? The Hamlet question. Again there are questions without any hope of finding a definitive answer.

Gertrude Stein on her death bed and Alice B.Tolkas asks her: What is the answer? To which Gert responds: What is the question?

The reality is that we do NOT live in a quantum universe. We ask quantum theory questions, but we live in a determinist universe. The cat may be either dead or alive before we open the box, but when the box is opened it assumes one of these states.

My main objection to Deus Ex Machina is that it sets up the situation, but never really asks the question. Again that is my view – a lot of potential which is never fully realised.

And next week I will tell you what I thoughts on Gravity – schlock Hollywood rides again! Ah well – so it goes. The wheel turns and we climb on the wagon for another trip to the circus.

Tom – I have a suspicion that what you experienced is exactly what Garland wanted to achieve. And he did. So from that perspective, the film was successful. Looking at its box office, it didn’t badly at all, with its budget recouped 2x. Not enough to go into profit, but enough to make it work with the standard ‘Hollywood accounting’.