A large portion of responses to movies nowadays seems to be, “Eh, not as good as the original.” There’s no denying that the film industry has a fascination with spitting out reboots and remakes of old classics, and it could indeed be said that they are sometimes inferior to the source material. But most of the time we’re simply too quick to judge. If the original film holds any sort of nostalgia for us, then we denounce the new film’s claim to greatness the moment we notice any slight departure from the creative direction of the version in our memories.
I didn’t see RoboCop in 1987 when it first hit cinemas – probably because I wasn’t alive then – but I did make it a priority to watch the original film before the 2014 reboot. Needless to say, they are quite different films. The original was darker in tone, while the reboot glosses over the more grisly details of Alex Murphy’s injury and paints a brighter depiction of the future. The differences are things like: In the original, Alex Murphy had a white female partner in the police force; in the reboot, he has a black male partner. In the original, his family was never shown on-screen; in the reboot, his wife and child play a somewhat major role. In the original, his memory was wiped when he first became RoboCop; in the reboot, it was only after several field tests that they began manipulating his brain, and then only to suppress his human emotions, leaving his memory intact. In the original, Alex Murphy’s character is shown to be mostly calm and reserved; in the reboot, he’s first introduced having a heated argument with some fellow officers for making suspiciously little progress on their case.
Both films tell a similar story of corporate greed and corruption, however. The message of the original film was well-hidden – it was clear who the good and bad guys were, but what was the point of the whole story? To say that privatised law enforcement is a bad idea? By contrast, the reboot’s message is more heavy-handed: Alex Murphy is a pawn in a larger scheme to put fully-automated robots on the street to better protect Americans. The question here is whether a robotic police force would actually be better than a human one, and the film addresses that question with gusto. Samuel L. Jackson’s segments where he plays a highly biased talk show host are entertaining to watch, and his overzealous manner makes you actually think about the issue instead of agreeing blindly. There’s also the moral question – whether unfeeling robots should be allowed to fight crime on our behalf – which is addressed as well.
The reboot pays homage to the original in many ways. “I’d Buy That For A Dollar” was a rather strange TV show in original film’s universe, and while it’s not present in the reboot (thank goodness) it is cleverly referenced at one point. The original Alex Murphy had a habit of swirling and holstering his handgun Wild-West-style to impress his son, and likewise the new RoboCop has a similar quirk, though it’s no longer something that identifies Murphy to his partner. Other such homages are present in both the screenplay and dialogue for those old enough (or interested enough) to have seen the original film.
What really stands out in the reboot though is the performances of Michael Keaton as the head of OmniCorp (great evil-corporation-name, that) and Gary Oldman as the doctor who works on RoboCop. Both are exemplary actors and they breathe life into every scene they appear in. Their roles are inherently conflictive – Gary Oldman, as a doctor, wants to act in Murphy’s best interests, while his boss demands results at any cost. The cycle of problem, clash of morals, solution is more than anything what engages the viewer and makes you empathise with the characters. Jackie Earle Haley’s great too, as always.
One of the main interests the film held for me was the discourse on AI: how much should we allow automation to rule our lives? Today we live in a world where computers are (as yet) less intelligent than humans but far more efficient at processing information, leading to useful applications in expert systems, data retrieval (think Siri), and self-driving cars (they’re coming, slowly but surely).
In the world of RoboCop, they’re also able move around (an achievement in itself), identify both known felons and other threats to public safety, and swiftly act in response. But should they? Or should we keep a human element in the loop, a la RoboCop? Or should we keep some things – like law enforcement – as human-operated as possible? Even the best-checked computer system is prone to bugs, hardware failure, or other unforeseen scenarios.
On another note, is human consciousness something we can or should manipulate as we do a computer? Are our values and decision-making process determined solely by chemicals in our brain? I don’t believe so, but there are many who do, and many who would augment our mental faculties in any way possible.
RoboCop offers but a glimpse into these questions, but it’s a compelling glimpse that sparks a debate we could well be having in a number of years.
The film’s presentation – its visual design, RoboCop’s first-person HUD, the special effects, writing, and so on – is naturally more modern and hence more approachable than the 1987 film, which is definitely a mark in its favour. The nay-sayers would probably have a valid point about the somewhat wooden acting of Murphy and his wife, but they have reasonable excuses (he’s half-robot; she’s distraught for much of the film) and the shining performances of Gary Oldman, Michael Keaton, and to a lesser extent Samuel L. Jackson and Jackie Earle Haley, more than make up for any hollowness on the leading man’s part.
If you’re at all interested in AI or automation or a fan of the aforementioned actors, RoboCop is definitely a film you’ll enjoy. Now, if only it paid homage to the hilarious scene in the original where the giant bipedal robot tries ascending some stairs…
In other news, I apologise for the lack of a new post last week – my family and I were busy getting sunburnt. But henceforth I’ve decided to update this blog every fortnight instead of every week, partly because the university year will be starting again soon but mostly because I intend to spend every other week working on a novel. It’s shaping up well so far, and I’d like to invest more time into fleshing out the story I’ve had floating around in my head for a few years.
Observations 