I, Robot - Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Hate Hollywood

Warning: Contains Spoilers

Having only recently finished Isaac Asimov's brilliant work, I may be slightly behind the times - around sixty years. Better late then never though. Truly, there is only one way to sum up this book:

Thank God Asimov was not alive to see the abomination created by Alex Proyas.

I wonder if the director of the 2004 film I, Robot has even read this masterpiece. The movie: "The three laws of robotics inevitably lead to robot revolution against humans". Enter a gun totting police detective played by Will Smith and you have yet another summer blockbuster. Like every other summer blockbuster, Asimov's intricate plotlines and profound social commentary had to be cut down or eliminated entirely so the general public (read: dumb people) could understand the film.

For example, explaining to a film audience that one of the goals of Asimov's book (as far as our literary interpretations have determined) was to examine the ideological extensions of Marxism in a futuristic society would have turned the film from a popcorn flick to something more akin to Starship Troopers. Before you leap down my throat, here's the logic.

People generally hated Starship Troopers (those who have even heard of it). It was heralded as a TERRIBLE film. Because nobody understood that a) it was satire and b) it was absolutely brilliant in its perceived awfulness. I'm not saying we needed aliens, satire or excessive violence (though you could argue there was some of that), just a little bit more credit as a movie-goer. Maybe Starship Troopers stands as an example that, actually, movie-goes don't deserve credit. If that is indeed the case, I think there's probably far worse problems than a bad book-to-movie translation. Truly, is there ever a GOOD one? Do share.

Back to I, Robot. If Alex Proyas had left even an intelligible thread of Asimov's ideas, the film could have been an instant classic.

The premise of the novel I, Robot was indeed centered around the three laws of robotics. (Available for your reading pleasure at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics) Asimov posited that if artificial intelligence was created to live amongst humans, they must be bound by certain innate rules. To summarize: they can't hurt humans, they have to follow human orders, and they must act to preserve their own life - let's face it: sentinent robots would be expensive.

The majority of the book examined the different ways in which these laws interacted with each other and thus how the robots functioned in their environment. Asimov suggested that robots would be used to raise children, to mine for ore on other planets (Mercury in this case), to direct space stations which shielded earth from harmful radiation, and even develop interstellar travel. Does this sound like the movie? I didn't think so either.

Asimov even suggested the accidental creation of a robot which could read minds. Its destruction by Robopsychologist Susan Calvin was pure brilliance. The robot was bound by the laws not to harm humans, and thus could not tell humans things about their lives that would cause harm. He (I use this purposely instead of it) was forced in some situations to lie to prevent mental harm. Calvin confronts him with a logical dilemma of such proportion it fries the robot's brain.

One scene WAS reminiscient of the film. A robot is told to "lose himself" and hides amongst the other robots (that's as far as the similarity goes). Even the humans found this rather clever. The scientists devise different experiments to identify the robot based on his modified first rule. For this special robot, the first rule stated only that "a robot may not injure a human being", omitting the second part of the clause "or through inaction, allow a human to come to harm". The psychological underpinning were fascinating to explore.

More importantly, the book spanned the lifetime of a single human, namely, Dr. Susan Calvin. Asimov followed her from youth, studying the first robot that could talk, to her death when robots controlled (only theoretically; Asimov left it slightly ambiguous) the economy of the entire Earth. Each chapter in the book introduced robots more advanced than the last, building to the final climax and revelations in the final pages of the book.

To be somewhat less critical of Proyas' depiction, the idea that sentinent robots resented the domination of an inferior species - humans - was part of the backdrop throughout the majority of the book. He likely thought THAT idea would make a great movie, or mistook it for Asimov's main intentions. However, the shift from resentment to outright rebellion was entirely outrageous. Certainly the Three Laws have come under scrutiny since Asimov published I, Robot in 1950. Many of the criticisms can be found on the link a few paragraphs above.

It's possible Proyas combined elements of the entire series. Having only read the first of four books of Asimov's robot quadrilogy, it's entirely possible the other books cover those topics. However, until I read those works (and likely after), the 2004 film is anathema to me.

Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot is on the slab next. Thirty pages in, it's shaping up to be a journey of cosmic proportions.