Archive for the ‘movies’ Category

Surrogates

Friday, January 29th, 2010
surrogates cover

Surrogates - Cover

Surrogates is a rather thought provoking science fiction film that I wanted to watch for a while. It is a bit heavy on the action side, but you ought to expect that from any movie that features Bruce Willis. What I was really excited about wast the topic matter. Surrogates asks a very interesting question: how would our society change if we all could purchase a robotic stand-in body in which we would experience the outside world, from the safety and comfort of our bedroom?

The movie takes place in a near future where advances in biology and neurology coincided to allow creation of a seamless brain wave operated user interface that allowed a user to control prosthetic body parts with his or her mind. Eventually the technology culminated in creating a concept of surrogacy. Why replace a lost body part if you could build yourself a whole new body. One that is stronger, more handsome and that will never age. You could just sit at home all day, and experience the world through your idealized robotic body. As you can imagine, surrogates end up selling better than the iPhone and soon enough everyone is using them. Surrogates become as ubiquitous as cars – everyone owns at least one regardless of income and social status.

surrogate bed thing

This is how it works. You lie on the bed, put the thing on your head and you are good to go.

How does it change the way we live? Surprisingly the new technology has wide reaching social effects. I often say that trying to solve social problems using technology is like using a fish to repair a bicycle. It makes no sense. For example, piracy is becoming more prevalent every year despite thousands of man hours sunk into developing effective copy protection mechanisms. It just doesn’t work. Surrogacy is different though. It completely revolutionizes human interaction in unprecedented ways just like the internet did for us.

The great revolution of human communication is probably the most concisely summarized by the Peter Steiner cartoon published in the New Yorker in 1993 titled: “On the internet, nobody knows you are a dog”. The new electronic communication medium gave us a brand new way of exchanging pure ideas – completely detached from their authors race, gender, ethnicity, religion or thousands of other factors. It allowed people to be public while hiding their identity at the same time. It allowed us to put ideas first, and prejudice and stereotypes second. Surrogacy does the exact same thing for face-to-face communication.

flesh wound

This? This is just a flesh wound!

Your surrogate can look any way you want it to look. Things like race, gender and ethnicity become largely irrelevant since anyone can be a gorgeous blue eyed, blond girl or a handsome tall black man. Physical appearance becomes purely a matter of preference and aesthetics. In a world where everyone wears perfectly proportioned, beautiful plastic bodies there is no place for things like racism or sexism. It’s actually quite ironic if you think about it. Only after we all exchange our flesh for silicon, men start to be judged based on their personality, intellect and skill rather than on how they look and what genetic stock do they hail from. But this profound social change is only the tip of the iceberg, as there are some other far reaching implications.

Surrogacy also helps to prevent human tragedy by removing the element of danger from risky jobs such as police work. It also allows American soldiers to fight for their country without risking their lives. The price of war is now paid in cash rather than in human lives. It also helps to eradicate most of the known infectious diseases and STD’s since people no longer gather in large groups but stay at home most of the time.

soldiers have no faces

Surrogate soldiers get standard issue bodies with rudimentary faces as seen here.

Oh, and you don’t need condoms anymore. Apparently having sex via the surrogate body is just as good, if not better than the real thing. And even if it’s not exactly as good its safer and more convenient, since a remotely controlled robot can’t catch a nasty disease or get pregnant, but it can get you off.

It sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? Are there any downsides to this great technology? There are.

Some people have problems letting go of their idealized surrogates leading to some marital/family issues. For example, Tom Greer (Bruce Willis) haven’t seen his wife in flesh in several years. She prefers to interact with him via her youthful, attractive surrogate rather than him to see her aging body. While surrogacy revolutionizes our public interactions, it seems to have a stunting effects on peoples private lives. Surrogate users become shut ins, avoid real human contact, develop germo-phobias and personal space issues. Families are less closely knit, and often fall apart. It is clear that this trend will only increase in strength, as new generations of surrogate users won’t even remember a world without them.

In 10 or 20 years the world portrayed in the movie would probably morph into something akin to the Solarian society in Isaac Asimov’s novel The Naked Sun. People would likely completely cease to interact “in the flesh”, live alone and reproduce via artificial insemination. They would still have colorful social lives, have sex and form long term relationships but via surrogates. Is this type of society we want to have, is a different question altogether. Greer seems to instinctively pick up on this idea, and so he tries to maintain a healthy balance between use of surrogates and personal life. He can see what ability to live via idealized robotic bodies does to people psychologically, and he does not like it.

Yippee-Ki-Yay

Sir, I guess what I'm trying to say here is Yippee-Ki-Yay motherfucker. So yeah... Get on with that.

Sadly, the movie doesn’t dwell on this interesting problem as much as it should. Instead it uses time for action and suspense as it turns out that someone has devised a weapon that can fry surrogate operators brain via the robot link. It’s some sort of a fancy guy that looks like a flashlight. You shine it in the face of a robot adversary and the operator dies instantly. There is some hand waving going on to describe how it works, and it’s all rather silly. I didn’t like this idea at all, but alas – they wanted tension and suspense. So naturally, the dangerous weapon falls into the hands of a radical ant-surrogacy, pro-flesh religious movement and Greer (an FBI agent) must recover it before the group can do some real damage.

And so we get treated to bunch of car chases, action scenes, surrogate bodies blowing up from inside out and a mandatory plot twist and an utterly pointless and stupid ending. The movie had great potential and could have been a quite profound science fiction picture if it didn’t try so hard to be an action flick. The two genres usually mix fairly well, but Surrogates came out rather bland on both fronts. I’d still recommend seeing it, if only for the interesting setting and the social commentary.

The next few paragraphs will be me ranting about the stupidity of the last act, so please skip it if you are planning to watch the film. MJOR SPOILERS LURK BELOW.

I wouldn’t be myself if I didn’t comment on one ridiculous aspect of the surrogate technology. Apparently all the surrogates in the world are produced by a single company. Furthermore that company seems to route the wireless signals through the network they own, and the American police has a complete unrestricted access to that network. They can tap into visual feed of any surrogate user in the world without a court warrant – and seem to do it on a daily basis. There is a scene in the movie during which a surveillance team notices a domestic abuse scenario by observing the feed of a surrogate user who is assaulting a female who is present in the flesh. The main operator then seems to “email” a judge to obtain a court warrant in order to forcefully disconnect the assailant.

This literally made me rage at the screen, because it is so blatantly stupid. First of all, this sort of open invigilation would never fly. There is no way any global communication network would give the police such a free reign over very private transmissions. The company would get sued into oblivion and be forced to encrypt their transmissions, only allowing law enforcement to listen in if they already have a warrant. I would also expect other countries to be fairly upset that the surrogates of their heads of states can be freely spied on by American law dogs. It’s so stupid that it’s aggravating! How can a movie be so insightful about impact of surrogacy on human life, and so damn ignorant about this.

Of course this setup was necessary to allow Greer to blow up all surrogates in the final scene of the movie. You see, the bad guy attaches the surrogate-killing gun to the stalker console and tries to kill every surrogate user by transmitting the deadly signal all over the world. Greer stops him just in the nick of time, and manages to disable the signal. However it turns out that the second wave of the signal will fuck up all the robots connected to the system. Greer hesitates for few seconds, and then allows the signal to be sent, permanently disabling every robotic body in the whole world.

For the LULZ

LOL! Look GUISE I destroyed all the surrogates for the LULZ!

Then he goes home and finally hugs his wife, for the first time in years. Agggghghfgkjdgf! WHAT THE FUCK?! I literally face palmed at that point. The movie makes a really strong case for the surrogacy. It shows how it revolutionized human interaction, how it eliminated hate crimes, wars and made life safe and comfortable. It briefly portrays Greer’s marital problems as a unfortunate side effect of this revolution. Then it has Greer destroy this way of life and tries to pass him off as some sort of a hero. Fuck this. What Greer did in the final scene was selfish and stupid. He saved his marriage at the cost of destroying millions of dollars of private property, possibly fucking up crucial military operations and possibly killing god knows how many people.

I mean, as far as we know there might have been people being operated on by surrogate surgeons. Real flesh people could have been flying on plans piloted by surrogates. Traffic helicopters could have crashed into apartment buildings killing hundreds of people. This was not just pulling a plug on bunch of remote controlled robots. This stunt would have a staggering body count of unfortunate innocent victims. Not to mention it would wreck worldwide economy that heavily relied on surrogacy. Greer wouldn’t even get a chance to reconnect with his wife. He would instantly become a public enemy #1 and the most dangerous terrorist in the history of the world. He would be hunted down put away for a very long time. No one can destroy a global communication network, sabotage millions of dollars worth of hardware causing millions of deaths (let’s face it, it would be millions – he fucked up the whole surrogacy grid) in the process and just walk away. Not unless it is a stupid move.

Zombieland

Friday, January 15th, 2010

Zombieland

Zombie movies are fun to watch. It is a natural law that is universally understood by everyone. Just like water being wet, sun being bright zombie films are awesome, even when they are terrible. Really, it is really hard to make one that is not enjoyable at least in some small part. As you can probably tell from my reviews, I am a bit of a movie connoisseur. I like my entertainment to be somewhat refined. But like most sane people I do have a soft spot for the whole zombie outbreak genre. And yes, I am implying that if you don’t particularly like zombies then you must be insane. So there.

I don’t know why it is that way, but whenever I see a horde of mindless undead on the screen, my movie critic mode switches off almost completely and I am actually able to enjoy the action on the screen despite paper thin characters or stupid plot twists. Btw, you really don’t need much plot for a good zombie flick. You also don’t need much in the way of character motivation – they are all running away from the walking dead, they all crave companionship and support, and they all compete for scarce resources. The script basically writes itself – you have the why and the how your characters meet, and you have the internal conflict and the external antagonist (faceless zombie horde). Now dream up some basic character archetypes, flesh them out a bit and you are done. Presto: instant entertainment. You would really need to have someone of Geogre Lucas’ caliber to actually take that blueprint and turn int into something that is completely unwatchable.

Making zombie movies is about following the working formula.

But, because it is so easy to churn out these movies, the whole formula is getting a bit old and tired. No one wants to make just a zombie movie – every film maker tries to shake it up a bit. Sometimes the ideas work, sometimes they don’t. The point is that the genre has been evolving a bit since it’s inception. For example, the whole zombie thing has it’s roots in voodoo mythos, but no one remembers that – it is nowadays widely accepted that zombie outbreak is a chemical or biological in nature and that it is highly contagious. Similarly, the undead evolved from slow shambling corpses to fast, and ferocious predators preferred by modern film makers. Still, there is a limit as to how you can change the formula. Zombies are… Well, zombies. They are mindless, they want to eat you, they are mostly impervious to damage (other than head-shots) and being bitten will turn you into one of them.

So if you want to stand out in this genre, you should concentrate on creating memorable characters, pacing and how you tell the story. And this is precisely what Ruben Fleischer, Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick did with Zombieland. They took the old, working template, populated it with quirky and interesting cast of characters and attacked all the standard, cliche zombie movie situations with a healthy dose of enthusiasm. They didn’t try to reinvent the genre, they didn’t try to add new pieces to the mythology and they didn’t try to add psychological drama by cranking up the tension between the characters up to 11. They just tried to create a fun zombie movie. It’s the kind of movie you go to watch with a group of friends, and then laugh, cheer together throughout the whole thing, and then quote it randomly for the rest of the month.

Gore, check. Burning national monument, check. Yep, it's a zombie movie.

Zombieland takes pretty much every Zombie related trope in existence and works it into the script. Some are played straight, some are subverted, others are mocked ruthlessly. It doesn’t try to break any new ground, or add something new to the genre. It works with the material that was there almost from the begging. But it finds new ways to exploit it and make it work applying a generous dose of humor, genre savvy characters a half-serious approach, heaps of intentional irony and sarcasm. That is the kind of innovation it brings to the genre. Zmbies are fun to begin with, but Zombieland just brings it up a notch.

The film works on many levels. It is a light hearted, but at the same time somewhat dark comedy, a coming of age story, a road trip movie, and an action flick. It jumps seamlessly from self referential humor to tension filled action scene, humorous banter, awkward teenage romance to slapstick. At no point does it even attempt to be serious, or profound. Instead trying to scare you, it aims to entertain. Instead of tragedy, it utilizes comedy and sarcastic wit. It stacks up crowning moments of awesome and crowning moments of funny upon each other as if there was a shortage, and the film makers were afraid they were going to run out.

21 gun salute. Hold on... I have to reload.

The cast is great as well. Woody Harrelson is in top of his form as the resident, hot tempered bad ass character. Jesse Eisenberg’s character is the instantly likable, skittish, geeky everyman. Emma Stone makes the excellent quirky, bitchy, and opinionated hot girl with razor sharp tongue, a baggage of issues and excellent ass kicking action chick potential. Then there is Abigail Breslin who is at the perfect age where she is young enough to play a role of the “innocent child”, but old enough not to be “that fucking annoying kid” in the movie. And she realistically does what any 12 year old would do in her place – she learns how to drive a car, shoot a gun, helps her older sister to con and rob people and continuously fails to grasp pop culture references and jokes uttered by other characters. They are all built around old, and well explored archetypes – and perhaps that’s why they work so well in this context.

This is why you should always check the back seat.

Zombieland built from the ground up to be awesome. Seriously this is what was the aim of the movie to being with – the deliver 500 cc’s of concentrated fun directly into your eyeballs. It has some great action sequences, numerous funny moments, lots of memorable quotes, solid characters, good acting and one absolutely epic scene in which… Actually, no. I’m not going to tell you. You just have to see it. If you don’t already know what I’m talking about DO NOT look it up. It is going to ruin the effect. Trust me on this. In fact, even me mentioning it probably partially ruined it a bit already.

Watch it – that’s my recommendation. If you read this blog regularly, you know that I don’t say this often. It’s a good movie. Yes, the premise is a bit silly but it works within the context. And really, that’s all it matters. All you need to know about this movie that it has zombies (lot’s of them), a unlikely group of quirky characters who end up traveling together and fight of a horde of undead in an amusement park at the end of the movie.

Concentrated fun, straight into your eyeballs.

Technology Portrayal in Hollywood

Monday, January 11th, 2010

I’ve talked about this many times already, but the portrayal of technology in Hollywood movies continues to piss me off with astonishing regularity. Almost every time a character in a movie is about to use a computer I cringe. There are virtually no blockbuster movies out there that portray technology with any degree of accuracy. Especially subjects like hacking or video games are involved – they never ever get it right. I do understand that sometimes it’s impossible to actually show a brand like Gooogle on the screen without striking some product placement deal with said company. But would it really hurt movie makers to at least try making user interface look like something a person would use in a real life? Would it really be so hard not to show 3d animation and scrolling matrix style text on the screen while a person is “hacking” something?

Ive been giving this some thought lately, trying to figure out why things are the way they are. I mean, lets face it – all you would have to do to get it right is to hire a single geek consultant, and then listen to his suggestion. It’s not like the Hollywood people are incapable of doing that. When they make a historical movie they hire real period experts who make sure that costumes props and decorations are accurate. When they make SF movies they often have real rocket scientists or astronauts advise them on how real spaceflight works. It would make sense to hire a real techie to advise you when you are making a movie in which one of the heroes or villains is an awesome hax0r or computer whiz. Just have the guy on set, and ask him how would he show someone hacking into pentagon or doing something equally silly. In the end you would have a much more realistic looking movie.

Then I realized that perhaps it is not that simple. Let’s face it – technology is boring. I know this from experience – most people who try to watch me work react the same way – they eyes gloss over and they start yawning uncontrollably. Watching a guy type code is about as entertaining as watching paint dry. But that’s how you would realistically portray hacking or programming on the screen. Show a guy typing in cryptic code, compile it, find some bugs, type some more, compile, type, etc… It’s realistic, but not spectacular.

Filmmakers usually don’t know much about anything other than making movies – that’s the one area where they are competent. They can tell what looks good on the screen. Their job is to capture your attention and convey a message in a single scene. Showing a guy type cryptic code or comands for few minutes may be realistic but it can be not only boring, but confusing to an average movie watcher. An average person will need some context, exposition or dialogue to explain that this person is currently programming or hacking into the banking system or whatever. On the other hand, if you show flashy graphics with scrolling code and blinking text that says: “ATTEMPTING TO HACK INTO THE BANKING SYSTEM… ACCESS DENIED” the viewers instantly know what is happening. You need no dialog or exposition to explain it – a picture is worth a thousand words. In other words you trade realism for clarity. They do it because it works.

What looks good on the screen doesn’t always look realistically. This is an unfortunate but true. Chances are, that these big blockbuster movies do hire technology consultants. I bet they do get expert advice on how tricky computer related sequences could be filmed. But in the end, these experts get overruled because what they advise is often boring and cryptic. More importantly it often probably conflicts with the directors vision. A film maker will usually see a scene unfolding a certain way and they are will not want to completely rearrange it just to make an insignificant 15 second computer hacking scene look more realistic. Having to choose between their vision of what should happen on the screen, gut instinct, experience and the expert opinion guess what they are going to go with?

Of course whenever you reject expert advice and substitute it with your own idea you do so at your own peril. Sometimes it works, and sometimes you end up with something ridiculous like a character storing gigagytes of data on a floppy disk, or ridiculous “hacking” scene that is so contrived even the least technology competent movie goers will laugh at it.

Times are changing. Today, most American movie enthusiasts own and frequently use a computer. They know how to search the web, use facebook, chat shop and browse the web. Many of them have their own blogs or other various online identities. Therefore film makers must update their faux-computer interfaces to reflect that. They have to make search engines look a bit like Google, social portals look bit like facebook and web pages look like they were created in this decade. They can no longer expect that their core audience will be somewhat unfamiliar with the technology, and hope to get away with something that looks vaguely like browsing the web. If they don’t put at least some effort, badly designed computer interface may ruin the viewers suspension of disbelief. In fact, using a simplistic “fake” interface may actually be counter productive.

For example, if you show someone typing a query into a white text box located on a white page, and hit a gray “Search” button underneath and then show a list of blue links, most people will automatically assume the character is googling for something, even though the interface is kept generic. On the other hand, if you design some futuristic looking search interface with crazy animations there might be a certain degree of confusion as to what is exactly going on on the screen. Is the character searching the web? Or is that some proprietary system? Did they “hack into the government” to find all this data?

The clarity vs realism, and filmmaker gut instinct vs expert advice is a trade off. I guess the best thing to hope is that Hollywood will aim somewhere in the middle between the two extremes. Of course that doesn’t change my stance on the subject. Bad portrayal of technology in the movies remains one of my top pet peeves. Especially since it can be done the right way. If Matrix was able to use a realistic hacking scene, anyone can.