I didn't much care to see this, but I just started listening to the /FilmCast and they do movie reviews as part of the podcast and this film came up in one of the old episodes. So...I moved up Surrogates so I could listen to the podcast and follow along. (I may be doing this in the future for other movies they review as I go through all the old podcasts.)
Something rubbed me the wrong way about this sci-fi movie, ever since seeing the movie billboards.
Which looked like these...
First off, I thought for sure that was Angelina Jolie. (It isn't.) And I never saw a trailer or TV ad for the film. So based entirely on the movie posters I didn't want to see it. Mainly because the idea seemed pointless; if they're building these robots to be so human that you can't tell...why is there a section of them exposed? What point would that be? I guess there could be one, but since even the very base premise seemed flawed, the whole film must be flawed. And it was.
Science fiction has a big mountain to climb when it comes to believability. All films on some level have to deal with that; the acting has to believable, the actions the actors take have to be believable, etc. But with science fiction, you have to add the on top of that a whole world that the film has to create. They have to build a totally believable world from basically scratch. Surrogates was building a world in the future where a company makes surrogate robots that people use instead of actually going out into the real world. So these things go out in place of them to work, school, wherever. Really interesting premise. But that's where the ingenuity ends. It becomes a murder plot mystery conspiracy thing with Bruce Willis unable to use his surrogate because it's damaged or something. The film plot itself falls on tired cliches and never really takes chances to tell an original story. But that would have been okay, if the film had made a completely believable and awesome world. Throughout the film there are just details that aren't thought out. For instance, they say that 98% of the world's population uses a surrogate.
That much? What? Like 98% of the world now has never seen a computer, so in thirty years everyone, including the poorest countries in Africa will not only have a computer, but one that can walk around and do your chores? That's a big turnaround. No more going to the town well to get water, your robot body can do it. The film also states that crime is down 90% and health is up some huge %. These things have saved the world. Peace has been declared!!! Except it hasn't...Bruce Willis, an FBI agent, so wisely goes to the "military" and apparently they use them for war, which is probably the most useful way to use the surrogates.
Military was in quotes because it emphasizes my next problem...what I am now referring to as the Flash Gordon Syndrome. The Flash Gordon Syndrome, or FGS, is when locations or worlds are simplified down to basically one location for ease of story telling. (i.e. Flash Gordon lands on an alien planet, in the capital city, he's able to hear secret plans, see a factory and sneak into the king's throne room, all in basically one location.)
FGS happens not only once but twice in Surrogates. He goes to the "military" to find out about these murders and he's able to see some high ranking officer in some dark building where they're fighting (through surrogates) a peace keeping mission.
So....Bruce Willis is able to get an interview with a high ranking officer. Why is the officer meeting him in probably a very classified room? And even if it isn't classified, why would the officer meet him there? And why isn't the officer actually focusing on the mission he's giving orders to? He just walks away with Bruce Willis!!! Then later in the film, Bruce goes back and the officer spills the beans on the secret weapon. In the future the military is really talkative and nice and the same guy doing missions knows about secret weapons.
The second FGS part is when Bruce is at the surrogate company headquarters. He meets with some beautiful surrogates who seem like idiots, yet are high ranking employees, who tell him nothing, but then let him wander the building. This company is responsible for world peace, low crime, high health, and makes trillions of dollars because they cornered the market on surrogates, wouldn't they be a little apprehensive about Bruce Willis wandering around. And why does this trillion dollar company not have security buttons to get into important areas like "Engineering," which is labeled on the elevator buttons for anyone to see. I guess with no crime, they don't have anything to worry about?
But the real FGS point here, is that in this building is the HQ, with all the executives, and then there is the Engineering department which develops new stuff and also handles returns on defective models, and then......on another floor or the same one, I couldn't tell, has the FACTORY building the surrogates.
All in the same building. 98% of the world is using a surrogate, and the factory is right there? And why is the same guy dealing with returns, also designing new surrogates!!!!! Even Wal-mart has two departments for those things. This is pretty much the largest company and yet all this is done right in the same place. And somehow Bruce Willis is able to see it all. Flash Gordon would be so proud of him.
One last detail that just gets my goat. The FBI has a link to every surrogate and tracks them so they can stop crimes or something. Alright, that's kind of a big deal by itself. But then at the end of the film as the bad guy is trying to kill everyone, the FBI has links to every surrogate around the world. I don't know if the makers of Surrogates are aware....the FBI is a law enforcement agency for just the USA. So how would they have links to Chinese or Portugese or hey even poorer than dirt Africans have them, so even Somalian surrogates.
I don't know. This just proves my point, if a film can't even get the basic details and facts right, how do they expect to get the film right.
You make some good points. I liked this movie but probably because I had super low expectations going in because of the trailer. I think the story would have worked splendidly if it were merely set 150 years in the future and didn't involve nearly everyone in the world having surrogates. The world of Astro Boy would have been a much better location for this kind of story.
ReplyDeleteThere are some major plotholes that could have been easily remedied with a few easy rewrites.
Also I watched this with my friend David Kidd and we both had a dejuvu moment as if we were watching I Robot, especially with the same doctor guy playing a similar role.
I've still got to watch Surrogates - I liked the comic book, but I've heard so many bad reviews (probably second only to Whiteout) that I've been putting it off.
ReplyDeleteThat's funny, Slash FilmCast said the same thing, that it was eerily similar to I, Robot.
ReplyDeleteAnd yeah, I may check out the comic. I think Hollywood as it in it's head that all graphic novels must automatically make great movies.
I didn't mind it. I don't think it's supposed to be set in the future, but in an altrenate reality, not that different from our own. As far as the IRobot similarities, I also thought it was kindof Terminator-esque with the machine combat going on.
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as the Flash Gordon Factor is concerned--suspension of disbelief is a valuable personal resource when watching less than perfect films (ie. All films)
Otherwise, very interesting analysis! :)
All valid criticism of this B movie, but perhaps you're missing some of the good points. This film came out just as Facebook like websites, a similar identity shenanigan of artificial proxy identity, was just beginning its enormous rise in popularity. To me this movie is really about web-2.0-faced "social" networking, just pushed a little further to make it obvious for us to see it for what it is, a nasty, socially incompetent, fake lie - a digital puppet theatre or fish tank, ultimately owned and controlled by someone else, not you, me or even us. Nobody and nothing else can socialize "for" you. Some things we have to do for ourselves, as ourselves, socializing is one.
ReplyDeleteIt's not "your" profile on Facebook, it's Facebook's profile on you. And yes, privileged individuals and institutions (like the "FBI" in the movie) can access any of Facebook's profiles, not just in the US but worldwide; and yes, no matter how corrupt and evil they are they always call themselves the "good guys", and call anyone who criticises their systemic shenanigans the "bad guys".
It was apt that the guy at the helm wouldn't ever use a surrogate, any more than Facebook Inc. would not ever establish its identity at a domain other than facebook.com. We should follow Facebook's wise example rather than its bad advice, and establish our identities exclusively each at our own domains; and never at the likes of Facebook's domain.