We, Robots

20th Century Fox

PG-13, 2004

If you have not seen I, Robot, staring Will Smith as Detective Del Spooner, you might be surprised to find that it provides more than a shallow man v. machine plot. While Spooner is suspicious of the allegedly harmless robots, he finds himself scoffed at by his colleagues. Early in the movie, he tackles a purse-snatching robot running through a crowd. Pleased that he had foiled the petty larceny, he is humiliated when he finds out that the robot was rushing to provide an inhaler for its owner suffering from an asthma attack. By movie’s end however, his intuition proves correct, but with an unexpected twist. With the goal of “a robot in every home” closely reflecting the recent household phenomenon of home computers, the movie plays on our fears of “Big Brother” watching our every move. It also exploits our contempt for being held back by those fears. We want the convenience of computers and robots, and feel torn between fear and desire.

The real message of this movie, however, is not about what robots may develop into, but rather what we, as a modern society, have sacrificed in the name of progress—how much we have become robots. Underlying the plot and the Big Brother message, the movie also flirts with the deeper questions of human consciousness.

The movie bears the same name as the late Isaac Asimov’s anthology of robot short stories. The fundamental premise of both the movie and Asimov’s stories relates to dilemmas arising from the Three Laws of Robotics:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

This seems like an excellent plan, but Spooner can see the subtle inconsistencies. In fact, he had experience with the incongruity.

Soon the audience realizes that something is missing from the lives of people who are fascinated with robots. People no longer share stories once vital to societal coherence. When Spooner is told that “a robot cannot violate the laws any more than a human can walk on water,” Spooner recalls an important story, “There was this one guy a long time ago…”

Those working with the robots, even the attractive psychologist Dr. Calvin, seem to be barren not only of religious stories, but of emotion and humor. In an obvious irony, the humans are becoming more robotic and the robots are becoming more human, a not entirely unwelcome outcome for Dr. Calvin. She insists that the robots are safe because “they are not irrational.” In frustration, Detective Spooner tells her, “You are the dumbest smart person I have ever met!” He refers to her lack of emotional intelligence as a defect, not a benefit. Spooner also has to explain to Dr. Calvin his use of the story of Hansel and Gretel; she has no reference to such metaphorical connections. Society is missing emotion, metaphor, and humor and people begin to trust the robotic machines more than they can trust each other.

When one robot begins to act human and violates the three laws, Spooner knows that society is in serious danger. The robot, Sonny, mirrors the story of Frankenstein’s monster who struggled to understand the why of his existence. Sonny, like the monster, displays emotion. Spooner fears society’s misplaced trust, and as more robots like Sonny begin to emerge, his fears are realized as the mechanical world turns chaotic—unprepared to deal with this added human quality in their robots.

But doesn’t this show that the rational (robots without emotions)  is safer than the emotional (robots with emotions causing chaos)? We as humans know that emotions cause chaos and cloud judgment. Spooner’s suspicion is rooted in a tragic experience where a robot saved him instead of a little girl trapped in a sinking vehicle.  The robot’s rational calculations indicated that Spooner had a greater chance for survival than the little girl. Spooner, however, knew that he might have survived on his own, but the girl faced certain death because the robot made a calculated, rational choice. For him this was a case of the robot’s rational thinking clouding its judgment. Void of intuitive emotion, the robot’s rationalism failed to make the choice Spooner would have made - to risk his own life to save the girl’s.

Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians complain about the dangers of postmodernism, neglecting to see that it includes an important critique of modernism’s dependence on a cold, emotionless, rationalist approach to God. The emphasis on faith being rooted in a rational assent to doctrinal propositions yields a spiritual life without emotion.  While rationalism may calculate correctly on one level, it is only one part of the human equation and minimizes the important ingredients of human emotions and relationships. We don’t need heart surgeons for broken hearts.

The metaphors in I, Robot tell us the story of “we, robots.” At the finale, the robotic brain chants: “My logic in undeniable” as it attempts to protect and  “save the world” through restricting human choice. The human heart knows otherwise—that freedom is not always safe, but it is superior to rationalized bondage.

A nice touch near the end is when Spooner’s grandmother is released from being a hostage in her own home by a robot, and she heads to church with her Bible in hand. It is good to see that the movie recognizes our belief in Jesus is on the side of emotion, metaphors, stories, and even humor. Modern mechanics and rationalism brought us much progress—and much pain. Rationality is not an enemy of the gospel, it is often a needed component, but rationalism alone can rob us of the Man who walked on water.

by Rachel Ramer