Terminator Genisys – Reinventing the Robot?

terminator-genisys-empire-1280jpg-c2d836_1280w

 
James Cameron’s first two Terminator films continue to be regarded as two of the best examples of action/sci-fi storytelling of all time. The sequels that followed, despite being supplied with sufficient star power and formed around a familiar mythology, failed to generate the same critical acclaim or fervor from fanboy audiences. This year’s Terminator Genysis, which opened last month, has already been cited as the first picture in a new stand alone trilogy – Terminator 2 (working title) is set for release on May 19, 2017 and Terminator 3 (also working title) has a release date planned as far ahead as June 29, 2018.

Lightning rarely strikes in the same place twice, let alone 4, or even 5 times successively. Despite this, studios have nowadays become accustomed to dropping buckets of money on the umpteenth iteration of the same worn-out tale – the Terminator franchise being a prime example. Before the most recent film even hit theaters, James Cameron went on record saying that Terminator Genisys is the “real” third Terminator film, effectively writing off the other two features as non-canon. Though Cameron had no direct involvement in the production or filming of Genisys, his endorsement hinted at its potential to re-inject some life into the storyline. But even with the help of the first T-800 himself (the inimitable Arnold Schwarzenegger), it lacked the strength to assume responsibility for yet another reprisal.

Unable to participate in the fourth film Terminator Salvation due to his political pursuits, the former California governor, now 67, quickly slipped back into his former role as cinematic cyborg. The Genysis screenplay explains why the T-800 ages like humans do, using a life-size CGI model of a 37-year old Arnold to represent him as the younger robot from 1984’s original The Terminator. Schwarzenegger had to train twice as hard to get back to the same weight he was in 1991’s Terminator 2: Judgement Day, as Genysis features T-800s from all three different time periods. The overall plot is mired in temporal paradox, as Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese battle both a “killer” app and the nefarious satellite internet-based plague that is Skynet while simultaneously attempting to change the outcome of life in a parallel universe. Too convoluted for casual viewers and too much of a stretch for anyone else who has grown up loving the series, appreciating Genysis requires a full reimagining of time as a linear construct.

After the announcement of the arrival of another Terminator film hit the Internet, comment trolls immediately questioned the need for it —  even the most devout fans seemed to agree that Salvation should have effectively closed out the saga. Studios pressed ahead anyways, and Genysis went on to generate relatively lukewarm box office numbers alongside mixed critical reviews. One of the film’s harshest critics, Grantland’s Wesley Morris offered some particularly scathing insight, saying, “It’s neither a surprising work of pop art nor an entertaining piece of crap.” Within the Terminator universe created by Cameron, this film stands out not necessarily for its explicit awfulness, as it is arguably a “better” movie than 2003’s T3 or 2009’s Salvation. However, treading on overly familiar ground, it does little more than dig a deeper grave for the once-great story of robotic apocalypse.

Paramount Studio’s premature hopes for the franchise’s longevity (evidenced by their early announcements of both additional sequels) may be dashed, as it hasn’t truly seen success since the mid-’90s and for many, the lackluster Genisys is just further proof that it’s best years are over. Unfortunately, film studios seem to pay less and less attention to the creation of uniquely compelling characters and plots. This year’s release of Mad Max: Fury Road and Jurassic World, as well as the upcoming Star Wars sequels and the initiation of projects like the all-female Ghostbusters only serve to indicate Hollywood’s increased reliance on the exploitation of familiar, formerly-glorious, success stories. Paramount has suggested that if the film fails overseas (it has an August 23th release date in China) plans may be scrapped for the 2017 and 2018’s Terminator pictures. A disinterested Asian audience might be enough to finally convince executives that there is an important distinction between giving up and knowing when you’ve had enough.

Good films don’t necessarily need critical support, but they do need to tap into something primal within the hearts of audience members. In a world where robots are achieving an ever more powerful presence in our day-to-day life, there’s no reason why the stories we write about them should fail to excite. If Paramount does choose to carry out plans for two additional sequels they would do well to abandon the Terminators completely – today’s technology is surely enough to inspire a new storyline, full of the imaginations and intrigue which made the first two films so great.

Just a Dull Thing In His Dream

This first appeared on Splice Today.
______________

The Total Recall remake is almost Platonic in that it’s pristinely superfluous. Remakes always feel more than a little pointless, but at least when you watch something like The Thing remake, or the I Spit On Your Grave remake, you get a sense that the people making the film actually liked the original… or at least saw it. Director Len Wiseman, though, has no discernible affection for his source material, nor anything to say to it.  The film is one long, uninvolving chase sequence, through which Colin Farrell (Douglas Quaid) wanders like a mildly confused puppy; in comparison with his bland performance, Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 1990s original comes across like Laurence Olivier.  Jessica Biel (Melina) is even less involving, if such a thing is possible. Only Kate Beckinsale as Quaid’s “wife” Lori makes any pretense to watchability, throwing herself into the Queen Bitch/assassin role with welcome relish.  She still doesn’t have anything like the vindictive charge that Sharon Stone did in the original—but in this turkey, every flicker of adequacy counts.

What’s odd is that Total Recall‘s utter awfulness is, in some ways, true to its roots—not the 1990 movie, but the 1966 Philip K. Dick short story “We Can Remember It For You Wholesale.”  Dick’s story was not awful in itself, exactly. Rather, it was meta-awful, a semi-parody, dealing explicitly with the crappiness of its own genre.

In the story, loser clerk Douglas Quaid wants to go to Mars, which is to say, he wants to be in a science-fiction story. He clings to this dream even when his wife suggests a real-life vacation. “A dream, I bet,” his wife sneers at him, “you’re always full of them.”

Quaid is indeed full of dreams… and those dreams are all real. This is true in the narrative: when Quaid goes to Rekal, Incorporated to have memories of a Mars trip implanted, he discovers that he has in fact already been to Mars as a mind-wiped secret agent. But Quaid’s vision is true more broadly as well. He imagines that he is a character in a genre narrative—and he is, in fact, a character in a genre narrative.

These are, moreover, idiotic, and are specifically referred to, and thought of within the story, as idiotic. Quaid’s desire to go to Mars is presented as infantile silliness. But even worse is the end of the story, where Quaid sits for another memory implant, this one based on his deepest desires. He apparently has long had a fantasy in which, as a child, he meets an alien race which declares that its plans to destroy the earth. Quaid treats them with such kindness that they decide to wait to destroy the world until he dies. This fantasy of a pious savior is, as one character remarks, “the most grandiose fantasy I ever ran across”—a quintessence of preposterous self-centeredness.  And within the story his self-centeredness turns out to be entirely validated. Quaid really is the center of the universe; he really did meet those aliens, and when he dies, so does the world. Which, again, is not just true, but meta-true: Quaid is the main character, and Philip K. Dick built the story, and the universe, for him and around him.

“We Can Remember It For You Wholesale,” then, doesn’t so much reveal hidden depths as it flips open to pull the outside in. The title is a promise, not just to Quaid, but to the person flipping the pages. What it promised, specifically, is dreams, and in this case the dream that is promised is a dream of a dream. The story is a fantasy about having a fantasy, which means it’s in some sense not a fantasy at all.

The 1990 movie replaced the story’s recursive puzzle-box structure with camp, but the end effect is not dissimilar. Sharon Stone’s performance, in particular, is a masterpiece of self-referential cheese. She plays Quaid’s wife Lori as a perfect saccharine romantic glob of gush, all kittenish blonde affirmation and vacuous sex appeal—until the moment Quaid leaves for work, when her face goes blank and dull, like a performer after the camera’s turned off. After Quaid discovers that Lori’s a killer spy… she still keeps up the performance, assuring him that he was the best assignment ever and urging him to tie her up (“I never knew you were so kinky,” Schwarzenegger deadpans.) She tells him that their whole marriage is a fake, and it takes a moment to register that she’s speaking the absolute truth. The marriage isn’t real; it’s a staged performance—and so her artificial staginess, rather than undercutting verisimilitude, enacts it. When Stone “appears” on Mars to tell Quaid that he’s in a psychotic fugue state and his whole adventure is happening in his head, she’s acting the part of acting a part. The whole adventure really is in the audience’s head; the performance really is a performance, and Stone’s weirdly context-less over-sincerity, pleading earnestly with Quaid as if they’re both on a soap opera soundstage, rather than on Mars only underlines the truth that they are, in fact, on a soundstage, not on Mars. Genre, in this case, is the lie that tells the truth; if you have a transparent trope, the transparency, at least, is solid.

The half-assed 2012 remake, then, is a fitting addition to the series. It’s nothing but a third-rate genre exercise, but Dick’s story is precisely about the embarrassing appeal of third-rate genre exercises. As the memory programmer comments in Dick’s story:

“Programming an artificial memory of a trip to another planet —with or without the added fillip of being a secret agent—showed up on the firm’s work-schedule with monotonous regularity… ersatz planetary travel has become our bread and butter.”

The remake doesn’t actually involve interplanetary travel, but the point stands. People’s deepest fantasies aren’t individual desires; they’re repetitive genre product which can be purchased wholesale. Quaid’s fantasies are the most real things about him, and they are as generically tedious as the reality from which they are a putative escape. For Philip K. Dick, or some iteration of him, we are just bad remakes of someone else’s dream.