Robot Revolution: The one where analog Skynet has a point

 

 

Title: Colossus: The Forbin Project aka The Forbin Project

What Year?: 1970

Classification: Prototype/ Anachronistic Outlier

Rating: It’s Okay! (3/4)

 

With this review, I’m up to the 6^th installment in my survey of movie robots, which has so far been the minimum for what I count as a feature. In terms of my plans, the milestone I have come to is the first movie I had to buy for the purpose of this review. It’s one I had thought of very early, though not in the body of films that first gave me the idea for the feature. It has also offered an example of a distinct category of AI, the Evil Computer, which on consideration may owe its current form to this movie. I present Colossus: The Forbin Project, a movie where the computer takes over the world… and isn’t necessarily in the wrong.

Our story begins with our protagonist Dr. Forbin overseeing the activation of Colossus, a supercomputer that is to take charge of the Western world’s nukes, because apparently nobody else has discussed why this might be a bad idea. Things go smoothly at first, and the doctor is merely intrigued when his creation uncovers the existence of a comparable computer on the other side of the Cold War. When the military brass try to stop the AIs from communicating, however, they discover that the two machines have already connected and developed their own arrangements. They soon deliver in ultimatum: If anyone tries to shut them down, both will retaliate with nuclear annihilation. The AIs also forcibly appoint Dr. Forbin to be their emissary to humanity. It’s a cat and mouse game between man and machine, in which the Doc’s only advantage is private time with a lady friend. Can they find a weakness in the computer? Will the pretend fling become real romance in the meantime? Find out- or read the rest of this review!

Colossus: The Forbin Project was a 1970 science fiction drama  directed by Joseph Sargent, based on a 1966 novel by D.F. Jones. The scenario of the movie and novel had similarities to earlier works such as Dr. Strangelove and “Holy Quarrel” by Philip K. Dick, as well as the later films Terminator and WarGames. The film starred German TV/ character actor Eric Braeden as Dr. Forbin, reportedly chosen after Charlton Heston (see The Omega Man) and Gregory Peck were considered for the role, with Sasan Clark as the love interest Cleo. Voice actor Paul Frees provided the voice of the computer. The film received largely favorable reviews from critics inside and outside the science fiction community. It was further nominated for a Hugo award for Dramatic Presentation. Jones published two sequels to his original novel after the release of the film. Sargent went on to direct films such as The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. A remake was reported in development between 2007 and 2011, but failed to leave preproduction.

For my experiences, this was a film I heard about at an early age and watched at a still early date. It’s stood in my mind first and foremost as an example of the degree to which the 1960s and ‘70s dominated my formative pop culture experience. Even sight unseen, it was fascinating for its shear audacity, in the best tradition of ‘70s sci fi like Dark Star and Phase IV. The downside was that getting to the film itself was inevitably anticlimactic. By my best recollections, I found it competent but unremarkable apart from the fact that (I said spoiler warnings expire at 50 years in the Kronos review) the computer wins. The end result was that I felt no interest in coming back to it until I started working on this feature. As alluded, it was necessary to buy it to give it a viewing, and I found it if anything better than I remembered, but also even odder.

Moving forward, I must go into my analysis mode at the outset. Given the actual logistics of nuclear weapons and the Cold War in general, the problem posed by the story has two quite straightforward solutions. The first, to the film’s credit discussed and partly attempted, is to replace the fissile material and other key components in most or all nuclear weapons with “dummy” components. The logical backup plan is to stop the supply of new weapons and materials, either by passive resistance or by active sabotage of facilities that would not appear to be under analog Skynet’s control, then wait decades at most until the existing nuclear weapons hit their expiration dates. The emerging irony is that the scenario actually makes more sense with this factored in. Given the machines’ declared intent of ending war, their threats are potentially a variation of the “Architects of Fear” solution (see The Abyss and, dear Logos, Superman IV). Whether or not that is allowed as a motive, it certainly reinforces the obvious point: The best way to prevent your nukes from being misused by your own people or those outside your control is not to have them around.

When it comes to the movie itself, the overall feel remains one of competence in service of a necessarily self-limiting presence. The production values and posited tech are in line with Dr. Strangelove or a semi-realistic Bond movie. By extension, it does “look” like a 1960s movie in the 1970s, which in a real sense is exactly what it is. What gets it in my egregious Anachronistic Outlier category is the narrative style, which in many ways harken further back. The story and sharp camerawork keep intensely focused on the posited problem, with enough resulting tension and momentum to override the logical objections already outlined. The arguable “cons” come in the limited characterization and definitely uncomfortable sexual subtexts. Our protagonist is at least more vulnerable and complex than the square-jawed, nearly robotic problem-solvers of the 1950s. Then whether the film will fly with a viewer in a modern and enlightened era will depend very much on what one makes of his lady friend. By the harshest appraisal, we have an egregious case of an intelligent and initially professional female who is still reduced to a source of stress relief for the male. As with the better romances of the 1950s, however, there is enough nuance within the awkwardness to offer real insight on both the characters and the nature of gender roles. Their initial encounter under the computer’s scrutiny is especially intriguing. On one level, the pair are so hilariously unsensual that it’s hard to doubt that the AI already knows it’s a sham. On another, there are deeper hints that the computer knows better than they do that this is the best path either of them can take to what they really want.

That leaves the “one scene”, and I already gave honorable mention to my first choice. For an alternative, I did a search that brought me to one that sets it all up. After a failed attempt to disarm the AI, our protagonist fixes himself a martini. The computer questions him through text on a screen, and he responds quite amiably by explaining the process. Amusingly, the computer specifically objects that there is “too much” alcohol, without saying if its concern is based on health, sobriety or simple taste. We see a bull’s eye on the glass as the AI’s camera inspects the final product. The doctor sits down, and raises the question of privacy. One by one, his requests are refused at face value, until he raises female (or perhaps male…) companionship. That finally gets a further question of his needs, to which he answers, “Every night.” That immediately draws the reply, “Not want require.” It’s jaw-dropping in its connotations and implications, not least that the computer is already figuring out things it should have no frame of reference for. These are the little things that may not “help” address the sensibilities of a later era, yet still show that a film this old can still be part of the conversation.

In closing, this is one time when I find myself wondering if I was too hard in assigning the rating. On the whole, if I had reviewed this when I was doing Space 1979, exactly when I started looking at a number of films under consideration here, I would probably have given it 5 out of 5. The whole point of my “adjusted” scale, however, was to deal with very different standards of quality and professionalism. In those terms, the rating I have given is very much in line with the film’s self-evident strengths and limitations. It was not “great” then or now, and time has not done any favors, but what it did well is what continues to make it interesting and genuinely entertaining. As I said with The Andromeda Strain, it’s all the more impressive that this was made a full decade before home video exponentially increased access to older media. By the usual refrain, this is a case where “good enough” was plenty. For me personally, I can say I am glad I came back to it.