I realize to most folks The Bicentennial Man is the latest
Robin Williams "child as man" nonsense. But any sci-fi
fan knows it as the Nebula Award-winning novelette by Isaac
Asimov, as well as the first big-budget film treatment of any of
his work. Asimov considered The Bicentennial Man one of his three
or four best pieces--for good reason. Asimov's gift was for
presenting a narrative plot with a believable problem, and then
coming up with a fascinating and believable solution. He wasn't
known for his great writing, scintillating dialog, or any
feelings of empathy for his characters.
His story of a household robot who demonstrated a gift for
creating beautiful things contained what was undoubtedly his most
sympathetic and believable character, as well as a problem and
solution that actually involves a search for the meaning of
humanity. While it sounds hackneyed now, it was really Asimov who
first explored the legal and emotional aspects of mechanical
beings who aspire to be more than the sum of their gizmos.
I'm hoping all of this intro explains something critical: I
can't really review TBM solely on its merits as a movie. I'm
hopelessly emotional. I can only really discuss it in terms of
how they handled the story, and how the performances delivered.
So if you're just looking for a yay or nay on the movie, I'm not
much good to you.
For one thing, TBM was one of Asimov's few forays into
sentimentality. It created the model that we now think of as a
tad hackneyed, thanks to Data. But in the 70s, when he wrote the
story, it was relatively new for a robot to yearn for humanity--and,
for all its soppiness, TBM is the definitive text on what it
takes to be human.
I don't think it was possible to film the story as written.
But it's not one of those cases where they just borrowed the
title. The story changes were foreseeable, although I didn't
agree with all of them.
The first third of the film--where the new NDR unit joins the
Martin family--was true to the story and was done very well. Sam
Neill in particular was very solid. (and sexy! Lordy, that man is
hot.)
The middle, where Andrew meets the love interest and woos her,
is weak. I think it was inevitable that a romance was added, and
that's not even necessarily a bad thing. But I would have
preferred that Andrew had suffered more loss first--go another
generation before meeting the woman he falls for. I also would
have preferred the movie focus more on the science and less on
the love story in the mid-section. Still, I was struck that the
science got any attention at all, given that this is a lowbrow
Chris Columbus "let's not think too hard about it cause this
is entertainment for the masses". And Oliver Platt, playing
the scientist who develops the android technology, has plenty of
screen time.
While the final third isn't perfect, it does deliver on the
one critical element--Andrew's choice. It's not an easy choice,
and I think even small kids will understand it. And that is
enough to make me think fondly of it, given that we don't get to
see too many Asimov stories filmed.
Happily, no sentimentality was added. Humor was never an
Asimov strength, and the laughs added were, for the most part,
actually funny. Much of the humor didn't involve Williams'
schtick, which was a relief. Williams did fine. It wasn't a
particularly demanding part, given the tone of the movie, but he
didn't disgrace himself, and it had very little of the bathos of
his recent work. That recent "manchild" stuff was given
a rest--this was a character who wanted to grow up, and
did so as quickly as his circuits would let him. The other cast
members (particularly Neill, Platt, and the little girl who
played Davidtz as a child) got a reasonable amount of screen
time, and had some good moments. There is one wonderful
visual in-joke that only Bay Areans will get.
Can I recommend it? It's a close call. I don't think it's a
bad movie at all, and certainly isn't the sapfest that Williams'
recent efforts have been. But it's also nothing special if you
don't have my frame of reference. If you read the original story,
enjoyed it, and really are pulling for an Asimov story to succeed
on film, then go. They kept the core intact.
Kids will enjoy it, and even your teenagers might find
themselves unexpectedly moved by the ending.
