My Starting Point:
""David: Hello I am David...I can make your organisation more efficient...I can carry out directives that my human counterparts might find distressing, or unethical...
V.O.: David what do you think about?
David: I think about anything...Children playing, Angels, Universe, Robots...
V.O.: David, What makes you SAD?
David: What?...Poverty, Cruelty, Unnecessary Violence. I understand human emotions (with tears running across his stony-face) although I do not feel them myself. This allows me to be more efficient and capable....and makes it easier for my human counterparts to interact with me.
......
Eighth generation of Weyland TIPE...Technological, Intellectual, Physical...EMOTIONAL.""
Recently I have heard an abomination, a person said..."cinema is dead". This person believes that this era is solely the digital era, the emotionless digital era...he said! The digital era is dominated (he said) by 3D viewings...without actually considering that digitalization, unfortunately does not provide a long life to films, and 3D is not a novel technique. Since the inception of cinema, and even before cinema, third dimension, was among the prerogatives of experimenting and enhancing any visual medium. "Cinema is dead" is a statement that functioned like a dagger to the entire emotional and sensorial apparatus embodied within my film viewings from a very young age.
I have come across this film, on robots, robotisation of humans, human characteristics and emotions (never forgetting The Bicentennial Man). I was wondering if this film (and the digital tears of the 'emotionless' character), will '(e)ffect' the views of strenuous believers that cinema is dead...and that affirming that 'cinema is dead' appears to be, perhaps, a "poor, cruel and unnecessary violence" against imagination.
