Robocop from the Past, or RoboCop of our Future?

Very quickly: on our podcast, Extremist Movie Debate (you can also find us on iTunes and Stitcher Radio), Ethan and I have started doing side bets. I lost this last week (we bet on the number of character's Aronofsky was going to track from behind; Ethan said two, I said four--there were three [though it occurred four times]) and my punishment was to write a three page persuasive essay on why the new RoboCop is better than the original, even though it was rated PG-13. 

by Joe

What makes a man? This is the central question in both versions of RoboCop (1987, dir. Paul Verhoeven; 2014, dir. Jose Padilha). Both movies feature the leading character of Murphy, an honest cop who after nearly being killed has his head—and thus consciousness—transferred into a robotic body, preserving his mind. The '87 version shows us a man turned machine, satirizing the violence that was prevalent in the news. The '14 film takes a more sincere standpoint, showing us the downfalls of drone warfare and the loss of morality when the human element is taken out of our protection. While the former uses violence within the confines of the technique it chose to examine, the latter is exploring a different side of the “What is Man” question, and the themes do not necessitate the ultra-violence needed for the Verhoeven film.

In December of 1984, Bernhard Goetz felt threatened on a New York subway so he fired his pistol five times, seriously wounding four men. The late—and great—Roger Ebert points out that the original Robocop had a “pointed social satire, too, as the robocop takes on some of the attributes and some of the popular following of a Bernhard Goetz.” Since a key element of satire is exaggeration Verhoeven needed to exacerbate the violence to match, or even supersede the violence that took place in the subway. He is ultimately asking the viewer to contemplate whether there is a line that can be crossed when it comes to anti-crime. Where does the law end, and a different form of crime start? The ultra-violence he proceeds to exhibit through the course of the motion picture shows us that there is a line that can be crossed, especially in the cases of fear. If we live in a fear culture, the chances of unneeded violence raises. According to OxfordJournals.org, “Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home.” The thesis of the movie shows us what could potentially happen if we let men like Goetz get away with the violence he perpetuated upon four young men because he let fear rule his life (he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. The one charge he was convicted of was carrying an unlicensed firearm). If we reduce ourselves to fear defense—making it as easy as pulling a trigger—we lower our senses to a primitive and robotic viewpoint. In effect, we lose the humanistic quality of empathy and choice in the tough situations. Verhoeven, through the 1987 version of Robocop, asks us if that still makes a man.

Officer Lewis is the detective who has slowly realized the new robocop is actually her old partner. She then spends her time trying to uncover what actually happened to Murphy. 

This is important because it illustrates Murphy's own inability to uncover his past consciousness. He is so far out of touch—too far into the fear culture resulting from a pointed threat on his life—that he has lost sight of who he was as a man. All he knows at that point is the violence he feels necessary to obtain and stabilize safety. An outside viewer is needed, showing the importance of the group mentality, opposed to an individual taking the law into his own hands.

The 2014 update trades the human-numbing fear for the absence of man within drone fighters. This film moves away from satire and uses the basic Robocop story to juxtapose drones and humans by combining the two in one cop. Murphy is aware of his past and who he is as soon as he wakes up as the robocop. There is no mystery about what happened to him. The question of the film is instead how much can we drug someone before they lose all aspects of being a human. How numb can we make Murphy before we lose sight of who he was to begin with. When it comes to people's lives there should be quizzical human nature to think through the situations. We can see this when it takes the entirety of the movie, and possible murder, for everyone to realize just how evil Raymond Sellers really is. We need to question so we can reinforce, opposed to simply taking orders. By dropping his dopamine levels, they're essentially building a human drone. While the original film had a bleak outlook on humanity, the updated version shows the lengths the human mind is capable of going to right a wrong, shown to us when Murphy fixes his own dopamine levels and solves his own murder case. The film wants us to believe that hope, desire, and determination do matter, and have real power.

Then, we have Dr. Norton, a man with an internal struggle regarding what he had previously thought as a black and white subject matter: is there any room for profit in the scope of altruism? In the beginning he used his selfless skills building robotic limbs for wounded soldiers. At the end, he has reverted to using his knowledge to build the super-soldier, robocop. The movie answers the altruism question in the negative, based on how someone along the line used the benevolent intentions for selfish gain. Though, the fact that the movie was able to raise the stakes enough for Dr. Norton to second-guess his convictions.

The themes present in the '14 version rely heavily on the psychology of man, opposed to the actions of man, and because we are more focused on the inner workings of the mind the degree of violence that is seen in the original film would feel out of place in the new version. Opposed to adding to the elements of satire being presented, it would be violence for violence's sake, and that gratuitous and unnecessary amount of gore would take away from the multi-layered story we are instead presented with.

The main reason the updated version is a superior film is because it takes a wider look at the world around us. It is not just focused on American politics when it comes to crime, like the first film, but rather it is taking the consciousness on why humanistic qualities are needed in warfare situations and blows it up to a global level. While the premise may be a little silly, it is giving its situations the weight they deserve. The absence of violence is a breath of fresh air because now the film is accessible to a wider array of people. Young people are impressionable and if we can get in there and show them the true traits of a man, and how mercy, consideration, and empathy matter in our world then we're doing everyone a service. The '87 film was concerned about revealing the past, while the '14 version is more concerned about building up a better future.

Ebert, Roger. “Robocop.” RogerEbert.com. July 7 1987. Web. Mar. 31 2014.