Are we now actively seeking to blur the line between man and machine - as this poster suggests - or do we still fear what could happen if we do (a la Star Trek's Borg)?

By my count there have been three movies released this year that involve the ability to remote control/embody a person or robot (Surrogates, Gamer, and Avatar). All three films deal with this idea differently, but the fact that they were all released within only a few months of each other is intriguing. Somewhere inside these films could lie a connection that says more than any one of them does individually.

In the case of Surrogates, the film makes an argument against the use of humanized robots as a means of living, criticizing in a roundabout way that people (particularly Americans) are on a path to losing their natural desire for human contact. Some might say that living through a robot isn’t actually living (see our review). All in all, the general opinion of the film regarding technology that enables people to avoid actual physical contact is negative to say the least.

Gamer‘s usage of the remote embodiment concept is quite different. For starters, there are no robots; people control other people (prisoners) for use in a virtual videogame experience. So in other words, certain people were able to control other people who had been dehumanized to the point where their lives were worth nothing more than a subjective entertainment value. Obviously, this film’s message is not congruent to Surrogates‘. However, that the message involves the idea of dehumanization by way of technological means does give the two films at least one connection.

Avatar also promotes a different theme with its incorporation of the remote embodiment concept. Instead of making a case against the use of avatars (which in this case are aliens instead of humans), the film actually endorses their utilization. This is most likely due to the film’s apparent theme (suggested in our review), which proposes that an avatar is in fact an allegory for modern telecommunication technologies, and that using such resources ought to be used for the purposes of learning about people different from yourself as opposed to just seeking out like-minded, comparable individuals who aren’t liable to disagree with you. One can reasonably suggest from this that Avatar‘s use of remote embodiment is not about dehumanization but of rehumanization. Thus, those humans in the film who choose to utilize available technology for this purpose are considered the protagonists, and those who do not are considered the antagonists.

If only one thing can be said to connect all three films, it is that they all seem to criticize/warn us about the dangerous path we are on that could lead us to, by way of newer and newer technology, dehumanizing ourselves as well as others. However, Avatar‘s greater message allows us to consider this path less as a straight shot towards doom and more as a double-edged sword. And so, there is no agreement of what will happen, but only an agreement of what can happen. It appears that it is up to us as members of an increasingly technological society to A) retain our basic humanity by not allowing advanced telecommunications to completely substitute direct human contact, and B) use our technological resources to expand the breadth of our humanity by seeking to learn from and understand the different and “unusual.” Personally, it seems that – based on the subject matter of recent sci-fi/action films – there is an increasing trepidation with our society’s increasingly advancing technology, as even this past summer’s Terminator: Salvation sought to ask what will happen if the line between man and machine (i.e. technology) is blurred. The question of whether man as he is defined is inexorably linked to his technology is certainly a relevant one, but alas it is a question for another time.

What do you make of these three films? What conclusions do you draw when considering them connected in some way? Tell us what you think.