(Scene Study (Formalism))
Dear Readers,
The first moments and lessons learned by any conscious being are crucial to its development and perception of the world. In the case of a semi-humanoid being like Robocop, immediate influences from the outside world enter Robocop’s programming, not memory, allegedly.
The scene from the 1987 Robocop film in which Robocop’s “birth” is depicted includes a number of small scenes spliced together in which Robocop’s creators speak about their creation in front of it, albeit unaware that their words have serious implications on the conscience of Robocop.
What makes this scene particularly important and curious is the first person perspective from which the scene is filmed. Although unrelated to the post as a whole, I can’t help but notice both the similarities and differences between Robocop’s awakening, and Frankenstein’s Monster’s. In Frankenstein, we get no input from the monster and are left to fill in the blanks ourself until, of course, the monster tells his tale. For Robocop however, his first moments are shared with us intimately through his perspective. As an audience member, one perceives the proceedings in the same manner Robocop would. Each mini-scene begins with a moment to indicate that Robocop is “waking up” per say, and each conversation that occurs before it is perceived and indirectly takes the form of programming or informing Robocop’s subconscious. Why else would the director create a scene in which Robocop’s first person perspective was the subject if no to imply that input was being received by Robocop’s senses, however mechanic?
The first mini-scene is a prime example as Bob Morton, Robocop’s Victor Frankenstein, complains profusely about the use of Alex J. Murphy’s original arm. This complaint inherently dehumanizes Robocop because Morton is more enthused by the idea of Robocop being all machine rather than a mixture of man and mechanics. However, in his next sentence, Morton addresses Robocop with a gender. “Can he understand what I’m saying?” he inquires to a colleague. This is a clear contradiction of convictions on Morton’s behalf and therefore misinforms Robocop’s subconscious. Morton’s just stated his disproval in including more human aspects to Robocop, but assigned him a gender, a quality connected directly to life.
A second, and perhaps of more serious implications, is the information that Robocop is all-powerful or unstoppable. It’s shown the power of its own grip before its eyes and told that it’ll be a “bad mother****er”, both informing Robocop’s sense of superiority.
That validation of strength and outright power is followed directly by two scenes celebrating Robocop’s official and complete creation. From Robocop’s perspective the applause and celebration are directed towards Robocop, shown through a kiss placed on its facemask, and a blatant “That’s for you” in reference to overwhelming applause after Robocop is officially unveiled. This clear perpetuation of Robocop’s power being responded to with applause blurs the line between law & order and violence. Robocop later destroys a gas station in order to “uphold the law” while using unnecessary amounts of gunfire and violence. Could this have been because of the constant mention of Robocop’s awesome power, thus becoming its distinguishing quality? I’d say yes.
For a movie chock-full of 80s drama and “movie magic”, personally I was surprised to be able to uncover an analytical question that I’m not positive I’ve come to an absolute conclusion about. That just goes to show that even the most over the top stories can contain deeper, more life-applicable questions to be answered, or at least analyzed.
Stay tuned,
Lucas Johnson
Works Cited
“Robocop (1987).” IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.
“RoboCop.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein. London: Penguin, 1992. Print.
Memory and Identity 