Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts

Monday, 29 June 2015

Gemma Chan Explains the Art of Being a Robot on ‘Humans’ - New York Times


Gemma Chan Explains the Art of Being a Robot on ‘Humans’


Gemma Chan
ANDREW TESTA FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES
    She bumped into sets and crew members. She even tumbled down the stairs. Playing a robot in the new AMC drama “Humans” was awkward at first for the British actress Gemma Chan. “I honestly thought my head would explode,” she said with a laugh by phone from London.
    Her character, Anita, is an exquisite specimen of artificial intelligence — or “synth” — one of the must-own gadgets populating a present-day London in a parallel universe. Anita is purchased by an exasperated husband (Tom Goodman-Hill) after his wife’s work schedule proves more than he and their three messy offspring can handle. But with her silky ebony hair, lithe limbs and ability to charm man and child alike, Anita isn’t exactly the kind of help a frazzled middle-age woman (Katherine Parkinson) wants to encounter at the breakfast table before she’s had her morning shower.
    What’s even more disconcerting, Anita seems to make un-synth-like errors — like bumping into the wife with a hot pan and hiding a giant spider in her hands. And sometimes there’s a hint of emotion flickering behind her electric-emerald eyes. So is Anita a good synth or a bad synth?
    “It’s a bit of a mystery, because the writers have been quite playful at the start,” said Ms. Chan, 32, who, after studying law at Oxford, traded a legal career for the Drama Center London, which led to roles in “Doctor Who,” “Secret Diary of a Call Girl” and “Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit.”
    “I don’t think the show presents either a utopia or a dystopia,” she added. “It leaves it up to the audience to decide.” These are excerpts from the conversation.
    Q. How did you and your fellow robots train for the roles?
    A. Everyone on the show had to go through “synth school,” like “The Walking Dead” zombie school, but for robots.
    So what did you learn in class?
    We tried to come up with a universal physical language that all synths share. What this boils down to is that ultimately machines run on battery power, and every move has to be specific and economic and with a grace, eliminating all the little extras. Perfect steps, very precise, nothing very robotic, but something other than human. We decided that with the synths, their eyes would move first, then their heads and bodies. I couldn’t breathe, and I couldn’t blink too much.
    Did you carry that physicality into your life?
    God no! As soon as they called “cut,” I would slip into my bad posture and go home and slump on the couch.
    William Hurt plays one of the first engineers to design synths.
    He’s brilliant and brings so much to his character’s poignant relationship with his outdated synth, which holds all the memories of his dead wife.
    What about his new dominatrix synth, who tends to his health?
    [Laughs.] She’s terrifying. And it’s quite frightening that eventually this could be the way we go with an aging population.
    Can you see synths in our future?
    I don’t think we’re far off. I read the other day about a hotel in Japan that’s completely staffed by robots. Robots check you in, and robots clean your room. When you have Elon Musk saying that A.I.s could be in our future, I think you have to listen.
    Would you get one?
    I probably would — someone to run errands when I’m on set.
    Why did you trade law for acting?
    When I finished my law degree, I was offered a job at a big firm in London, but the long hours and being bound to a desk weren’t for me. I still find the law an interesting subject. But I would have been pretty miserable as a corporate lawyer.
    You’ve quoted an article that said viewers were more likely to see an alien than an Asian woman on film.
    I have been fortunate in that I have worked pretty steadily, though there are definitely instances where I’ve been told that I’m up for a part, only to have the auditions canceled because they were “going white.” And it’s a shame, because you want it to be about the best actor cast for the role, period.

    Review: ‘Humans’ Contemplates When Robots Are Routine Accessories - New York Times Review




    Review: ‘Humans’ Contemplates When Robots Are Routine 

    Accessories


    Gemma Chan as a robot purchased by a family as a household helper in “Humans,” an AMC series that begins on Sunday.

    DES WILLIE, KUDOS / AMC-C4

      No one would blame you for being confused. A new series turned up Wednesday on the USA Network called “Mr. Robot” that is about humans. And on Sunday, AMC will unveil a series called “Humans” that is largely about robots. But if you can’t keep them straight, watch both. “Mr. Robot” is pretty darn good. “Humans” is too.
      Robots are right up there with space travel on the list of things that infiltrated television and film much more quickly than they have become factors in everyday life. Rosie the Robot of “The Jetsons” will be eligible for android Social Security soon. But “Humans,” a British product based on a Swedish series, feels fresh nonetheless, thanks to a multiple-plotline approach, a deft cast and its refusal to be simplistic.
      Robots — “synthetics,” or “synths,” in the show’s terminology — have become routine accessories in the world of “Humans,” and as the series opens, the Hawkins family purchases its first one, an attractive female it names Anita (Gemma Chan). It’s actually the father, Joe Hawkins (Tom Goodman-Hill), who makes the purchase. The mother, Laura (Katherine Parkinson), has been resistant, and she isn’t happy to see Anita in the household when she returns from one of her frequent work trips.
      “I don’t want one around the kids, Joe,” she complains, adding: “It’s not right. It’ll mess with their heads.”
      Her reservations turn out to be well founded. Anita soon begins behaving in ways synths are not supposed to behave, and she has some sort of fixation on the family’s youngest child.A satisfying series could probably have been made just out of the dynamics of the Hawkins family, Anita’s arrival underscoring Laura’s insecurities and tensions in the marriage. But that microcosm is only the beginning of “Humans.”
      We soon learn that Anita was part of a small group of synths before somehow achieving an enhanced level of self-awareness and going rogue. A renegade named Leo (Colin Morgan) leads that group, which also includes a synth prostitute, Niska (Emily Berrington). Anita and Leo were an item early in their outlaw life, but after she was captured, given a memory wipe and sold to the Hawkinses, it’s unclear how much she remembers of her previous existence.
      The best plotline in the show, though, might be the one involving George Millican, an aging scientist beautifully played by William Hurt. He was involved in creating synths originally, but by the time we meet him he has become something of a hermit. He is clinging to Odi (Will Tudor), a badly outdated first-generation synth whom George values for his memory repository, including details involving George’s now dead wife. It’s a touching relationship, one threatened by the arrival of Vera (Rebecca Front), a newer-model synth forced on George by the government, and in some ways the scariest character in this show.
      We know from countless past TV series, films and novels that when artificial intelligence is created, it will always, always, always gain sentience and turn against us. But what’s terrifying about Vera is not that she may have gone militant; it’s that she might merely be doing her job. She’s apparently an eldercare-bot, and in the name of watching out for George’s health she does things like override his requests for particular meals.
      We are, we keep being told, right on the verge of having robots become omnipresent in our lives. “Humans” invites us to contemplate the consequences of that, and look beyond the obvious problem of what happens when the robots achieve independence of thought (which, it bears repeating, they always, always, always do). One of the show’s themes is how ceding our roles and choices to machines threatens us. What happens to motherhood when a robot can read a bedtime story to a child more entertainingly than Mom can, a reality Laura confronts? What happens to aging with dignity when an eldercare robot bosses you around as if you were a child? And let’s not even get into how difficult it will be to make corrections once robots swarm our lives. It takes us years just to recall faulty airbags; imagine the obstacles to retreating from the robotic future if, 10 or 20 years into it, we decide we don’t like the repercussions.
      Anyway, there’s a lot going on in this show, which is being billed as an eight-episode series. Some of it is familiar from previous takes on artificial life, some of it is innovative, but all of it is involving, well written and well played. And though this is a drama, it is also served up with dashes of humor.
      “Inappropriate physical contact between myself and secondary users must be reported to a primary user,” Anita calmly advises Toby Hawkins, the son in the family, as he tries to satisfy his, um, adolescent curiosity by grabbing her breast. “Primary user” equals parent. Sorry, Toby.