Peripheral

Really weird in a David Cronenberg meets Bernard Rose kind of way, this low budget Brit movie has its merits and is worth watching if only for its 'what the hell was that all about?' feeling you get at the end. Good cameo from Tom Conti who probably came in from a long lunch to do the scene.

Young London based writer Bobbi Johnson (Hannah Arterton) is so skint that she can't pay her bills. She likes to write old school by using a typewriter but her publisher convinces her to use a state of the art computer that features artificial intelligence, and so her nightmare begins. Quite an interesting story, very strange at times but thankfully I was able to stick with it and make sense of the ending. Very much in the vein of David Cronenberg and his movie Videodrome, with a splash of David Lynch. In one scene she is raped (?) by the computer, reminded me of Evil Dead but with wires and leads instead of tree branches and vines. The small cast all do a good time, nice to see Jenny Seagrove. Not a movie that I'd watch again but it isn't bad.

I was interested in this because of Hannah Arterton and it was odd to see her in such a grim movie after the upbeat Walking On Sunshine.

Overall it's a basic premise; human against out of control technology, the conflict reminded me somewhat of HAL 9000 in 2001 A Space Odyssey but without the filmmaking skill.

I guess there have been so many films of this genre that they need to make the story vague or convoluted in order to stand out, but all this one does is make the viewer ask 'why was this needed?' There are a lot of puzzling and unresolved scenes which is not necessarily a wrong thing but in this film the viewer doesn't get any background information or character development to have a chance to connect the dots.

I felt no sense of peril during the film nor a sense of triumph at the end. I pretty much didn't care.

So the setup is pretty simple and rife for some manner of scifi/horror examinations or exploitations; a broke writer grudgingly accepts an AI editor to basically live-edit her newest work as she writes and her publisher will pay her bills and such so she can keep writing.

Over time, they keep sending more upgrades and additions to the AI, to the point where the AI begins to manipulate the story itself.

But none of that is important or really tangential to whatever this film was going for. Instead, the writer, Bobbi Johnson, goes on drug-fueled writing binges rife with laughable "techie-techno" style music and flashing lights while writing some absurdly over the top purple prose. What little of it we are shown is essentially meaningless word salad. The tone of the film and its alleged theme seem to indicate this was intentional.

Along the way, Bobbi is harassed by a stalker who sends her video tapes, a brother who keeps pestering her to hold onto drugs and guns, a deadline that is thrust in her face at the very top of the neon-light eyesore of a computer she has to work from, and the fact that she is inexplicably coughing up ink and her fingers, hands, and arms are slowly becoming coated black with ink.

All of this keeps escalating and culminating in a finale that, without spoiling, seems to make little to no sense either to someone outside of the writing and publishing world, or else like the incoherent, esoteric rantings and ravings of a high-minded writer complaining about the state of modern literature without really having any specific issue beyond buzzwords like "technology" and "truth" and "lies" and "fourth estate".

What message is trying to be said is in no way reflected by what the film is actually showing us. The rising issues of "fake news", propaganda, and expanding corporate media are in no way reflected by Bobbi becoming inky and presumably hallucinating a lot and computer tentacles.

If this scattershot assortment of imagery and themes was supposed to say something meaningful to someone, it clearly wasn't someone like me.

This is yet another movie that really isn't as good as the writer intended and nowhere near as good as it could have been. So many writers these days have really, really good concepts and ideas to get across, but they get so caught up in being unique or Avant-garde that they end up making their work completely incomprehensible.

This movie had a great idea to convey how the lines between human creators and technology are being so blurred these days and how the corporate control of creative endeavors is destroying the creativity that should be inherent to the process. The beginning and ending of the movie did a good job of forwarding those ideas in an effective yet unique way. The problem was the entire middle half of the movie which made little to no sense even with drugs factored in!

Ever since the 1960s, there has been a growing number of writers, especially young writers, who have gotten the idea that leaving the audience with more questions about the movie when it is over than they had when it started is somehow a good thing. This. Is. A. Lie. You can have an excellent movie that leaves you with many questions, but if you are walking out of the theater or turning off the TV and are still wondering what in the hell the movie was about, the writer has done a BAD JOB OF WRITING! I know there are people who will be very opposed to my opinion, but the thing is, it is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of almost every person on this planet who is not trying to be a pretentious jerk by saying that people who don't "get it" are just not intelligent, deep, or special to understand.

Writers need to learn to write WHOLE stories, stories that have a beginning, a middle, and an end so that when the audience has finished the story, they can actually tell what it was about. Can writing schools please start teaching that again? Because I am really tired of watching movies with really great ideas that completely fail to come together because the writer never got past the idea stage, but still somehow made it into a movie.