Time and again, Dutch moviemakers think they can play Hollywood's game, but whatever comes out feels like a decent attempt at best, and a bad copy at worst. (R)Evolutie is a valid attempt to make a serious Dutch science fiction movie, which is something I applaud, in between all the romcoms, WWII movies and an occasional auteur film that make up 92% of our output these days.
However, when it comes to presenting a vision of a smothering and tightly controlled future, it is clear that Eddy Terstall is better at writing contemporary Dutch dramas (check his masterpiece 'Simon'), and that he and the other writers have a few things to learn about thought-provoking moral dillemas. They can be forgiven for taking the best ideas of Gattaca, Transcendance, I Robot and Black Mirror and putting them into a Dutch blender. But what those movies have in common is that they present a utopia that looks at least superficially tempting; that is flawed to a degree where immediately rejecting it would be hard, so most people just go along with it. (R)Evolutie shows us a future Netherlands in which no sane Dutch person would want to live, because the warnings about the dangers of technology are not subtly weaven throughout the story; the message is pretty much projected directly into our eyes from 10 ft high neon signs, and bashed into our heads with a hammer.
Genetic manipulation of your progeny? The perfect baby is within reach: just choose which three cancers you want to eliminate (you pay extra for more, and if not, you just sell your house). Refusing is almost considered a felony in the movie, since the only perceived downside is apparently that your kids will outthink you by age 5. Everyone has a personal robot called Alecto that knows a frighting lot about her owners; she will do what's best for them even if they disagree, or force them to have a meeting with the kitchen appliances. The fact that Angela Schijf plays her like how a child would play a robot (including silly walk and weird intonation) makes me wonder why people would allow such a creep in their homes; if the future is really advanced enough to make her look exactly like a human, they could make her sound and move closely like one too.
The deeper message is that those who refuse this kind of invasive technology or tampering with nature (called 'naturalists') are considered worse than terrorists, and the police can apparently just apprehend and intimidate those suspected of sympathizing with hilarious threats like "let's torture them for information". This movie should really have been about how personal robots could have gained so much power over humans (shouldn't they be programmed against that?), or how people would have ever allowed such widespread genetic engineering or shredding of our constitution, including our freedom of speech.
Granted, not all is bad. The best scenes are between Alecto and Dr. Stefan, where the robot can instantly tell every physical ailments, but also explain complex human emotions better than humans themselves can. It's one of the few times where the depiction of future feels darkly realistic instead of childishly simplistic. This movie asks some tough philosophical questions, but answers most of them with a simple 'yes' or 'no' instead of a complex dialogue.
However, when it comes to presenting a vision of a smothering and tightly controlled future, it is clear that Eddy Terstall is better at writing contemporary Dutch dramas (check his masterpiece 'Simon'), and that he and the other writers have a few things to learn about thought-provoking moral dillemas. They can be forgiven for taking the best ideas of Gattaca, Transcendance, I Robot and Black Mirror and putting them into a Dutch blender. But what those movies have in common is that they present a utopia that looks at least superficially tempting; that is flawed to a degree where immediately rejecting it would be hard, so most people just go along with it. (R)Evolutie shows us a future Netherlands in which no sane Dutch person would want to live, because the warnings about the dangers of technology are not subtly weaven throughout the story; the message is pretty much projected directly into our eyes from 10 ft high neon signs, and bashed into our heads with a hammer.
Genetic manipulation of your progeny? The perfect baby is within reach: just choose which three cancers you want to eliminate (you pay extra for more, and if not, you just sell your house). Refusing is almost considered a felony in the movie, since the only perceived downside is apparently that your kids will outthink you by age 5. Everyone has a personal robot called Alecto that knows a frighting lot about her owners; she will do what's best for them even if they disagree, or force them to have a meeting with the kitchen appliances. The fact that Angela Schijf plays her like how a child would play a robot (including silly walk and weird intonation) makes me wonder why people would allow such a creep in their homes; if the future is really advanced enough to make her look exactly like a human, they could make her sound and move closely like one too.
The deeper message is that those who refuse this kind of invasive technology or tampering with nature (called 'naturalists') are considered worse than terrorists, and the police can apparently just apprehend and intimidate those suspected of sympathizing with hilarious threats like "let's torture them for information". This movie should really have been about how personal robots could have gained so much power over humans (shouldn't they be programmed against that?), or how people would have ever allowed such widespread genetic engineering or shredding of our constitution, including our freedom of speech.
Granted, not all is bad. The best scenes are between Alecto and Dr. Stefan, where the robot can instantly tell every physical ailments, but also explain complex human emotions better than humans themselves can. It's one of the few times where the depiction of future feels darkly realistic instead of childishly simplistic. This movie asks some tough philosophical questions, but answers most of them with a simple 'yes' or 'no' instead of a complex dialogue.