I saw “Surrogates” today. The Bruce Willis flick that came out, I don’t know, a couple of months ago I want to say. 2009 IMDB says. Damn, time flies.

I was amazed at the premise; a world of human simulation that is totally hedonistic and yet still conforms to loose social mores. We, as a race, replaced our public selves with attractive, youthful and ‘perfected’ selves. But we still work - because we do have that bothersome original body to take care of, feed and house, not to mention the trappings of our old bodies - we still want to be surrounded by objects which now are used mostly for form rather than function. I don’t think surrogates eat or drink, but their originals, their ‘operators’ do. But besides the most basic of functions - eating, drinking, sleeping, and (most surprising of all) procreating, everything else is done by the surrogate.

We are told in the beginning that crime has reached minimal levels, and why not? Everyone is beautiful and sexy and strong; the drive, then for surrogates is only to house the bodies that operate them, perhaps buy them clothes and cars, but otherwise, because everyone is beautiful and freed from fear of accidental death (as surrogates do not transmit pain or damage to their operators), no one feels the need to steal, to kill.

And so we begin with this utopian city. The plot of the movie unfolds simply enough; there are human hold-outs who don’t think surrogacy is morally right - that it is not ‘real life’. There is a conspiracy of murder (real honest-to-god murder of a human operator), and the motive is ridiculous.

Spoilers:

Bruce Willis is presented with the option of saving everyone and their surrogates or the humans alone. He opts to let the surrogates be destroyed. There is no reason for this other than the fact that he is nostalgic for his own wife who has almost totally transported herself into her surrogate-world. Apparently, being beautiful and healthy is not enough - we have to be ugly and fat and unhappy for life to be ‘real’.

I am completely perturbed, especially since the movie expects you to agree with the premise without any explanation. Anti-surrogate humans are presented as hillbillies and cultishly secretive. Surrogates seem happy and functional, going to work, appreciating opera and art, etc. Perhaps things come too easy; you can be an opera star if you only create the correct cadence in your surrogate’s body or a football player if you make your surrogate strong, fast, and have quick reflexes in your own mind. (I imagine, however, that there would be niche demand for ‘organic’ art or sports performed by real humans.) Perhaps birth rates are dropping (now THAT might have been a reason to cease surrogate activities - the human race extincting itself in pure hedonistic robot non-procreative sex). Perhaps, but no one says this during the film. No one addresses it as a *problem*. Surrogacy appears as a choice which most of America (and thus, the world) adopts.

So, what is the problem? Why take away from people their happiness, their empowerment. What about those who are handicapped or hideous who use their surrogates to live more fulfilling lives? Why is Bruce Willis’ choice in the film even a choice? I find it hard to believe that a test-audience would actually think about this - they might take for granted that a life non-organic is non-Christian or non-moral. Who knows. But I watched it and I have no idea why anyone would oppose surrogacy.

This movie was based on a graphic novel with a similar end (save for a more tragic suicide by Willis’ wife who cannot bare life without her surrogate). Still, I would hope the comics would provide a better reason for the destruction of surrogates than the movie did.