O 6º Dia

This film was pushed as a dissertation on the ethical issues and social implications of cloning in the world of the near future, and most viewers seem to have interpreted it as just that. But the truth of the matter is, the aspect of human cloning isn't really the crux of this film at all: it's the 'syncorder' technology. Theoretically, we could clone a human being now, but such a process would be a threat to no one; we'd simply have a totally seperate individual with the same DNA the individual from whom he/she was cloned. The ability to 'synchord' peoples memories and personalities and implant them into the clone, however, allows the films villains to insidiously 'replace' their victims. Well, if you have a bloody syncorder, to hell with cloning! These people could already conquer the world by retrieving classified secrets from people to whom they give 'retinal scans!' Also, the existence of the syncorder implies that the information storage and retrieval systems of the human brain have been cracked. If that were the case, wouldn't people be able to build more advanced computer programs than the mindless, repetitive, doll-like imitations of SimPal Cindy and the Virtual Girlfriend?

The fact is, this world is not one of the 'near future,' because the kind of technology required to build a synchorder, let alone one as small and easy to use as the 'vision testing machine' used by this film's villainry, is not going to be available to use for a long, looong time. Since the characters ignore this, and focus almost entirely on the mundane concept of cloning, most of the important questions are not asked. Arnold's clone wonders if he is human. Well of course he's human! And the idea that he doesn't have a soul simply because he is a clone is repulsive; how about not having a soul because his memories and personality emanate from a digital information storage device?

Barring this, I think that this was a good action flick embedded in a surprisingly well done science fiction film. Innovative direction, if not choreography, and the movie puts a lot of things taken for granted from Arnie's previous action films on their heads, which is fun to watch. Having to kill the same people over and over ("Yeah, yeah, we've all been killed before."), and two Arnies arguing with each other and double teaming the bad guys, for example. My only problem; Arnold is some kind of extreme sports chartered helicopter pilot; how does that explain his trademark aim, paramilitary training, and the ability to effortlessly kill people with his bare hands? We know he HAS to be able to do these things, but it still makes no sense in this case.

Ran "Raw Deal" (1986) and "The Sixth Day" (2000) back to back and its interesting to see the embodiment of decadence. Fourteen years can make a big difference. I don't mean Arnold's aging. That's a given for all of us. And I don't mean his graceless and wooden movements. That was always a given for Arnold. I mean the fact that Arnold's earlier movies were usually more or less realistic, although they sometimes reached the parameters of possibility. But later they tended to transform themselves into logical puzzles enhanced by an abundance of computer-generated images.

In "Raw Deal," for instance, Arnold takes a few belts in the jaw, but he can clean out a nest of a dozen or more gangsters killing every one of them. They're all prepared and armed to the teeth but it makes no difference. They shoot and miss. Arnold doesn't miss. But that aside, it's a realistic movie set in the present. We can at least IMAGINE that Arnold can shoot that much better than everyone else. The story even reaches for the surreal at times. His drunken wife throws a cake at him. "You should not dwink and bake," he remarks unflappably. Later he kicks out the windshield of his Caddy convertible and drives wildly through a quarry full of enemies with machine guns. He mows them merrily down while "I Don't Get No Satisfaction" plays on his tape.

In "The Sixth Day" the wit and self parody are largely absent. The pieces of the logical puzzle are there but no one really bothers to fit them together. One or two comments and Arnold has had enough of what he calls "philosophy." It's about cloning and the management and bioethics of same. The villains, for instance -- Tony Goldwyn in a fine performance -- have built a life-limiting disorder into each of their clones because even after cloning a psychopath there is still the possibility of redemption. What do you do if you encounter someone who is your identical clone, right down to the slightest episodic memory from childhood, carrying the same devotion to your wife and daughter as you -- and he, all unwittingly, has taken your place? You have a chance to murder him but should you? He is, in every sense except birthing, a second you, although he doesn't know he is. Isn't that murder? How about -- suicide?

In any case, despite the zappy editing and loud noises, there are the usual moments of comedy. One young Gothic heavy has been killed and cloned so many times he's beginning to complain about a sore neck and has to be reminded that his spine was fractured in a previous life. A beautiful Goth woman with neon-blue hair is killed and then freshly reconstituted. She leaps nude from the table and rushes to a mirror, flushed with anger. "Now I have to pierce my ears again!"

The 6th Day had the potential to be a classic Schwarzenegger sci-if action film in the realm of Total Recall or Terminator, if only it aspired that high. The B-movie vibe is hard to escape with generic action scenes and wooden dialogue. Arnie is his usual entertaining self though and does most of the heavy lifting (pun intended). This film puts forth some genuinely interesting ethical dilemmas, just don't think too hard about the plot.

I recently had the pleasure of teaching the wonders of film criticism to an English composition class at Marietta College in Marietta, Ohio. The experience was enjoyable, and the class posed a number of questions. One of the more interesting questions concerned the films I had seen that I believed had potential, but ultimately failed in execution. While I have seen a number of films that fit into this category, I couldn't think of a decent example. This was because I hadn't seen "The 6th Day" yet. What could have been an interesting and exciting look at the evils of cloning was a "B" grade action film at best, despite an above-par script and one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's better roles to date.

The film's premise is heavily based in TRUE science fiction; that is, fiction having its basis in scientific truth, using projections of the future to fully examine some aspect of our society. Sorry to go into such an elaborate definition, but I believe a lot of stuff gets swept into the category of science fiction simply because it has a robot, or takes place in outer space. But I digress.

This fictional reality here deals with cloning. In the film, which takes place in the "near future," cloning is an every-day practice, but only with pets and animals. Cloning people has been outlawed, as the original human cloning project went horribly wrong. Schwarzenegger plays Adam Gibson, a decent family man and helicopter pilot chartered to fly Michael Drucker (Tony Goldwyn), a rich businessman who owns Replacement Technologies. This corporation is at the height of cloning technology, running everything from a fish cloning company to help repopulate the oceans, to "RePet," a company that clones dead family pets. There's even a rumor that the company's head doctor (Robert Duvall) is experimenting with illegal human cloning. Something goes terribly wrong on Drucker's first flight, and before he knows, Gibson discovers he has been cloned. Its up to him to discover the secret controversy, and get his life back.

With this premise, the film is wide open to make many social observations, and does so very well, on occasion. Much of the legalities concerning cloning, as well as the ethical concerns, are discussed and examined by the characters. Even though the technology exists in the future, it is not widely accepted. Some of these observations are stated with all the eloquence you could expect from an Arnold/action film, but others are done so subtly, and surprisingly, with biting humor. Much of the concept of "RePet" is quite amusing.

However, if science fiction is the film's basis, lame action sequences are its filler. In between these intriguing dialogues are shoddy, cookie-cutter action scenes one should expect from a made for TV film. No matter if it's a car chase, a laser gun shoot-out, or a helicopter battle, it all feels very dull. It's not that I'm knocking these things, because they have to appear in action film; I just wish they were done well. Ultimately, the action suffers from a lack of creativity, which ironically, is where the rest of the script excels.

And one can't blame Arnold for not trying, as he is both charming and believable in his part. His is a performance with a surprising level of humanity, especially in scenes where he's going about his daily life. One almost forgets he's an action star and begins to take him a little seriously. But don't worry, after the first half-hour he's picked up a laser gun and is fighting and one-lining his way to the climax.

I guess my one qualm with "The 6th Day" is its failed potential: with some better action sequences (like those found in "The Matrix"), this could have been a very decent film, one I would be sending you to right away. Instead, it's simply a wait-for-video flick, and by my guess, that wait won't be long.

I was pleasantly surprised with how good the not very favorably reviewed 6th day was. It delivered in several ways:

• It has the expected action, stunts, effects.

• It has the expected one-liners and humor.

• Acting is generally perfectly adequate for the purpose. Rather, it must be pretty good when I never was disturbed by any bad acting.

• It is nicely futuristic in a near-future fashion with many perfectly or partially believable ideas (and some that we don't quite believe in, but hey, if we accept hyperspace travel then we can accept this).

• It has a message that actually keeps us thinking after leaving the movie. The cloning problem is considered from many points of view (not only as the bad guy's evil plan). How far can we heal, how far can we preserve life, when does it become an ethical problem, when will it clash with religion?

That is quite impressive if you ask me.

However, sometimes it fails on two points: Predictability and suspense. Some scenes, especially involving the bad guy, are so embarrassingly predictable that it makes me wish they could have skipped some clichés just for once. And the movie misses great suspense opportunities on several occasions. I won't tell you how, who or when, but when a guy is assassinated, it should not happen just out of the blue, but we should be led into the situation slowly (for example from the assassin's point of view) so we get the chance to worry about it. That opportunity is missed at least twice, when the movie jumps straight into the kill, giving us momentary cheap shock instead of thrill. Compare it to the killing in, for example, Predator (one of the most excellent Arnold movies). Most kills by the Predator don't come out of the blue, we are warned, and it adds suspense and thrill.

Those flaws push the movie down from the top marks, but I still rank it pretty high for the points mentioned above. Quite entertaining and even interesting too, which makes it one of the better Arnold movies. Recommended!