"Be Right Back"

Why would the woman leave Robotic Ash in the attic and is that morally wrong? These are the questions that plagued me after watching the film. I felt that the film's content was very bizarre because there was some entity present that made it relatable, even though it quite frankly creeped me out. The film left me feeling angry and confused at the same time. I was angry because, throughout the film, I was completely convinced that Robotic Ash was in fact a ROBOT, however, by the conclusion of the film, I was in fact sentimental towards Robotic Ash and angered at the fact that the woman stored him away in the attic, as if he was an object. But he IS in fact a ROBOT. So why exactly was I sympathizing with an inanimate object? After reflecting on this issue, I believe the answer is that I was fooled into thinking that Robot Ash demonstrated real emotion and the fact that he looked exactly like a real human. I mean don't get me wrong, the emotion was real but at the same time it wasn't. I am speaking of the moment in which the woman commanded Robot Ash to jump from the cliff. Robot Ash's immediate reaction was to ask questions, which in a way demonstrates his development of a higher consciousness. If he was a "true" robot, he would have just jumped on command. However, when the woman declared that his reaction was not a reaction that the Real Ash would have, Robot Ash switched a switch and began begging and crying. The fact that he had to flip a switch demonstrates his "acting" as a human, but that he is not entirely a human.

This film also made me question the world in which we live in. For instance, is the world of robots, where we can actually take a dead relative or spouse and robotify them, one that I would want to live in? To this question I would have to answer no. I think that I would be more accepting if the robots did not look like a carbon copy of someone who was once "alive," meaning that they had a soul and their original consciousness was not artificially created. I think its entirely too cruel to have a carbon copy of a relative that you cared strongly for. Not only is it mentally unhealthy, due to the fact that you could not properly grieve but also because its completely rude to the individual that is no longer alive. Many may argue that its a means of honoring their memory by their presence being a constant, but I strongly argue that it is not. It is a means of essentially replacing the real person with a mechanical form of them. It does not make the person's presence real, and most certainly does not make them human. Or does it?