Westworld (1973 movie)

Summary:

The Western grew up with the film industry up until the mid 1970s. Some claim Robert Altman's 1971 McCabe & Mrs. Miller killed the Western. The long-running The Virginian did end that year. But the steady diet of Old West movies continued to appear. In 1973, the year Bonanza died (two years before the end of Gunsmoke), Michael Crichton's Westworld appeared.

Westworld opens with an advertisement for the Delos amusement park, Westworld. For a thousand dollars a day, you can visit an amusement park where you can live out various pasts (Old West, Rome, and Medieval Europe). An announcer interviews attendees as they disembark from a plane.

We are presented our protagonists, John Blane [James Brolin] who is a veteran of the park and Peter Martin [Richard Benjamin] who is giddy as a child at the prospect of shooting guns, drinking booze, barroom brawling, and visiting prostitutes.

Meanwhile, behind the computers and monitors, scientists and programmers adjust settings to ensure the vacationers are having a good time. However, glitches are appearing in the system, machines and robots malfunctioning in small ways. One scientist suggests it's like a contagion spreading through the system. (First hint at a computer virus?). John gets bit by a rattlesnake even though that isn't supposed to happen.

Commentary with Spoilers:

After a night of drinking and brawling John and Peter stumble out of the saloon, hungover, to encounter Yul Brenner's robot character, whom Peter has killed twice already. When John tries to kill the robot, he is shot and killed instead, and Peter flees. The robot, with recently heightened senses, pursues. After Peter ducks into the Delos laboratories and the robot follows, he uses acid to blind the robot. The robot apparently still has hearing and infrared sensors, but medieval torches confuse his detection of Peter, which Peter discovers and uses to his advantage.

Crichton spends a great deal of time developing the science behind the piece. Could the story have been developed without introducing the behind-the-scenes looks? Possibly. It is a story of science gone awry, but it is also a story of the triumph of science over its failures. This almost feels like overkill. But a few critical moments do require it: 1) The revelation of the robot virus (and that the robots have left human-operated computer control), 2) the revelation of how to maim the robot and 3) the denouement where Peter destroys the murdering cowboy bot.

According to Brian Tallerico at Vulture, Crichton is said to have thought the tale preached against corporate greed since the scientists choose to keep the simulations running despite evidence that things were falling apart. Maybe that appears, but more of the film develops the idea behind John Blane's comment, "It's authentic, the way it really was." Sort of. It's more of what the movies told us what the Old West was. Crichton himself said that he threw in the cliches--taunts and gun fights, dallies with prostitutes, prison escape, and a barroom fight. The cliches exist without the support of a narrative, which makes them stand out as bald Western cliches.

We have two ways to view these cliches: A) a critique of the Western genre, B) a critique of the idea we can visit the Old West through movies (or vacations to where famous events took place) as it was more dangerous than we imagine. It is hard to lean toward one interpretation or the other. Reinforcing option A is Yul Brenner, who reprises his Magnificent Seven character--at least down to the costume, if not the character. The Western hero from a classic Western becomes the villain in science fictional world. Meanwhile, reinforcing B, the movie ends with an voice-over echo about this being a vacation.

My main problem with the film is that it doesn't develop narratives for the vacationers. This probably keeps the film simple and from growing too long. Also, if it is a critique of the Western genre, the cliches would not stand out as starkly. The ending, too, is not as strong as it might have been. Perhaps this idea could have been supported elsewhere in the story to make it truly potent.

My hypothesis about what killed the popularity of the Old West: its survivors. People who might have been alive during the frontier days were aging and dying off. People probably felt a tangible if vicarious connection to the West through those who had lived it. But they would have been dying off. We have a connection to our parents and grandparents, but after that our interest dwindles.

For some, the Western still hasn't died. They might have known someone from that era, plus it was a childhood staple of their recommended daily allowance. They like the simple and clear morality, a tough land that repays hard work, the breaking and restoration of law and order.

For some, they still live in the West. They ranch, they farm, they hunt, they work the land, they ride horses and drive cattle. They still feel a kinship for America's past.

For others, who believe the Old West only represents exploitation, they've been cheering each death knell. However, the Western does keep rearing its head after each proclamation of its death.