This sleek but violent film asks interesting ethical questions about our relationship with AI

Science fiction film and television has long been fascinated by robots. But stories that show us uncannily human cyborgs have often tended to veer towards either comedy or horror. Fritz Lang’s “Metropolis” (1927) and Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner” (1982) both imagine a world where beautiful female cyborgs threaten to overstep their original programming. Rarer are stories that suggest it might be possible to love a cyborg, such as Susan Seidelman’s underseen romantic comedy, “Making Mr. Right” (1987).

“Companion” picks up where Alex Garland’s Ex Machina (2014) leaves off. Ex Machina was about a young man tasked with testing the artificial intelligence (AI) of a female robot. “Companion,” however, posits a world where synthetic humans have become common.

The plot of “Companion” also owes much to the themes of rivalry and revenge present in Karyn Kusama’s horror films Jennifer’s Body (2009) and The Invitation (2022), as well as the TV show Battlestar Galactica’s (2004 to 2009) imagining of full cyborg autonomy.

“Companion” is a particularly post-Black Mirror (2011) example of science fiction. With its glossy aesthetics, and ubiquitously friction-less technology, it’s a vision of a future where AI and advanced robotics have made our lives easier. But, in typical Black Mirror fashion, this parable offers a warning.

We meet Iris (Sophie Thatcher) and Josh (Jack Quaid) as they head to a chic, modern lake house for a weekend with friends. At this point, our only real indication that this is science fiction is the fact that the GPS in Josh’s car is a bit better than usual.

At first, Iris seems like yet another incarnation of the “Manic Pixie Dream Girl” archetype—quirky and kittenish, but too bland to really be a protagonist. It is only Thatcher’s subtle physical performance that lets us question whether Iris is entirely human. Besotted with Josh and anxious to please, Iris seems like just another girl who has wished for her prince to come and been rewarded with a supermarket meet cute.

What makes “Companion” unsettling is not so much its depiction of cyborgs but rather its portrayal of misogyny.

Survivors of intimate partner violence will recognize Josh, particularly his ironclad belief that he is a “a nice guy” who is entitled to an attractive partner who places his needs above all else.

For some audiences, “Companion” may not feel firmly rooted enough in either science fiction or horror. But then, it’s really only a horror film if you too are kept awake at night by the thought that some people really want a sex robot with customizable intelligence levels (Josh keeps Iris’s at 40%).

Thatcher’s performance as Iris is fascinatingly glitchy. There is something about her walk—a precision that isn’t quite human. She stands with a stillness that reminds us she is more object than woman. There is a grimace she makes that conveys how she finds it troubling to process veiled commands from a man who isn’t her partner. It represents a feeling female viewers may have had before, when the social programming that tells women to be nice smacks up against their fight or flight response.

Iris is a sex robot designed with charming slightly buck teeth—a flaw to offset her pore-less skin. The goal is to prevent her from falling into to the uncanny valley (that discomfited feeling when you encounter an object that is a little too life-like) and make her seem more real.

Some people argue that you should only have sex with a robot if you think that robot would want to have sex with you. But most science fiction doesn’t really go that way—from “Bride of Frankenstein” (1935) to “Black Mirror,” most cyborg figures are programmed to consent without question.

“Companion” shows us Iris’s point of view as Josh looms over her during sex. Afterwards, her romance-trope laden chatter is shut down by his command that she go to sleep.

“Companion” contains aspects of both comedy and horror. But like the best science fiction, it’s central warning is against those who believe that technology can offer them absolute control.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.