Harold Becker
Watchbird

SHECKLEY. This episode of Masters of Science never aired and would have been the concluding one of what was supposed to be the first hypothetical series. It is not surprising, therefore, that paradoxically the production team initially thought of reserving a lot of surprises precisely for this occasion, and perhaps among the various episodes, this was the one with the most famous actors within the cast and the one somehow 'chosen' to ideally close this first cycle.

Meanwhile, the story is based on a tale by one of the most popular authors in the science fiction genre, Robert Sheckley. Born in 1928 and passed away in December 2005, Sheckley was a science fiction author endowed with great imagination and inventiveness, who on several occasions set his stories in contexts involving social situations that were more or less somehow degenerated or altered from those we know. He had been variously involved in writing stories since the 1960s and always maintained a good rapport with the film world, with some of his works being successfully brought to the big screen. Among these, it's impossible not to mention 'La decima vittima' by Elio Petri with Marcello Mastroianni and Ursula Andress, perhaps one of the most famous films of the genre produced in Italy; and it's equally impossible not to mention 'Freejack' by Geoff Murphy, famous for the presence of His Majesty Mick Jagger in the role of the 'villain'.

Secondly, we are once again in front of a quality product according to standards, and as mentioned, it involves a couple of important names from the USA-made film scene.

The director is Harold Becker. Born in 1928, a New Yorker, and the director of important films in the USA cinema, such as 'The Black Marble' (based on a work by Joseph Wambaugh, with Harry Dean Stanton and music by Maurice Jarre), 'Sea of Love', 'Malice', 'City Hall', 'Mercury Rising'. The cast includes Vincent Gale and a well-known character actor like James Cromwell (who delivers a more than convincing performance), but above all, in the lead role is Sean Astin, the former Goonie and companion of Frodo in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, whose performance is perhaps not particularly exciting. He appears somewhat dull and perhaps struggles emotionally with the challenging role assigned to him.

PLOT. Sean Astin's role in the film is indeed that of the main protagonist, and he plays a central function in the events. He portrays the scientist Charlie Kramer, a partner in a company whose commercial management is entrusted to his friend and associate Randolph Ludwin (James Cromwell), and who has designed 'watchbirds', which can be considered as drones resembling falcons.

Programmed according to specific parameters, in a way only Kramer can understand, these combat drones were used with great success and commendation by institutions and the military during a US military campaign in the Middle East, allowing the US military to win the war without significant losses and the company to gain important economic and image recognition.

Charlie Kramer also receives an award for his invention; however, he is not fully satisfied with his creation, whose potential frightens him. When the President of the United States, through intermediaries, contacts the company to reprogram the drones for national security within the US borders, he uselessly expresses all his doubts and concerns to Randolph. However, faced with a significant financial compensation and aware of the operation's political importance, Randolph pushes Charlie to reprogram the drones, believe in his work, and the possibility of achieving a perfect national security mechanism.

Charlie proceeds with the reprogramming, and soon the drones are operational across the 48 continental US states. The new parameters aim to minimize the use of force to kill those considered criminals or potential criminals, and initially, the operation seems to somehow work, much to Charlie's own surprise. Complications arise, however, after an operation in the city of Baltimore, Maryland, where the drones were supposed to neutralize what had been identified as a terrorist cell. However, not everything functions as the institutions would have wanted: the drones don't perceive any imminent danger, and despite identifying this potentially dangerous 'cell', they don't intervene.

What will happen at this point is the consequent direct intervention and the pressures from the so-called powers that be, who, aware of the symbiotic relationship between the drones and their creator-guide, will act without considering any ethical and moral rules to force a further reprogramming of the 'watchbirds'. The ensuing degeneration of events will be inevitable, leading to an uncontrolled spiral of violence that at a certain point becomes uncontrollable and solvable with just one ultimate and definitive choice.

WATCHBIRD. As usual, this episode presents us with ethical and social themes, linked in this case to 'judgment', in this case issued by drones but always based on human directives, as well as the theme of security.

The setting is not futuristic. The reality in which the events unfold could very well be today's, with the cities depicted being the same we all live in, dealing with the small and large criminal issues we know and are confronted with every day as private and public citizens, alongside law enforcement agencies.

A theme that inevitably intertwines with that of privacy, given that these drones seem to possess a kind of robotic intuition and are programmed to intervene in any kind of situation, public or private, to prevent a crime from occurring. In certain cases, their intervention is even preventive, and from this perspective, one could think of a connection with another famous work of science fiction, 'The Minority Report' (1956) by Philip K. Dick, which was then adapted for the movie with reasonable success by Steven Spielberg, featuring a varied cast with notable performances by Tom Cruise, Colin Farrell, and Max Von Sydow.

In his introduction to the episode, Stephen Hawking asks, and asks us, what we are willing to sacrifice in the name of what we could define as 'security', a recurring theme even in political debate, especially now as we approach the forthcoming local elections in the major cities of our country. A frequently abused theme, used as a political tool by all parties, and clearly not resolved simply through police operations or what might have been defined in other times as 'purges'. Above all, it's inevitable that the theme of security is connected to privacy, questioning whether greater security necessarily requires a sort of renunciation of personal freedom. In a delicate balance often, sometimes inadvertently, overlooked in debates that frequently touch more on individuals' emotional rather than rational components.

In this sense, it's clear that these drones represent the extreme nightmare of Orwell's '1984', where cameras, blanket surveillance, patrols, and 'squads' are no longer necessary because these adequately programmed drones can independently conduct all operations of city and individual monitoring, even in their intimacy. At the same time, taking measures that could vary in violence depending on situations, possibly leading to the death of a subject considered 'guilty'.

THE HUMAN COMPONENT. It's clear, however, that in this case, the error exists, and the error, in essence, isn't the drones', which, as machines, lack inherent peculiar characteristics and cannot be defined as autonomous, but lies in humans. The connection to 'The Minority Report', which is a radically different story where crime control functions differently, isn't wrong in what can be defined here as well as a 'minority report', concerning however a single subject, taken as an extreme example or puppet—unknowingly and unconsciously—on which the controlling desires of power holders rely.

In this sense, Charlie Kramer is perhaps the only true protagonist of the entire story, and in what is his personal life journey, which begins as a boy witnessing his mother's murder helplessly, and continues as an adult, specializing in computing, trying to use his invention to do good. But Charlie Kramer is a man and one who finds himself alone at a certain moment, afflicted with doubts, simultaneously driven by inner urges and genuine external pressures. If we want to admit it, none of us makes decisions entirely freely and independently: meaning, we must admit that we can all have prior influences deriving from a personal baggage of experiences. This doesn't imply our choices are wrong or deviated and somehow unhealthy, but just that behind every choice is a multitude of stories that are part of our acquired knowledge and experience portfolio over the years.

This is the same for Charlie Kramer, who has a symbiotic and inseparable relationship with his creations. It's the same for Charlie Kramer, who is merely a man, and the matter of security and privacy cannot be entrusted to a single person's management. Instead, as they naturally pertain to the interactive realm within members of a society, they must be collectively approached with possibly different tools than the use of force. Charlie Kramer is an individual, symbolizing decline, struggles in finding personal balance in life, and metaphorically represents a nation's, an entity's, or any institution's difficulty in rationally addressing problems rather than emotionally. For a community, this becomes a genuine obligation and an essential part of balancing the democratic process.

In conclusion, a reflection on drones used on battlefields and in warfare operations, something which more than science fiction, can be considered reality and the present. Something I cannot forcibly view positively as they are essentially killing machines. The justification of presumed 'savings' in human lives seems pretextual and frankly hard to prove (hoping the occasion to do so never arises). Besides this, are we sure those who wage war always want to win promptly and without human resource expenditure? Come on. Without soldiers and deaths, what kind of war would it be? Drone warfare might, one day, become a 'trend', but then we will all happily return to face-to-face killing on battlefields as we always have. Apparently, we cannot do without it.