ABLE EDWARDS

Produced by Scott Bailey and Graham Robertson
Directed, Written, and Edited by Graham Robertson
Director of Photography - Ricardo Palavecino

Able Edwards - Scott Kelly Galbreath
Rosemary Edwards - Keri Bruno
Gower - Steve Beaumont Jones
Chairman Lowery - Michael Shamus Wiles
Warren Hastings - Brian Carpenter

Who would have thought that by swapping Walt Disney for William Randolph Hearst and placing the events of CITIZEN KANE inside the Epcot sphere would have produced one the most enjoyable sci-fi movies in years? To qualify that statement, one must understand what science fiction is, or more precisely, isn't - action movies disguised as video games. Sci-fi is the genre of ideas. Where horror is best used for the exploration of current social climates, sci-fi works best when illustrating the potential evolution of those climates.

In today's world, some of the dominate issues involve cloning, identity theft, the corporatization of America, and intellectual properties and copyright; all of which are explored in Graham Robertson's ABLE EDWARDS. The title character is a cloned version of a 20th media mogul known for creating a popular animated Panda character. Upon his death, his head is cryogenically frozen. In a distant future where humanity now lives in space, the head is thawed and its cells are used to create a new Able Edwards. Raised in conditions as close to those as the original Edwards, the clone is to be reared and molded into the new CEO of the company the original Edwards created, now a mega-corporation that owns an endless number of entertainment properties.

Just as in KANE, EDWARDS opens with newsreel footage of the title character's death, or at least the original Edwards. The bulk of ABLE EDWARDS is told in flashback at a court hearing to establish ownership of the Edward's estate - the cloned Edwards. Was he really Able Edwards, the original Edwards? Was he just another property created and owned by the corporation? Those question are really minor when compared to the big picture. What's really being asked is whether it's possible for a cloned human being to be its own person.

Yes. Unlike the original, the clone of a great man will always live in the shadow of that great man, despite the clone's own accomplishments. Emotions such as envy, jealousy, and self-doubt, play factors in the evolution of the clone's character. The corporation never hides the facts of his origins, or eventual purpose, from the cloned Edwards. The original Edwards created an empire from scratch, literally, a quick sketch of a Panda on a napkin, but the cloned Edwards can't even draw. How is he supposed to compete?

The drive to be his own man is what compels the cloned Edwards. When the cloned Edwards decides to re-create the original Edwards' theme parks, Fantastic Wunderland, he's not just trying to give a virtual entertainment-based society a real experience, he's attempting to escape his own virtual existence by attaining his own tangible success. He believes that his longing for "something real" is just as strong in everyone confined to the bio-sphere. He's right, and the new parks are a success.

Just like Charles Foster Kane, the cloned Edwards achieves monumental success, but at the cost of his family. His existence is a lonely one as his wife is pushed farther away and his son dies in "the worst tragedy in over a hundred years." The parrallels between EDWARDS and KANE aren't as coincidental as some readers might first think. On the commentary, Robertson freely admits to the idea of blending Kane and Disney to come up with his movie, and he even points out which scenes were lifted directly for his own picture. The more I think about it, the more I feel this is how a remake should be crafted - take the premise of the original source material and fuse it with modern sensibilities.

Both films even push the boundaries of filmmaking. KANE, 70 years later, is still considered the greatest movie ever made. While some scholars today chastise the movie for its cold nature, it's still a technical marvel to behold. In its own way, EDWARDS pushes the limits of its own era of filmmaking. A low-budget effort, it was created entirely on a desktop pc by fusing actors performing in front of greenscreen with still photos, most of which were scanned from library books. The look isn't without its flaws, as often the actor's noses disappear in wide shots, but then again, KANE isn't without its flaws either. Remember the Pterodactyls flying high during the rear-projected beach sequence? Even if you did notice them soaring in the background, did it really take away from the film's power?

But unlike most movies today that pass themselves off sci-fi, EDWARDS isn't a slave to the special effects; Robertson is inspired by them, but keeps his film clearly grounded through his exploration of humanity. Where Kane's ego brought about his own downfall, Edwards never had a choice in life as everything was predetermined before his cells were cultured in that petrie dish of a womb.

Despite Edwards' plight for individuality, the subtextual strand that strikes the most scathing cord is the notion of intellectual property. For decades, Disney, and other media conglomerates like it, have spent tens of millions on changing the legalities regarding the public domain. The house that Mickey Mouse built would loose its foundation as anyone would then be able to create cartoons, t-shirts, or comic books with the character's image. Are we to believe that the lobbiest have skewed lawmakers to the point where a company could own a character created by a man that's been dead for more than 300 years? Just think how much money would be owed to The Globe Theater if they tried to collect 500 years worth of Shakespeare royalties. At what point is enough enough? How this idea of intellectual property plays into the court proceedings regarding Edwards' estate is the closest thing that ABLE EDWARDS has to a "rosebud"-like moment, and in today's corporate world it's a decision that isn't too hard to believe.

Movies like ABLE EDWARDS don't necessarily want viewers to agree with every jump in logic that a it reaches for. More often then not, those assumptions about the future deal with a worst case scenario that could occur if today's society doesn't change its ways. I was reminded of another recent microbudget science fiction film, Jason Tomaric's "Cl.One", that explored many of the same themes and reached similar conclusions. Both, along with Shane Carruth's PRIMER, are examples of what great science fiction should be, or can be if placed in the hands of someone with a worthwhile point of view.

The DVD presentation by Heretic Films is another example of why they're leading the market in cutting edge independent material. Extras include a director commentary, a making-of featurette, green screen comparison shots, and a trailer vault. Viewers also have the option of listening only to a music-only track. But the movie alone would be worth the purchase.

Able Edwards Movie
Heretic Films