The 6th Day

Stephen Nottingham

(Director: Roger Spottiswoode, 2000)

In the publicity surrounding The 6th Day we are told that the film explores the moral ramifications of cloning. ¹ However, The 6th Day is part of the problem, rather than a contribution to the public understanding of science and technology. It actively perpetuates some of the major misconceptions about cloning, such as clones being same-age copies that share conscience and memories with each other. Although the filmmakers claim that they are representing cloning, what is shown in the film bears little relation to actual cloning. The 6th Day is also a reactionary film in many respects. It can only benefit the opposition to the therapeutic uses of cloning, at a critical stage in the debate about the legitimate uses of this technology. Although it is a highly effective and enjoyable science fiction thriller, these points should be recognized and appreciated.

The film is prefaced by a biblical quote: "God created man in his own image, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day" (Genesis 1.27,31). God draws a line under creation and God help the mad scientist who interferes with it. The intervening sentences (1.29,30), granting mankind dominion over nature, are omitted. This quote was also used in the title of David M. Rorvik's controversial 1978 book, In His Image, which was marketed as a true report of the first cloned man, but was later confirmed as a hoax. The opening credits of the film establish the scientific starting point for the fiction, moving from an outline of real-life advances (scientists clone a sheep called Dolly, completion of human genome project) to extrapolated events. Mass anti-cloning protests are portrayed in Rome, and we learn that a failed human cloning experiment has taken place. The US Supreme Court orders the destruction of the (deformed) clone. This leads to the passing of the Sixth Day Laws, which ban all human cloning.

The filmmakers present the Sixth Day Laws as a good thing. These laws are reminiscent of ones passed in the USA by Bill Clinton, in the wake of the Dolly announcement, and George W. Bush in August 2001, to regulate the cloning of human stem cells. Only a very limited amount of research in this area could be done in the USA after the passing of such legislation, and only using existing lines of human stem cells (which mainly existed outside the USA). A fictional news story is shown during the opening credits of the film in which we are told that the world is ethically divided following the enactment of the Sixth Day Laws. Opponents of human cloning, including bioethicists and religious leaders praised the laws, while leading scientists denounced the new laws as short-sighted and anti-science. Advances in therapeutic cloning, using lines of stem cells (undifferentiated human cells that can be directed into forming any tissue type), may lead to treatments for several genetic diseases. On a couple of occasions early in the film the impression is given that bioethicists are unanimously against all human cloning. However, the banning of research that could cure disease and suffering can also be seen as unethical.

A false note is struck in the film when world governments all agree to abide by these US-sponsored laws, making the ban on human cloning worldwide. This is unlikely to ever happen. In the wake of Bush's restrictions on human stem cell research, US scientists started packing their bags for laboratories in Britain and elsewhere, where they could carry on their work into life threatening diseases. There will always be countries that want to be at the forefront of biotechnology, or are attracted by the money offered by multinational pharmaceutical companies, who are less wed to a right wing fundamentalist agenda than the USA under Bush.

In The 6th Day, a sinister corporation is defying the Sixth Day Laws and illegally cloning human beings. Those secretly being cloned include famous sportspeople, businessmen and politicians. The corporation already has the technology legitimately in place, through its operations that clone pets (RePet) and human organs for transplant (Nu Organ Replacement Technologies). These companies are subject to constant anti-cloning protests. The main players are the tycoon Michael Drucker (Tony Goldwyn), a biotechnology entrepreneur and football team owner, and his chief scientist Dr. Griffin Weir (Robert Duvall), who alone appears to understand and be able to work the technology. Adam Gibson (Arnold Schwarzenegger) (Adam or Eve being de rigeur), "an old-fashioned family man" working as a pilot for Double X Charter (get it?), comes home one day to find his double has usurped him in the family home. Adam (henceforth Adam/Arnie, as the star is inseparable from the character in this vehicle) has been accidentally cloned, after an anti-cloning fundamentalist attacks Drucker and his party, who are travelling with Double X on a snowboarding trip. Complications arise because Adam/Arnie has swapped identities with a colleague. He is cloned using samples that were taken during a routine blood (DNA) and eye (mind!) test, in the belief that the fundamentalist has killed him. The corporation's assassins try to kill one Adam/Arnie, to eliminate evidence of illegal human cloning.

The film is symptomatic of how cloning is misrepresented in the movies. This is fine: It's science fiction. However, when the film is accompanied by directors, writers and producers stressing how relevant the film is to the current situation, then the film's agenda and truthfulness need to be scrutinized. Roger Spottiswoode claimed in an interview, for example, that the film explored real problems that would be coming up, along with the "moral ramifications of cloning"; while one of the producers thought that the film showed where the technology might be heading. However, cloning in this movie bears no relation to the type of animal cloning being done in laboratories today. The cloning depicted in the movie is way beyond current scientific capabilities and makes little sense in relation to the known principles of biology. Clones of the type depicted in the film will not be appearing any time in the future, let alone "the near future". Therefore, anything the film has to say about the ramifications or morality of cloning is totally irrelevant to the real-life situation.

Two major misconceptions of cloning, in particular, are perpetuated in The 6th Day. The first is that clones are same-age or "instant" copies of an original, and the second is that clones share memories or consciousness. Both are far from the truth. Animal clones (including humans) are (or will be) born as babies with individual and unique minds. Human clones would be equivalent to the child of the egg donor: a time-delayed identical twin. To get around this inconvenient (for the narrative) fact, devices are used that are inconceivable with today's technology.

To produce same-age clones in the film, adult human "blanks" are produced and kept in giant (amniotic) tanks until required. To obtain these, we learn that all the characteristic DNA has been stripped from embryos, which are allowed to grow large (presumably under the influence of generic DNA). These are like featureless adults awaiting a distinctive physique and a personality. A DNA sample is infused into a blank from the donor, after a two-hour "warm-up". The infused DNA acts like a cancerous gene therapy, which after another couple of hours, causes the blank to morph into an identical copy of the donor. Once these adult clones are made, there is still the problem of putting something into their blank minds. The device for doing this is a "cerebral syncording implant", which involves extracting a complete picture of the mind via the optical nerve (in a flash) and then pulsing it into the eyes of the morphing blank. This results in instant consciousness: A whole person with an entire history. These devices are patently ludicrous. They align the film with the cloning movies that emerged in the 1970s, such Parts: The Clonus Horror and The Boys From Brazil. The film does not really reflect advances in cloning made since the pioneering work with amphibians at that time.

The filmmakers are right when they point out that pet cloning will soon be a reality. There is no doubt it will soon be big business, but the companies involved will not be able to create instant copies of a pet that knows the same (learned) tricks. It will be a puppy or kitten with the same genetics as the donor animal. From birth, environmental factors will affect the animal differently to its older or deceased donor, but environmental factors are never acknowledged in the film. The companies that clone pets and convince owners they will be effectively getting the same animal reborn are merely unscrupulous traders.

In the film, the RePet sequence serves to introduce the fictional technology that drives the film's plot. However, we also learn that in addition to cloning, pets can be genetically modified. Cats can be made hypo-allergic so those owners who are allergic to normal cats can keep such a pet with no problems. In reality, a protein (Fel d1) has been identified in cats that causes allergic reactions in humans, and cats modified to lack this protein in their skin cells will be available in the near future. We are also told that size, coat colour, and behavioural flaws can be rectified. All these are far more speculative. There is a significant random or environmental component, for example, to coat colour in some breeds of dog and cat, and genetically identical clones might not even look the same. The technology here nevertheless is "zero defect guaranteed", and insured of course. Adam/Arnie goes into the RePet store (did Jeff Koons do those sculptures?) to enquire about replacing his daughter's dog Oliver, and is reassured that a "post-mortem cerebral syncorty" can be done up to twelve hours after death. Here the plot allows for repeated cloning to be done as a literal way of achieving immortality, and thereby further loses contact with reality.

Drucker does not necessarily want the clones his company produces to live forever, so he borrows a trick from Tyrell in Blade Runner and gives them limited life-spans, by using genetic engineering to introduce congenital genetic diseases. This gives the clones a known period of life extension (another deterministic assumption) and allows the company more leverage over them. The device for identifying clones here is dots under the left eyelid, rather than the usual tattoos (e.g. Alien Resurrection, Multiplicity). A clone retains the unique identity of its predecessor. A clone's detached thumb can therefore be used to gain access to a building, although Arnie more spectacularly used a ripped-off head to similarly fool an iris reader in Total Recall. Ultimately, there are probably too many clones in The 6th Day. The situation is retrieved, however, in the final reel, when an incomplete clone becomes nothing less than Frankenstein's monster rising from its slab. Drucker then gets to see what a soulless creature he has become.

The filmmakers wonder if clones would have a soul. One of the film's producers raises this as a serious line of enquiry in an interview, while in the film Adam/Arnie asks it of a cloned pet. This is a complete no-brainer and even insulting to real-life genetically identical twins. A cloned person would have just as much soul (spiritual or immaterial part of man) as any other human being. In fact, if it's down to a "God gene" (in line with the rest of this film's genetic determinism), then the clone will have the same gene as the DNA donor. The clones arising from the slab fully formed just two hours after inception might not have souls, but that just shows how far removed they are from reality. In any case, the film clearly shows, particularly in the case of Adam/Arnie that a clone does have a soul (only the really bad clones lack a soul and the fact that they are clones is therefore incidental - they already lacked one).

Dr. Weir is the misguided scientist of the piece. In line with many recent films, it is the head of a corporation who is the evil one. Weir has been working with the best intentions, but has become corrupted by his contact with Drucker. The turning point for Weir is when his dying wife (who raises orchids through 17 generations to incorporate a trait that could be done in one generation in the laboratory) refuses to be cloned again, beyond the initial few years of life extension she has had. She feels her time has come and wants to die naturally. The religious theme is returned to and Weir's science, which has become inhumane, is dragged back from the brink.

The 6th Day has a lot going for it. It is witty (a thriller that is as funny as the cloning comedy Multiplicity) and is rich in incidental detail, such as its array of domestic devices, the way holograms are integrated into everyday life, and the illegal use of tobacco. The script is a model of its kind and throughout it is quality filmmaking. However, despite its confusion about cloning (particularly at the end), it is generally a reactionary film that sides with those who would like to see research in the areas of human cloning and embryonic stem cells banned. The cloning of pets and organs for transplant is shown as inevitably leading to the cloning of whole humans. The clones are undesirables (except for Adam/Arnie, strangely, whose clones get on like identical twins) and nothing good can come out of the knowledge gained from cloning-related research. This film therefore serves a conservative agenda. So enjoy, but keep a critical mind.

1. The Future is Coming. Documentary on DVD (2001).

© Copyright Stephen Nottingham, 2001.