Topic: A.I.: Artificial Intelligence

[Najemikon]

Hope no-one minds me kicking this off. I watched it again the other night and wanted to get my thoughts down before they become fuzzy!



In a future world of runaway global warming and awe-inspiring scientific advances, humans share every aspect of their lives with sophisticated companion robots called Mechas. But when an advanced prototype robot child named David (Haley Joel Osment) is programmed to show unconditional love, his family isn't prepared for the consequences. Suddenly, David is on his own in a strange and dangerous world. Befriended by a streetwise Mecha (Jude Law), David embarks on a spectacular quest to discover the startling secret of his own identity.

Written and Directed by Steven Spielberg

Based on a short story by Brian Aldiss "Supertoys Last All Summer Long"

Initially developed by Stanley Kubrick, who sought Spielbergs help and eventually passed on the project to direct.

[Najemikon]

A.I. is a superb film. It is everything that Hollywood avoids; ambitious, profound, unique and challenging. Even if you don't like it, you must surely see that cinema would be a lesser place without it. With this loooooooong post, I am not trying to convince people to enjoy it. Your opinion is yours, end of story. I just hope people dislike it for a better reason than thinking the ending was crap.

It's a shame it didn't do better. In time it may find a more appreciative audience, but that after Spielberg is dead, retired or trying his hand at some gore-porn like Hostel III! It's his genius that got the film made, but his undeserved reputation has crippled it. He's an easy target for critics who feel the film is ruined by sentimentality, despite his career demonstrating the opposite.

Despite being primarily about love, A.I. is not sentimental. Like a fairytale, it's core storyline certainly sounds childlike, but hides a twisted heart, sometimes even cruel. The other complaint is based on a notion that Spielberg is a hack, trampling over the genious of a thwarted Kubrick. I say Kubrick gave Spielberg the story because he knew he could never give it the heart it needed. Kubrick was a genius, but a cold one.

SPOILER ALERT!

The story is cynical. Melted ice caps; flooded cities; displaced people by the millions; robots have taken over many tasks, right up to no-strings-attached sex. And now a professor proposes to create a new robot. A child for childless (by law) couples, but one that can truly love it's parents.

Like Contact, I found an underlying sense of mankinds arrogance and fear. A need to control nature, but not accept the consequences. The professor doesn't worry about such concerns and happily creates a child robot that can love, but lays the responsibility at the feet of a grieving mother.

David is the product of grief (the Professor's), made for the desperate. The Professor justifies his plan by twisting the words of the Bible to his own purpose: "God made Adam in his own image". It can only end badly.

Love makes David creepy and insolent. His 'parents' (although it's worth pointing out he only bonds with Monica, still calling Henry by his name) abandon him. This is cruel and the core reason why the film can never be sentimental. The family have finished with him. Moved on with their lives. Their part in the story has finished, never resolved. The rest of the film can only feel doomed as David moves on with his pointless quest. We the audience should understand how pointless it has to be because we know Monica isn't going to pop out from behind a bush and say "sorry". Now that would be a sentimental copout! Joe tries to tell David that only humans pray for things they cannot see (another religion reference). Teddy understands this too, though is loyal and never contradicts David (perhaps he's agnostic?).

There's a key theme in mortality, referred to in the scene with Martin. He wants David to break the toy and dismisses the ever loyal Teddy as old. But Teddy hasn't worn out and like David, never will unless he is broken by a human. Ironically, it's only humans who wear out and fade away.

By the way, I love spotting scenes like this, though I don't do it often: the one with Martin and the toy is a visual reference to the end; the toy is the same copter David is trapped in; Martin thinks it would "look better in pieces" and David can't bring himself to, but the Blue Fairy does shatter.

And so I come to that ending. The "sentimental tacked on bit". Many feel it should have ended with David trapped in the copter under water. I think that demonstrates a lack of understanding. I find the scenes that follow aren't a copout from a director who doesn't want to upset his audience, but are defiantly tragic on several layers. It's like a hammer blow. It's easy to think it's a soppy moment; how could Spielberg have David spend the whole film getting his mother to love him and then it not happen?

Well he can. The future robots do not grant David his wish, though they may think they do. Like the Professor, I think they are unknowing villains. They are archaeologists, trampling over history, forcing  the facts to support their own views of "mankinds genius" and trying to find where they came from. Another human trait that is ultimately pointless or at least unnecessary.

They don't bring Monica back. They create an image of her with a thread of an out of context memory. But we should realise the tragedy here. That memory is corrupted and false; Monica shows devotion for David that she never had. The perfect day they spend together (complete with fairytale style contrived time limit) is impossible. The coffee is a key point as Monica say's David "always knows how to make it". He only watched her do it. He no longer understands his own memory, or at least he pretends.

What's cruel is David is oblivious, yet Teddy I think is not. Nor for that matter is Monica; her expressions might suggest an feeling of unease, lending the whole event with a feeling of sadness. Basically the robots have created a puppet show.

I love films that are able to come full circle. In describing this ending I have used words like 'puppet show' and 'false'. I might also have said 'Artificial Intelligence'.  Sentimental, my arse.

Sorry to have gone on. Rambled again when I really should be in bed!  Thanks for reading this far if you made it. I love this film and would enjoy anyone elses point of view. It invites interpretation so that's what we should do.

 

[DJ Doena]

Watched it once. Didn't get it. Never watched it again.

[SailorRipley]

Loved reading your feelings on A.I., Jon.

Actually, I have never had any sort of problem with A.I., although I do feel it's not entirely successful. Ambitious, sure. Profound, absolutely. The film takes a leap of faith into a single actor, and it is Haley Joel Osment's extraordinary performance where everything is anchored on. There's not a single shot of this film that doesn't show how much of a perfect craftsman Spielberg is. I think the problems the film may have are due to the result of a curious amalgam of Spielberg's and Kubrick's sensibilities. The four-act arch of this movie seems to me like it suddenly jumps from one thing to the next, the mood being erratic, in what is essentially a kind of Techno-Pinocchio fairy tale.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. In fact I think A.I.'s virtues far overpower its shortcomings. This is a tale about childhood, yet there's nothing infantile about it. It's told with great restraint and respect for its main character, but I still think there are overblown sequences. What starts out as an intimate portrayal suddenly becomes an explosion of larger issues and visual show off. What I'm talking about is the whole Flesh Fair sequence, the second act, which to me feels like a big setpiece instead of an element to push the story forward. We learn here that there's a kind of civil war between anti-technology humans and the old, forgotten mechas. But I wonder, why is it that they felt we needed to have this piece of information, or this sequence at all? So we could get the big picture? If so, what for? What we have seen so far is mainly told through David's eyes, and David knows nothing nor cares if there's a civil war going on. The only thing he wants is to find the Blue Fairy. The Flesh Fair changes nothing about his desires or his main goal. I felt at large that all Spielberg wanted from me here was to show me his badass toys. Look what they can do!

I'm not familiar with Brian Aldiss original story, 'Supertoys Last All Summer', but I have read Ian Watson's original screenplay. It seems to me the Flesh Fair went in and out, and in and out again in a number of drafts; as to why Spielberg felt he should put it back in, I'm not sure, unless the above comment is true. Fortunately Act III recaptures the magic we have been witnessing on Act I.

As for the ending... I think there's a valid reason as to why some people feel the film should be over when David lies at the bottom of the ocean inside the anphibiocopter, begging to the Blue Fairy to make him a "real, live boy". I would even dare to say it's the fault of the film why people feel this should end right here. For one, there's the tragic nature of the fact itself;  imagine a robot, silently praying to what he deems his deity, essentially longing for a miracle, and asking for the miracle to become true, in eternity, after everything we know has come and gone. Well, that's tragedy! Add to that a big crane shot and the lights beginning to dim and to top it off, the nicely-tied, gentle closing narration by Ben Kingsley. Well, the film is setting us into a trap, and obviously the audience felt this was the intended ending (not true). Let's face it, it would make for a far more challenging ending. However, the real ending is for me, more satisfying and necessary.

The next thing we see is a black screen and a title card reading 'Two thousand years later'. By this point, Spielberg had lost half his audience. When that title card comes into sight, you start hearing the "Oh, come on!" and "What the hell..." comments all around. But mainstream audiences do not hold patience. And this is not a movie for cynics. Either you accept the characters' fate or you not. And this is probably what has divided people all over the world.

I chose to accept it. What Spielberg has into store is simply for the tale to come full circle. Even if it has the same kind of cruelty, of tragic fate for its main character, in what he will have his mother for only a day and be acknowledged for that single day as real, live child. The rest we do not know, but the tone shifts, and replaces the everlasting longing of David, for acceptance. And that is not sentimentality; it is moving, but it holds the respect we now have for David.

And that has an enormous value.

[Kathy]

The first time I saw A.I. was because I like the writings of Brian Aldiss and wanted to see the movie based on it. There are certain writers, musicians, etc. I seek out knowing the impact they have on works they touch. John Williams (music), Stan Winston (special effects), and Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) are a few of these geniuses that worked on A.I.

In this viewing I am more aware now of how A.I. was far ahead of it’s time. It is a precautionary tale warning us that care must be taken because when nature’s resources are depleted, there are consequences.

 A.I. deals with some very important issues. The quests for a mother’s love the questions of whom or what is deserving of love, respect, dignity, and worthy of civil liberties. What constitutes life? Some would say music, art, or writings are alive. What about love? Obsession? David “murders” the other version of himself – does that make him more human?

It contains some wonderful special effects and images. The mechas – just great, but then I have an affinity for robotics, puppets, and special effects. Sex, power, church, politics, economics etc. are well thought out and effective. From the very beginning, when “there’s a market for it” is used to justify the development of a robot child,  to the Flesh Fair which celebrates destruction while the ring leader quotes from the bible; this movie has a message. 

Some scenes that I appreciate or found thought provoking:
-The earth-shaped vehicle floating around as robots are collected for Flesh Fair
-When David appears to follow his instinct – can robots have instincts?
-The song Cheek to Cheek (heaven, I’m in heaven…) lightly playing in the background as David, Gigolo Joe, and Teddy head to Rouge City, a city of sin.
-Teddy seeing the moon and David asking if it is real; and what is reality anyway?
-Rouge City – images and visualizations are fantastic.
-The transition of David from robot to child – the acting is sublime. 

These are just a few of the reasons I should love this movie, the problem is I don’t.

Gigolo Joe ruins it for me he was one designed to be the perfect male - an ideal in the art of seduction. The problem is - every time Gigolo Joe appears on screen all I see is a mutant clone of GI Joe and Pee-Wee Herman. I can’t shake the image and it totally takes me out of the film experience. It’s difficult to enjoy a film when one of the major characters of the movie doesn’t work. For me, Gigolo Joe’s doesn’t work therefore A.I. doesn’t work.

After reading the thoughtful commentary of Jon and SailorRipley, I wish I could enjoy the movie more than I do. I want to but…

Maybe someday.

[Najemikon]

Great post as always, Sailor.

I know where you are coming from, but in retrospect, I liked the Flesh Fair. I see it as demonstrating the bullying nature of being human. It seems our way that if we don't understand something or even fear it, we poke it, parade it and destroy it, all to demonstrate our superiority. The same effect could have been achieved in a different, less overblown manner, but I take this in the spirit of a fairytale, which do exaggerate elements in a sort of Gothic manner. Why else would they go to the trouble of making the motorbikes into wolves, when other parts of the film are subtle and restrained?

This was the forth time I've seen the film in full now. The first time I saw it, I picked up on the erratic nature, but repeated viewings leave me with the feeling of a forced contrast between scenes. David is unwelcome in all aspects and classes of humanity. Even when he gets "home" to the Professor and is welcome, he is surrounded by himself and is no longer unique.

I must admit I feel like I might be excusing the Flesh Fair sequence. We have to remember this is Steven Spielberg after all, director of Schindler's List. Persecution and experimentation of the innocent in concentration camps figures quite high on his list.

So does divorce, his personal reasoning behind E.T.. David bonds with Monica and seeks only her love. Henry the father, doesn't figure, but in the background, he is both the architect of David's introduction to the family and his removal, and like the Professor, he leaves responsibility of both with Monica. He is yet another well meaning bastard! The films full of them. 

I think this gives the film huge emotional focus, but I wonder if it could really work in terms of the story. The family is very traditional. Henry is out at work, while Monica is housekeeping. Could another pair of parents both bond with David? The Professor speaks of childless couples, but it is very much a mother's story.

Kathy, I think you nailed it in your post. Ahead of it's time indeed. I can't think of a film since that has such a delicate balance of story and effects. Teddy is an especially brilliant creation. I bet they had to throw away more ideas for him than they used, simply so he would be true to the character. I want a Teddy Supertoy!

I liked Joe, but I'd have liked to have seen more of Jane!  A fleeting glimpse of that catsuit is all we got. Mind you, I did find Joe quite annoying first time around with his little dance. But like so much else, he's grown on me and his happy nature is another one of those contrasts. Dancing! In a swamp!

I think you raised a good point with the moon. The robots can't tell the difference between the catcher or the real thing. Which is artificial? And does it matter if you can't reach it anyway? Is that the basis of religion? It doesn't matter if God, or for David, Love, isn't real as long as you keep looking.

Visually, I think this film was a milestone for Spielberg. The cinematography and detail is superb and confident, never at the cost of the story. A confidence I think he passes on to the audience. Even more so in Munich, a film almost devoid of exposition, right down to no "one year later" style signposting.

By the way, while we keep touching on the fairytale aspect. Have either of you seen Running Scared? Can't believe I'm referencing a Paul Walker flick, but I am! It's a typical thriller, but some parts are surreal. Usually from the point of view of a child who has ran away. He meets various outrageous characters. At least they are to him. It wouldn't be out of place as An Unfortunate Event.  The end credit sequence is overlaid with drawings depicting the events, but in a storybook style. It's an odd film, but well worth watching because although not entirely successful, the writer has obviously put in a lot of effort beyond the standard thriller.