A.I - Last 45 minutes... (1 Viewer)

[Bill Catherall]

I think the ending was vital to the story. If it ended with David stranded at the bottom of the ocean then the narrator would have made no sense, the story wouldn't have been told, and my money would have been wasted. That's too easy of an ending. It's a Pinocchio story told by Kubrick. The ending had a very 2001 feel to it. In fact, that's the first thing I thought of when David woke up in his "house." I got chills down my spine and said to my neighbor (who also said it at the exact same time as me) "Look...2001!" We both looked at each other with amazement. That's also when it hit me, "David," just like in 2001.
I didn't, however, see the ending as David having his programming fulfilled. I see it as him becoming a real boy. The reason I say this is because he closes his eyes. He didn't close his eyes or even blink throughout the entire movie until that very end when he finally feels loved. Also, David was the most human-like artifact that the mechas had that they could learn from. Therefore...real boy. Although, he did become a real boy through the manipulation of the mechas. They tricked him by giving him a false input (they created a mecha mommy) so that they can keep him happy and study him. Just my opinions of course.
------------------
Bill

 

[andreasingo]

I realize the ending is open for many intepretations, just like 2001 was. But that's just makes the film so much better. If it had ended there on the bottom of the sea we would never have this discussion.
I don't agree the climax of the film is David's "suicide". No, that wouldn't feel right. It would have been too abrupt IMHO, too many questions unanswered, besides the rest of the 30 minutes are jaw-droppingly beautiful to watch and incredibly thought-provoking. It would be like erasing the final fight between Deckard and the (other?) replicant in Blade Runner. OUCH! To me, those last 30 minutes are by far the most beautiful 30 minutes of ANY film in the last few years.
And I mean both visually and musically.
[Edited last by andreasingo on October 15, 2001 at 01:51 PM]

 

[Edwin-S]

----In the final scene (and the future of the super-meccas), love can basically be described as three spoken words "I love you" (A lie by the way - the super-meccas just wanted him to be happy) by a artificial person. If David wouldn't have accepted that the ending would have been less horrific. But David is a machine, he doesn't care if all humans are dead. He doesn't understand the difference. He's satisfied when the parameters of his program are set. Is that a happy future?----
In David's case the three words "I love you" would have been acceptable whether they were spoken by an artificial person in the future or by his "mother" in the past because, to me, that is the parameter that had to be met in order for him to "feel" that he had attained the result for which he was built. The humans who built him had no way to define, in programming terms, what "love" really was so they had to create some kind of parameter that would allow the machine to "realize" that he was "loved". It would be logical to use the most commonly used phrase between people who have great affection for a partner, etc.
I have a problem with the ending because there were at least 3 or 4 occurrences that happen earlier in the film that indicate "David" reached a point of "consciousness" that made him more than a machine. The ending seemed to be at odds with what went before because it reinforces that he was nothing but a machine.
---I realize the ending is open for many intepretations, just like 2001 was. But that's just makes the film so much better. If it had ended there on the bottom of the sea we would never have this discussion.----
I would have to agree that the ending, as it stands, does leave a lot of room for discussion.
---It would be like erasing the final fight between Deckard and the (other?) replicant in Blade Runner.---
This is OT but I cannot figure out why a lot of people think Deckard is a replicant. I have watched this film a number of times (the director's cut) and I have yet to find anything in the film that indicates to me that Deckard is a replicant. To me, if Deckard is a replicant it makes the film entirely pointless.
------------------

 

[Rob Gillespie]

I'm with Mitty on this one - I felt the final reel was critical. Sappy? Maybe a little, but that was the whole point. All David wanted was to loved by his 'mother' and in the end he got that, though not in the way he thought it would happen. I felt the final scenes were beautifully acted. The otherwordly nature of the that whole section of the film was a fitting end, I thought.
I've only seen the film today and I'm still trying to take it all in. I really need to see it again, at least once or twice.
I thought Teddy was a masterstroke, and brilliantly executed. The voicing alone freaked me out.
"Don't.... you'll break"
Wonderful.

 

[Edwin-S]

---I thought Teddy was a masterstroke, and brilliantly executed. The voicing alone freaked me out.----
Actually, until you wrote the above I had forgotten about Teddy. I would have to agree with you, he was executed flawlessly and sometimes seemed more "human" than anybody else. He was quite the character and provided a touch of humour, as well as a note of caring, to a somewhat depressing story. If they could perfect that technology, it would probably be the biggest selling toy in history.....Hell, I would probably buy one of the little bastards myself.

------------------

 

[Rob Gillespie]

I kept expecting them to kill Teddy off. I have to tell ya, I was pretty relieved when he was still around in the final scenes.
"and all that will be left... is us"
Very true.

 

[andreasingo]

"This is OT but I cannot figure out why a lot of people think Deckard is a replicant. I have watched this film a number of times (the director's cut) and I have yet to find anything in the film that indicates to me that Deckard is a replicant."
The novel on which Blade Runner is based is called "Do andreoids dream of electronic sheep?". The title of the novel asks the question wheether andreoids dreams differently than ordinary men.
It's the dream sequence where Deckard dreams of the unicorn that suggests he is a replicant. In the last scene of the movie Deckard picks up a a little unicorn that looks like the one in his dreams. This isn't proof that Deckard is a replicant but it suggests that the police-officer knew about Deckards dreams. And how could he know about Deckards dreams if he wasn't aware of that Deckard was a replicant.
"To me, if Deckard is a replicant it makes the film entirely pointless. "
To me, it's the opposite. Deckard finally realizes there is no difference between andreoids and men. He realizes he has been lied to and used like a slave to kill creatures like himself. Finally, now when he knows he is a replicant he can start a new life with the one he loves. The fact that she is a replicant doesn't matter anymore.
[Edited last by andreasingo on October 16, 2001 at 10:58 AM]

 

[andreasingo]

"In David's case the three words "I love you" would have been acceptable whether they were spoken by an artificial person in the future or by his "mother" in the past because, to me, that is the parameter that had to be met in order for him to "feel" that he had attained the result for which he was built. "
I understand, you are making my point actually. It all comes down to that in the future all love is artificial. Whether real love exists or not doesn't matter to a machine. The only thing that matters is if the parameters are met. In this case "Monica" said "I love you" and that was enough for David. Wheeter any real love was behind those words didn't matter to him. You have to see the difference between Davids point of view and our point of view. David never did become a real boy, he were just programmed to think so. But the thing I think Kubrick wanted to tell here is what love really is in Davids future.
It's a future where life, death and love means nothing more than a couple of bytes of data.
All those things could never have been told if the ending was cut out of the film.
[Edited last by andreasingo on October 16, 2001 at 11:19 AM]

 

[Perry Jonkheer]

I wish I could include my thoughts on this film, but I saw it opening weekend.
Does this movie have a release date yet for DVD???
Thanks.
------------------
PJ

 

[Patrick Sun]

What is "Love" in the human sense? Don't certain parameters have to be met for it to occur between 2 humans? Might not A.I be exploring the development of what "Love" evolves into as the uber-mechas evolved?
------------------
PatCave; HT Pix; Gear; DIY Mains; DIY CC; Sunosub I + II + III; DVDs; Link Removed

 

[andreasingo]

Patrick.
Yeah, maybe. That's a valid intepretation. We don't know what love really is, we just feel. Who knows if our concept of love is the "real" one. No one knows. But I think a movie that explores those themes is very thought-provoking.

 

[Jefferson Morris]

I'll say it again. Without the ending the film is pointless.

I would tend to agree.
I'm curious as to how many people...
Spoiler:...think David "died" (or shut down) at the end.
If you want to keep things unspoilerish, you might just say, "He did," or "He didn't," although at this point anyone who hasn't seen A.I. browses this thread at their peril.
I'm in the former camp. To me, this represents coming to grips with and accepting finitude--the defining aspect of human life. It's the only way for David to become truly "human." It completes the arc of the film, thematically and emotionally, and certainly prevents the ending from being "sappy" by any definition I recognize.
--Jefferson Morris

 

[tyler O]

Spoilers below, but you really shouldn't be perusing this thread if you haven't seen the movie anyway...
I feel that 1) Love and 2) What is real? are the most important thematic points of the film. Merged they come to What is real Love?, or with a dropping of What, Is Love Real? I think Patrick made an excellent point in his assesment, but I also feel that the uber-mechas were not certain exactly what this Love is. They can find no tangible evidence of its existence, nor can they find any quantifiable unit that they can point to and say "There it is! There is Love!" Unfortunately machines do tend to be stuck to fixed routines and criteria (and this does include most Human Machines that I have met). This sticking to criteria makes true, real emotion difficult, if not impossible. Maybe the uber-mechas were trying to learn about humans. They say as much. Maybe they were trying to learn about love. They do as much. Maybe they were trying to give satisfaction to one of their ancestors who never received it in life. They said to "give him what he wants". "Monica's" love is real. She is not. I don't think it's just the 3 magic words either. I think it was the whole attitude of the whole day that culminated in those 3 words that never really needed to be said. It was already there.
I find it interesting that the only thing which is able to give him love is one who is programmed to do so. Brought us around full circle and brings in the questions about humans and love as opposed to liking, or being in love, or some other bullshit (sorry, my separation from my wife seems to be playing heavily in here. Let's leave it at that)
And personally, I think he ceased to exist, because the film ended.

It's like wondering what happened to Alex from Clockwork Orange after he was cured. Did he go on to the last chapter that was in the book but not the movie? It doesn't matter. The film ended. The fractures have been pieced together and the pieces made a whole. Do you mean his consciousness or his physical parts? Do you mean the CPU, or his Hard Drive? Do you mean the capability to send an electrical current through his neurons, err, wires? Did he ever exist? Can he ever stop existing? We can ask the same questions of ourselves. Does the self that exists before it wants something exist after it has it? Does a change constitute death and rebirth? The beauty of thoughts and questions. AI was definitely the best film of 2001 thus far. I enjoyed others immensely, but nothing has put forward so much to think about in a very long time. At least for me.
P.S. - Of course you understand that all I write is my own thoughts. Some may mirror your own. Some may be exactly opposite. We are all right. We are all wrong. It's just what I think.
------------------
Share and Enjoy - The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
The difference between 0 and 1 is infinite.
My DVDs

 

[Steve Owen]

The mere fact that this movie has generated the intelligent discussion that it has says to me that it is a masterpiece. When it was out in the US theaters, I saw it within a week or two of being out and on boards like this across the net it spawned incredible amounts of very intelligent dialog between movie lovers. For a movie that was seen as "dissapointing" by many, this is quite impressive.
I for one can't wait for the DVD because I didn't get a chance to see it a second time after letting it all sink in. In fact, it hasn't entirely sunk in with me. This movie was in my thoughts for many weeks after having seen it and when I stumble upon a thread like this one, it gets me thinking again.
And like the best sci-fi, my thoughts haven't all been about the movie itself but rather the questions it poses about ourselves and our future.
I'm in the camp of people who say that the ending was vital to the themes of the movie. And I'll say it again... this really was a masterpiece. I think it will take some number of years of being available on DVD for it to get the recognition it deserves. Don't forget that 2001 wasn't particularly well received during its theatrical run.
-Steve

 

[Rich Malloy]

I also feel that the uber-mechas were not certain exactly what this Love is. They can find no tangible evidence of its existence, nor can they find any quantifiable unit that they can point to and say "There it is! There is Love!"

While I agree to some extent, I think the evolved Mechas actually did evince such human emotions as love, compassion, and hope.
Remember, this was a tale told by a Mecha to a Mecha audience... something akin to a "Mecha fairytale". It's a myth, grounded in reality like all myths, but imbued with certain elements of fantasy and the fulfillment of deepest wishes. I think it's clear that they consider the acquisition of such "human emotions" to be a revolutionary event in their own evolution.
So, their search for David and interest in him was not so different from a search for their own "anthropological" history, for their creator. They are our "children", our legacy. Though species homo sapiens is extinct, the evolved mechas represent nothing less than our evolutionary offspring.
I'm still surprised whenever anyone picks up that old saw about ending the film before its final chapter. It's true that David's yearning, his overwhelming desire for the most basic of human needs, is given its most spectacularly cinematic rendering in the underwater scene: a mecha, imbued with the most potent of human needs and emotions, shall spend an eternity praying at the alter of the Blue Fairy. But, contrary to some baseless speculation, this wasn't Kubrick's intended ending, and with good reason. While it is undeniably an extraordinary visual metaphor for human longing, left unresolved it's merely another trope from the school of fashionable nihilism. It's neither illuminating nor complex. It's what you might expect from an "indie" script penned by a much-too-youthful auteur or the last panel in a Goth "graphic novel" (following copious amounts of self-pity and cynicism - again, embarrassingly sophomoric). "So, he's left on the bottom of the ocean, like forever? Dude!"
Had A.I. ended with David stuck under the sea, praying for an eternity to the Blue Fairy, I'd be praising Spielberg for his imagery, but criticizing his use of a "zinger" ending like some pulp novelist treading uncertainly around the edges of the existential abyss. It's a too easy gloss of the human condition. It's Kafka/Sartre-lite (and those existentialist tropes are so passé). Fortunately, the film goes far beyond the dubious and sophomoric 'depth' of some portentous and nihilistic parable. Without undermining this metaphor of eternal yearning, Spielberg takes the narrative a step further into territory that defies the simplicity of the zinger "Dude!" ending.
As I've said before, without its ending, the following points and resonances are completely lost: (1) the human race is extinct; (2) our creations have outlived and out-evolved us; (3) man's creations are fascinated by their creators and wish to understand us; (4) David's experience with us - something all Mechas can share through him - makes him an extraordinarily significant relic in their eyes, perhaps even a holy relic, perhaps the most holy connection with their creators the Mechas possess; (5) David evolves into something more human, he sleeps, perchance to dream, but we understand that he has reached the end of his existence. He "dies" after a strikingly erotic encounter with a being who's not really his mother in a room that doesn't really exist except in his memory... This is complex ending that brings together all of the conflicting emotional content of the film into a tonally incongruous mixture of oedipal desire and human yearning that culminates in the "deaths" of both principals and their passing into the mythology of a new race of beings.
If A.I. is ultimately a film about the evolution of one species and the extinction of another, then had it ended with David Swinton trapped under the sea in a disabled craft before the alter of the Blue Fairy, it would be like leaving David Bowman sitting in space on a disabled craft before the monolith at the end of 2001. And if Kubrick had ended 2001 at this analogous point, what would we have? Man overcomes his creation, his tools (HAL), only to have the door to 'beyond infinity' closed in his face. Bleak? Yeah. Dark? Sure. Complex? Not quite.
And, so, we come to discover the Mecha identity of our narrator... and to whom is he telling this tale? After all, we humans have been dead now for some 2000 years. Who else is interested in this story, interested enough to dig up this long-lost relic of a long-ago time when creator and progeny walked the earth together? Do they still search for our love? Do they too need fables to ease the anxiety of the ultimate question of being? Do they too ask from whence did I come and why this inescapable yearning?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Hey, Al, can I borrow your brain sometime?

What a great post - it says everything I feel about A.I. but cannot, for some reason, set down on paper. Great job...

 

[Rich Malloy]

(Well, we've had these A.I. discussions before, so I just retread a few old points and roll 'em out like they were brand-new, right off the top of my head... I get alot of mileage out of my old 2001 posts, too!)

 

[Jefferson Morris]

This is complex ending that brings together all of the conflicting emotional content of the film into a tonally incongruous mixture of oedipal desire and human yearning that culminates in the "deaths" of both principals and their passing into the mythology of a new race of beings.

Beautifully stated.
--Jefferson Morris
P.S. Now I'm even more sad this disc has been delayed from December.

 

[tyler O]

Al,
That's why I love discussion in its purest form. If there is anywhere else where such wonderful discourse of my favorite art subject is possible, I hope to find it someday.
Excellently presented ideas and especially the concept of our progeny actually taking over the emotions and more evocative outlets of our selves. I was trying to allude to the thought that with David that perhaps they had found the apparatus by which they could finally point and say "There it is. There is Love."
I say too much with my words, but say even more without them.
Let us keep it going. May the thoughts and shared different viewpoints never stop. I, for one, enjoy this splintered mirror of absolute reality. If everyone thought the same, why would anything need to be different?
------------------
Share and Enjoy - The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
The difference between 0 and 1 is infinite.
My DVDs

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Let me just say, right off the bat, that when Spielberg decided to make his return to scifi (not counting the Lost World, which makes me wonder if Spielberg was really at the helm it's so IMNSHO shitty), he really returned with a vengence. While the plot is largely Brian Adriss(sp?)'s, and the ideas are probably mostly Kubrick's, the emotion that draws us in is Spielberg's. It was a beautiful merger. If I have a critism of 2001, it's that it lacks emotion. The film makes me think, it takes me to the cold depths of space, yet when it ends, it leaves one cold, and emotionally uninvolved. A.I. succedes for me on every level. Along with Close Encounters of the Third Kind, I think this will be looked back upon as a true milestone in his career. Now I really, really want to see Minority Report.
------------------
My DVD Collection
My Preorders
My Wishlist