A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) (1 Viewer)

[Josh Dial]

One take that I have for the ending, is that the mechas download David's "memories", and at first decide to study him somewhat, and at the same time, make him happy, since he is essentially the "bible" for them.
They decide to see "what david wants", so they use the blue fairy to fit in with the rest of his journey. They are shocked (perhaps not shocked) to find that all he wants to be is a real boy, so that his mom will love him more.
They attempt to shift gears by saying that if David gets lonely, they can use DNA samples to remake people for him to visit with. I'm sure those people would have no memories at all, save those put there by the mechas.
To combat the child-like curiousity of David, they say that they can only remake people whose DNA sampels they have access to (probably true). Of course they are surprises to learn that teddy has the sample. The "give him what he wants" is more of a sigh from that other mecha, as in "make him happy, that's all we can do here".
Since they have downloaded memories from David, they plug 'em into the monica, which seems plausible since they can freakin' make people
Thus the mechas create the perfect day as a send off to David, to complete his progamming so to speak, since as fellow mechas, perhaps they share some innate desire to "fulfill one's instincts (read: programming).
I'm sure if I believe this all But it's something I have come up with.
Truly a brilliant movie.
cheers!
Josh

 

[Adam_S]

edited

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

Truly fascinating reading, thanks !
I think this is one of the best and most interesting movies ever to come out, and I'm glad I am not alone in this view. In another thread I said Spielberg would be remembered for this one and that it would be discussed long after stuff like Minority Report was forgotten, but I was told people had already stopped talking about it. Seems they hadn't...
This needs to be archived.
Thanks, again, I realize I need to re-watch A.I. again soon.

 

[BrettB]

Great stuff Ernest and Adam.
This is a film which I believe I will never be able to find satisfaction in any final, concrete understanding.

 

[Ernest Rister]

This is a film which I believe I will never be able to find satisfaction in any final, concrete understanding.

Balderdash...you will find your own understanding, and by doing so, you will find your own satisfaction.

 

[Adam_S]

ahh procrastination, I should be packing but instead I spend over an hour reading parts II-IV of Ernest's review.

I must say I'm disapointed that part IV was so brief, I was expecting something epic with the lengths you went to repeat the entire film, and especially the last act. There were several interesting points made along the way, but a big majority of parts II and III could be summed up as plot summary. I do like your conclusions, more in depth than a very slight comparison of AI to the collodi and disney pinnochios I wrote back in high school. However, I gave up on looking at the film through the lens of pinocchio quite a while ago, I was working too hard to make it work and excusing the film because of the context of another film. Instead I began examining in my head why the film made certain narrative choices, why was the storytelling structured the way it was. Of course this inner dialogue took place after I'd already become annoyed with defending the film on a pinocchio grounds, and as those three classic epics were high in my mind (having just read them for class) I began to see how the storytelling traditions passed on certain tropes even into modern film (or literary fantasy, George RR Martin does some of the most grandiose epic cataloging this side of Milton when he starts writing about a tournment--thankfully only once or less a book). Intrigued by these possibilities I began an investigation in depth, which led to my above conclusions. I'd actually like to do at some point an in depth comparison of AI to Paradise Lost, as I imagine that was the text Kubrick was most familiar with, and it certainly contains the strongest parallels and references to it in the first and third act (tellingly, I had to work to incorporate the PL connection in the second act, which was where using the Aeneid and Orlando Furioso came in handy to direct my understanding of the conventions of classic epic--and after all, Milton was rewriting Ariosto rewriting others who were rewriting Ovid rewriting Virgil).

Back to packing...

Adam

 

[Simon Massey]

An interesting article has turned up on the net. I disagree with the point that Spielberg has failed to identify the beings properly at the end as direct descendants of the mecha in the film (the writer did not appear to recognise the visual connection of David's first appearance and the statue of the bird that David first sees as being similar to the beings that turn up at the end)although I take the point that its importance to the film means that Spielberg should perhaps have been a bit more explicit about it. I enjoyed the rest of the article.
Here's the link
http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/48/ai.htm
The article mentions, at the start, Sheila has a tear on her face which I never noticed before. Going to have to re-watch now

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Perhaps - that's one of the themes of the movie. Are David's emotions real or simulations? Or, has he transcended machine to become human?
I think that question if a theme of the movie. But also "love" is a very limited work for a complex set of behaviors and emotions. I think "love" has many forms and can be both selfish and selfless. But I'm a physicist, not a philosopher...

The same stark reality, the door through which all philosophy passes, is contained in the end of A.I., as it is contained within most great works of science fiction. What does it mean to be human?
Assuming the NM is not lying (why would he?), I assume that they can recreate a human genetically. What is special about David is they can recreate not just her genetics, but through him, actual memories of her can be used to form a personality. But is it really her? Of course not. It is physcially her, with the imprint of how David (a created being who existed to love her and respond to love) sees her. It is a great fiction we all live with, discussed at length in this thread.
I don't see it as dark, as many do. I don't see it as happy. It's a mirror, plain and simple.
1) If love conquers all, if love is the spark of the divine...then the end justifies love. It overcomes, it overwhelms, it envelopes, and it wins. Love is real, love defines us. Beautiful ending
2) Love is simply a complex reaction to unknowable stimuli. Whether programmed through infinite electric algorithms, or through the grey matter of our mind, love is not divine...merely defined behavior. This relates us to the A.I. as being no different at all. There is no spoon, so to speak.
3) Love is a dark obsession, selfish and needy. It devours us all. This is a very dark interpretation of something poets have written about for millenia and longer. This love looks inward. This love is it's own reward. It consumes both main characters.
This only speaks to the main plot. But love is so much a part of faith. Any discussion of love have to be reflected by the spiritual themes of the film. Does our God love us? Do we really love him? Is love a cosmic joke?
If the Monica at the end is "real", what does that say about love? If she isn't, what does that say? If you are a waffler like me, I'd argue she is as real as the other Monica, but not real.
Nature vs. nurture. Am I the way I think I am, or the way people see me? The Monica at the end is the way David saw her, so he is conditioned to believe she is real. She is acting in a manner that reinforces David's belief.
Too much to chew for now. I'll rewatch the film. I should take notes. But I'm too lazy.

 

[Josh.C]

This is in the top 3 of my all time greatest dissapointment lists. I hated this movie from start to finish, and I just barely made it to the end. I was walking out of the theater as it finally concluded. I didn't feel anything for any of the characters.

If you liked it, no offense meant, and these are no more than my personal opinions. But I rarely say I hated a movie. And I loathed this one. I'm sure it was hard to finish a film based on another man's vision, so props to Spielberg for trying. I am sorry he has his named stamped on it forever.

JC

 

[Tino]

One of Spielbergs greatest films. A.I. Artificial Intelligence is a deeply profound, moving and tremendously entertaining moviegoing experience.
Misunderstood by many, it is a true masterpiece in every sense of the word.
Thanks for resurrecting this thread Chuck. Can't wait to re-watch it.
Btw, Earnest is sorely missed.:frowning:

 

[Matthew_Def]

I really have to watch this again. Everytime I watch it I'm blown away.

I remember when it came out on DVD I watched it after school for 3 days straight.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

...
If David's humanity was shown successfully then all of us would be agreeing on that point. But we all don't. Did all of us want to see that? Perhaps, perhaps not.

Still haven't rewatched it. But for the middle part of this thread (pages 6-10), an interesting discussion was had (over 4 years ago ) that I will now jump into.
Perhaps the sticking point of the film is that many expected David to rise up and achieve his soul, his "real boy"-ness, his humanity. But the darker interpretation is that he merely reflected humanity the entire time. In doing so, he devalues many of the sacred cows we hold to, the sanctity of our own consciousness.
Perhaps his humanity was shown all too well, being obsessively driven by something he couldn't fully understand (and therefore could not conquer). I don't necessarily buy that myself, but it is a completely valid interpretation. Perhaps the dislike of the film comes from facing that awful possibility.

 

[Richard_D_Ramirez]

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned before, but I do find it interesting that at the beginning of the film, humans have "created" mechas to satisfy needs and desires, and by the end of the end of the film, mechas have "created" a human to satisfy needs and desires.

 

[Ricardo C]

I watched the film again this month, and I may have to revise my earlier conclusions. Here's a new one for ya: Joe achieved sentience, while David did not.
Before David and Joe's adventure together, we had seen:
1. Fairly primitive mecha. For example, the one on which Prof. Hobbie demonstrates the mechas' lack of emotion. She undresses because she is programmed to obey, she feels physical pain because she is wired to feel it, but she is not capable of abstract thought. She can't answer the question "how did that make you feel?" in any plane beyond the physical.
2. Mechas who show enough self-awareness to know to avoid the Flesh Fair scavengers, David included. But their self-preservation "instincts" ring hollow: Once trapped, they go to their "deaths" fairly gently, including David. "Death" means nothing to them, because, lacking self-awareness, the notionn of the extinction of the consciousness they lack doesn't fill them with fear.
Joe, on the other hand, reacts to threats much the same way a human would: He hurts himself to remove his license, he panics while in the cage at the Fair, he thinks quickly on his feet and latches on to David when he realizes the human operator has developed a soft spot for him and is gonna let him go. We could argue that he's simply been programmed that way, but why? Why would the developer allow their mechas to have the capacity to break free from their owners? Why take the chance?
Additionally, once in Rouge City, he shows himself to be a bit of a philosopher: "They come looking for the one who made them, and when they come out they find me". He shows some understanding of the human condition and our relationship with spirituality. Again, what purpose would such information serve in what's essentially a bipedal dildo? Joe, to me, has clearly developed his intellect beyond what he was originally equipped with. And not only has his knowledge base grown, he understands it. He is capable of abstract thought, something no other mecha shows him or herself capable of, not even David, whose emotions never change. If you could ask him "why do you love your mommy?" or "what is love?", I don't think he would be able to answer any better than the first mecha we meet.
And lastly, Joe ultimately sacrifices himself trying to save David. He could have followed a base self-preservation instinct and ran, but something made him come back for David, which resulted in him being captured, and presumably destroyed. His last words? "I am... I was".
A real child would eventually accept the loss of his mother and move on, emotionally scarred and damaged, but he would move on. But David's programming prevents this. He must love Monica, unconditionally, for every second of his existence.
To me, the ending of the film implies that David "died": Monica was gone, with no chance of return, so David had no further goals to fulfill. I originally believed that was the moment he achieved humanity, but after thinking on my recent screening, I've come to believe he was never alive. Joe, however, was.