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

[Luc D]

We're getting off topic a bit here, but yes I have seen the Taxi Driver extras and knowing what really happened during the making of that film, the documentary is a fluff piece. It doesn't make it a bad thing, it's still an entertaining and informative documentary, but it doesn't come close to revealing the real story behind the production.
So all I'm saying is that no matter how much a documentary or interviews try and sell the point that this was a complete collaboration between Kubrick and Spielberg, the fact is that the man was long dead before production even started and so his input could only be minor at best.
David, Hurt's character asks the mecha to undress to the stress the point he's trying to make about how "inhuman" mechas really are in their emotional reactions, and of course to point out that they have no will of their own.
(and you know had Kubrick been in charge Hurt wouldn't have stopped her)

 

[Simon Massey]

How did the police locate Gigolo Joe outside of Dr. Know's place, and later on in Manhattan too?

Well, it is plausible that the amphibicopter was traceable to Manhattan, as it was stolen from the police.

Also earlier in the film, it was clear that David's creators had found him before he reached Dr Know's place, and I would also imagine it is reasonable to assume they kept an eye on him until he reached Manhattan. Thus Gigolo Joe could have been tracked through David.

 

[Simon Massey]

(and you know had Kubrick been in charge Hurt wouldn't have stopped her)

And would there have been any point being made in continuing to let her undress ? The point was made, nothing else was necessary.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Finally got around to watching this Friday/Saturday, and was pretty impressed overall. The mechas at the end confused me too; I thought they were aliens until I looked at the extras.

The death/sleep issue seems pretty unresolved to me as well. I think it's intentionally ambiguous and am not convinced that either is right.

The one really serious, unforgivable bit of cheese that no one seems to comment on is the school of fish that magically transport David to where he needs to be. What the hell? That struck me as a monumentally embarrassing bit of filmmaking via deus ex machina.

On the John Williams score, did anyone notice that the countermelody to the main theme from Close Encounters is also quoted at one point? That got me thinking about aliens, I suppose.

The ship of the robots at the end struck me as reminiscent of the monolith in 2001---made up of many smaller monoliths. Perhaps the mechas of the future conquered time and went back to the Dawn of Man to create an infinite loop that will make my eyes bulge out and cause me to sweat profusely.

I do have to agree that the ending is a copout; apparently if one prays for 2000 years to a fictional character, your wishes will come true. I don't think that the figure 2000 years was chosen by accident either, but I don't want this to detour into verboten religious discussiion so I'll stop there.

 

[BrettB]

The one really serious, unforgivable bit of cheese that no one seems to comment on is the school of fish that magically transport David to where he needs to be. What the hell? That struck me as a monumentally embarrassing bit of filmmaking via deus ex machina.

I believe that is straight from Pinocchio. It has been theorized that David "shuts down" as he leaps to the water and is no longer processing information. This being the case, the mechas could retrieve no memories from David after his plunge to explain how he came to rest praying before the blue fairy so they had to fill in the blanks. The mechas fell back upon the Pinocchio story, which had so consumed David, to fill in the blanks.

 

[Rich Malloy]

I do have to agree that the ending is a copout; apparently if one prays for 2000 years to a fictional character, your wishes will come true.

Returning again to your "copout" critique, IMO you have misread the fundamental meaning of the ending... or at least so over-simplified it that it rings false in your telling.
The "wish" of David's character is no different than the wish of the future mechas, it's merely made particular. Just as David's sibling rivalry with his "brother" represents the evolutionary struggle between mankind's organic and mecha offspring, the consumation of David's relationship with his mother is likewise a consumation of mecha/orga, generally. A metaphorical "link" between progeny and creator. The fictionality of Blue Faery is well beside the point. Here, as in Pinoccio, it's a poetic device.
Of course, if your worldview tends toward the nihilistic, I suppose this would feel like a copout... a feel-good parable that should be punctured by the cold blade of truth, scientific or historical. But if you can accept that all cultures create "legitimating narratives" (to borrow a phrase from Campbell) in response to the deepest mysteries of existence, and that these are conflations of truth and projections of our deepest yearnings, then perhaps you would find some emotional/spiritual resonance in the idea that these mechas would seek to do the same. The human race may be extinct, but that which most defined our humanity lives on in our legacy. Mechanical or no, their creation in our image was not merely superficial - it extends even to the very deepest of "human" yearnings.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Rich Malloy wrote:

our humanity lives on in our legacy.

And, just what is that, in your estimation?

 

[Rich Malloy]

And, just what is that, in your estimation?

Why, the ability to purchase on credit (duh).
Some might suggest, rather, that it's the preoccupation with what we like to call the ultimate questions of existence: from whence did I come and what is my purpose in this universe?
Its this shared yearning, this search, this need to explain in both scientific and mytho-religious terms our connection to one another and to the universe as a whole. This is what connects the mechas to the orgas, clearly establishing them as our evolutionary legacy... our "children" in the most universal sense. Just as David's relationship to his mother is a metanym for the mecha-orga relationship, writ large, and this sibling rivalry with his brother is likewise representative of the evolutionary struggle between two competing legacies, the final consumation between mecha-son and orga-mother is a resolution of all uncertainty, all anxiety, all questions of origin and purpose within the all-encompassing nature of love.
That's my take on it, at any rate. What might it be in your estimation, Rex?

 

[Paul_D]

Rich, I bet you could answer peoples repetitive criticisms of A.I. until YOU'RE defrosted from the ice in 2000 years! Very entertaining stuff. And thought-provoking.

 

[Max Leung]

Rich, my analysis of the movie is identical to yours! Except for the flowery language stuff.

 

[andrew_werdna]

"Some might suggest, rather, that it's the preoccupation with what we like to call the ultimate questions of existence: from whence did I come and what is my purpose in this universe?"

i think for many people (not all), those relationships that are the strongest and have the deepest bond, is that between parent and child. if it goes well, as either the parent or the child, it's the most rewarding and longlasting to have and if it sours or is broken, it's the most devastating to bear. romantic love gets all the glory (a little too much, if you ask me) but it also gets a 50% divorce rate, and people change careers all the time, so that in the end it's the parent-child bond, a bond that ai focuses on so acutely, which is the most robust.

if purpose can be defined by that which we find most rewarding and longlasting, then procreation, and all that surrounds it (including romantic love), has got to be the purpose.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Rich, my analysis of the movie is identical to yours! Except for the flowery language stuff.

Rich's mellifluous prose pales only when thrown into relief by the textual stylings of Agee Basset. Lest they think through verbal irony I am impugning their good names through the spreading of sundry contumelious epitaphs, I assure all assembled in these forums that my praise is brought forth with unaffectedness and approbation.
Or, to cite Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles: he uses his tongue purdier than a $20 whore.
Regards,

 

[Patrick Sun]

Thanks for that visual, Ken! I'll never look at a whore the same way ever again!

 

[Max Leung]

And remember kids, never look a gift-whore in the mouth!
Ok ok my bad... :b

 

[Mark Zimmer]

I prefer to think of myself as a realist rather than a nihilist, but opinions on that will differ.

I think the issue that I have with the ending is the same issue that I have with the school of fish. Most of the first two hours of running time is centered on science and what its limitations are and the ethical responsibilities that it engenders as it gets closer and closer to the ability to create life. However, these two segments suddenly dump science and go for magic, for lack of a better word. It's completely inconsistent with the tone of the piece, and frankly is satisfying only if you believe that Uri Geller has magical powers and Nostradamus could predict the future (i.e., highly gullible). It's one thing to have magic in a fairy tale or a fantasy, but that's not what this picture is purporting to be. I don't mind blending of genres, but these moments seemed to me to come completely out of left field. One might as well have had David turn into Shirley Temple and do a dance on the Good Ship Lollipop.

Why, exactly, does David evolve? I don't buy "he fulfilled his programming" for a minute; had Martin not recovered, Monica was obviously heading down the path of truly accepting and loving David. Would he have shut down then? No, I don't think so. In order for the movie to make any sense (certainly in Campbellian terms), the journey has to mean something. But what, really, did David's journey do? It was mostly wishing and hoping for a very, very long time. There's not even a Dorothyesque journey of self-discovery. In the end it boils down to "Wishing makes it so," which, as anyone who has spent 20 minutes in the real world knows, ain't how it works, baby. At most, one can nod, smile and muster a charitable, "That's nice." I find it hard to believe that that attitude is what Kubrick was shooting for here.

Also, I'd have to say I found it galling (though certainly more in accord with real life) that David is rewarded, somehow, while he cruelly disregards his faithful companion Teddy in his complete self-absorption. I thought we were out of the 1980s with the attitude, "Me, Me, It's all about ME! Love ME!" but maybe not.

At least Spielberg succeeded in one thing Kubrickian: making a film that can engender wildly differing interpretations and serious discussions about its meaning. That's commendable and I didn't think Spielberg had it in him.

Osment does a great job throughout, but particularly the utterly creepy presence he has before the imprinting. He doesn't seem human there, at all.

I don't want this to sound like I didn't like the film; I did very much. There are just some issues with these two segments that don't seem quite right, or at least not fully thought out.

 

[Rich Malloy]

It's one thing to have magic in a fairy tale or a fantasy, but that's not what this picture is purporting to be.

What then does this picture purport to be?
I think the film's narrative rather obviously represents a dialectic between the mytho-poetic and the scientific-historical. This is explicitly stated on at least one occasion (I believe during the visit to Dr. Know), and is implicit in every frame of the film. So, unless you reject this interpretation - and I don't see how any fair viewing of this movie could possibly do so - how then can a dialectic between the mytho-poetic and the scientific-historical otherwise be explored if the two modes aren't juxtaposed?
And I don't accept that you're so genre-bound as to reject a mixture of the fabulous and the mundane in your narratives.
And I don't believe you reject the simple notion that the same "truth" can be approached via different paths (realist, nihilist, or no).
And I don't believe for a second that you're incapable of understanding that a resolution of this particular dialectic requires that both narrative modes be juxtaposed.
In short, I think you're just nit-picking!

 

[Rich Malloy]

Also, I'd have to say I found it galling (though certainly more in accord with real life) that David is rewarded, somehow, while he cruelly disregards his faithful companion Teddy in his complete self-absorption. I thought we were out of the 1980s with the attitude, "Me, Me, It's all about ME! Love ME!" but maybe not.

Again, I find your criticisms just a tad disingenuous. More nit-picking?
Fassbinder (or was it Sirk?) once said: "the only realism I'm interested in is psychological realism". To the extent that "a.i." misses this mark, I think it could be faulted. But is this your view?
On the one hand, you find this scene "galling, though certainly more in accord with real life". Well, what's wrong with being galled? Especially if said galling is in the service of uncovering something even you concede is real?
On the other hand, you say "I thought we were out of the 1980s with the attitude, "Me, Me, It's all about ME! Love ME!" but maybe not." Are you suggesting that such selfishness is passe in the new millennium? That it was merely a product of the go-go 80's? That David is somehow a displaced Reaganite?
(Again, I think you're being transparently disingenuous in order to drum up a few criticisms... but I'll address the "selfishness" aspect anyway.)
This "selfishness" in love is at the very heart of the oedipal fixation. It's also at the heart of the sibling rivalry. And both of these are at the heart of this movie (as metanyms for the evolutionary struggle). And in this battle for mother's affections, the psychology is precisely one of selfishness. In both instances, the subject seeks to greedily consume the object of its love and to the exclusion of all others. Even fathers. Even brothers.
Had David been utterly selfless, would you have found this to be a more truthful, artful, and meaningful characterization? You indicate that perhaps you would not. Nonetheless... "galling".
Or do you agree that David's selfish love is a much more accurate reflection of the human condition? And, if so, would you sacrifice that just to make him more likeable? And isn't that precisely the pre-A.I. criticism of Spielberg - that he too often sacrificed galling truth for comforting likeability?
And just because David succumbs to this all-too-human response - he's just as hard-wired for it as we, after all - is he really less sympathetic for doing so? Isn't this "humanness" which he displays precisely what sets him apart from the artificialness of the pre-David models? Precisely what ultimately defines his humanity and gives rise to the all-too-human yearnings of the mechas to follow?

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Rich, I'm going to have to mull for a while over much of the last two posts, but I can readily distinguish between mytho-poetic and magical. I recognize the former is all over this picture. But it doesn't within a realistic (though speculative) framework allow for things that just aren't so. This is not a fantasy world of magic; this is our world, a bit in the future. Wishing doesn't make things happen, then or now. Neither of us can evolve to a higher plane simply by wishing for it to occur.
And I don't see in your responses anything addressing the point of the Campbellian journey---one that for David seems to me to be quite empty.
Perhaps I'm just more in tune with the woman who worked with Kubrick on the treatment and quit in disgust saying you can have a failed quest, but you can't have an achieved quest without a reward. David's quest as I see it can never be anything but a failed quest. The ending as it stands does not resonate properly for me because the solution to the quest comes about not through any sort of internal logic but by just pure force of emotion, saying, 'then, for no particular reason he became a real boy and they died happily ever after.' If you're going to do that, why not just have the Blue Fairy come to the submarine and make him a real boy and be done with it?
This leads to another observation regarding Teddy that I hadn't thought of before--which I think explains why I found it 'galling'. I think that I might have been more accepting of the reward if David had shown growth outside his programming to love someone besides Monica---the natural someone being Teddy. By loving beyond his programming, then he could in turn be loved for real and as if real. But as long as he stays within the narrow bounds of his programming, which I think he does until he shuts down, he's not doing anything that's not already hardwired into him. Maybe that's pretty romantically naive for an accused nihilist, but it at least would make some sense to the journey on an emotional level for me.
Just so you know you're making progress with me, I've come to agree with the death interpretation. The part that threw me was the line about "where dreams come from." That didn't sound to me like death, but then in tandem with the bit about space-time containing everything that ever happened, I can see the phrase in terms of becoming as one with the universe. I'll buy that, in a Tao sort of way. Interesting chat.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Mark, let me apologize upfront for the format of this response. I generally can't stand the cut-and-paste, you say/I say sorta thing as it tends to be a battle of quips without any real analysis. And worse, when someone cuts and pastes your thoughts, and then cuts and pastes someone else's thoughts as a response. Annoying!!!
That being said, however...

And I don't see in your responses anything addressing the point of the Campbellian journey---one that for David seems to me to be quite empty.

This isn't the "mono-myth", though it can be tortured to fit the parameters Campbell establishes (the hero is forced to leave the cozy confines of home to embark upon a journey which will provide him special knowledge that he will return home with and which will broaden the horizons of his people, allowing them to understand their place in the universe more clearly - in this case, his "people" and his "home" have become the realm of the future-mecha). But unlike George Lucas's movies, I've not heard of any specific intent to shoehorn this story into the Joseph Campbell models of mythological narratives.
But I agree that the journey seems somehow empty for David. But it's not just David's journey. He dies, but it's only a personal extinction. The race endures.
Regarding the ending, Jonathan Rosenbaum writes:
"It sounds like typical Spielberg goo - for better and for worse - and when you're watching the film it feels that way. But the minute you start thinking about it, it's at least as grim as any other future in Kubrick's work. Humankind's final gasp belongs to a fucked-up boy robot with an Oedipus complex who's in bed with his adopted mother and who finally becomes a real boy at the very moment that he seemingly autodestructs. ***** It's the film's most sentimental moment, yet it's questionable whether it involves any real people at all.
"One might say that the emotional conflicts experienced by Monica when she first encounters David implicitly remain our own conflicts throughout the film, but Spielberg is too fluid a storyteller to allow us to remember this ambivalence much of the time. He invites us to fool ourselves just as we always do with his films and just as Monica sometimes does with David -- a deception based on primal emotional needs and repressed realities. This repression is generally sustained in most Spielberg films, but here the repressed knowledge and emotions periodically come back like icy waves lapping around our ankles.
"A.I. is consistently dialectical, almost to the point of schizophrenia and at times to the very edge of incoherence, most often with rich and complex consequences. Take the end of the movie. Is the cloned Monica, resurrected and "corrected" to satisfy a robot's programmed cravings, much closer to something human than David, created and programmed by man in his own image? Is the love of either character genuine, programmed, or some combination of the two? The line separating life from death, being from nothingness, even the present from the past ("I am...I was," says Gigolo Joe as he gets hooked and reeled in by a scavenger-police plane like a hapless fish) remains as ambiguous as the line separating orga from mecha or human from inhuman that runs throughout the picture.
"When the Blue Fairy comes back for an encore inside the suburban home, I'm immediately reminded of the monolith slab reappearing inside the hotel suite just before Bowman gets reborn as the Star Child. ***** Both locations are mental projections of the protagonist, but whereas 2001 ends with some kind of tragic rebirth, A.I. ends with the implication of some kind of sweet annihilation -- something that might also be said to resemble the opium stupor at the end of McCabe and Mrs. Miller.
"Spielberg has made the final sequence of A.I. somewhat incoherent so that he can articulate his oedipal idyll as cleanly as possible. It's similar in some ways to the terrain explored in Solaris -- an inquiry into what it means to be human and what it means to die -- without the spiritual side of Andrei Tarkovsky's Christian mysticism. And most of what gets repressed at some point in the film is articulated in another, so that the movie constantly swings between dizzying uncertainties and grim -- or is it exalted? -- finalities. It's part of this movie's richness that few of its contradictory ideas and emotions cancel one another out. Instead they congeal into a kind of poetry -- a term I wouldn't ordinarily use to describe either director's work -- whose melancholy, forlorn pungency is paralleled in the Yeats lines quoted at the penultimate stage of David's odyssey:
Come away, O human child!
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand,
For the world's more full of weeping
than you can understand.

 

[Dennis Heller]

In regard to Teddy, is it possible that in becoming "real," David's attitude toward Teddy is just another manifestation of his humanness? He discards Teddy as a toy or a "thing" just as the humans discard the mechas. After all, David wants to be a real boy, warts and all. Or am I being simplistic? I haven't given it nearly as much thought as others.