Lucius Shepard on A.I. & Spielberg (1 Viewer)

[MickeS]

Al, thanks for the link to Rosenbaum's review. I will read it later.
Although I didn't think AI was a great movie, it's by far the most interesting one I've seen in a very long time. I never cared much for Kubrick's work either, and to me it seemed to be much, much more Kubrick than Spielberg in this movie.
I think it's Spielberg's weakest effort, yet I am very happy he made it, if that makes sense. It has a quality that goes beyond star ratings, much like Kubrick's work does, whether you like it or not.
Financially, well it pretty much bombed, didn't it? I expected it to (sold my HSX stock as soon as I saw the first non-trailer footage on TV before the movie opened), but this movie, like many others, should not be measured in terms of financial success. That's not why it was made. I hope the failure to make money on this movie doesn't hinder the development of other intelligent sci-fi movies.
Why this writer Shepard harbors such hostility towards it is totally impossible for me to understand. The only way I can explain it is that he doesn't like Spielberg's other movies, but that's a poor reason to hate this one so much.
/Mike
[Edited last by MickeS on November 07, 2001 at 01:48 PM]

 

[Michael Dehaven]

Al Brown why is that anyone that doesn't "get it", as you do, is then not allowed to comment on the film? All reviews are subjective and as such we will interpret the plot/story in our own unique way. That Mr. Shepard does not see the plot through your eyes is pointless. When this film was first released there was plenty of debate on the alien/robot characters in the end of the film.You accuse and demean with equal spirit. It is just a film after all, and not a very good one IMHO. The point Mr. Shepard makes that I do completely agree with is the film is not engaging.You like the film and Mr. Shepard does not. So what. Hollywood is a mess of lawyers and bankers, of this Mr. Shepard is quite correct. For the many artists who refuse to compromise Hollywood is a cult of profiteering moguls. Serious or even meaningful stories are rarely produced. I think Mr. Shepard is quite tired of all the shallow empty vehicles masquerading as film.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Then he should be praising A.I., not denouncing it - particularly inasmuch as it represents Spielberg attempting to do more than he's ever done before: to bring an artfulness and depth to his film in a way that's always eluded him.

Al Brown why is that anyone that doesn't "get it", as you do, is then not allowed to comment on the film? All reviews are subjective and as such we will interpret the plot/story in our own unique way.

He is certainly allowed to comment, just as I am allowed to criticize his comments. Free speech means one is free to say what one wishes; not that one's speech may be free of criticism. If he wishes to interpret the plot in a "unique way", as you suggest, then surely I'm free to point out that it's "uniqueness" stems not from the workings of an exceptionally fertile mind, but rather from his total and complete miscomprehension of the film.
And since this miscomprehension lies at the heart of the most venomous attack on this film I've yet read, I'm not moved by your accusation that I "accuse and demean with equal spirit." Damn right I do. Had his attack not been so merciless, neither would be my response.
And it's simply hilarious that you defend him on the basis that he "is quite tired of all the shallow empty vehicles masquerading as film". For when faced with a film that's neither shallow nor empty, we discover that it went right over his head.
This irony, which lies at the very heart of his screed, is quite simply delicious.

 

[Michael Dehaven]

Well Al Brown I am slightly bloodied by your words. I am not defending Mr. Shepard as much as I am calling you to task about "getting it." This is a common ploy by movie lovers who are not willing to accept a negative position on a film they overtly love. Roger Ebert wrote a wonderful review of A.I. and I submit, for your approval, these two bites:
"The movie is enormously provocative, but the story seems to skew against its natural grain. It bets its emotional capital on David and his desire to be a real boy, but it's the old woodcarver Geppetto, not the blockhead puppet, who is the poignant figure in Pinocchio. The movie toys with David's nature in the edgy party scenes, but then buys into his lovability instead of balancing on the divide between man and machine. Both of the closing sequences--the long wait, and an investigation--are unsuccessful. The first goes over the top. The second raises questions that it isn't prepared to answer. There are a couple of possible earlier endings that would have resulted in a tougher movie.
"A.I." is audacious, technically masterful, challenging, sometimes moving, ceaselessly watchable. What holds it back from greatness is a failure to really engage the ideas that it introduces. The movie's conclusion is too facile and sentimental, given what has gone before. It has mastered the artificial, but not the intelligence."

 

[Rain]

Well, Al, I'm flattered that my opinion means something anyway.
Please understand, it's not that I don't "get" the film. I see where Speilberg was going, but it is just so incredibly poorly executed that I could not possibly enjoy it. The flaws in the film are too numerous to overlook.
I will extend one of the points made by Shepard, which is in regards to how difficult it is to empathize with the characters, in particular the central character of David.
In order for the film to work and the point to be adequately made, would you not agree that one must sympathize with David? And yet, he is presented as an unstable, "psychotic" and violent individual. Witness the scene where he almost drowns his "brother," witness the scene in which he attacks and destroys the other robot boy who looks like him, without having any way to know for sure that it was even a robot. In fact, since he is a robot himself, it doesn't even matter whether he knew that or not...that scene definitively establishes the fact that David has no reverence for life at all, artificial or otherwise. His actions are entirely selfish, all the while whining and moaning "I want my mommie." Please. I found myself despising him rather than empathizing with him.
Oh yeah, and if anyone thinks that this film bears any similarity whatsoever to what Kubrick would have and could have done with it...well, I suggest another look at Kubrick's body of work.
quote: It's also the most philosophical film in Kubrick's canon, the most intelligent in Spielberg's, and quite possibly the film with the most contemporary relevance that either one has made since Kubrick released Dr. Strangelove in 1964.[/quote]
And that is the downright funniest thing I've heard this week.

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

"Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." - Imagine by John Lennon
[Edited last by Rain on November 07, 2001 at 02:48 PM]

 

[Rich Malloy]

Well Al Brown I am slightly bloodied by your words. I am not defending Mr. Shepard as much as I am calling you to task about "getting it."

Ack, sorry Michael! Maybe I better chill out before posting again - I really didn't mean to inflict such harshness upon you (though I can't say the same for Shepard!).
But, please, I'm generally Mr. Positive (at least in my own mind - don't laugh, people) and I hope I haven't done anything to drive you away from our little forum here. Stick around for awhile and I'm sure we'll be in there together at some point, praising the same mutally-beloved movie!

 

[Rich Malloy]

In order for the film to work and the point to be adequately made, would you not agree that one must sympathize with David? And yet, he is presented as an unstable, "psychotic" and violent individual. Witness the scene where he almost drowns his "brother," witness the scene in which he attacks and destroys the other robot boy who looks like him, without having any way to know for sure that it was even a robot. In fact, since he is a robot himself, it doesn't even matter whether he knew that or not...that scene definitively establishes the fact that David has no reverence for life at all, artificial or otherwise. His actions are entirely selfish, all the while whining and moaning "I want my mommie." Please. I found myself despising him rather than empathizing with him.

I agree with everything you said... except your first and last sentences!

And I ask you, do you really think it's necessary that the protagonist be someone who garners our complete sympathy? Do you really think that would make for a more truthful, artful, and meaningful film?

For me, it's precisely this view into the darker corners of human love that sets this film apart, particularly the love between mother and son and all its attendant problems, most notably oedipal and sibling rivalries. Surely, there is no more selfish love than that between a boy and his mum. Even that complex known as "Electra" has never excited so much psychological confusion, or so sabotaged the social-order.

And just because David succombs to this all-too-human response, 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?

And you forget one other key scene: the implicit violence when David attempts to cut a lock from his sleeping mother's hair (inspired by the conniving of his sibling). And this is a violence implied within the sexual realm of his "parent's" bedroom, a place which he will revisit in that startlingly erotic climactic scene that seems an awful lot like a murder-suicide, though gussied up in the lyrical language of old faery tales (which themselves always harbored a darker, grimmer underbelly).

And though I said I agree with everything you stated save your very first and last sentences, I also disagree somewhat with your statement that "the scene [in which David "kills" the other David] definitively establishes the fact that David has no reverence for life at all". That scene, in which David is confronted by the other David, and then all the other Davids, strikes at the very heart of his perceived "uniqueness", that very thing which makes him special enough to win his mother's love. After all, if there exists another David, much less thousands of other David's, then how could his love be special? Don't you see how fundamental this is to all our notions of human love? That the love we share, particularly with our mothers, is somehow unique to us? That no other could share, should share that love?

This selfishness is at the very heart of the oedipal fixation, which is precisely a rivalry against one's father, as well as the rivalry among siblings. Both of these are fully explored by David's violent lashing out. And just as David's near drowning of his brother was caused by an urge for self-preservation, the killing of "the other David" is yet another act of self-preservation. For what is "self" if we do not perceive ourselves as unique?

Do you really not see how this is a much more accurate reflection of the human condition? And would you really sacrifice all this just to make David more likeable? Isn't that precisely the pre-A.I. criticism of Spielberg - that he sacrificed truth for comforting likeability?

Armond White writes: "There’s been nothing in modern movies more grownup or sensitive than David’s fascination with his sexy young mother. It’s as if Spielberg took that key image from Bergman’s Persona (of the small boy reaching up to the huge opaque image of Woman) and interpreted it from the inside out. Suspended in fascination, Spielberg introduces Monica applying her makeup – a vanity gesture shared with a female robot. Yet, where another filmmaker would stop at obvious irony, Spielberg dissolves/resolves ironies in love. This view nearly shuts out the father – Freud is both acknowledged and crushed by Spielberg’s awe at that first relationship, the most powerful and baffling in everyone’s life."

[EDIT: It would seem that my self-imposed "chill out" was rather short-lived!]

[RE-EDITED again - much later - to correct weird "Quote" problem]

 

[Ben Motley]

Mods, I think this thread should be renamed "Al Brown on A.I. & Spielberg"

You go on wich'yo bad sef Al!
------------------
"Who made it?! The Shark!?!"
Please sign this Hammer Films petition, thanks!
http://www.petitiononline.com/Hammer/petition.html

 

[Rain]

quote: In order for the film to work and the point to be adequately made, would you not agree that one must sympathize with David?...I found myself despising him rather than empathizing with him.[/quote]
quote: I agree with everything you said... except your first and last sentences![/quote]
You may disagree with my first sentence. However, to disagree with my last sentence, you would be claiming to know my personal reaction to the character better than I do myself, which is a bit silly.
quote: And I ask you, do you really think it's necessary that the protagonist be someone who garners our complete sympathy?[/quote]
Not necessarily, no. However, in this case, it is absolutely essential that one does not dislike him intesely, as I did.
Al, there is no question that your analysis is interesting. However, regardless of the boy's motivations, he does behave in a violent and "psychotic" manner.
Think about it in these terms: An only child who is David's age suddenly has a brand new baby brother thrust upon him (happened to me). Up to that point, he didn't have to share mommy or mommy's love with anyone else. Now, would it be reasonable for the boy to smash his new baby brother to pieces. Of course not.
Yes, some of the psychological issues explored are interesting. No argument.
To recap, my dislike of the film stems from poor execution, not because I don't think the theme is interesting or worth exploring.
Basically, what it boils down to is: Kubrick could have done it better. Hell, Speilberg could have done it better...but he didn't. Too bad.
Al, perhaps you will now better understand the frustration that I (and Jack Briggs, naturally) feel when people don't "get" 2001: A Space Odyssey.

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

"Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." - Imagine by John Lennon
[Edited last by Rain on November 07, 2001 at 05:35 PM]

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Micheal: If there's one major fault I have with Ebert's reviews it's that on occassion, he'll see a movie in a movie that that movie never tried or meant it be. Once he has his vision of the material in his head, he marks down for how the actual film doesn't match up.
He made it clear which character he wanted the film to follow. That's great, but that's not the character the film DID follow. If you don't find what Spielberg/Kubrick gave us engaging, then mark down for that. Not because the script chose to follow the robot boy instead of the human mother. The main point of the film (in my view) is that we are mortal beings and our legacy is what we leave behind. David is what we left behind, so in the context of this film, David is what's most important. Key though is your ability to sympathize with the mechas rather than the humans. Ebert was unable to do that, which is why he never connected with the film. I will say this however; thought he didn't connect with the film, at least he UNDERSTOOD it on an intellectual level, which is more than I can say about Mr. Shepard. I defineately give Ebert the IQ edge in this instance.
------------------
My DVD Collection
My Preorders
My Wishlist
Potter is coming...

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

I've read the article, but I can't get this particular thought out of my head:

a denouement whose maudlin excess is so execrable that it nearly blinds one to its underlying message, which appears to be a resounding endorsement of child suicide

I don't get it. How was David going to sleep in some way a message or endorsement to child suicide? I think Shepard was trying too hard to force an contraversial view and to create symbolism where it didn't exist. He tries to guise that view with the words "nearly blinds"...bullshit. The majority of people (and critics alike) weren't blinded to anything. He created this message in his own mind and now wants others to take up the torch for his effort. Maybe I need to see A.I. again, but I don't remember any kind of subliminal images that would equate David's sleeping with child suicide. I may have been suicide for DAVID, but in now way was it an avocation for suicide by children. Unlike Shepard, people are able to make the distinction between fantasy and reality, between a robot and a real child.
Bruce
------------------

Welcome aboard the Satellite of Love

 

[Rain]

I believe he is referring to David's "suicide" by leaping into the water. By doing so, he set about the chain of events that eventually led to his being able to see his "mommy" one more time, which otherwise would not have occurred.
------------------

"Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." - Imagine by John Lennon
[Edited last by Rain on November 07, 2001 at 07:12 PM]

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Ladies and gentlemen, for the past few months, I follow certain people's postings to this forum if you will. I don't know, certain things just stand out about people. One of these people is Al Brown.
After having read maybe his past fifty posts or so, I've come to a startling conclusion that everybody on this forum needs to know: Al Brown is not human. Never in my entire life have I seen anybody with such a large vocabulary and have such an articulate matter in which to present their views/opinions. Al is like one of those artsy people who can break down a film in five minutes flat. He's the guy who sits next to you in class where a teacher demands an answer, and only Al knows it, and when it's your turn to answer that same question, you point at Al and say, "Uh, yeah, what he said." I swear there's a dictionary glued to his right hand, a thesaurus in the other, and boy does he know how to use them both.
Al is a machine. No human on Earth can do anything like he does.

------------------
"I don't know, Marge. Trying is the first step towards failure." - Homer J. Simpson
"Let's see, Matt Chmiel has Rini Bell, NickSO has Mena Suvari, John Williamson has Ivana Milisevic, and Steve Gon has Emmanuelle Beart...who the hell do I have???
"It's not Pikeville, Kentucky. It's Pikevool!!! And it's not Louisville, it's Loolvool!!! Get it right, damnit!!!"
My DVD Collection

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

Rain,
I will include the rest of the quote, since by the article, I think Shepard meant what occurred after the resurrection of David and his mother:

But in his wisdom, our boy Steve has tacked on a thirty-four-minute-long ending involving the freezing-over of the entire planet in 2000 years, the extinction of humanity, a visitation of saintly elongated aliens who love love love our music and our art (Sheesh!), resurrection for David and his moms, and a denouement whose maudlin excess is so execrable that it nearly blinds one to its underlying message, which appears to be a resounding endorsement of child suicide.

He listed the items in order that they transgressed on film. I take his term denouement to mean the final scene. But, if your point is that he is talking about David's leap into the water, it would be even less credible (Shepards view, not your opinion, Rain). It would be saying that Spielberg was trying to advocate suicide to elicit an emotional response, to incite a clamor of either outrage or sympathy. Neither occurred. Like the rest of the article, it paints a picture of a man who is reaching for a meticulous self-proported analogy that just doesn't exist. The whole review seemed to be a trumped up charge of thou-ism, that Spielbergs film didn't live up to HIS standards and therefore, pandered to the mindless masses. From what I've seen, HIS standards are skewered and not representative of anyone but himself.
Bruce
------------------

Welcome aboard the Satellite of Love

 

[Ryan Peter]

quote: Al is a machine. No human on Earth can do anything like he does.[/quote]
His intelligence is real, but he is not.

[Edited last by Ryan Peter on November 07, 2001 at 09:11 PM]

 

[Richard Kim]

quote: Think about it in these terms: An only child who is David's age suddenly has a brand new baby brother thrust upon him (happened to me). Up to that point, he didn't have to share mommy or mommy's love with anyone else. Now, would it be
reasonable for the boy to smash his new baby brother to pieces. Of course not.[/quote]
Comparing David's other self with a sibling is totally inappropriate. David actually got along cordially with his "brother" (his near drowning was accidental). Imagine this, lets say out the blue an identical clone of yourself appeared. Would you not be afraid of the effect he would have on your life, on your loved ones, who might possibly mistake this clone for you? Would you not feel threatened by it?
[Edited last by Richard Kim on November 07, 2001 at 09:57 PM]

 

[Rich Malloy]

Think about it in these terms: An only child who is David's age suddenly has a brand new baby brother thrust upon him (happened to me). Up to that point, he didn't have to share mommy or mommy's love with anyone else. Now, would it be reasonable for the boy to smash his new baby brother to pieces. Of course not.

And, again, of course not.
But what does "reason" have to do with anything? First of all, as Richard pointed out, you're conflating two distinct episodes. David didn't smash his (not so new and certainly no baby) brother, but he certainly was threatened by his presence... just as this "new" brother was threatened by David's presence.
But that's really neither here nor there. What I'm stuck on is your strange expectation that the sibling rivalry be approached reasonably by the siblings. This is a film exploring the most powerful of human emotions - love, and more directly, the need to be loved - and this is that part of the human condition that's rarely responded to reasonably, by children or adults.
You speak of how "unreasonable" it would be for David to smash his new brother to pieces (which, of course, didn't occur in the film, but let's address it anyway). How many murders, suicides, assaults, and myriad other unreasonable acts occur on a daily basis for no better reason than a love betrayed or not returned?
Of course, it's unreasonable... even criminal. But love is rarely governed by reason.
Rain, is it simply that this film is too dark for you? Are its themes too uncomfortable? Or do you simply believe that love, and the attendant anxiety of the lover, is more realistically governed by reason than by emotion? By deliberation rather than impulse?
In your criticisms, I hear a pining for the old, comforting, unconflicted Spielberg, and a world where children play nice, mommy and daddy never die, and their love is forever. But Spielberg isn't playing that game in A.I. His interest is in the darker corners, the deeper anxieties, and the unreasonable lengths to which one endowed with the most powerful of human emotions will go in pursuit of the comforting warmth of the ocean-mother.
------------------
"Only one is a wanderer; two together are always going somewhere."

Link Removed
Al's Criterion Collection

 

[Rain]

Or do you simply believe that love, and the attendant anxiety of the lover, is more realistically governed by reason than by emotion? By deliberation rather than impulse?

How beautifully ironic that you pose that question to me while displaying a graphic from my second favourite film of all time in your signature; a film which certainly deals with love of the emotional and impulsive kind.
You ask if the film is too dark for me. Not at all. In fact, it's Babes in Toyland compared to the movie Kubrick likely would have made out of it (but that's another debate, I suppose).
Again, I repeat, since it seems to continue to go unheard: My criticism is not of the themes explored--this could have been a fascinating movie. My criticism is of the execution, Speilberg style. Far from being too dark, I find the film maudlin, dripping with sticky sentiment that only Speilberg can deliver. Speilberg cannot resist eventually reuniting David with "mommy," rather than allowing him to face the fact that "mommy" is gone and exploring David's emotions in dealing with that fact.
The film to me is erratic, rambling forth from one scene to the next without ever exploring its theme to its fullest potential. Perhaps a few less gratuitious glossy SE shots and a bit less distraction, such as Robin Williams doing his Aladdin schtick one more time, would have resulted in a more focused and poignant film.
It's really a matter of taste, Al. You felt that Speilberg did a good job on the movie, I don't. I mourn the film that might have been (and not necessarily the one Kubrick would have made).
------------------

"Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." - Imagine by John Lennon

 

[Rich Malloy]

Al, perhaps you will now better understand the frustration that I (and Jack Briggs, naturally) feel when people don't "get" 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I know Jack remembers how I stood with him, shoulder to shoulder, again and again, defending this film against the philistines. I have no need to better understand this frustration - I was there before you, fighting this good fight, and with you in our more recent bouts. Simply take a peek at the archived 2001 thread (one of the more recent) and I think you'll discover that I understand that frustration as intensely and exquisitely as do you. And now I feel that same frustration on behalf of A.I., of Spielberg's greatest achievement, and of Kubrick's final legacy.

 

[Rain]

Al, I'm sorry to say this, and I hope you don't take offense, but you are twisting my words slightly.
I am well aware of Kubrick's request to Speilberg. I was merely speculating on what might have been had Kubrick opted to make the film himself. As I said, though, that's a whole other debate.
Second, contrary to what you have said, there is much of Speilberg's work that I admire greatly. There is no need to list the specific films, as that would be opening another can of worms. Suffice it to say, my "admiration" is not blind, but rather film specific. A.I. just doesn't happen to do it for me. (The same goes for Kubrick's films.)
Finally, I was not trying to imply that you were among those who did not like 2001: A Space Odyssey. I was just making a bit of a joke with that comment.
Clearly there is much we agree on, 2001 and Vertigo being prime examples. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
------------------

"Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." - Imagine by John Lennon