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

[MatS]

Guy,

David will not be waking up in the end

 

[Guy_K]

Alright, thanks for clearing that up.. I thought it was literal, meaning he went to sleep and became a human.

We are forced to shed a tear about a machine that is shut off. I actually doubt I would cry if my computer was shut down. Isn't it ridiculous to assume that a machine has a soul? This is kind of like the flesh fair when robots were being torn apart and the crowd opposed it when David was next in line. What do you guys think about this.

 

[Mark Palermo]

But David DOES have a soul. The issue of responsibility in playing God is prevalent in A.I. When David was afforded the ability to love he was humanized to an alarming degree because of the many elements that go hand in hand with being capable of love (such as being capable of hate). Emotionally, David's drives aren't much different than they would be if he were human.

Mark

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The way that a story is supposed to go is that there is something that starts it, something that hits a peak, and something that ends the story. The thing that I found strang about AI is that there is a point where it hits the crescendo, the peak, the climax, at the scene where David is stuck underwater
This seemed to me like where the movie should have ended, not because of story, length, or anything like that, but the film hit its peak and everything else seemed to be an epilogue. Maybe they could have filmed it differently, used different music, or done something else, but the movie at that point ended for me. I liked everything else that happened, but it just didn't feel right.

Pearl Harbor also did this. It ended before the whole strike back thing, and while that stuff was important, it seemed to be separate from the movie.

 

[JonZ]

A few thoughts:
The question of David having a soul is a very complicated one. They say dreams are from the subconscious,does David have a subconscious? Do dreams come from the soul? Ever watch your dog dream? Yet people are quick to say animals dont have souls.
Its not about self awareness (Which some say is proof of a soul)because David already had that,but more of love and selfworth(IMHO)Actually I just had a thought - how AI is the exact opposite of 2001. 2001 is about Mans ultimate potential, while AI is about a robots.As Prof Hobby said,David exceeded his programming.His search was done out of love which DOES make him real.I dont think David REALLY aquires a soul or dreams at the end,but in his eyes having his Mother say I love you makes him a real boy.This is thought provoking,touching stuff really.
Anyway,I finally broke down and bought AI
The ending didnt bother me as much as when I saw it in the theater,but the Mechas and the whole"imprint in time and space and we can only resurect her for a day" thing still burns my ass.
I dont object to David being able to spend his last day with his mother, I agree its a fitting ending.But rather the scenes between the Ocean Floor and before his mother returns.I dont think it works.

 

[andrew_werdna]

within the framework of ai, as explained partially by the prof at the start, love -> sub-conscious -> dreams. it is this ability to dream that distinguishes man from machine in ai's world. it's why we see the moon (and also circle) references so many times, they symbolize the sub-conscious, the ability to sleep and dream, and is the key to being human for david. it's why the water theme is so pervasive; it's in the opening shot, swimming pool, drowned world, in that poem, "come away o human child, to the waters of the wild..." etc. it's because the ocean represents that whole sub-conscious motif, "that place where dreams are born".

of course, if one believes that place where dreams are born is a place of...death, then yeah, david dies in the end.

about the one day thing, i think it nicely represents how children normally and rightfully outlive their parents, and also show the perpetual qualities of machines compared to finite humans. having both monica and david live together forever would've been unbearably sentimental, from my point of view.

 

[Tim RH]

Yes, John Williams' score was absolutely terrific. I thought the piano theme was particularly effective, and I also enjoyed the electronica music (unusual for Williams).

 

[Richard_D_Ramirez]

it's why we see the moon (and also circle) references so many times, they symbolize the sub-conscious, the ability to sleep and dream, and is the key to being human for david.

Really? I thought all the moon imagery were references to the "Dream"works logo...
8^B

 

[Josh_Hill]

Man, theres just so much in this film. I think I might watch it again today.

 

[Dan M]

What was with Chris Rock's cameo? How unnecessary was that?

I believe it's called comic relief. I think the movie is perfect the way it is. Ending and all.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Oh man, I can't stand reading cut-and-paste posts, all that point/counterpoint, you say/I say stuff... so let me apologize up front for posting one just like that!

Just consider what we would miss without the ending : (1) the human race is extinct; (2) man's 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, though our notion of what is human has hopefully by now been expanded far beyond the simplistic definition of "a being housed in an organic vessel". David sleeps, perchance to dream (at least in the comforting words of the narrator), but we understand that he has actually reached the end of his existence. He "dies" after consumating his love with a being who's not really his mother, not even the same physical entity as his "mother", and perhaps more a symbol, the mother of all mechas, the ocean womb, all in a room that doesn't really exist except in David's memory, in a scene that culminates in the deaths of both principals and their passing into the mythology of a new race of beings.
A.I. is ultimately a film about the evolution of one species and the extinction of another - though perhaps we are the same, the mechas representing the natural evolution of the human race once we gained the power to affect, if not quite control our own evolution. But 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. Had Kubrick 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? I guess. Complex? Not quite. That ending would have earned Pauline Kael's otherwise inapt criticism: "copout".
Instead, we discover a race - our progeny, our evolutionary legacy - and we discover that they are fascinated by their organic forbears, just as we are fascinated by our own evolutionary history. Fascinated enough to dig up a long-lost relic of a long-ago time when creator and progeny walked the earth together.
And we discover that they too need fables to ease the anxiety of the ultimate question of being: from whence did I come and why this inescapable yearning?

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Rich,

I must thank you for giving voice to several of the subconscious thoughts I had regarding AI, and more importantly, showing many more nuances I had never conceived. I saw it once, with a thirty minute delay (right around Gigolo Joe's "murder" scene with the client) after a power outage at my theater. Not the best way to go, but I knew there was a lot there. I just didn't take in a portion of it.

I eagerly look forward to my next viewing (and many after that).

Thanks again for your insight. Quite amazing.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Patrick Sun]

My other random thoughts on A.I.:

The Mechas were advanced in some areas, but not all areas, and in those area, they had to "fill-in-the-blanks" and that included their knowledge and understanding of humans and what it meant to be human with all their foibles and frailties.

The basic idea of A.I. is whether or not man-made machines can become sentient and self-sustaining, and thus perceived (by most humans) to contain and be directed by a "soul" - the life-spark that drives humans.

The other thing is the notion of the ability to dream, and to imagine beyond your present existence that seems to be a human trait that is virtually impossible to pass down to the Mechas, no matter how much time/evolution has passed.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Rich Malloy - . Great posts - great reading. I can't wait to screen the DVD for my wife this weekend, it should provoke a great discussion.

And neither should the "look" of the evolved, future mechas come as a surprise. This look was also telescoped throughout the film. Just consider the logo for the company that created David - it looks almost identical to the form the mechas would ultimately take. And consider the distorted image of Hobby through the glass just before he and David are reunited in the flooded Manhattan - likewise, this "father" of the mecha race is made to appear in the image they will assume. (I believe there are others, but I haven't yet gotten my DVD... and it's been a long time since I've seen "a.i."!)

Rich, there's at least one more clue. The first image we have of David - it's through Monica's blurry, sleepy eyes and he appears almost as a shadow. His image at that point is nearly the same as the Cybertronics logo and the super-mechas at the end.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I present to you the Cliff's Notes version in case you don't have time to read all of that:
To sum up Rich's post:

• Chris Rock minstrelry ==> Evoke parallels between Flesh Fair & race lynching
• Look of Mechas ==> Foreshadowed through film
• Ending being more or less depressing ==> far less important than ending being more or less meaningful

Personally, I think the fact that the beings at the end were mecha was far less obvious than Rich claims. The logo thing becomes meaningful only after you realize it for much the same reason that one does not assume that Chrysler automobiles will look like pentagrams. We have been treated to enough films with glowing/luminescent aliens (Close Encounters/ The Abyss) that the internal light show is no guarantee, either. Gigolo Joe's statement that mechas will outlive their creators is sufficiently fulfilled by David alone, so that bit of foreshadowing is also subject to misinterpretation.
If that vital piece of information could have been communicated more clearly via other cinematic means, it would be less subject to misinterpretation. On the other hand, even under the mistaken impression that the beings are not evolved Earth mecha, there is enough thematic material beyond just the "creation myth" angle to the film for the last act to be entirely necessary. Otherwise, I am in complete agreement with Rich.
Regards,

 

[Richard Kim]

Evoke parallels between Flesh Fair & race lynching

Also, one can see this with the Cybertronics scientists' demeaning treatment of the female mecha at the beginning of the film, i.e. commanding her to take her clothes off, which parallels the unequal treatment of women throughout history to the way orgas treat mechas, as inferiors, as objects.

 

[WoodyH]

...the Cybertronics scientists' demeaning treatment of the female mecha at the beginning of the film, i.e. commanding her to take her clothes off...

Given that he was starting to expound upon the lack of feeligs and emotions in mecha, I took that as nothing more than an easy demonstration of the emotionlessness of the female mecha. No embarassment, no modesty, no hesitation - just following her programming. He stopped the undressing soon enough after just a couple buttons, so I don't think there was any real demeaning or sexist intent.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The one thing I'm not sure of is if all this stuff is coincidential or planned out. Its too good to be coincidential, so I say...

Good job Spielberg!

 

[Brad_V]

I know I was supposed to feel empathy for the kid, but I felt more compassion for the little Teddy the Bear's tribulations of having to "play" with David's brother, walking cross-country to find David, being helplessly tossed around at the fair, and then working his way out of the lost-and-found box.

And then when he saves the day by producing you-know-what at the end, it made me think Teddy was a better fake-human than David could ever be. Heck, Teddy was a better and more compassionate human than half the humans in the movie.

And then near the end you see Teddy sewing himself up like a little trooper. I barely gave a hoot about David, his mother, or anyone else. Teddy the Bear was the real star.

 

[todd stone]

In the making of , Halley Joel Osment explains that he did not blink once in the movie. I find this to be wrong.

In the sequence where his mother drops him off in the woods and he starts clinging to her and crying, watch closely he does INDEED blink.