A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) (3 Viewers)

[Rich Malloy]

Dammit, I wasn't going to monopolize this again today, but I completely agree, Dennis. Remember those letters David was drawing in crayon to Monica? (BTW, that sequence is a major derivation from Aldiss 'Supertoys Last All Summer Long".) One of those reads (paraphrasing): "I am real and so is Martin but not Teddy." Part of David's journey in defining himself is distinguishing that self from the uncomfortable similarities he shares with Teddy.

 

[Bill Catherall]

I think one of those letters also said something like "I hate Teddy because he isn't..." I think that it actually ended there and didn't finish the sentence. To me that's really disturbing, but Monica looks over it and compliments David on how nice it is.

 

[BrettB]

Bill, do you mean to imply that Monica doesn't find the letters disturbing? If so, watch the scene again, Monica is deeply disturbed as the letters become increasingly hateful.

There are something like 8-10 letters that I would assume David spent about 20-30 minutes writing. In the first few that Monica reads David makes statements along the lines of "I love Teddy", "Teddy is helping me write to you". In the final letters Monica reads David is forsaking Teddy. So in the span of only a handful of minutes Davids insatiable desire to be loved by his Mommy conjurs up the darker side of human nature. David is evolving.

 

[Bill Catherall]

Well, both times I've seen that scene I didn't see Monica disturbed at all. In fact the only emotion I see from her is self pitty in having to do what Henry is making her do. She comes in to "talk to David," obviously being urged by Henry (as he looks on to make sure she does the deed), but finds messages of love. It looks like she begins to feel confused and is struggling inside, but never even appears to acknowledge that David used the word "hate." Perhaps it's her preoccupation of what she is about to do. Or perhaps hating something that is not "real" is perfectly normal to her.

I had 4 reactions to that scene. 1) "David is messed up." 2) "Poor Teddy." 3) "Monica's got issues." 4) "Henry seems more jealous than he is concerned about Monica."

 

[Brian_J]

I just saw this movie for the first time last night.

I thought the movie was well done right up until the point just after the mom abandons him. Very good stuff to this point. After that point the Mad Max type crap really bugged the hell out of me and then the whole alien thing really bugged the hell out of me. This was so far out of left field.

The pacing of the last half was poor. I seriously thought the film was embarassingly bad in its latter half and I am one of Spielberg's biggest defenders. I think the man is a genius. However, I don't think I can truly express in words how utterly dissapointed I was with this film. For the first time I found myself wondering what some of you guys (the ones whoms opinions I generally respect a lot) are smoking. With all due respect of course.

Brian

 

[Rich Malloy]

For the first time I found myself wondering what some of you guys are smoking.

Hydroponically-grown, orange-haired sensamelia.

 

[Sam Davatchi]

There are no Aliens!

 

[Patrick Sun]

Sigh...

 

[Bill Catherall]

Do we need to have an A.I. FAQ? Sheesh!

 

[Patrick Sun]

This thread would suffice. Sheesh!

 

[Brian_J]

I know exactly what they were but they looked like corny charicatures of aliens. Sorry, I thought it was corny as hell.

By the way, if you need a separate discussion thread and extras on a DVD to tell you what a pretty important plot point was about...has the movie not failed in some significant way?

Brian

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

if you need a separate discussion thread and extras on a DVD to tell you what a pretty important plot point was about...has the movie not failed in some significant way?

Either the movie has or the "you" has.

Regards,

 

[Max Leung]

The film is quite a bit more complicated than the typical mainstream production. It touches on so many themes, you'd think you were reading an epic 3-part trilogy!

I think this film, more than any other (except maybe Contact, and Ghostworld is another), exposes the biases and worldviews of the viewers themselves. It inherently sparks debate and controversy, and with these charged emotions you inevitably wind up with wildly divergent opinions in the film. Consider just this one theme of many touched upon in the film:

The mother-child-sibling relationship realistically portrayed: Not in the idealized "mothers should always sacrifice themselves for their offspring", which completely ignores all evidence of the dark-side of motherly behavior well-documented by primatologists, naturalists, and anthropologists in the last few centuries. This subject alone would be enough to turn off a large percentage of viewers: "Monica is a bad mother: How could she even THINK of replacing her real son with this obvious simulacrum who is clearly not sentient". No allowance is made for Monica's motherly instinct to be invoked so strongly by David's own needy behavior. The kind of behavior you would expect from a child who needs the mother's support and affection to ensure its survival. Witness the riot at the Flesh Fair...even the patrons were touched by David's pleas for mercy. A human trait that is within most of us, which can only be overridden by an extensive campaign of demonization which was well-under way at the time. Nobody saw a bot that begged for its life before.

Some viewers would have conflicting feelings about this: "He's just a robot...but Spielberg is making me uncomfortable. I hate this film!" or "He's just a robot...but Spielberg is making me uncomfortable. I LOVE this film!". My sentiments fall in with the latter, but that could be because of my fascination with human behavior (it's like watching a train wreck, where the train chooses destruction to spite the caboose!).

Like Ghostworld, opinions on this film are very much dependent on the overall life experience and world viewpoint of the viewer. If you believe humans are special and that no other creature/machine could ever be sentient or conscious in the same way as a human, then you will hate this film.

 

[Bill Catherall]

If you believe humans are special and that no other creature/machine could ever be sentient or conscious in the same way as a human, then you will hate this film.

Where does that leave me? I believe humans are special and that no other creature/machine could ever be sentient or conscious in the same way as a human, but I LOVE this film.

 

[Max Leung]

Bill, maybe you don't really believe that then. Or perhaps the movie was so good that you're slowly, but subtly, changing your mind.
Just kidding! I think humans are special too, in the same way that Jerry Springer contestants are "special".

 

[Bill Catherall]

I just think there's more to it than what someone believes. On the surface the movie is about a sentient robot, but it's really more than that. You don't have to believe what you see is possible to be able to appreciate it, IMO. The underlying theme is about our responsibility to our creations. As a father it hits me on one level. As an engineer it hits me on another.

 

[Max Leung]

Yeah, I agree. The mother-child relationship, sibling rivalry, treatment of unwanted children... Just one of the many things this movie explores!
Maybe it touched on too many? Perhaps people were expecting a straighforward sci-fi flick and got a complex meddly of ideas and emotion instead.
Gotta love it.

 

[Mike Broadman]

I haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if I'm repeating stuff:

I finally got around to seeing this film the other night, and I have one big question- were we actually supposed to like the boy-robot?

If yes, then it didn't work for me. His "love" for his mother wasn't real, it was programmed. That is not love. Love is 30 years of marriage, going through the trials and tribulations of life together, and growing close to a person. Love is a parent placing her child's interest abover his/her own. Love is not saying 7 nonsensical words to turn an switch on a robot.

Because the "love" wasn't real, and the robot was annoying, I felt no empathy for him. I was able to enjoy other aspects of the movie, but if this was the intention, it failed.

Consequently, my reaction to the ending is quite different than some who contributed to this thread. People expressed sentiments of "appreciating love," "affirming humanity," and so forth. Frankly, I don't see how anyone could get that. The whole ending was creepy. The robot/aliens (whatever) materialise a woman only for the enjoyment of the robot-boy (a morally dubious practice, at best), who's attachment to her is not that of a healthy fulfilling relationship, but actually quite disturbing.

It didn't make me want to hug my mother. It made me want to sit alone in the dark.

If no (that is, if we weren't supposed to like or root for the boy), then the film works a lot better. I was so happy when he found his replicants, shattering his illusion that he was unique. From this perspective, the boy is the Fool, showing us how absurd human's silly attachment to others and shallow concepts of "love" can be when taken to an extreme. It also draws attention to the darker, rarely spoken aspect of parents' affection toward their children: selfish and self-serving. The robot can replace a child because parenting isn't about raising a good person, giving him/her the abilility and capacity to make the most out of life; it's about the parents just feeling good about theirselves. When your son comes out of the closet, when your white daughter brings home a black fiance, when your 17 yr old gets hooks on drugs, when he chooses a different religion than you- toss him out. Throw him aside. Why not then do that same to a robot? After all, the real boy is back.

I don't think I've ever seen a film where people have been more cruel.

In order for me to derive any pleasure from this film, I have to go with the latter point of view. This way, it's brining to light some aspects of human relationships that we don't feel comfortable dealing with, albeit quite sloppily. If it is actually supposed to be about a nice little robot who we feel sorry for and are touched by his last day with mommy, then I am convinced it is a complete and utter failure.

Problem is, it can't really be both, and I think that, ultimately, it tried to be.

The other major thing (only sticking with the big ones; the little ones are too many and not important) that bothered me was how absurd and illogical the narrative was.

1. Once the robot falls in love with you, you can't reverse it. Why the hell not? Their explanation makes no sense. OK, don't give the parent that power, fine, but you could allow the factory to do that. She was going to take him to be destroyed. How is that better than just resetting it?

2. They need to go to Manhattan. Oh, looky, a helicopter, how convenient. Uh-oh, we need to go under water by accident... wait, the helicopter is also a submarine. Neato! Blech.

3. No woman would be attracted to the robo-jiggolo character. Unless, of course, the point was to make fun romance, which I don't feel it did very well.

4. People's memories are stored in the fabric of space time.

WT holy F? When he said that, there was a collective forehead-slap and groan from myself and those I watched it with.

They could have handled this stuff two ways: as a straight narrative or as an abstraction. I was prepared for either one. Instead, the movie flip-flopped from one to the other, ruining both affects. The concepts were worthy, but get lossed when you have to sit through implausible explanations of things. 2001, for example, didn't bother with explanations, and just presented you with the concept. Thus the film makes sense.

All in all, A.I. didn't know what to do with itself. I do agree that the ending is necessary (how can it not be), but it, like the rest of the movie, get lost with itself. Rather than watching a good story, or a thought-provoking piece of art, I just saw a bunch of stuff that happened.

 

[Simon Massey]

No woman would be attracted to the robo-jiggolo character. Unless, of course, the point was to make fun romance, which I don't feel it did very well

I am sure no woman has derived pleasure from an artificial piece of equipment. I don't think the woman was intending to fall in love with him.

 

[DaveF]

If yes, then it didn't work for me. His "love" for his mother wasn't real, it was programmed.

The theme of the movie, IMO, is about grappling with "what is love," and more generally, what is it to be "human"?
Is "love" merely our physical response to changes in brain chemistry triggered by external stimuli? (This is one viewpoint.) If so, then David's love was no less real than ours, since all love is mechanical (albeit organic machinery).
Is "love" something that transcends the physical body -- borne of the soul, something uniquely human? (as many believe) If so, then David's love could not have been real, but was merely an outstanding imitation (assuming robots can't have souls). But then perhaps neither does a pet dog experience "love" for its master.
Or is love more of the expressed committment between two people -- "Love is 30 years of marriage"? If so, David's love wasn't real. But then, neither is the love real of a couple married for only six months; or that of a newborn who.
I think A.I. was successful, because it prompted you to reflect on what "love" is.
(Me - I think David's love was real to him. And it was practically real because it motivated his actions appropriately. But it was also a monstrous love, wholly self-centered, not tempered by self-sacrifice of mature love (like a child?) But was it "love" as I experience it? I can't say.)