 |
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:24
|
|
I saw A.I. a while ago, but I didn't really know what to think of it. On one hand, I liked it, on the other hand, I didn't really get it.
I ran across an interpretation of it that helps me actually understand what was happening in the movie, and I'm tempted to rent it again. I thought other people may be interested in the interpretation too, since it made everything "click" for me.
http://slashdot.org/~Twirlip%20of%2...s/journal/19065
quote:
So there was this miniseries, Taken, that Steven Spielberg had his name attached to. Talk about Taken, which seems to have been okay but not great, naturally led to talk about the recent film A.I.: Artificial Intelligence. Lots of people seem to think that A.I. was a lousy movie. In at least a few cases, this seems to be due to the fact that they didn't understand the ending of the film. They thought it was a tacked-on happy ending in the grand "Hollywood" style. Let me see if I can clear this up a little.
I'm about to talk about how the movie ends. If you haven't seen it, don't read any further. Go rent it or something, then come back and discuss.
The key to understanding A.I. is to understand the characters. On the one hand, you've got the human characters: Professor Hobby, Monica and Harry Swinton, Martin Swinton, Lord Johnson-Johnson. These characters are all arrogant, selfish, and cruel. Professor Hobby even goes so far as to compare himself to God: "Didn't God make Adam to love Him?" he asks.
The cruelest act in the film, of course, is Monica's abandonment of David in the woods. Her motives are pure-- she knows that if she sends David back to the factory, he will be destroyed, and she doesn't want that to happen-- but she's short-sighted and foolish. Had David been a real boy, he would have grown up and forgotten his family. But as a mecha, he couldn't do that. Programmed to love, he could do nothing else, forever. Monica knew this, intellectually, but she chose to ignore it in order to make her problem go away.
This moment reveals the theme of the film: human beings, despite their best intentions, are cruel, cold, selfish, and arrogant. Hardly what one normally associates with a work by Steven Spielberg.
But if the humans are cruel and selfish, what of the mecha? In this matter, the film takes a strictly literal and scientific approach: mecha are what they are programmed to be, and nothing more. A mecha cannot be cruel unless it is programmed to be. It cannot be selfish unless it is programmed to be. Mecha never grow, neither physically nor emotionally. Programmed to love, a mecha will love without doubt or regret, forever. So the mecha characters are the exact opposite of the human characters: innocent, pure, faithful, constant. When Gigolo Joe, who is little more than an animated sex toy to begin with, is framed for murder at the beginning of the second act, he carries no resentment, no desire for revenge. Compare this to the character of Lord Johnson-Johnson, who destroys mechas for sport and for profit at his Flesh Fair. The contrast is striking, and the message is clear: it is sadly ironic than human beings can be so inhumane.
And now we come to the much-misunderstood ending. In the film's second act, Gigolo Joe speaks a line that provides a key insight into the end of the film: "They made us too smart, too quick, and too many. We are suffering for the mistakes they made because when the end comes, all that will be left is us." He was right. When the end-- both the end of humanity and the literal end of the film-- came, all that was left were mecha. The beings that extracted David from the ice were not aliens, as some have believed. They were mecha of a highly evolved sort. And, like all mecha, they were quite capable of compassion and kindness. They understood David, and his situation. They knew that he had been programmed to love, and could never stop. They knew he could never forget Monica, even though she was long dead.
So they fabricated a fiction for him. The created the illusion of Monica, and allowed him to spend one day with her. Then, after David had finally found the peace he'd always sought, they quietly euthanized him.
I think a lot of people-- particularly a lot of Slashdotters-- were offended by what they perceived as a "happily ever after" ending. Nothing could be further from the truth. A.I. is the most comprehensively misanthropic film in a long time. Even though the human characters were trying to be kind and compassionate, they ended up being cruel. The only true act of kindness in the entire film is performed not by humans, but by mecha.
I consider the film to be a monumental success, one of the all-time great science fiction films. If it can be said to have a flaw, it's that its tragedy is written on too large a canvas for most viewers to immediately appreciate. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
Personally, I hated it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
At the ending didn't the evolved mecha actually come out and explain what they were?
Personally I loved the movie. I was quite comfortable with the ending, though I didn't interpret the ending as the evolved mecha having euthanized him, but instead that he had finally achieved his goal of becoming human by becoming able to dream. Perhaps one problem with the movie is that at times it failed to adequately explain itself, but I wonder whose explanation was the "euthanasia" explanation. Unless it was Spielberg's or Kubrik's it's merely a suggestion.
I thought the "Flesh Farie" sequence was weak because it featured the humans abusing the robots with anachronistic tools: hot air balloons, motor bikes, carnival "human" canons" and a twisted sort of "dunk the clown" game. It was almost as if Spielberg were making the statement that even the good old county faire was an example of human cruelty. He should have chosen tools that would have fit the futuristic setting.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-12-2002 11:48
How could anyone possibly believe they're anything but highly advanced mechas? We're never given any hints about any alien race at all in the movie - but several about the advances in human technology. E.x.: Remember the scene with all those old mechas fitting themselves with new parts from trash? Contrast that to when you first see David. It's quite obvious that as technology has changed, the look of the mechas has changed - and is quite possibly still going to change. 
|