Spielberg Explains Ending of A.I. Artificial Intelligence
Interesting, everything I’d ever read said Kubrick ended it under the waves and that the mecha dominated future was Spielberg’s insistence of “happy ending”.
It certainly is. I had made that assumption too.
I am a sucker for a happy ending though so I kind of liked it.
But I also beleive that had the film ended in the water, it would have had more impact as a film.
When a film ends sadly it sticks in the memory. I sill remember the Jack Nicholson film (The Pledge) Where he used a little girl as bait (despicable thing to do) and ended up as a lone drunk plagued with guilt.
I was aware that the so-called “happy” ending was Kubrick’s original intent and that Spielberg has been unfairly criticized on that point (along with the mistaken belief that the advanced mechas were aliens). That being said, I recall reading that in Kubrick’s original treatment, David’s “mother” was supposed to be a chilly alcoholic thereby making her reunion with him at the end ironic since her resurrected form was based on his falsely happy memories.
Perhaps I am recalling a different film than you, but the mother came off as cold to me. Maybe it was the part where she abandons David–who was like a son to her-- in the woods to most likely be chopped up in some sort of robot monster truck show.
I’ve always thought that if you really stop to take in the “Happy Ending”, you will get something out of it completely different than what you get at face value. I saw the resurrection of his ‘mother’ not only depressing because it would be for one night only (having lost my mother around the time of this film, that aspect was more pronounced)but that this poor ‘child’ can only achieve happiness by being with his ‘mother’, whom like I said earlier abandoned him and left him to ‘die’ in favour of her flesh-and-blood son. We create artificial intelligence to combat the feelings of loneliness (emotional, physical, sexual, etc.) and in a way, rewrite reality. In the end of the only piece of ‘life’ left is sadly following in the footsteps he was created in.
The extinction of humanity is a “happy ending”?
Sir Stevie, if you have to explain the ending…it means you screwed up.
I thought A.I. was an interesting failure of a movie, and I don’t think any ending could have saved it.
I know right?
I disagree with you on that point. The only other option was for the mother to take David back to the lab where he’d be destroyed. Granted, neither option was good but by abandoning David, she at least gave him a chance at survival.
And not only that, the advanced mechas are really just using David as a Rosetta Stone to understand humans. Why do you think I had “happy ending” in quotes? As I heard one patron of the theater say at the end “Well, that was depressing.”
Not always. For me to like a film with a sad ending, it has to be very, very well done. Otherwise, I will forget it just about as soon as I leave the theater.
Alessan said:
That’s not the part that’s happy. The “happy” part is him finally getting to be loved by his mother, even if for only one day.
Stephe96
I don’t think he really had to explain the ending so much as people’s unfair accusation that Kubrick would have ended it differently and he came up with a different ending than Kubrick intended. So it is fair to explain that he went where Kubrick was headed.
Regardless of whose idea it was (and Spielberg even admits that it was his idea TOO), it was a horrible, horrible ending. AI is a great movie, but whenever I watch it I always turn it off when the battery dies because I can’t stand everything that happens after that, plus having David wish and wish until he expires makes the whole POINT of the film. No, fairy tales don’t come true, and no, robots aren’t human and they can’t GET the world the same way we can.
Yeah. There were so many knee jerk reactions about how Spielberg ruined the movie with his by tacking on his “happy” ending (I’m not so sure it’s all that happy) onto Kubrick’s story. Turns out this is Kubrick’s ending.
Fair enough. I just wonder how many times the damn Blue Fairy was mentioned in Kubrick’s original script. Or how many times the Haley Joel Osment character talked about being a “real boy.” If you took a shot at every mention you’d leave the theater looking like Dudley Moore in Arthur.
Subtlety is certainly not Spielberg’s strong suit.
I agree with almost everything you wrote, but I would call this a “total” failure of a movie, not “interesting”.
Absolutely the worst thing that Spielberg will ever direct (I hope). As far as the story coming from Kubrick… w/e… it sucks. Kubrick wasn’t infallible either (Eyes Wide Shut, anyone? Yeah, I didn’t think so).
I don’t understand the hate for this movie. I thought the ending was extremely thought-provoking. It sort of zoomed-out and gave a very wide perspective to David’s life. I didn’t find the thought of humanity going extinct all that disturbing, it’s just science fiction. I don’t believe that robots are the next step in evolution either, but like I said, it was just thought provoking.
My only complaint is that there are a few terrible actors that really spoil it for me, particularly the dad. He was AWFUL.
Is Kubrick’s last treatment available, publicly, anywhere?
I saw the movie. They were aliens.
Nothing can convince me otherwise.
Me too. Hell, I’ve always interpreted the real ending as far more depressing than the “underwater” ending. It’s not a happy ending at all. In the end, David willingly allows himself to be manipulated - in fact, he demands it! - in order to receive a simulacrum of affection that he knows isn’t real.
To be honest, the ending as filmed actually chokes me up, mostly because I’m a sucker for characters that give in to their flaws in the end (it’s Shakespearean tragedy with less death and more anthropomorphic robots!). It also has one of the most bittersweet scores I’ve heard, one that only amplifies the feeling that David may finally be happy… but for the first time in the film, his love isn’t real.
I’ll gladly admit that it’s one of the more emotionally manipulative bits of film ever made, and pretty transparently so. But Osment is (was?) a helluva child actor, and his performance wins me over every fucking time.