A.I. (movie) Upon further reflection (SPOILERS)

so… bored last night after a long bike ride, i dropped by blockbuster and bought a copy of A.I. on DVD. Remembering that I, unlike everybody else i knew, really really liked it the first time, and found the left field ending merely curious and strange, whereas most folks found it downright deadly.

Watched the whole thing again, and i have to admit, i was totally wrong. Not only was the ending NOT left field, it was vital to telling to story, and, while a bit wobbly in execution perhaps, was structurally beautiful.

It actually made me well up this time. The science is hokey, but don’t look at it as science, look at it as magic. Look at it as myth. I can’t imagine the movie without it. I think perhaps the first time, i was thrown off by the pacing, but this time, I realized the movie works as three distinct acts.

Act one is david’s birth as a robot, his birth as a soul, and his abandonment by his mother, in the woods. It should be noted, probably, that the (evil) step brother engineers his fate, in a bid for thier mothers undivided love.

Act III is his Quest, with the Moon Balloon, his new found friend Joe (who is, at different times, the lion, the tin man AND the scarecrow, who finds his courage, his heart, and his mind during this quest), the city on the edge of the world (Oz), where he learns that there is no blue fairy, and that his real creator (man behind the curtain), his real father, was simply a quiet, lonely man who had lost his real son and created david, and so many more just like him in his dead son’s image.

Believing that his dream is gone forever, that he will never be a real boy, seeing the insides of his “brother” robot, whom he has jealously smashed to bits, he casts himself off a cliff into the sea, where rather than dying, he is carried by a school of fish to the blue fairy, only to be yanked away by Joe, till he narrowly escapes his hunters a final time and returns to the blue fairy, and is trapped by the ferris wheel, repeating, desperately, over and over… “please make me a real boy…”

ACT III: David is frozen, sleeping-beauty like for 2000 years while the earth freezes and everything in the world he knew froze… Explorers find david and with a touch, bring him back to life. They tell him that he is thier ancestor, and that they have been searching for ages for a connection to humans, thier creators- in a sense- thier “god”, and that david was, in a very real sense, thier Adam, the first feeling robot, and the one who was cast out, abandoned by god and man (humans and robots), for supposing himself capable of that most elusive and "god"like of attributes- the capacity to love, and the need to be loved in return. An interesting spin on “original sin”, no? Original love?

Sadly, they tell him that his one dream, to be loved by his mother, is the only thing which they cannot give him, as they know hoew to reanimate the dead, but not without a remnant. At which point we discover that our faithful sidekick Teddy, ever devoted, has kept a lock of David’s mothers hair, which david had once been tricked (by his evil-step brother) into cutting from his mother while she slept.

So he CAN have her back, but only for one day, which turns into the happiest day of his life: no evil stepbrother, no jealous husband, just david and mother, ;aughing and playing, finally after 2000 years, david gets a birthday cake, and when he tries to blow out the candles, he nearly blows out the last one before realizing that his only wish in life- to be loved- has already come true. Finally, as the sun sets, mother becomes tired and david puts her to bed, knowing as they say goodbye, she will never wake. She falls asleep, and david, holding her hand, dies next to her.

its perfect. the movie still has its flaws. But this time i found them mostly in the first act. Too much of is told without david, spoiling what might have been a really wonderful first person telling of the story. (afterall, the framing device for the first two acts is the voice of the lead robot, who really should only know what david knows about the story). Its also a little too heavy on contemporary science fiction motifs, which i think might also be why the third act felt wrong at first.

So this time I loved it, and i truly hope that it lives to be remebered as a masterpiece.

CJ

The explorers that woke David weren’t aliens, but robots created by humans during the 2000 years? I missed that completely.

That is a very good analysis, I should add.

I saw this move about a week ago for the first time and then came here to read the old AI threads… I was astounded at all the negative opinions and misconceptions… I thought the movie was fantastic through and through.

Let’s also not forget this: the humans wanted to make artificial humans. And they succeeded. It is, however, interesting to note that I believe they are sentient at that, even when stuck in the cycle we imposed on them (David’s love for his mother, Joe’s compulsion to please women). Joe’s cry as he is pulled away: “I am! I was!” Indeed.

But what made them artificial was the human-ness. David’s love (to me) never felt as real as his ability to think out the quest itself. He is real, his love is not. They were intelligent… so we see in their descendents at the end, 2000 years later. And they offer David an artificial mom… which satisfies him completely. The ending’s happiness is as artificial as David’s love and Joe’s “desire”.

But Joe was.

What makes you think David dies in the end?

I too got a better appreciation for it the second time. The thing that keeps me from saying it is a classic is that the movie, at least for me, does not invest us emotionally. Too be honest, I never really gave a whit about David, in anymore than an academic sense. I think the movie raises interesting questions and is compelling in it’s way. But I don’t ever really get the empathy for David, and to be honest I think truly great films have this. For example, a movie like The Godfather. The people in this movie are undeniably bad people, yet we understand their problems.

I never felt I really knew what David was going through, if anything. Porgrammed response? How is that different than a human? I really didn’t care, about him, or any robot for that matter.

I saw A.I. for the first time in the theatre, a day before it came out in wide release, because I was part of the Evan Chan mystery promotion they did online for it. The promotion, frankly, was better than my first impressions of the film. But then again, the promotion was a groundbreaking use of media that blew everyone away… Cloudmakers Rule!

Ahem… anyway. I thought the movie was all right. Not great, not terrible… but good. My favorite part was probably Jude Law’s last line, the one that Erislover mentions: “I am! I was!” That part almost moved me. Almost.

The problem I found was that it lacked emotional resonance for me. Depsite Osment and Law’s excellent performances, I felt that the emotions they were conveying just wasn’t making it through to me. Spielberg was somehow filtering so that it felt muffled.

Which was probably why, when the film’s first ending came (David underwater at the Blue Angel), I was ready to go. That ending was satisfying and good, to me. I got the movie, understood what it was saying, and was only marginally disappointed in the lack of real feeling in it. When the film continued, though, I felt cheated. When it tried to overplay its ideas and ram its sappy-sweet sentiment in, I felt a insulted.

Spielberg is a director who rarely trusts the audience to draw their own conclusions… he has something he’s trying to get across, and damn it, he’s gonna get it across! The last 20-30 minutes of A.I. was like this for me. It added nothing that I hadn’t already determined, and seemed not only superfluous but downright pandering to the audience.

I prefer directors and films who trust the audience with a modicum of intelligence. Peter Weir in one of my favorite directors for this reason… he knows that if he’s done his job well (which he usually has), then the audience will get his message without him having to make overt statements about it. His tools are subtlety and care. Spielberg seems to lack these tools, in most of his films. There are exceptions, but A.I. was not one of them, mostly because of the superfluous ending.

I can buy that A.I. was meant as a sort of modern fable… I would just have to add that I feel it was a poorly-constructed one, which hid its emotions under a stylistic veneer, and had to resort, in the end, to a pandering final act which insulted many in the audience, myself included. In short… it could have been so much better.

And with all of that said… I think I’m going to have to see it again. Several people have told me that it improves upon second viewing, and I plan to test that theory and see how I feel about it the second time around. Who knows, perhaps I’ll come back with a completely different take on it.

I also think the last 15 minutes or so was just a Speilbergian must-have-happy-ending add on.

The ending before the robots seemed exactly right. We wish for things. We wish for the impossible. We never stop wishing. It was sad but true.

The robot ending put a whole different twist on it. So long as whoever we love loves us back, then anything is possible. Trite and not true at all.

Still I really enjoyed the movie.

I think I may be the only person in the world that thought the ending was not a happy one.

The idea of the ending was that David was not human and never would be human. He was a machine with a set of instructions. His programmed goal was to get his mother to love him. He stayed staring at the Blue Fairy because he had programmed his brain to believe that the Blue Fairy could make his mother love him. In the end, David is tricked into believing that his mother actually does love him. His program is fulfilled and he shuts down and goes to sleep.

The ending was the most Kubrick part of the movie IMO (except for the long tracking shots in the Swinton’s apartment…)

I loved the movie. BTW, Avalonian, I was a Cloudmaker, too. I’m bass2496 on the poster.

I’m on the poster as rstoehr. Somehow I figured I couldn’t be the only Cloudmaker in these parts. :smiley:

I wrote the story “Only Solutions,” posted on the Cloudmakers website, shortly before the game ended. It’s not a story about me, exactly, but it represents some of the impressions I developed of the game.

BTW, the ending was Kubrick’s idea.

You sound like Roger Ebert. Obviously, neither you nor he ever played The Sims. :slight_smile:

My major problems with this movie were because Spielberg obviously didn’t understand or just mis-handled parts that I’m sure were Kubricks.

Subtle story points, like Davids desire for his “fathers” love as well (the perfume scene) were glossed over and never had any pay off.
The multiple endings were just silly because they were treated as endings so for the first few minutes of the next ending you were thinking “Epilogue” but then it just kept going.

The movie should have ended with the Alien-Mechas saying “From him we will learn about Humanity.” Which is just as creepy because David doesn’t know that much about humanity.

I like the movie more than most people, apparently. I have to give it credit at least for being real science fiction, even if Spielberg spreads his Creamy Fable Sauce all over it.

When the future mechas showed up, I became more interested in them than in David; they were incredibly advanced and powerful, but had the sadness of orphans, left behind in a world without humans.

As so often happens, the advertising tag line for the movie must have been written by somebody with little understanding of the story: “His love is real… But he is not.” That’s exactly backwards; David, obviously, was real, but his love was arbitrary programming, not a real emotion developed in response to his experience with his “mother”.

So…not perfect, but it deals with interesting ideas, and looks great. I’ll probably see it again.

Now that would have ben a very cool ending!

Actually i want to correct my OP, slightly. upon further reflection professor hobby wasn’t the “Oz” figure, Dr. Know was. He held the answer of how to get “home” as it were. Professor Hobby was more like the Ruby Slippers, which were a red hering of sorts, proposed as the soloution to his quest, only totell us “it was in you all along”.

Only in this case, that revalation is a chilling, isolating one, rather than a liberating one.

As far as the film being emotionally dettached, I understand the godfather comment, and agree that one needs to be engaged on an emotional level and not just an intellectual one, but for the most part, i really was.

I have to attribute this to Law and Osments AMAZING performances and to my reinterpreting the film as a fairy tale rathre than SciFi than any thing else. I guess my big complaint, which encompasses my previous complaint. is with the Dialogue. I like Spielberg’s visual style (particualrly lately), and i dig his childs eye view of the world, when it suits the material, which in this case it did.

In the DVD extras i discovered something interesting about the project. Even BEFORE his death, Kurbrick wantd Spielberg to direct the film, while he (Kubrick) wanted to produce. Apparently he was very adamant about this. And it was startling to see old Kubrick Concept art and storyboards and see how faithful the production was to them.

I guess that why i am (newly) fairly dismissive of criticisms that Spielberg when and Mucked up Kubricks vision. Kubrick had a very mythical, fantastical “Creamy Fairy Sauce” vision and believed that Spieberg would do a better job at this than he could.

Its almost as interesting a the movie itself. A man so prolific and perfectionist looking at this project about innocence and love and what it means to be human. He toils over it for decades, trying to find a way to approach it, ultimately realizing that becasue of his cynicism, and dark view of humanity, he could not tell the story without Spielberg’s help.

I also disagree with the earlier assertons that the ending wasn’t happy. and I disagree that Davids love is a product of simple programming. I think this is no more true than saying our own love is no more than a product of our programming. And if you believe this is true (brain chemistry and medication support this idea to an extent) then it makes David’s love even more real.
Whats the difference between biochemical programming and electrical programming, if said programming is sufficiently advanced.

and yes, the tagline was stupid.

I found the movie icky. Science fiction, IMEO, should stick with the plausible, or the “who knows?” Aliens can be infinitely inplausible, as long as they have a background. Faster-then-light speed is beyond are grasp. Space opera can get away with implausibility. A movie set on Earth, dealing with a moderatly well-known technology, has much higher standards of realsim. And unless David was running Windows 2025, there should be no reason why they couldn’t uninstall the maternal love jobby.
Where were the industrial mecha? Where were the Von Neumann mecha, running mecha factories? Bloody sodding hell, we can create a pseudo-human, undectable by casual inspection, and we use them as sex slaves? WHERE ARE THE TERMINATORS! I WANT TERMINATORS!

Biggirl said:

I think that this ties in well to your own thread about unreliable narrators and twist endings. Kubrick, in particular, used unreliable narrators quite often in his work: Humbert Humbert in Lolita, Alex in A Clockwork Orange, and Pvt. Joker in Full Metal Jacket are a few.

Keeping in mind that the movie begins with narration (about the ice caps melting and the cities being buried) and ends with narration, and the narration is delivered by the same mecha who talks to David, that might change your perception of the end a bit. The entire movie is a mecha fairy tale, told by robots to other robots about their robot progenitor.

I don’t think that any of what David experiences, after the mecha tells him his mother is “just waking up,” is “real” – that is, objectively real. Not even the house is really there. The entire thing is an illusion, a construct, created so that the mechas can get want they want from David, which is information about their past. They know that as long as he has a need to be a real boy and receive love from his mother, he will be stuck in that pattern.

All of David’s activities in “his house” are viewed by the other robots through some kind of circular portal or viewer, with them looking down on him. That motif, viewing things through a circular frame, occurs frequently in the movie: Looking down through the light fixture at David, Monica and Henry eating dinner; Monica seeing David in the rear-view mirror as she drives away, Monica seeing herself in the mirror after David uses up her perfume . . . it’s an important motif. It indicates things that aren’t “real.” Reflections in mirrors are not the real person; the family eating at that table isn’t (yet) a real family.

The mechas show that they can “download” from David’s mind; when they pull him out of the ice, one places his hand over David’s head, and his memories pour across all of their “faces.” It stands to reason that they can “upload” a masterful illusion like what David experiences.

Actually, that was the impression I got from the end of the movie.

I think the tagline was perfect, FWIW.

PL…

I like you more everyday… expertly stated, and observed.

CJ

With only one viewing, I’ll have to stick by my initial reaction, which was mostly negative. Yet I am intrigued by one of your points…

I hadn’t thought of the 2000-year time-jump as an act break. I thought of it more as a coda, which made it seem overlong and unnecessary. But given the conventional definition of the Act III break as the point at which Our Hero is at his lowest, I think you’ve found the appropriate spot.

That scene could just as easily have been the “Fade Out” into a downer ending. But then I’d probably complain that the “quest” never had a real “up a tree” act break.