Random thoughts on AI + SPOILERS
Rod Munday
a powerful idea. Bit of a curateąs egg really. Here are some thoughts on it.
I want to thank Gordon Dahlquist who helped me to formulate these opinions
through a stimulating email discussion.
Regards, rod
_____________________________________________________________
To be sure there was a great deal wrong with AI. Where to start? How about
the first shot. Opening narration: "Climate change has flooded the earth.
Opening shot: a big wave. How unimaginative is that! And the opening scene.
What was that about? It seemed entirely pointless to me except to explain to
audiences some salient plot points. Itąs as if Kubrick had said to
Spielberg: "we need a scene to explain the mechas to the audience and I
haven't thought of a clever way to realise this dramatically yet" and
Spielberg, instead of recognising this as an obstacle than needed to be
surmounted, has just put the explanation into the mouth of one of the
characters and added some people sitting around listening to him but doing
not much. I guess he hoped that audiences would be concentrating so much on
the information being imparted, that they wouldn't notice the scene doesn't
make any sense.
From what I have read about the pre-production work completed on AI when
Kubrick was still alive, the finished film is very close to the fragments of
story that Kubrick and Watson had assembled, but the problems with Kubrick
Watsonąs synopsis havenąt been solved in Speilbergąs version, they have
simply been skirted over.
The story doesn't grow out of the characters, but rather the characters are
merely there to service the needs of the story. The Swintons are barely
sketched and the early domestic scenes suffer accordingly. Spielberg
presents them so arbitrarily - and so bloody fleetingly! - because of the
overriding needs of the plot to make all the points it needs to make without
catching a breath. So we are treated to a plethora of incidents, seemingly
non sequitur, that become significant later. This is a similar storytelling
technique to the Sixth Sense, the problem with this is that, although the
fragments of story become meaningful when the whole picture is revealed, are
not that interesting at the time.
The cruelty of Monica Swinton actions is not explored nearly enough, her
absolute failure to comprehend the import of what she is doing when she
activates Davidąs łlove programming˛ and her refusal to terminate David's
life, thus condemning him to a lifetime of agony. In the film it looks
arbitrary, like Spielberg was unaware that this was even an implication of
Monicaąs actions.
The depiction of the robots or łmechas˛ provoke up some interesting
existential questions. Mechas are capable of independent thought, but only
it seems within the perimeters of their programming - So we have an amusing
scene where David tells Joe about the blue fairy and Joe the gigolo assures
David that he knows what to do to make her into a real woman. One of the
things Jean Paul Sartre was famously concerned about was authenticity. He
believed that we need to behave łauthentically.˛ To avoid the trap of
nihilistic despair caused by the absence of belief in God. In other words,
we must endeavour through a constant unceasing effort to create meaning in
our lives, if our lives are to have any meaning. The robots in AI behave
pretty authentically in the Sartrean sense. Gigolo Joe does not just have to
work as a gigolo, Gigolo Joe IS a gigolo. So there is meaning to his
existence but no substance to hang it on. What do I mean by no substance? I
suppose I am trying to identify an absence of something, maybe of
sensation? There is a Byron quote: łThe object of life is sensation, to feel
that we exist, even though in pain.˛ This maybe what is lacking in Joe,
although not in Davidąs case.
The other scene I rather liked because it threw up a whole raft of
existential questions is where David questions why Joe does his little dance
and he replies that he doesn't know. This is AI's take on Deckard's
memorable line in Blade Runner when he encounters the replicant Rachel: how
can it not know what it is?" Joe's reply to David suggests that his
programming acts like a kind of robot unconscious, furthermore it is implied
that mechas are capable of acts which they cannot articulate a reason for. I
wonder does this make the mechas paradoxically more human?
A Mecha is, in the language of another French philosopher Jean Baudrillard,
a simulacrum. The thing about the simulacrum is that it is easily mistaken
for the real thing. Often it is something so embedded into our culture that
we accept it unquestioningly:- thus the map is mistaken for the territory,
the film star is mistaken for the hero, the dominant paradigm is mistaken
for the truth.... etc, etc, etc. I think AI depicts this quality of the
simulacrum rather well. Itąs the kind of whatąs real paradox that it a theme
in a lot of Philip K Dickąs work.
Spielberg has fun with the theme and there is a great łtheme park look˛ to
the future, especially in the Rouge city mis-en-scene. Although the "Doctor
Know" segment was so anachronistic that I wondered if it was an idea Kubrick
and Aldiss had circa 1980, i.e. before the advent of internet search
engines!
The flesh fair was pure audience manipulation. Spielberg should have been a
bit more clever with it, put a bit more satirical distance between himself
and the scene. But Spielberg being Spielberg treats this crass little
caricature with such worthy sincerity that itąs embarrassing. The tracking
shot across the discarded AI corpses recalls a similar shots of holocaust
victimsą shoes in Schindlerąs List which really goes to show that Spielberg
(knowingly or unknowingly) will betray any claim to high moral seriousness
for an impactful shot.
Another gripe is I found the revelation that David was based on Hobby's own
son a totally unnecessary addition to an already bludgeoning plot. After all
I would have thought a professor of robotics is quite justified in creating
a mecha child without the need for the personal backstory. For me it gives
this character a kind of extra shallowness. Also the scene where David comes
to Hobbyąs office is one of the weakest in the film plot wise. Point 1: why
cite a mecha factory in Manhattan, when a sign clearly said that no Mechas
were allowed within city limits? Point 2: Why make identical mecha children
all called David? Surely parents would want to feel that there child
possessed some individuality, especially as all the common-all-garden mechas
we met in the film were all so distinctly different from one another. Point
3: why does Hobby behave so benignly to David after he has just displayed
clearly psychotic behaviour by murdering his mecha doppleganger? And point
4: Why exactly does Hobby leave David alone in his office for such a long
time? Except to give him an opportunity for mischief - like climbing out of
windows and throwing himself off high ledges. There is no way that Kubrick
would have allowed so many yawning plot inconsistencies to make it through
to the screening stage.
Many people had problems with the ending. I think this was because it was an
unhappy blending of Fairy tale and science fiction elements. The
implausibility of the events that befall characters in a fairy tale reveals
a greater psychological truth, or so the argument goes, but this method of
story telling usually conforms to quite regimented rules, for instance you
cannot mix fantasy with realism, or be logically consistent one moment only
to abandon all consistency in the next. That isn't a fairy tale, it's a
mess! Science fiction often demands that you root the fantasy in the
plausible, fairy tales do not require such grounding. But then fairy tales
do not grapple with social commentary or moral complexities. It's
interesting that Kubrick co-opted Sara Maitland onto the project. it
suggests that he was having doubts in the ability of Science Fiction to tell
the story. I think he was looking for a way to tell this story, in order to
conceal its dark heart and yet intimate the truth at a kind of pre conscious
level as is his forte or want. Perhaps he thought seriously about
jettisoning any pretensions to a realistic actualisation of future events
(i.e. the science fiction element) and wanted instead to go for some
fantastic story that had the psychological complexity of a fairy tale, in
which he could make by stealth some of the points that are made overtly in
Spielberg's ŚSci-Fią version of AI. Maitland has said that she came into
conflict with Kubrick "you can't have a unfulfilled quest," not divining
perhaps that Kubrick had a darker purpose in mind. Kubrick being Kubrick
would not have explained his intentions to Maitland in such an explicit way,
therefore the collaboration came to nothing and Spielberg had to rely solely
on the rejected Watson scenario. Itąs pretty obvious from the finished film
that Spielberg gave us, that the fairy tale elements have not been
successfully woven into the narrative. This is just wild unsubstantiated
speculation on my part of course.
Although undoubtedly a failure you could still glimpse the big idea through
the creakiness of its exposition (and what an idea!) I think the problem was
that Spielberg failed to find adequate means of dramatising the story beyond
assembling the fragments of Kubrick's rejected scenario and keeping his
fingers crossed that they would somehow cohere, which of course they did
not. The trouble with Spielberg is he is not an analytical film maker. He
likes to work quickly, he is strongest with material with is, at heart,
simple minded. I get the impression that he tires of having to spend too
long on things. Which is why he is probably the most inappropriate director
to assume the mantel of completing this very ambitious and half finished
Kubrick project. Frankly I doubt if Spielberg would have directed AI if
Kubrick had lived. I believe Jan Harlan said as much in some recent
interviews. But if Kubrick had produced the film, the script would have been
far more finished and polished that the one Spielberg wrote. Perhaps he
would have pushed it further into the fairy tale domain? In which case
Spielberg might have felt more at home. Certainly he would have been working
to a far more polished script that would have made dramatic (as well as
actual) sense.
But despite everything, I thought the last 20 minutes were brilliant (unlike
everyone else it seems). I wept after leaving the cinema. Not because of the
sentimental touches you understand. David seemed to me to be a metaphor for
humanity, Our fate is as hopeless as his is. Like him we saddled with
unfortunate programming - well meaning but potentially the cause of much
anguish - like him this programming has been hard-wired into us so there is
no way to undo it - except death. In order to function we need the support
of something, ANYTHING to believe in, be it a guiding myth, faith in
scientific progress, or belief in God. If we donąt have faith, we cannot
function, eventually we perish, we die. Our wholes lives are spent searching
for this faith. However as we progressed as a species and grew
technologically more sophisticated we reached a level in our thinking where
we are forced to question all claims to meaning, all proclaimers of truth,
all theories that explain our existence, thereby undermining that very
existence. AI seems to be saying on some level (at least it said it to me
which was perhaps why I couldn't stop crying) that we as a species will
never be able to transcend this basic programming which is our collective
need for a parent basically: a parent to hold our hand and tell us they love
us and watch over us. I see us willingly assimilating ourselves into
machines (our mind children) until there is nothing human left. Like David
we will eventually go willingly to sleep, off to some artificial paradise
of dreams that the machines will invent for us so that we will not suffer.
Iąm affected greatly by itąs nihilism of this implication I feel a kind of
compulsion to contest it. There are all these eschatological undercurrent in
modern culture. Mercia Elliade likened our post modern obsession with
pastiche as like a dying man seeing his whole life flash before his eyes.
Western post-enlightenment traditions both in philosophy and in the
sciences, see the human body and the mind as raw material, stuff to enhance
and augment and generally tinker with, to achieve physical and mental
perfection. On the upside this perfection has divine aspirations. We want to
become the gods of our own technological utopias, but on the downside our
dreams turn out to be hubris and manifest as Frankensteinąs monsters. AI
though suggests a third scarier possibility, that we as a species are just
not up to it and that we will be outdistanced by our own technology and
this will and in our total extinction. There will be some who think the only
way forward for our species is to become symbiot with AI, to use computer
minds to enhance our mental capacity or even create a global mind network.
But I wonder how long would it be before the organic (human) component of
these cyborgs, so retarded in comparison, would yield to the superior
synthetic host and die.
This is what I feel the need to contest. There are, after all, other modes
of thinking. Other ways of being where such gloomy prophecies for our
species have no meaning. The world views of phenomenologists like Husserl,
Heidegger and Merleau Ponty for instance, that emphasise the environmental
factor of human perception, the reciprocity between the world and those who
perceive it, and the axioms like "presence of being" rather than abstract
concepts like "ideas" and "truth." There are also the world views of other
cultures and traditions, long held in contempt by the west, but now yielding
their complexity and beauty to serious study.
I think the implications of a film like AI show us how important it is for
us to think about the world in ways which are outside the western
philosophical tradition. Perhaps our salvation - no, our very survival! -
lies in abandoning dreams of technological omnipotence and starting to live
life on a more meaningful foundation. The imagined future of AI hovers over
us like an incubus in some nightmare, we must attempt to drain it of meaning
by remembering that, in reality, although we are very good at thinking in
future and past tenses, we can only live in the present.
END
dutch_angle
This is going to be a very long post. I'm sorry...
>
> To be sure there was a great deal wrong with AI. Where to start? How about
> the first shot. Opening narration: "Climate change has flooded the earth.
> Opening shot: a big wave. How unimaginative is that! And the opening scene.
> What was that about? It seemed entirely pointless to me except to explain to
> audiences some salient plot points. Itąs as if Kubrick had said to
> Spielberg: "we need a scene to explain the mechas to the audience and I
> haven't thought of a clever way to realise this dramatically yet" and
> Spielberg, instead of recognising this as an obstacle than needed to be
> surmounted, has just put the explanation into the mouth of one of the
> characters and added some people sitting around listening to him but doing
> not much. I guess he hoped that audiences would be concentrating so much on
> the information being imparted, that they wouldn't notice the scene doesn't
> make any sense.
(Sorry for my English) It is strange that most reviewers notice that
AI is about a boy that is searching for the love of his mother, which
of course is true. But that very same picture perfect higly developed
robotic child is able to 'kill'; the only robot we see actually
destroy another robot: David killing David. David killing himself. A
pure egocentrical action and reaction. Was he programmed to do that?
Was that the real goal to return to the father figure, Hobby?
First of all, to 'know'; whether a great deal is 'wrong'; with AI, you
first need to 'know'; the purpose of the film as well as the
intentions of the filmmaker. That is: define your vision on that
matter. Then again, what exactly was that purpose and which filmmaker
are we talking about? Kubrick has said that if he would direct AI he
might have developed the philosophical side too much, and that,
perhaps, Spielberg's sensitivities might be necessary for the film. So
how can you be sure? It's a pitty you start with a remark like
"there's a great deal wrong with AI", without any 'basic' introduction
in which you set up your expectations, or some sort of starting point
that helps understanding your personal point of view on AI. For
example: you don't like the film's opening shot. OK. Because you don't
like it, you come up with a 'it's as if'-quote by Kubrick in order to
conclude that Spielberg's intention is all about explanation.
The only thing you connect from the opening shot is the image of the
ocean waves and the narration, concluding that this is
'unimaginative'Whereas I happen to think that there's much more than
meets the eye here. The ocean is the symbol of the mother. It is about
water. Water makes life possible. It is one of the four elements,
besides fire, earth and air. Water is a human need. It is essential.
Like a mother. Like love. That very same water becomes man's enemy; it
drowns us. It can freeze. It can freeze our lives. In a way, we all
are 'children'; of that ocean. But the ocean can also kill us. Wipe
out our existence. So the ocean is also a metaphor for Creation. (And
Destruction) The first image, the 'mother'is connected firmly with the
Creator, professor Hobby, the 'father'In between those two images, we
already see the image of a logo: the logo of the 'factory' of the
Creator, Cybertronics. Then the real human mother, Monica, is
introduced. And what resonates throughout that first scene with her,
is professor Hobby's remarks about creating the 'child'The scene in
the hospital with Monica and Martin, forward-echos things to come.
What especially is established here is human grief about the
(possible) loss of a child. This is where Monica and Hobby, as the
film's 'real'; parents, are connected. The tragedy is perfectly,
effectively as well as efficiently introduced. That very first, rather
simple, image of the ocean introduces the complex themes of AI. It
resonates throughout the whole film. I also like the way Spielberg
introduces the Cybertronics'; logo; the image of the ocean, of rain
also, is connected with that logo; this is connected with the image of
the robot boy stepping into the life of his 'mother'Monica.
Furthermore, I already get the feeling that you've dreamed a lot, or
rather 'too much' about the Kubrick version of AI, regarding that as
the 'true' intention. If, say, you take the classical narration in
drama as the starting point while reviewing Kubrick's "2001" in order
to come up with some sort of conclusion, you could also pan the film,
arguing that much of the dialogue doesn't really mean anything, like
the conference/meeting where Heywood Floyd 'explains'about the reasons
behind what's happening; some sort of mission he is not allowed to
talk about. In that way, much of 2001 could be regarded as 'not making
any sense'
The difference is in the execution. Because I won't argue that
Spielberg's direction is plain perfect. Far from that. But a little
nuance is welcome I think. The opening scene with Hobby 'explaining
about Mecha's' to me is a bit too cute; especially in the way
Spielberg has casted his listeners. The scene, perhaps, should have
been more distanced; formal like the conferences we see in "2001".
However, it also sets up the 'demands' not Hollywood basics, but, in
my opinion, in basic and simple way, although further focusing the
thematic and philosophical approach.
I think the first scene and the first shot makes perfect sense. The
whole film, whether you like it or not, is set up like a fairy tale,
introduced by a narrator, who's part of this story in a literal way at
the end of the film, as one of the highly developed A.I.'s. The scene
introduces a character that, as we will later learn, and much like
Monica, tries to deal with the loss of a son; his son is dead, where
Monica's son, Martin, is 'brought back to life'. David is, both for
Monica, as well as Hobby, a 'substitute son'the practical result of
technology, the same technology that kept Martin alive, in a comatoze
condition. Martin and David, if you look at David's later experiences,
are thematically firmly connected. But so are Hobby, as the Father,
and Monica, as the Mother. Father-like (male), Hobby tries to find the
solution for his pain, from technology. Mother-like (female), Monica
tries to find the solution for her pain, from her human heart. But at
the end, David becomes a 'child' for the future A.I.'s, his new
'parents'who, simular to what we saw happening earlier in the film,
bring him 'back to life'.
Which brings me back to that first scene. Much of the rest of the film
resonates through what is set up in the first scene, which to me,
doesn't really 'explain' anything, but sets up a fairy tale like
story. Even more important, it sets up the human need to challenge
life, with, or using technology, by creating a mirror-image of a human
being, Man playing God: a robot.
Or rather: a robot that can dream. And that first image is about the
ocean, being the symbol of the mother. A woman giving 'birth'to a
child. That very same image represents something that has 'ruled out
much of human life on earth'.
And last but not least: the first robot we see, therefore, is female.
She's a lookalike of Monica; her last action in that scene is making
up her face. That is also the first action of Monica, in the very next
scene. These two 'characters'are therefore connected with eachother.
The whole concept of AI in the way the story unfolds, in it's
treatment, is like a fairy tale, but also like some religious myth.
And ALL of this, you do not mention. You are SURE that much of AI is
'wrong'(whatever that means), and you present a rather one-dimensional
thought about the film's opening, concluding that it is all rather
umimaginative. Because you 'didn't like it'; Or, so you make us
believe at this point in your review. Whereas I think there's so much
more than 'not liking it'.
>
> From what I have read about the pre-production work completed on AI when
> Kubrick was still alive, the finished film is very close to the fragments of
> story that Kubrick and Watson had assembled, but the problems with Kubrick
> Watsonąs synopsis havenąt been solved in Speilbergąs version, they have
> simply been skirted over.
DA: Sorry, but this is very strange to me. Have you read Watson's
treatment, script, synopsis, or whatever he wrote? What are those
problems, because you do not mention them. So how can a reader of your
review ever make up whether to agree with your statement that
Spielberg has 'skirted over those problems'
>
> The story doesn't grow out of the characters, but rather the characters are
> merely there to service the needs of the story.
Which, to me, is very Kubrick-like, isn't it? As for me, Kubrick did
not seem to like the classical rules of character-driven stories, but
was more interested in philosophical narration and ideas, where
characters often served as vehicles to expose that. Which is not to
say, that Kubrick was not interested in characters, quite the oposite.
See my first thoughts, just based on the film's opening. To me, the
way AI is introduced, set up, it becomes clear that it is not a film
that is character driven. I, for one, am not interested to learn a lot
about, say Henry Swinton.
The film is about a philosphical idea; pretty much like 2001. In 2001,
the story doesn't grow out of the characters either, but do you care?
The Swintons are barely
> sketched and the early domestic scenes suffer accordingly. Spielberg
> presents them so arbitrarily - and so bloody fleetingly! - because of the
> overriding needs of the plot to make all the points it needs to make without
> catching a breath. So we are treated to a plethora of incidents, seemingly
> non sequitur, that become significant later. This is a similar storytelling
> technique to the Sixth Sense, the problem with this is that, although the
> fragments of story become meaningful when the whole picture is revealed, are
> not that interesting at the time.
At this point in your review, it would be useful to know what you are
saying when you say that the fragments of the story become meaningful
when the whole picture is revealed. However, although I agree with
this, I think it becomes meaningful much earlier. I already have given
examples of how certain things, that happen, or certain characters,
are connected with eachother, not in a literal, but also in a thematic
way. But once you decide that 'there is much wrong with AI' it is only
logical to only explain what's wrong with the film, so far. Whereas I
happen to think, that it is not the disaster you are describing here,
so far in your review, or thoughts on AI.
When we enter the lives of the Swintons I don't care about plot points
anymore. There much more going on and I think it is pretty briljant,
the way Spielberg introduces themes on life and death; the human need
to challenge life. I don't think comparing AI with "The Sixth Sense"
makes much sense; to me that film was so very predictable. It had a
clou, that was it. For the rest, it was pretty good filmmaking, but no
surprises. It told a rather thin and neat story and that was it. AI is
much much more to me. The 'story' is not even that important; that is:
the incidents on itself, the details etc. It's about how it all adds
up. It's a plea for human emotion, for human love.
I think one can see that Spielberg is not used in treating the content
of a film this way. The content of AI is complex, thematic as well as
philosophical. And he is not patient enough, I think, to really hit it
home. Still, I think he's doing a great job, especially in the first
act of AI.
>
> The cruelty of Monica Swinton actions is not explored nearly enough, her
> absolute failure to comprehend the import of what she is doing when she
> activates Davidąs łlove programming˛ and her refusal to terminate David's
> life, thus condemning him to a lifetime of agony. In the film it looks
> arbitrary, like Spielberg was unaware that this was even an implication of
> Monicaąs actions.
I don't agree with you here also. I think that the 'cruelty' of Monica
Swinton is explored; right from the beginning actually, not in the
literal explanation-sense you think destroys much of AI, but from a
quite intelligent way of philosophical development. The human need to
love a child, the grief as a result of a child's death, whether that
'child'is artificial or not. Both Hobby and Monica have an emotional
hole in their heart, and they are torn apart by it. Monica is reading
stories to her son Martin, that is more dead than alive; still trying
to deny the 'truth' by reading out loud 'make-believe' stories in
which there's always an antidote to the decease called death. And hey,
the miracle works, of course, because AI is a fairy tale in itself.
Martin is brought back to life; the hole in her heart is healed, but
with substitute-Martin David as the new victim. He remains the walking
shadow of Hobby's (Fatherfigure) dead child; he's going the opposite
route: he 'will be frozen'but then also brought back to life. His only
goal is to reunite with his mother and accept her hugs and love and so
on. But by then, this mother, Monica, is 'brought back to life' to,
that is: she's not alive at all; now she's the substitute mother of
David and David doesn't seem to realise it.
To me, all of this is wonderful, great stuff. And I also think, that
what many people see as 'mere explanation'is not explanation at all;
it's 'would-be-explanation'; a fairy tale within a fairy tale,
make-believe within make-believe.
So that whole concept of the human need to be loved, to have a child
that you can love, that loves you etc etc; I think that Spielberg was
very very well aware of that.
Again, none of this, you mention...
>
> The depiction of the robots or łmechas˛ provoke up some interesting
> existential questions. Mechas are capable of independent thought, but only
> it seems within the perimeters of their programming - So we have an amusing
> scene where David tells Joe about the blue fairy and Joe the gigolo assures
> David that he knows what to do to make her into a real woman. One of the
> things Jean Paul Sartre was famously concerned about was authenticity. He
> believed that we need to behave łauthentically.˛ To avoid the trap of
> nihilistic despair caused by the absence of belief in God. In other words,
> we must endeavour through a constant unceasing effort to create meaning in
> our lives, if our lives are to have any meaning. The robots in AI behave
> pretty authentically in the Sartrean sense. Gigolo Joe does not just have to
> work as a gigolo, Gigolo Joe IS a gigolo. So there is meaning to his
> existence but no substance to hang it on. What do I mean by no substance? I
> suppose I am trying to identify an absence of something, maybe of
> sensation? There is a Byron quote: łThe object of life is sensation, to feel
> that we exist, even though in pain.˛ This maybe what is lacking in Joe,
> although not in Davidąs case.
DA: I think this is a very nice thought. One that even could function
as the whole starting point of your thoughts on AI, or anyone's
thoughts for that matter. Because I think that Sartre's existential
thoughts, for example his concerns about authenticity resonates
throughout the whole concept of AI. You say that the Byron quote's
'message'; is what is lacking in Joe, although not in David's case.
But I wonder whether that is true. One could also argue that David
doesn't just have to 'work'(act/react) as a child, David IS a child.
He's programmed (imprinted) by Monica, in order to love her like a
real mother, but she never is. And David is never a real child,
capable of loving someone. Or is he? In the end, David still seems
Sartrean to me. He doesn't seem to realise the context he's part of.
"We must endeavor through a constant unceasing effort to create
meaning in our lives, if our lives are to have any meaning." David is
a robot. He's not a human being. So one should, in a common sense, not
talk about the 'life' of a robot, but rather a 'life-span'which is a
very different matter. David is not capable of 'understanding', that
is: realising, that he cannot 'create'meaning; his program 'tells' him
to go after Monica's love. This is what makes AI so very sad. It all
is very 'double'; this whole Sartrean issue that you mention, but I
think it's a pitty that you do not really develop that thought here.
It is very interesting starting point, that could lead to all kinds of
insights on AI, on artificial intelligent and 'life' in particular.
>
> The other scene I rather liked because it threw up a whole raft of
> existential questions is where David questions why Joe does his little dance
> and he replies that he doesn't know. This is AI's take on Deckard's
> memorable line in Blade Runner when he encounters the replicant Rachel: how
> can it not know what it is?" Joe's reply to David suggests that his
> programming acts like a kind of robot unconscious, furthermore it is implied
> that mechas are capable of acts which they cannot articulate a reason for. I
> wonder does this make the mechas paradoxically more human?
I think that very first image of AI introduces the 'existential
question', and not explaining it. I really think that people who are
hasty to complain that Spielberg is explaining so much, where Kubrick
was always mysterious, or never 'explained the mystery', should be a
bit more careful and take another look (and feel) at AI. If Joe's
answer is that he doesn't know why he did his little dance; then why
exactly is this 'like a kind of robot unconscious'? At the same time,
I think, it is a remark that is quite logical, indeed in a human
way... It is the action connected with the reaction (his answer) that
is strange, because one expects that a robot knows what he's doing and
what it's purpose is. But here he doesn't. Anyway, Gigolo Joe is
foreshadowing, (mirroring in a Kubrickian way) the emotional quest
that David is undertaking, not always 'knowing' what he's doing or
why; especially at the end, David doesn't seem to realise 'what he is
doing', or what's really happening to him; he's playing the main part
in the fairy tale that is created by the A.I.'s; the reunion with
Monica; and then the whole story of A.I. might be a fairy tale within
a fairy tale, created by A.I.'s, narrated by A.I.'s.
Whether the A.I.'s are more human than 'us', I wonder also. It serves
a very Kubrickian purpose, I'm sure. The whole concept of A.I. in the
film somehow is like another mirror of mankind, or human behaviour.
It's like the 'criminal' Alex in ACO, who, in the course of the film,
'becomes more human'; than the ones that are trying to 'cure' him.
Alex is their victim. Very much like David becomes a victim. David,
like Martin, is 'cured allright', although... Not really of course.
>
> A Mecha is, in the language of another French philosopher Jean Baudrillard,
> a simulacrum. The thing about the simulacrum is that it is easily mistaken
> for the real thing. Often it is something so embedded into our culture that
> we accept it unquestioningly:- thus the map is mistaken for the territory,
> the film star is mistaken for the hero, the dominant paradigm is mistaken
> for the truth.... etc, etc, etc. I think AI depicts this quality of the
> simulacrum rather well. Itąs the kind of whatąs real paradox that it a theme
> in a lot of Philip K Dickąs work.
DA: What I think is also very interesting in that matter, is David's
ability to 'self-destruct'; this negative human-like action of
destroying the other 'David', or jumping into the waters of NYC. This
also happens earlier in the film, where that scene is foreshadowed;
when David clamps onto Martin and jumps into the swimming pool; the
real boy is saved, the fake one is neglected rightaway. He experiences
'fear' and he reacts in the 'proper', human, way.
However, the best way that 'simulacrum' thing is developed in AI is
not in an exterior, but rather interior way; the emotional world and
experience that is very important in AI, for both humans and robots. A
child is a future. AI represents a future. We, in our own present
time, are the 'parents' of that same future; where we perhaps 'pay'
for our own technological inventions and development. The human's
leave a testament behind in AI, and it is David, the one and only link
to human life; the only chance the artificial 'children' of the future
have, in order to study man's capability to 'feel'; through David's
quest for love, love from his mother; they can see the importance of
that 'in' David, by bringing him back to 'life', by studying this echo
of his obsession to find emotional satisfaction, but they are unable
to really understand and feel the importance of 'love' for a human
being.
And I think that is developed very well throughout the concept of AI.
>
> Spielberg has fun with the theme and there is a great łtheme park look˛ to
> the future, especially in the Rouge city mis-en-scene. Although the "Doctor
> Know" segment was so anachronistic that I wondered if it was an idea Kubrick
> and Aldiss had circa 1980, i.e. before the advent of internet search
> engines!
Personally, I think Spielberg had more than fun. Perhaps Dr Know is
not the best example of the intelligence behind AI...I do think that
he could have done much more with the dramatic as well as
philosophical elements of Rouge City; that would have worked much
better, I think, if Spielberg had not toned down the character of
Gigolo Joe, but had accepted the darker version of Kubrick, although I
know that from some remarks by Jan Harlan, or interviews on AI.
However, many impatiently trashed Spielberg's execution of Dr Know.
But it is very close to how we 'treat' children. It also is all about
the 'power' of knowledge. It pre-establishes the failing and fading
powers of knowledge in particular. Dr Know quotes a poem, but a
computer quoting a poem; what does it 'know' about that poem? About
the meaning? So why does it present that poem? I think it
pre-establishes the future AI's who's only real ability is 'to know'
and to share knowledge; what more do they really have? Or feel?
This is often not even mentioned, by people trashing this little
segment right away. Which is a pitty. It's only the execution that
perhaps fails to express this matter, 'maybe' because Spielberg is too
cute here.
>
> The flesh fair was pure audience manipulation. Spielberg should have been a
> bit more clever with it, put a bit more satirical distance between himself
> and the scene. But Spielberg being Spielberg treats this crass little
> caricature with such worthy sincerity that itąs embarrassing. The tracking
> shot across the discarded AI corpses recalls a similar shots of holocaust
> victimsą shoes in Schindlerąs List which really goes to show that Spielberg
> (knowingly or unknowingly) will betray any claim to high moral seriousness
> for an impactful shot.
I didn't like the Flesh Fair either. It's purpose is clear, but like
Rouge City, it is not a very well developed sequence, to say the
least... That girl who 'saves' David; It reminded me of that awful
scene at the end of Schindler's List, where Spielberg's making
Schindler into one of his guardian angels; "I could have done more"...
The focus of the Flesh Fair sequence is lost, a bit like the Neverland
in "Hook"; There's too much going on, things that don't really make
any sense to me.
And what's wrong with a very impactful shot?
>
> Another gripe is I found the revelation that David was based on Hobby's own
> son a totally unnecessary addition to an already bludgeoning plot. After all
> I would have thought a professor of robotics is quite justified in creating
> a mecha child without the need for the personal backstory. For me it gives
> this character a kind of extra shallowness. Also the scene where David comes
> to Hobbyąs office is one of the weakest in the film plot wise. Point 1: why
> cite a mecha factory in Manhattan, when a sign clearly said that no Mechas
> were allowed within city limits? Point 2: Why make identical mecha children
> all called David? Surely parents would want to feel that there child
> possessed some individuality, especially as all the common-all-garden mechas
> we met in the film were all so distinctly different from one another. Point
> 3: why does Hobby behave so benignly to David after he has just displayed
> clearly psychotic behaviour by murdering his mecha doppleganger? And point
> 4: Why exactly does Hobby leave David alone in his office for such a long
> time? Except to give him an opportunity for mischief - like climbing out of
> windows and throwing himself off high ledges. There is no way that Kubrick
> would have allowed so many yawning plot inconsistencies to make it through
> to the screening stage.
There were many 'inconsistencies' in the plot of Eyes Wide Shut. It
all depends how you look at it. You want the plot to make sense, so it
seems. In a rational way. As for me, I don't care about these
inconsistencies; not in EWS, not in AI. There is not one character in
AI that I think is really really real. Not one. It is all
make-believe-within-make-believe. The purpose is a future fairy tale.
With religious themes resonating throughout. The creation of a child,
to fill a human need: love. We also see the oposite of that feeling
and need: grief over the loss of a child; this is established both
throughout the characters of Hobby, the fatherfigure, and Monica, the
motherfigure. These figures, humans, return in the future mirror
images of the highly developed AI's, the new 'parents' of David,
bringing him back to fill another 'need': studying the link to human
mankind. 'Knowledge' is all that's left there, there's no love in that
same future. They only find some kind of an echo inside David, but
they can only 'reconstruct', they can never fullfill emotional needs.
Monica doesn't exist. Love doesn't exist. The whole fairy tale happy
ending is fake. It is sad.
You pan the plot points, but I think they are perfect. How can
Tinkerbell in Peter Pan be brought back to life: by children clapping
their hands, believing the story. How can ET be brought back to life:
by Elliott loving him very much.
The only reason you come up with is the
Kubrick-is-so-much-better-than-Spielberg-of-course argument, which is
rather thin, actually.
>
> Many people had problems with the ending. I think this was because it was an
> unhappy blending of Fairy tale and science fiction elements.
I don't think so. I think it is because they are used to Spielberg's
usual sentimental treatments in many of his other films. The first
reaction is understandable: typical Spielberg. But in fact, it is not.
The
> implausibility of the events that befall characters in a fairy tale reveals
> a greater psychological truth, or so the argument goes, but this method of
> story telling usually conforms to quite regimented rules, for instance you
> cannot mix fantasy with realism, or be logically consistent one moment only
> to abandon all consistency in the next. That isn't a fairy tale, it's a
> mess!
That in itself doesn't mean anything. Who says it was Kubrick's or
Spielberg's intention to follow certain rules? Kubrick often made up
his own (new) rules, especially in his concepts of narratives. EWS:
the total absence of what exactly is part of the dream world or the
world of reality. It might be all a dream etc.
Also, I would like to know what that 'greater psychological truth' is
all about, in fairy tales. Because you do not explain. To me, there's
not much real realism in AI, at least as much reality as there seems
to be in EWS.
This is why I think, as I mentioned earlier, you first have to set up
some sort of starting point, that tries to make clear how you are
trying to express your thoughts on AI, because a reader get's lost
here.
Who says that one can never mix fantasy with realism? Perhaps so, in
fairy tales. But the question is whether Kubrick's real intention was
to create such a fairy tale.
Furthermore, I do not agree with you that consistency was abandoned
from one moment to the other. In AI, to me, there's always a
consistency, but not in a rational way. It is really shifting from
rational logic to some sort of irrational, emotional logic; and I
think that serves the story about AI, about a robot's ability to
dream, to feel, to 'be aware', very well.
Science fiction often demands that you root the fantasy in the
> plausible, fairy tales do not require such grounding. But then fairy tales
> do not grapple with social commentary or moral complexities. It's
> interesting that Kubrick co-opted Sara Maitland onto the project. it
> suggests that he was having doubts in the ability of Science Fiction to tell
> the story. I think he was looking for a way to tell this story, in order to
> conceal its dark heart and yet intimate the truth at a kind of pre conscious
> level as is his forte or want.
Perhaps. Who knows? Your thoughts on fairy tales and science fiction,
to me, serve to understand your thoughts on AI, if you had started
your review with such a set-up, because it helps to introduce your
thoughts, I think.
The question is: what is plausible to you or anyone else? How do you
define the plausible? To me, I think much of the fairy tale world is
grounded in the plausible, although not in a rational way perse.
Also, I think that fairy tales most certainly CAN deal with moral
complexities; it is often underneath the story itself or in the
thematic development of the story.
Perhaps he thought seriously about
> jettisoning any pretensions to a realistic actualisation of future events
> (i.e. the science fiction element) and wanted instead to go for some
> fantastic story that had the psychological complexity of a fairy tale, in
> which he could make by stealth some of the points that are made overtly in
> Spielberg's ŒSci-Fią version of AI. Maitland has said that she came into
> conflict with Kubrick "you can't have a unfulfilled quest," not divining
> perhaps that Kubrick had a darker purpose in mind. Kubrick being Kubrick
> would not have explained his intentions to Maitland in such an explicit way,
> therefore the collaboration came to nothing and Spielberg had to rely solely
> on the rejected Watson scenario. Itąs pretty obvious from the finished film
> that Spielberg gave us, that the fairy tale elements have not been
> successfully woven into the narrative. This is just wild unsubstantiated
> speculation on my part of course.
I tend not to agree. Which fairy tale elements that, according to you,
have not been succesfully woven into the narrative, are you talking
about? Furthermore; how exactly should these elements have been woven
into the narrative then? Why would that, based on which argument, have
been better?
>
> Although undoubtedly a failure you could still glimpse the big idea through
> the creakiness of its exposition (and what an idea!) I think the problem was
> that Spielberg failed to find adequate means of dramatising the story beyond
> assembling the fragments of Kubrick's rejected scenario and keeping his
> fingers crossed that they would somehow cohere, which of course they did
> not.
Why do you say 'undoubtedly a failure'? I would have my doubts on such
a remark, because I don't think AI can be discarde as an obvious
failure.
What exactly is that Big Idea that you are talking about?
I don't care about analysing the fairy tale elements and science
fiction elements that much; what does that, after all, mean?
I think AI is a great emotional experience, to say the least. It's not
perfect, because I think the Rouge City sequence as well as the Flesh
Fair sequence are under developed, not in a thematic, but in a
concrete philosophical way; those arena's are about 'outside action'
too much, not developing the intelligent ideas of David's growing 'so
called' consciousness, in his quest for emotional satisfaction.
What, in your opinion, are 'adequate means of dramatising the story',
because you fail to explain. It is obvious that you THINK the
'fragments' do not cohere, but WHY?
Once again, I think they ALWAYS cohere, sometimes in a rational and
emotional way, sometimes in a rational or irrational way, sometimes
the connection is pretty much like words and sentences in a poem are
connected; there's much more than rational logic, I would say.
"The trouble with Spielberg is he is not an analytical film maker."
I think that is only your trouble, not anyone else's perse.
Being an 'analytical filmmaker' doesn't create miracles perse.
Why not say, at the same time, what his talents are?
Isn't he also a very good story teller, for example?
Again: it's easy to trash. Especially when a director's name ain't
Kubrick...
He
> likes to work quickly, he is strongest with material with is, at heart,
> simple minded.
To me, with AI, he proves that that might be a prejudice. He's not
Kubrick. So don't judge him for not being Kubrick. I don't think he
can do much about that... can he?
There are many people who believe that E.T. is also 'simple-minded',
which, in fact, to me is not. It is underrated often, pretty much like
Peter Pan is underrated, because of Disney's cartoon. The underlying
themes in E.T. and A.I. are not at all that simple-minded; Elliott and
David are victims of human failures; Elliott desperately wants a
father, David desperately wants a mother. It is the way Spielberg
tells his story that makes E.T. much more 'complex'. And A.I. is even
more complex, because of the several layers that work throughout the
film's narrative.
I get the impression that he tires of having to spend too
> long on things. Which is why he is probably the most inappropriate director
> to assume the mantel of completing this very ambitious and half finished
> Kubrick project. Frankly I doubt if Spielberg would have directed AI if
> Kubrick had lived. I believe Jan Harlan said as much in some recent
> interviews. But if Kubrick had produced the film, the script would have been
> far more finished and polished that the one Spielberg wrote. Perhaps he
> would have pushed it further into the fairy tale domain? In which case
> Spielberg might have felt more at home. Certainly he would have been working
> to a far more polished script that would have made dramatic (as well as
> actual) sense.
Again, these assumptions only mean that you work from a starting point
that Kubrick's version would have been better, which doesn't make much
sense now. The simple truth is, that Kubrick never finished a script
himself. Also, you seem to know it better than Kubrick himself, who
also 'certainly' thought that Spielberg 'might' be the ideal director
for AI. Perhaps because he's so simple-minded, childlike, perhaps
because Kubrick thought that AI required such a treatment. Perhaps
Kubrick was afraid of repeating himself, making a sequel to 2001. I
mean: who knows?
But a classical dramatic narration for AI: I don't think that Kubrick
was after that at all. If I may assume; perhaps he knew very well that
at it's very core AI was about human emotion and it's essential value
to all of us? Perhaps he was afraid of repeating himself into making
AI like another 2001?
But there are a thousand of these 'perhaps'.
>
> But despite everything, I thought the last 20 minutes were brilliant (unlike
> everyone else it seems).
DA: And those last 20 minutes of AI were also directed by that very
same mr Steven Spielberg...
I wept after leaving the cinema. Not because of the
> sentimental touches you understand. David seemed to me to be a metaphor for
> humanity, Our fate is as hopeless as his is. Like him we saddled with
> unfortunate programming - well meaning but potentially the cause of much
> anguish - like him this programming has been hard-wired into us so there is
> no way to undo it - except death. In order to function we need the support
> of something, ANYTHING to believe in, be it a guiding myth, faith in
> scientific progress, or belief in God. If we donąt have faith, we cannot
> function, eventually we perish, we die.
Yes! And this indeed is brilliant. David is the link to the AI's
God(s): human mankind. But what future do they have? What future does
David have? What else is there for them? 'Except death' indeed. That
is what 'we cannot and will not / never accept'; that is why we create
wonder, myth, fairy tales, robots, technology etc. We challenge life
itself.
Our wholes lives are spent searching
> for this faith. However as we progressed as a species and grew
> technologically more sophisticated we reached a level in our thinking where
> we are forced to question all claims to meaning, all proclaimers of truth,
> all theories that explain our existence, thereby undermining that very
> existence. AI seems to be saying on some level (at least it said it to me
> which was perhaps why I couldn't stop crying) that we as a species will
> never be able to transcend this basic programming which is our collective
> need for a parent basically: a parent to hold our hand and tell us they love
> us and watch over us. I see us willingly assimilating ourselves into
> machines (our mind children) until there is nothing human left. Like David
> we will eventually go willingly to sleep, off to some artificial paradise
> of dreams that the machines will invent for us so that we will not suffer.
And this whole philosophy is pretty much set-up in the beginning, and
not really by explaining it. I already FELT it. I didn't care for the
so called exposition, the so called explanation. I didn't care for the
explanation scene in EWS, in Ziegler's billiards room either. There's
something going on there, underneath, that cannot be explained', it
is something you have to feel, you have to let go of rules, of
everything you seem to 'know'; because that whole knowledge', is
perhaps all that's left for the future AI's; what does knowledge do
with them, what does it bring to them? Happiness? A better life? Love?
I don't think so. It is a very disturbing thought; this ending, this
future. The failure of all 'knowledge', that 'knows everything', but
for what purpose? David as the ultimate mind child. Monica as the mind
mother. Their love as the mind love. All fake. Fainting echo's of
mankind.
>
> Iąm affected greatly by itąs nihilism of this implication I feel a kind of
> compulsion to contest it. There are all these eschatological undercurrent in
> modern culture. Mercia Elliade likened our post modern obsession with
> pastiche as like a dying man seeing his whole life flash before his eyes.
> Western post-enlightenment traditions both in philosophy and in the
> sciences, see the human body and the mind as raw material, stuff to enhance
> and augment and generally tinker with, to achieve physical and mental
> perfection. On the upside this perfection has divine aspirations. We want to
> become the gods of our own technological utopias, but on the downside our
> dreams turn out to be hubris and manifest as Frankensteinąs monsters.
The ambition to create a robot that can dream; that whole future is
like an empty dream. Man playing God and all that's left there is a
fake reality, a context in which humans no longer exist. Love doesn't
exist either. The reunion being a mere recreation. The religious
aspects in AI have not been touched by you, in this review, whereas I
think that it plays an important part also. The future AI's in some
sort of Nirvana, at the film's end. David is part of that, in a
heaven, in an afterlife in the most literal sense. They are all equal
now. Sharing their thoughts. The Great All. But is it heaven? David is
resurrected, pretty much like Martin, but he's even less 'alive' than
earlier in the film.
AI
> though suggests a third scarier possibility, that we as a species are just
> not up to it and that we will be outdistanced by our own technology and
> this will and in our total extinction. There will be some who think the only
> way forward for our species is to become symbiot with AI, to use computer
> minds to enhance our mental capacity or even create a global mind network.
> But I wonder how long would it be before the organic (human) component of
> these cyborgs, so retarded in comparison, would yield to the superior
> synthetic host and die.
Therefore, AI also invites us to reflect, not only look forward, but
look inside of us too. Which makes AI not so much a tale of the
future, but a psychological 'look' inside our own universal failures
and needs...
>
> This is what I feel the need to contest. There are, after all, other modes
> of thinking. Other ways of being where such gloomy prophecies for our
> species have no meaning. The world views of phenomenologists like Husserl,
> Heidegger and Merleau Ponty for instance, that emphasise the environmental
> factor of human perception, the reciprocity between the world and those who
> perceive it, and the axioms like "presence of being" rather than abstract
> concepts like "ideas" and "truth." There are also the world views of other
> cultures and traditions, long held in contempt by the west, but now yielding
> their complexity and beauty to serious study.
And there's more in life than Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg...
To me, it is not so important to think about 'what Kubrick would have
done' and 'what Spielberg should have done'... I'm quite happy to
accept AI for what it is. I don't know of any film that is perfect. I
don't know of any director that is perfect. I only prefer Kubrick,
when compared with Spielberg. But that's the infamous apples and
oranges...
I can only say that much of AI resonates in my mind, after having seen
it. From the very first image that is. To me it works like a fairy
tale, a religious myth, like a poem. The thin red line is always about
emotion. In the ending, we are presented with, what at first 'looks'
and 'feels' like a (Spielbergian) happy end, but it is very tragic and
very sad. In a literal way, there's no emotion in it at all. It
'exists' only because it exists in us, the audience. 'The mother and
child reunion' is just a reconstruction; AI's trying to 'learn'.
Knowledge had overpowered emotion.
Emotion has become knowledge.
We see a child that, after his long epic quest, hugs his mother. A
child that has killed and destroyed for that love; destroyed himself.
>
> I think the implications of a film like AI show us how important it is for
> us to think about the world in ways which are outside the western
> philosophical tradition. Perhaps our salvation - no, our very survival! -
> lies in abandoning dreams of technological omnipotence and starting to live
> life on a more meaningful foundation. The imagined future of AI hovers over
> us like an incubus in some nightmare, we must attempt to drain it of meaning
> by remembering that, in reality, although we are very good at thinking in
> future and past tenses, we can only live in the present.
I agree. And if AI really was that obvious failure you seemed to be
talking about, you couldn't, nor wouldn't have spend so much time in
coming up with so many interesting philosphical and moral issues,
don't you think?
dutch angle
Rod Munday
>R.P.J.H...@chello.nl wrote on 1/10/01 1:11 pm:
>> Rod Munday <r...@visual-memory.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:<B7DCB83F.2974%r...@visual-memory.co.uk>...
>>
> This is going to be a very long post. I'm sorry...
>
>> To be sure there was a great deal wrong with AI. Where to start? How about
>> the first shot. Opening narration: "Climate change has flooded the earth.
>> Opening shot: a big wave. How unimaginative is that! <snip>
>(Sorry for my English) It is strange that most reviewers notice that
>AI is about a boy that is searching for the love of his mother, which
>of course is true. But that very same picture perfect higly developed
>robotic child is able to 'kill'; the only robot we see actually
>destroy another robot: David killing David. David killing himself. A
>pure egocentrical action and reaction. Was he programmed to do that?
>Was that the real goal to return to the father figure, Hobby?
Good point. I donąt think the answers to you questions are explored in the
film though. The fact that David kills is not even acknowledged by hobby
>First of all, to 'know'; whether a great deal is 'wrong'; with AI, you
>first need to 'know'; the purpose of the film as well as the
>intentions of the filmmaker. That is: define your vision on that
>matter.
Well this post was not an essay it was random thoughts. Taken as a whole I
think my vision of the film is explored but for a number of reasons - mainly
because I didnąt feel I could structure my thoughts that coherently- it was
not an essay with a proper introduction.
>Then again, what filmmaker are we talking about?
Spielberg made the film didnąt he?
>Kubrick has said that if he would direct AI he
>might have developed the philosophical side too much, and that,
>perhaps, Spielberg's sensitivities might be necessary for the film. So
>how can you be sure?
I canąt of course and neither can you, that one quote doesnąt explain very
much, I tried to address this point when I talked about the fairy tale
aspects of AI.
>It's a pitty you start with a remark like
>"there's a great deal wrong with AI", without any 'basic' introduction
>in which you set up your expectations, or some sort of starting point
>that helps understanding your personal point of view on AI.
Sure itąs a pity....
>For example: you don't like the film's opening shot. OK. Because you don't
>like it, you come up with a 'it's as if'-quote by Kubrick in order to
>conclude that Spielberg's intention is all about explanation.
That pretend quote was about the first scene not the opening shot. It was
there to illustrate a problem not solved in the Spielberg script. IE how do
you make a basically didactic scene plausible and dramatic?
>The only thing you connect from the opening shot is the image of the
>ocean waves and the narration, concluding that this is
>'unimaginative' Whereas I happen to think that there's much more than
>meets the eye here. The ocean is the symbol of the mother. It is about
>water. Water makes life possible. It is one of the four elements,
>besides fire, earth and air. Water is a human need. It is essential.
>Like a mother. Like love. That very same water becomes man's enemy; it
>drowns us. It can freeze. It can freeze our lives. In a way, we all
>are 'children'; of that ocean. But the ocean can also kill us. Wipe
>out our existence. So the ocean is also a metaphor for Creation. (And
>Destruction)
Well yes, look up water in a dictionary of symbols and youąll find just such
an entry. But does that mean every film that features water carried that
kind of symbolic baggage. Say if a character runs a bath in a film are we
supposed to connect it with their primal desire to reconnect with a primal
mother? No of course not that would be absurd. AI started with a shot of a
wave and some narration about global warming. Youąre right global warming
sea level rise is a perfect excuse to weave all this symbolic material into
the narrative, an opportunity Spielberg squandered IMO. Where - apart from
the opening and the drowned New your do we get any reference to sea level
rise. When is it ever raining apart from the opening scene? If you want a
film that treats water imagery poetically and symbolically take a look at
Tarkovskyąs Stalker not AI. Even Lynchąs Dune has better wave and water
imagery than AI.
<snip>
>The difference is in the execution. Because I won't argue that
>Spielberg's direction is plain perfect.
Exactly. You seem to be describing an interesting film but it is not the
film Spielberg made
<snip.
> Much of the rest of the film
>resonates through what is set up in the first scene, which to me,
>doesn't really 'explain' anything, but sets up a fairy tale like
>story.
See my comment on mixing plausibility with flights of fancy. This is not a
fairy tale unless a fairy tale is a catch all excuse for bad dramatising and
bad plotting.
<snip>
>You are SURE that much of AI is
>'wrong'(whatever that means), and you present a rather one-dimensional
>thought about the film's opening, concluding that it is all rather
>umimaginative. Because you 'didn't like it'; Or, so you make us
>believe at this point in your review. Whereas I think there's so much
>more than 'not liking it'.
Well fine we disagree. I donąt agree with you take on the film (snipped for
reasons of bandwidth I donąt see how you can force all those symbolic
associations into such a light package. The film you describe would be an
interesting film but it is not Spielbergąs AI
>>
>> From what I have read about the pre-production work completed on AI when
>> Kubrick was still alive, ....
>DA: Sorry, but this is very strange to me. Have you read Watson's
>treatment, script, synopsis, or whatever he wrote?
The answer is no of course, I didnąt think what I had written was ambiguous
actually. Take a look at question 16 of the FAQ which I helped to write. The
synopsis there is not that far from what we got - and that was written in
1999.
>>
>> The story doesn't grow out of the characters, but rather the characters are
>> merely there to service the needs of the story.
>Which, to me, is very Kubrick-like, isn't it?
No no no not at all have you seem Barry Lyndon?
>As for me, Kubrick did
>not seem to like the classical rules of character-driven stories, but
>was more interested in philosophical narration and ideas, where
>characters often served as vehicles to expose that.
Ideas are a trap I believe Kubrick said
>Which is not to
>say, that Kubrick was not interested in characters, quite the opposite.
>See my first thoughts, just based on the film's opening. To me, the
>way AI is introduced, set up, it becomes clear that it is not a film
>that is character driven. I, for one, am not interested to learn a lot
>about, say Henry Swinton.
Well I think it should be and the fact that Henry Swinton is such a plank of
wood I think is a problem - and Iąm not the only one, see Wordsmithąs post
about the same issue
>The film is about a philosphical idea; pretty much like 2001. In 2001,
>the story doesn't grow out of the characters either, but do you care?
Oh really. Dave forces entry into the discovery and kills HAL, if he hadnąt
done this the narrative would not have continued. So the story of 2001 >is<
character driven.
>At this point in your review, it would be useful to know what you are
>saying when you say that the fragments of the story become meaningful
>when the whole picture is revealed.
I said it ref. the Sixth sense comparison.
<Snip>
> But once you decide that 'there is much wrong with AI' it is only
>logical to only explain what's wrong with the film, so far.
Yes that is logical isnąt it.
>Whereas I happen to think, that it is not the disaster you are describing here,
>so far in your review, or thoughts on AI.
My post should be read in its entirely before you draw those conclusions. I
didnąt say that the film was a disaster. It one of the best sci fi films of
recent years - unfortunately science fiction is a pretty impoverished genre
since star wars.
>Because I think that Sartre's existential
>thoughts, for example his concerns about authenticity resonates
>throughout the whole concept of AI. One could also argue that David IS a child.
I think youąll find heąs a robot who wants to be a child: not the same thing
at all.
>He's programmed (imprinted) by Monica, in order to love her like a
>real mother, but she never is. And David is never a real child,
>capable of loving someone. Or is he? In the end, David still seems
>Sartrean to me.
Donąt use Sartrean as an adjective for David, a person cannot be Sartrean
unless they are Jean Paul himself.
>He doesn't seem to realise the context he's part of.
>"We must endeavor through a constant unceasing effort to create
>meaning in our lives, if our lives are to have any meaning." David is
>a robot. He's not a human being. So one should, in a common sense, not
>talk about the 'life' of a robot, but rather a 'life-span'which is a
>very different matter. David is not capable of 'understanding', that
>is: realising, that he cannot 'create'meaning; his program 'tells' him
>to go after Monica's love.
Well that is meaning. David does not suffer from an absence of meaning - an
existential ennui - does he?
<Snip>
>If Joe's
>answer is that he doesn't know why he did his little dance; then why
>exactly is this 'like a kind of robot unconscious'?
Because he doesnąt know why he does it?
>> The tracking shot across the discarded AI corpses recalls a similar shots of
>>holocaust
>> victimsŹ shoes in SchindlerŹs List which really goes to show that Spielberg
>> (knowingly or unknowingly) will betray any claim to high moral seriousness
>> for an impactful shot.
>I didn't like the Flesh Fair either. It's purpose is clear, but like
>Rouge City, it is not a very well developed sequence,<snip>
>And what's wrong with a very impactful shot?
See my post aesthetics and morality on amk for the answer to that one.
<Snip>
>There were many 'inconsistencies' in the plot of Eyes Wide Shut. It
>all depends how you look at it.
Like what for instance?
>You want the plot to make sense, so it
>seems. In a rational way. As for me, I don't care about these
>inconsistencies; not in EWS, not in AI.
<Snip>
>The only reason you come up with is the
>Kubrick-is-so-much-better-than-Spielberg-of-course argument, which is
>rather thin, actually.
Well Kubrick >is< much better than Spielberg. And it not a thin argument!
>>
>> Many people had problems with the ending. I think this was because it was an
>> unhappy blending of Fairy tale and science fiction elements.
>I don't think so. I think it is because they are used to Spielberg's
>usual sentimental treatments in many of his other films. The first
>reaction is understandable: typical Spielberg. But in fact, it is not.
Well maybe. I think it can be said that people were unhappy with the ending
because they assumed it was just a bit of Spielberg sentimentality and
didnąt look any further.
<Snip>
> I would like to know what that 'greater psychological truth' is
>all about, in fairy tales. Because you do not explain. <Snip>
Read the Uses of enchantment by Bruno Bettleheim.
<snip>
>The question is: what is plausible to you or anyone else? How do you
>define the plausible? To me, I think much of the fairy tale world is
>grounded in the plausible, although not in a rational way perse.
>Also, I think that fairy tales most certainly CAN deal with moral
>complexities; it is often underneath the story itself or in the
>thematic development of the story.
Examples please. I think youąll find fairy tales have good characters and
bad character, the good wins through and the bad perish, usually horrible.
Now how exactly is that morally complex?
>I tend not to agree. Which fairy tale elements that, according to you,
>have not been successfully woven into the narrative, are you talking
>about? Furthermore; how exactly should these elements have been woven
>into the narrative then? Why would that, based on which argument, have
>been better?
I donąt have enough time to write all this down. It would be like rewriting
the AI script. The basic problem is that there is a tension between the
technically grounded quality of science fiction and the flights of fancy
quality of fairy tales. The film IMO tries to have it both ways.
>>
>> Although undoubtedly a failure you could still glimpse the big idea through
>> the creakiness of its exposition (and what an idea!) I think the problem was
>> that Spielberg failed to find adequate means of dramatising the story beyond
>> assembling the fragments of Kubrick's rejected scenario and keeping his
>> fingers crossed that they would somehow cohere, which of course they did
>> not.
>Why do you say 'undoubtedly a failure'? I would have my doubts on such
>a remark, because I don't think AI can be discarded as an obvious
>failure.
Well that's subjective, but it was a personal opinion.
>What exactly is that Big Idea that you are talking about?
I have been talking about that idea throughout my post. If you don't know
then eiterh my post has failed or you have failed to comprehend it.
>I don't care about analysing the fairy tale elements and science
>fiction elements that much; what does that, after all, mean?
Read Bettleheim
>I think AI is a great emotional experience, to say the least. It's not
>perfect, because I think the Rouge City sequence as well as the Flesh
>Fair sequence are under developed, not in a thematic, but in a
>concrete philosophical way; those arena's are about 'outside action'
>too much, not developing the intelligent ideas of David's growing 'so
>called' consciousness, in his quest for emotional satisfaction.
>What, in your opinion, are 'adequate means of dramatising the story',
>because you fail to explain.
Well Iąm sorry, my email bas based on a correspondence with Gordon
Dahlquist. Here a quote from the email exchange. An example of Spielbergąs
failure to dramatise. I hope it helps
"ROD
What was the opening scene about? It seemed entirely pointless to me except
to explain to audiences some salient plot points.
GORDON
Spielberg doesn't figure out any way to make that scene dramatic, all he can
do is insert some mecha-performance moments (which don't really make sense,
because all the people there know all about mechas, particularly this
"standard", and further, they're Dr Hobbyąs underlings, so there's no
tension - he's not making any case to anyone, nor is he - despite the
gestures at this - really listening to anyone either) and then some bland
culturally diverse staff of yuppie types, which is such standard-issue
liberal Hollywood as to not register as a comment about the future society.
The whole film just seems full of unconsidered, scenes of ostensible
exposition that made no dramatic sense and were utterly static -"
>It is obvious that you THINK the
>'fragments' do not cohere, but WHY?
Because they donąt? There more loose ends with AI than unanswered questions
as is the case with 2001 for instance
<snip>
>To me, with AI, he proves that that might be a prejudice. He's not
>Kubrick. So don't judge him for not being Kubrick.
He was making a film that was Kubrickąs. Comparisons are not beside the
point in this instance.
>There are many people who believe that E.T. is also 'simple-minded',
>which, in fact, to me is not.
Well that sums up the gulf that separates us Iąm afraid.
<snip>
>Again, these assumptions only mean that you work from a starting point
>that Kubrick's version would have been better,
That is true I admit
>which doesn't make much
>sense now.
True again
> The simple truth is, that Kubrick never finished a script
>himself.
Which is half the problem I think
>Also, you seem to know it better than Kubrick himself, who
>also 'certainly' thought that Spielberg 'might' be the ideal director
>for AI.
I make no such claim to know that. And I deny it's a valid interpretation of
what I said.
>> But despite everything, I thought the last 20 minutes were brilliant (unlike
>> everyone else it seems).
>DA: And those last 20 minutes of AI were also directed by that very
>same mr Steven Spielberg...
Yes which is why I donąt dismiss his version of AI entirely
>if AI really was that obvious failure you seemed to be
>talking about, you couldn't, nor wouldn't have spend so much time in
>coming up with so many interesting philosphical and moral issues,
>don't you think?
>dutch angle
Well I entirely agree. If you assume I though AI was a total failure, you
have misunderstood my post. Iąm sorry it was ambiguous, but that is how I am
about the film. Iąm not a reviewer I have no obligation to dismiss it or
praise it, or pretend to have a coherent argument when I do not. I would be
doing the film more of an injustice if i attempted to make such case for the
prosecution so to speak, if i didn't feel it to be true. The reason I posted
this message is because AI effected me greatly. That is what I consider
important. The post came out of a discussion with Gordon Dahlquist, I guess
the negative stuff unbalanced my one-sided and edited post of my part of
that discussion but, taken as a whole, I think my message does conveys my
feelings on the film. But i stree it is not, nor does it pretend to be a
final statement on the film.
Thanks for such a considered response Dutch, I donąt agree but Iąm glad you
took the time to express your thoughts.
Regards, Rod
GT
> merely there to service the needs of the story. The Swintons are barely
> sketched and the early domestic scenes suffer accordingly. Spielberg
> presents them so arbitrarily - and so bloody fleetingly! - because of the
> overriding needs of the plot to make all the points it needs to make
without
I completely agree with the fact that the sketchy representation
of the Swintons and, particularly, their motives is a major weakness
in the film.The film fails to address or explore the rationale for
their decision to adopt David. David cannot grow up. How can he ever
provide a permanent substitute for their comatose son?. It seems to me
that his function is only to provide temporary emotional relief to
Monica for her recent loss, rather than being an adopted son. If
Martin hadn't returned, David probably would have ended up in the
cupboard with Teddy, after probably been replaced by an older or an
upgraded model. For how long the Swintons planned to keep him in
the first place? . Spielberg completely ignores all the moral
complications arising from Monica's actions and keeps, instead,
the narrative going by focusing exclusively on David's outstanding
emotional abilities. This renders the resolution of the first act
(Monica's decision to abandon David) cursory and contrived. Swintons
never behaved like real parents, the viewer can hardly accept them as
a model of the future nuclear family.
> The flesh fair was pure audience manipulation. Spielberg should have been
a
> bit more clever with it, put a bit more satirical distance between himself
> and the scene. But Spielberg being Spielberg treats this crass little
Agreed.Its only function seems to be to make the Mechas
more sympathetic by contrasting them with some moronic humans.
Typically Spielbergian approach. Attention grabbing and well executed,
but rather hollow and without any other purpose than providing some
action scenes and advancing the plot towards its most conceptually
interesting act.
> windows and throwing himself off high ledges. There is no way that Kubrick
> would have allowed so many yawning plot inconsistencies to make it through
> to the screening stage.
Agreed.
Despite the aforementioned quibbles, I found the film surprisingly
ambitious for Hollywood standards. Spielberg never claimed to be an
original thinker,but the movie was a powerhouse of ideas, obviously
emanating from SK's initial conception. A glimpse of them
remains in the final act, from David's visit and afterwards. Professor
Hobby remained an enigmatic figure despite Spielberg's attempts to
sentimentalise his motives. The ending had a genuine dream-like
quality and it is not unequivocally happy. Contrary, it seemed
surprisingly open in interpretative terms. Was David's happy day
anything more than a fabricated illusion or something less temporary
than his prime function?
Best wishes,
George
dutch_angle
> >in article 2295770d.01100...@posting.google.com, dutch_angle at
> >R.P.J.H...@chello.nl wrote on 1/10/01 1:11 pm:
>
> >> Rod Munday <r...@visual-memory.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:<B7DCB83F.2974%r...@visual-memory.co.uk>...
First of all: thanks A LOT for your answers.
Nice discussion.
> >>
> > This is going to be a very long post. I'm sorry...
> >
> >> To be sure there was a great deal wrong with AI. Where to start? How about
> >> the first shot. Opening narration: "Climate change has flooded the earth.
> >> Opening shot: a big wave. How unimaginative is that! <snip>
>
> >(Sorry for my English) It is strange that most reviewers notice that
> >AI is about a boy that is searching for the love of his mother, which
> >of course is true. But that very same picture perfect higly developed
> >robotic child is able to 'kill'; the only robot we see actually
> >destroy another robot: David killing David. David killing himself. A
> >pure egocentrical action and reaction. Was he programmed to do that?
> >Was that the real goal to return to the father figure, Hobby?
>
> Good point. I donąt think the answers to you questions are explored in the
> film though. The fact that David kills is not even acknowledged by hobby
But I like questions more than I like answers; perhaps that's why I
like EWS.
Do you want those answers to be explained? (I hope not)
I think A.I. needs these questions.
What "answers" are explored in 2001 or EWS?
I think in these films, questions are explored and it is up to you to
define or think about would-be-answers, possible answers.
>
>
> >First of all, to 'know'; whether a great deal is 'wrong'; with AI, you
> >first need to 'know'; the purpose of the film as well as the
> >intentions of the filmmaker. That is: define your vision on that
> >matter.
>
> Well this post was not an essay it was random thoughts. Taken as a whole I
> think my vision of the film is explored but for a number of reasons - mainly
> because I didnąt feel I could structure my thoughts that coherently- it was
> not an essay with a proper introduction.
I know, a bit too puristic of me again... I'm sorry.
Would love to read your essay though.
>
>
> >Then again, what filmmaker are we talking about?
>
> Spielberg made the film didnąt he?
Well, that's my point. He did direct A.I. But did he 'made' it?
>
>
> >Kubrick has said that if he would direct AI he
> >might have developed the philosophical side too much, and that,
> >perhaps, Spielberg's sensitivities might be necessary for the film. So
> >how can you be sure?
>
> I canąt of course and neither can you, that one quote doesnąt explain very
> much, I tried to address this point when I talked about the fairy tale
> aspects of AI.
Yes, but the point is that I wonder how much of A.I. was really
intended to be a 'fairy tale'; I think it is important for Spielberg's
A.I. Then again, one shouldn't be focus on those aspects only. There's
the religious and philosophical issue(s) also.
>
>
>
> >It's a pitty you start with a remark like
> >"there's a great deal wrong with AI", without any 'basic' introduction
> >in which you set up your expectations, or some sort of starting point
> >that helps understanding your personal point of view on AI.
>
>
> Sure itąs a pity....
>
> >For example: you don't like the film's opening shot. OK. Because you don't
> >like it, you come up with a 'it's as if'-quote by Kubrick in order to
> >conclude that Spielberg's intention is all about explanation.
>
> That pretend quote was about the first scene not the opening shot. It was
> there to illustrate a problem not solved in the Spielberg script. IE how do
> you make a basically didactic scene plausible and dramatic?
Yes. But the point I was trying to make is that things are connected
quite well, but it is often Spielberg's execution that fails to really
'explore' the potential philosophical side. I agree with you that the
scene with Hobby in it self, is thin; it is here I think the film
needs the mysterious and 'distanced' way of Kubrick-storytelling.
Whether the scene needs to be plausible and dramatic; that is not easy
to say, because I think that Kubrick perhaps is going for the
plausible, but not the dramatic perse. This is not to say that
Kubrick's scene would not have been dramatic. But rather: how do you
define 'dramatic'? On what issue within the given scene should
Spielberg focus? I think he opens the film quite well, but he's not a
philosopher, so at many moments in the film, it becomes too cute, or
too flat, or too thin on philosophy, or whatever. He's merely
'telling' a story at such moments, which, in my opinion, is not like
the often multi-layered way of Kubrick's approach.
>
> >The only thing you connect from the opening shot is the image of the
> >ocean waves and the narration, concluding that this is
> >'unimaginative' Whereas I happen to think that there's much more than
> >meets the eye here. The ocean is the symbol of the mother. It is about
> >water. Water makes life possible. It is one of the four elements,
> >besides fire, earth and air. Water is a human need. It is essential.
> >Like a mother. Like love. That very same water becomes man's enemy; it
> >drowns us. It can freeze. It can freeze our lives. In a way, we all
> >are 'children'; of that ocean. But the ocean can also kill us. Wipe
> >out our existence. So the ocean is also a metaphor for Creation. (And
> >Destruction)
>
> Well yes, look up water in a dictionary of symbols and youąll find just such
> an entry. But does that mean every film that features water carried that
> kind of symbolic baggage. Say if a character runs a bath in a film are we
> supposed to connect it with their primal desire to reconnect with a primal
> mother? No of course not that would be absurd.
You have missed the point:
Water in A.I., the ocean, is more than, say, an 'image'; it represents
a lot, like words do in a poem. See Tarkovsky's way of dealing with
exploring the ocean in Solaris. Spielberg is neither Tarkovsky or
Kubrick, but still I think he shows 'some' understanding of that
philosphical intentions. But as a filmmaker one can clearly see that
he's not used to such a treatment.
The example that you give, only tries to ridicule my point.
Because in your example, it comes out of a film, as you say, "like
every film", a conventional way of storytelling that is.
But A.I. is not about conventional ways of filmmaking or storytelling.
And I most certainly believe that certain themes are explored; this
thematic line connects much segments of/within A.I. As I have tried to
explain.
AI started with a shot of a
> wave and some narration about global warming. Youąre right global warming
> sea level rise is a perfect excuse to weave all this symbolic material into
> the narrative, an opportunity Spielberg squandered IMO. Where - apart from
> the opening and the drowned New your do we get any reference to sea level
> rise. When is it ever raining apart from the opening scene? If you want a
> film that treats water imagery poetically and symbolically take a look at
> Tarkovskyąs Stalker not AI. Even Lynchąs Dune has better wave and water
> imagery than AI.
Stalker: water imagery poetically; yes, but symbollically: no. At
least, that was not Tarkovsky's intention, if you read his remarks on
'symbolism', which, in his opinion is often misunderstood. According
to him, symbolism doesn't work in cinema; once people say: "hey that
is a symbol", the mystery of the meaning behind the imagery becomes
empty and fake.
Again: it is Spielberg's execution, though not the intention.
Spielberg makes the mistake that Tarkovsky was talking about.
Still, I think there's much to discover in A.I.
Much interesting thoughts and so on.
Point I was trying to make: one can 'hate' something in a film and pan
it right away. I'm only trying to explain that I experienced quite a
lot throughout A.I. Also, the fairy tale issue is also important,
because this defines quite a lot in A.I. Spielberg focused on that a
lot in his 'treatment' of what's going on in A.I. He is not Tarkovsky
at all in that way. Nor does he want to be.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> >The difference is in the execution. Because I won't argue that
> >Spielberg's direction is plain perfect.
>
> Exactly. You seem to be describing an interesting film but it is not the
> film Spielberg made.
When you focus on your thoughts on what 2001, after many viewings, did
to and with you, and why, one could also say "Interesting film you
describe, but it is not the film Kubrick made."
I only try to explain what A.I. provoked 'in' me; what I experienced,
trying to express that in words, in a post like this, which is
difficult.
Should experiencing and thinking about, or discussing, a film always
be about the exact film that the director has put together?
Then discussing Kubrick's films, say 2001 or EWS, would be quite
boring, in my opinion.
>
>
> <snip.
>
> > Much of the rest of the film
> >resonates through what is set up in the first scene, which to me,
> >doesn't really 'explain' anything, but sets up a fairy tale like
> >story.
>
> See my comment on mixing plausibility with flights of fancy. This is not a
> fairy tale unless a fairy tale is a catch all excuse for bad dramatising and
> bad plotting.
Perhaps, but you seem to be quite focused on pidgeon holing A.I. into
the world of fairy tales and then arguing about certain 'rules' in
order to say whether A.I. did pass that test.
Then it is quite easy to argue that A.I. is about bad dramatising and
bad plotting. Dramatising and plotting: I don't think that was the
most important issue in making, developing A.I.
I, for one, hate pidgeon holing films, especially Kubrick's, and I
also hate 'rules for the sake of rules'...
>
> <snip>
>
> >You are SURE that much of AI is
> >'wrong'(whatever that means), and you present a rather one-dimensional
> >thought about the film's opening, concluding that it is all rather
> >umimaginative. Because you 'didn't like it'; Or, so you make us
> >believe at this point in your review. Whereas I think there's so much
> >more than 'not liking it'.
>
> Well fine we disagree. I donąt agree with you take on the film (snipped for
> reasons of bandwidth I donąt see how you can force all those symbolic
> associations into such a light package. The film you describe would be an
> interesting film but it is not Spielbergąs AI.
I don't care about "Spielberg's A.I.". I care about what I have
experienced, about my own thoughts, random also...
You seem to define a new 'rule': one should discuss Spielberg's A.I.
But what exactly is "Spielberg's A.I."???
And what exactly is Kubrick's 2001?
What exactly is Tarkovsky's Stalker?
Only thing one can do, is try to express once experiences and thoughts
and feelings, after having seen the film.
Then something does happen.
We saw a different film.
That to me, is interesting.
That is why people still 'see' all kinds of things, interesting
things, in many great works.
>
>
> >>
> >> From what I have read about the pre-production work completed on AI when
> >> Kubrick was still alive, ....
>
> >DA: Sorry, but this is very strange to me. Have you read Watson's
> >treatment, script, synopsis, or whatever he wrote?
>
> The answer is no of course, I didnąt think what I had written was ambiguous
> actually. Take a look at question 16 of the FAQ which I helped to write. The
> synopsis there is not that far from what we got - and that was written in
> 1999.
Your site is great. GREAT that is.
And important too.
>
> >>
> >> The story doesn't grow out of the characters, but rather the characters are
> >> merely there to service the needs of the story.
>
> >Which, to me, is very Kubrick-like, isn't it?
>
> No no no not at all have you seem Barry Lyndon?
The one Kubrick film I did not see was Fear and Desire.
Don't take my question that literally.
What I was trying to say, needs a book to fully explain.
My question seems to suggest that Kubrick is not interested in
characters, or something of that kind.
As for Barry Lyndon: for me it is the greatest Kubrick and the most
painful experience I've ever had in a theater I think. That ending...
It is so sad.
>
> >As for me, Kubrick did
> >not seem to like the classical rules of character-driven stories, but
> >was more interested in philosophical narration and ideas, where
> >characters often served as vehicles to expose that.
>
> Ideas are a trap I believe Kubrick said
Well, I don't believe 'everything' he has said.
Often, the context of what is said, how it is said, and why, is
forgotten.
Than it becomes merely a quote.
I happen to think (think!) that he was interested a LOT in ideas.
Which to me, is not a trap at all.
Not with Kubrick.
He is intelligent to realise it CAN BECOME a trap, but that is
something different.
>
>
> >Which is not to
> >say, that Kubrick was not interested in characters, quite the opposite.
> >See my first thoughts, just based on the film's opening. To me, the
> >way AI is introduced, set up, it becomes clear that it is not a film
> >that is character driven. I, for one, am not interested to learn a lot
> >about, say Henry Swinton.
>
> Well I think it should be and the fact that Henry Swinton is such a plank of
> wood I think is a problem - and Iąm not the only one, see Wordsmithąs post
> about the same issue.
>
> >The film is about a philosphical idea; pretty much like 2001. In 2001,
> >the story doesn't grow out of the characters either, but do you care?
>
> Oh really. Dave forces entry into the discovery and kills HAL, if he hadnąt
> done this the narrative would not have continued. So the story of 2001 >is<
> character driven.
>
> >At this point in your review, it would be useful to know what you are
> >saying when you say that the fragments of the story become meaningful
> >when the whole picture is revealed.
>
> I said it ref. the Sixth sense comparison.
>
> <Snip>
>
> > But once you decide that 'there is much wrong with AI' it is only
> >logical to only explain what's wrong with the film, so far.
>
> Yes that is logical isnąt it.
It is. LOL. Help, we agree!
>
> >Whereas I happen to think, that it is not the disaster you are describing here,
> >so far in your review, or thoughts on AI.
>
> My post should be read in its entirely before you draw those conclusions. I
> didnąt say that the film was a disaster. It one of the best sci fi films of
> recent years - unfortunately science fiction is a pretty impoverished genre
> since star wars.
You're right. Glad to read this.
>
>
>
> >Because I think that Sartre's existential
> >thoughts, for example his concerns about authenticity resonates
> >throughout the whole concept of AI. One could also argue that David IS a child.
>
> I think youąll find heąs a robot who wants to be a child: not the same thing
> at all.
Exactly; that is why I say "could also argue". (not 'should')
>
>
> >He's programmed (imprinted) by Monica, in order to love her like a
> >real mother, but she never is. And David is never a real child,
> >capable of loving someone. Or is he? In the end, David still seems
> >Sartrean to me.
>
> Donąt use Sartrean as an adjective for David, a person cannot be Sartrean
> unless they are Jean Paul himself.
OK!
>
> >He doesn't seem to realise the context he's part of.
> >"We must endeavor through a constant unceasing effort to create
> >meaning in our lives, if our lives are to have any meaning." David is
> >a robot. He's not a human being. So one should, in a common sense, not
> >talk about the 'life' of a robot, but rather a 'life-span'which is a
> >very different matter. David is not capable of 'understanding', that
> >is: realising, that he cannot 'create'meaning; his program 'tells' him
> >to go after Monica's love.
>
>
> Well that is meaning. David does not suffer from an absence of meaning - an
> existential ennui - does he?
Ehm, right. However... That is the rational way of looking at it.
But what's happening is that I (as someone in the audience) FEELS
different about it. This conflict is very interesting; that was my
point.
That is why I say: A.I. is make-believe-within-make-believe; it makes
me believe that he is able to suffer, able to love, or whatever, than
ratio kicks in...
>
> <Snip>
>
> >If Joe's
> >answer is that he doesn't know why he did his little dance; then why
> >exactly is this 'like a kind of robot unconscious'?
>
> Because he doesnąt know why he does it?
Then again: what's knowledge and how to define that?
Same conflict again.
>
> >> The tracking shot across the discarded AI corpses recalls a similar shots of
> >>holocaust
> >> victimsŹ shoes in SchindlerŹs List which really goes to show that Spielberg
> >> (knowingly or unknowingly) will betray any claim to high moral seriousness
> >> for an impactful shot.
>
> >I didn't like the Flesh Fair either. It's purpose is clear, but like
> >Rouge City, it is not a very well developed sequence,<snip>
> >And what's wrong with a very impactful shot?
>
> See my post aesthetics and morality on amk for the answer to that one.
I will, again.
>
>
> <Snip>
>
>
> >There were many 'inconsistencies' in the plot of Eyes Wide Shut. It
> >all depends how you look at it.
>
> Like what for instance?
See the ongoing discussion on EWS.
There are many people who hate EWS, mainly, I think, because they are
challenged to think. Answers are not presented; people, mainstream
audiences especially, do not like that.
They think mostly in a rational way, can't see 'behind' what they are
offered.
2001 and EWS are multi layered, and the exploration of themes is
complex.
How one 'should look at it': in a personal, individual way, especially
opening up for the experience and feelings and senses, before using
ratio.
>
>
> >You want the plot to make sense, so it
> >seems. In a rational way. As for me, I don't care about these
> >inconsistencies; not in EWS, not in AI.
>
>
> <Snip>
>
>
> >The only reason you come up with is the
> >Kubrick-is-so-much-better-than-Spielberg-of-course argument, which is
> >rather thin, actually.
>
>
> Well Kubrick >is< much better than Spielberg. And it not a thin argument!
I think Kubrick is far more ambitious. Far more philosophical.
That is what I prefer. That is what I like. That is what challenges
me.
Kubrick vs Spielberg = Apples vs Oranges. I don't care.
Who's 'better': I don't care either.
Kubrick is one of my favorite directors: so what?
Spielberg is a very good storyteller. He is that, at least.
But then again, filmmaking is not about competition; only at the box
office.
I like E.T.
I like Saving Private Ryan.
I think 2001 and Barry Lyndon are knock outs.
Maybe Tarkovsky is better than Kubrick.
>
>
> >>
> >> Many people had problems with the ending. I think this was because it was an
> >> unhappy blending of Fairy tale and science fiction elements.
>
> >I don't think so. I think it is because they are used to Spielberg's
> >usual sentimental treatments in many of his other films. The first
> >reaction is understandable: typical Spielberg. But in fact, it is not.
>
>
> Well maybe. I think it can be said that people were unhappy with the ending
> because they assumed it was just a bit of Spielberg sentimentality and
> didnąt look any further.
Yes.
But, like you said: It is Spielberg's A.I....
What you say about the film's ending, is not Spielberg's A.I. either,
if I may use your argument.
Which, to me, is good news really.
About this way of thinking about what the film really is about:
There are drawings that only consists of dots.
A bunch of dots.
But then, you start seeing "the picture behind the picture".
This is a bit like experiencing films like 2001 and A.I. (apart from
what film is 'better'; because 'better' and 'worse' don't mean that
much to me)
Often, paintings are analysed in different ways, depending on, for
instance, the era in which these paintings are analysed.
Often, the result of that analyzing is different.
The painting remains the same.
What the 'audience' takes from that painting, can be very different.
And that, to me, is interesting.
>
> <Snip>
>
>
> > I would like to know what that 'greater psychological truth' is
> >all about, in fairy tales. Because you do not explain. <Snip>
>
>
> Read the Uses of enchantment by Bruno Bettleheim.
I will; thanks for the advice.
But I asked for your opinion, not Bettleheim's.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> >The question is: what is plausible to you or anyone else? How do you
> >define the plausible? To me, I think much of the fairy tale world is
> >grounded in the plausible, although not in a rational way perse.
> >Also, I think that fairy tales most certainly CAN deal with moral
> >complexities; it is often underneath the story itself or in the
> >thematic development of the story.
>
>
> Examples please. I think youąll find fairy tales have good characters and
> bad character, the good wins through and the bad perish, usually horrible.
> Now how exactly is that morally complex?
That is difficult. How do we define a "fairy tale"?
We first have to agree, or my examples won't make any difference.
Tolkien has written a great deal about that.
But once you have that "perfect definition" of a fairy tale, I don't
think that it is that important, really. Because with it, come the
rules. And rules always tend to pidgeon hole the writer, the
filmmaker, the artist.
To me, Barrie's "Mary Rose" is a fantasy story.
But it has fairy tale elements.
It deals with complex moral issues.
From the outside it is a 'light' story.
But the subject, for instance, is heavy: death.
The moment where 'children' realise that they are mortal, they start
growing old, become an adult. That was often the theme throughout
Barrie's work; like in Peter Pan.
These won't be considered 'fairy tales', but fantasy stories.
Is Pinocchio a fairy tale?
In the hands of Collodi, perhaps.
In the hands of Disney, no. (imo)
Collodi's story deals with moral issues also.
Growing up, growing old, becoming an adult, becoming aware of one's
desires and consciousness etc.
They are all underneath all that lighthearted story.
>
>
> >I tend not to agree. Which fairy tale elements that, according to you,
> >have not been successfully woven into the narrative, are you talking
> >about? Furthermore; how exactly should these elements have been woven
> >into the narrative then? Why would that, based on which argument, have
> >been better?
> >
> I donąt have enough time to write all this down. It would be like rewriting
> the AI script. The basic problem is that there is a tension between the
> technically grounded quality of science fiction and the flights of fancy
> quality of fairy tales. The film IMO tries to have it both ways.
Which to me is not that bad.
That is not the reason for such an argument, I tend to think.
EWS tries to have it both ways too; dream and reality.
But in EWS, one can never really tell.
It is Spielberg's execution again, I think.
Anyway; it is not that I do not agree, I'm just curious, what your
opinions are.
>
>
> >>
> >> Although undoubtedly a failure you could still glimpse the big idea through
> >> the creakiness of its exposition (and what an idea!) I think the problem was
> >> that Spielberg failed to find adequate means of dramatising the story beyond
> >> assembling the fragments of Kubrick's rejected scenario and keeping his
> >> fingers crossed that they would somehow cohere, which of course they did
> >> not.
>
> >Why do you say 'undoubtedly a failure'? I would have my doubts on such
> >a remark, because I don't think AI can be discarded as an obvious
> >failure.
>
>
> Well that's subjective, but it was a personal opinion.
OK.
>
>
> >What exactly is that Big Idea that you are talking about?
>
>
> I have been talking about that idea throughout my post. If you don't know
> then eiterh my post has failed or you have failed to comprehend it.
I know; I have failed to comprehend it.
Just wanted to know how you would put it in one thought, a few
sentences, or something. I like your random thoughts, as well as
discussing this film.
(I'm a bit too puristic at times... And not quite succesful in
expressing my own thoughts on A.I., especially in English. Sorry)
<SNIP>
Thanks!
I can only say: I do agree with much of it. But not with the way some
people tend to pan the film, or certain parts of it, rightaway.
I saw other qualities, at least, I experienced it differently at many
times, although Spielberg's execution is far from being perfect.
That 'big idea', to me, shines through everything.
It haunts me, really. Spielberg or not.
>
>
> >It is obvious that you THINK the
> >'fragments' do not cohere, but WHY?
>
>
> Because they donąt? There more loose ends with AI than unanswered questions
> as is the case with 2001 for instance.
In a rational way, perhaps.
But then again, A.I. doesn't want to be 2001.
I have expressed my thoughts and opinion on this.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> >To me, with AI, he proves that that might be a prejudice. He's not
> >Kubrick. So don't judge him for not being Kubrick.
>
>
> He was making a film that was Kubrickąs. Comparisons are not beside the
> point in this instance.
Only Sartre can be Sartrean.
As you have said: Spielberg has made A.I.
Not Kubrick.
Kubrick did not make a film.
So it also "wasn't" his film.
He developed several treatments.
But that's not a film.
>
>
> >There are many people who believe that E.T. is also 'simple-minded',
> >which, in fact, to me is not.
>
>
> Well that sums up the gulf that separates us Iąm afraid.
LOL! Should I worry? Sometimes I like a good gulf.
Agreements is not all that matters.
A difference in opinion is more than welcome to me.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> >Again, these assumptions only mean that you work from a starting point
> >that Kubrick's version would have been better,
>
>
> That is true I admit
>
>
> >which doesn't make much
> >sense now.
>
>
> True again
>
>
> > The simple truth is, that Kubrick never finished a script
> >himself.
>
>
> Which is half the problem I think.
That is not the problem for Spielberg's A.I.
It 'could' have been the problem had Kubrick directed A.I.
Now you actually critize Kubrick.
Something he hasn't done, is half of Spielberg's problem.
...
To me, Spielberg's problem is Spielberg's problem.
And that, alas, is not 'half a problem'...
>
>
> >Also, you seem to know it better than Kubrick himself, who
> >also 'certainly' thought that Spielberg 'might' be the ideal director
> >for AI.
>
>
> I make no such claim to know that. And I deny it's a valid interpretation of
> what I said.
Than I was wrong.
>
>
> >> But despite everything, I thought the last 20 minutes were brilliant (unlike
> >> everyone else it seems).
>
> >DA: And those last 20 minutes of AI were also directed by that very
> >same mr Steven Spielberg...
>
>
> Yes which is why I donąt dismiss his version of AI entirely
OK.
>
> >if AI really was that obvious failure you seemed to be
> >talking about, you couldn't, nor wouldn't have spend so much time in
> >coming up with so many interesting philosphical and moral issues,
> >don't you think?
>
> >dutch angle
>
> Well I entirely agree. If you assume I though AI was a total failure, you
> have misunderstood my post.
OK. And I admit that I probably have. Anyway: I really like your
thoughts, with greatest respect. Discussing a film like A.I. or
Kubrick; not easy when one has to use electronic words. Sorry for
that.
Iąm sorry it was ambiguous, but that is how I am
> about the film. Iąm not a reviewer I have no obligation to dismiss it or
> praise it, or pretend to have a coherent argument when I do not. I would be
> doing the film more of an injustice if i attempted to make such case for the
> prosecution so to speak, if i didn't feel it to be true. The reason I posted
> this message is because AI effected me greatly.
Me too. And I was tremendously surprised by that.
That is what I consider
> important. The post came out of a discussion with Gordon Dahlquist, I guess
> the negative stuff unbalanced my one-sided and edited post of my part of
> that discussion but, taken as a whole, I think my message does conveys my
> feelings on the film.
It certainly does.
But i stree it is not, nor does it pretend to be a
> final statement on the film.
>
> Thanks for such a considered response Dutch, I donąt agree but Iąm glad you
> took the time to express your thoughts.
>
Thanks for your efforts too.
It is this kind of disagreeing that I find interesting.
There are many interesting thoughts here in the AMK.
That's why I like reading it.
dutch angle
Thomas "point" Friedrichs
"Rod Munday" <r...@visual-memory.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:B7DF6A9F.29BB%r...@visual-memory.co.uk...
>
> Well maybe. I think it can be said that people were unhappy with the
ending
> because they assumed it was just a bit of Spielberg sentimentality and
Why "just" Spielberg´s sentimentality? What further look can there be than
both Kubrick and Spielberg touching people in what i see as the
spiritual-emotional *most essential* thing there is in human being?
The same quality in "E.T.", in "Close encounter", in "2001": The desire for
relief, for true salvation, and the pain of knowing, that it will not
happen in lifetime. And the hope, that love is stronger than all loss of
reality as we know it.
bye
Thomas
Rod Munday
> relief, for true salvation, and the pain of knowing, that it will not
> happen in lifetime. And the hope, that love is stronger than all loss of
> reality as we know it.
>
> bye
> Thomas
Do you think the end of 2001 is in any way comparable to the ending of
Close Encounters, where Neary goes into the mothership to the strains
of John Williams' kitschy arrangement of Disney's "when you wish upon
a star?"
Regards, Rod Munday
Thomas "point" Friedrichs
> Do you think the end of 2001 is in any way comparable to the ending of
> Close Encounters, where Neary goes into the mothership to the strains
> of John Williams' kitschy arrangement of Disney's "when you wish upon
> a star?"
>
> Regards, Rod Munday
I惴 not talking about cineastic value, just the emotional essence.
For me, the underlying human desire is the same, whether it愀 the starchild
watching the earth, or Neary going with the superior aliens...
You are not alone - that愀 the comforting message.
bye
Thomas