Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to the Super Champion Film Zone. We hope your visit is dope.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, creating a personal blog, feeding contents, filling the database, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
A.I. FROM FANTSY TO TRAGEDY; In Defense of A.I.
Topic Started: May 29 2015, 11:12 PM (356 Views)
Ashes in the Hourglass


I can’t think of a more divisive film than A.I. The majority thinks it’s MEH, some others (who I’m willing to bet are Kubrick fanboys) loath it and a few think of it as an interesting failure. But then there are select few, myself included, who absolutely adore this film and consider it one of the greatest film, of not only the 21st Century, but of all time.

Before I discuss this film, I must begin with it’s supposed 2 auteurs and my feeling towards each. The father, Kubrick, is someone I think is both simultaneously overrated and brilliant. I often feel like he’s the avant-garde filmmaker for the mainstream, those who are still ignorant of cinema, hence why the majority of his fans are teenagers. Not coincidently, their favorites are some of my least favorite: The Shining is beloved for reasons I will never understand, since I find to be too mannered and overly calculated to be terrifying and Clockwork Orange is, IMO, manipulative since, at the end, when Kubrick attempts to make us relate to Alex, he does so by making all the other characters worse than him, as if that should be enough for us to think of Alex as anything but a psychopath. On the other hand, I love Paths of Glory, 2001, Strangelove, Barry Lyndon, FMJ and Eyes Wide Shut. The mother, Spielberg, needs no introduction. When I was around 4, Jurassic Park was the first film that captured my imagination and thus Spielberg definitely influenced me in some way. Some of you may say that this would influence my opinion on his filmography but that isn’t the case since I didn’t see another film of his until I was a teenager, Raiders to be precise. I was more than satisfied with Jurassic Park as a kid. He definitely has a mixed body of work. Some are great, a few are awful and most are just decent. It’s no secret that most art-house loving cinefiles hate his guts. Some complaints are valid but I feel most are not. As an example, here’s a link to a video by 99Filmo, also known as Joey Noodles on this Mubi:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INtJeFLHOlE
In this video, he explains why he feels that Spielberg should leave Kubrick’s Napoleon alone. To prove that he’s a bad filmmaker, he quotes Alejandro Jodorowsky who calls Spielberg a fascist. HOWEVER, right after he’s done quoting, 99Filmo says that he doesn’t think much of Jodorowsky’s opinion and describes his own work as being repulsive. If that’s the case, then why did he even quote the man to begin with? Simple, to take a jab at Spielberg. He also claims that if JAWS was not as successful as it end up being, Spielberg would have been a great director, as if $$$ means lower quality. In that sense, how does he explain Chaplin’s work, The Godfather (which was the highest grossing film before JAWS) or SEVEN SAMURAI (which was the highest grossing Japanese film for a long time)? Furthermore, in the comments section, he explains that he actually likes JAWS and RAIDERS but not because of Spielberg. I guess he likes them for the unrealistic shark and the melting heads. Then there’s Terry Gilliam who accuses Spielberg of, unlike Kubrick, explaining too much. I have 2 arguments against this. First, isn’t Gilliam the same person who included an introduction to Tideland’s DVD release where he tried to explain what this film is about? Second, when did it become a law that no great film can explain anything? When did we decide which method is good or bad. Spielberg knows he’s not Kubrick (he actually sees himself as more of a Michael Curtiz or Victor Fleming) so he doesn’t try to tell the same stories as him, unlike Gilliam who always felt like a teenage Kubrick fan who hasn’t grown up and still thinks that dark and edgy equals complex. These are just 2 example of how people bash Spielberg without any intelligent arguments. All this adds up to the fact that, no matter how close to Kubrick’s vision this film would have been, people were already preparing their pitch forks before A.I. came out.

For many years, I had heard about A.I and how unique it was in Spielberg’s filmography, in that even the people who like Spielberg don’t like this film. Thus, I used to believe the consensus was that it was a failure until I discovered TSPDT and saw that it ranked in the top 30 films of the 21st century. Obviously, for it to rank so well it needed admirers. Surprisingly, Jonathan Rosenbaum, a critic I was already familiar with, was a great admirer. In addition, so were Andrew Sarris, Stan Brakhage, James Naremore, Billy Wilder, Jim McBride and, unfortunately, Armond White. The latter, who many, including myself, just see as a troll, actually voted for it in Sight & Sound 2002. He was the only one who mentioned it. I even found a website dedicated to A.I. fanfiction all based around Jude Law’s character. This wasn’t entirely a positive since I hate drooling fanboys more than anything else. Nevertheless, this all sparked my interest and I avoided reading anything about it except the ending which was slightly spoiled for me. It took me roughly 2 years to finally watch it and even now, months after I’ve seen it, it haunts and lingers in my thoughts and I constantly listen to John William’s score on Youtube, which I consider to be his best ever.

Now we get to main course, the reasons why I think this film is outstanding. The prologue/introduction to the film perfectly sets the tone for the foreseeable events by establishing the main theme that runs throughout. It also includes the first of many haunting images in the film, the opening of the robotic face that hints how the viewer must look beyond the images in this film about simulations. I would argue that the key to understanding A.I. lies in this approach where there’s more than meets the eye and our senses betray us. Rosenbaum brilliantly compares this to Tarkovsky’s Solaris where man isn’t satisfied despite getting what he wants. In short, this film is all about the subtext.

We then begin the first third of the film involving David’s relation with Monica and his eventual abandoning. Supposedly part of Kubrick’s original treatment, the first act plays like a horror film version of E.T. Once again, it’s all about the uncanny valley as every attempt by David to simulate a real boy, even down to his awkward laugh, is so close to the real deal and yet, paradoxically, so far from it. Even his introduction as a blurry alien-shaped figure sets off the alarm. This whole theme of simulation also goes into the films style which is Spielberg simulating an imperfect Kubrickian approach and this goes for the entire film. The whole argument about the conflicting stylistic approach that everybody bitches and moans about is one of the film’s greatest strengths. Just because something is awkward doesn’t mean people should jump to conclusions and call it a failure. This act also lead to something that I found incredibly compelling and forwarding thinking. Once Martin comes back home, there’s this underlying feeling that David has become disposable, his function has been served. This got me thinking about the way so many people get rid of their phones or any piece of tech the second the new model comes around. It begs the question, how much do we value love and affection in today’s world when it’s treated in such an expendable way? This also binds David and Teddy together as they both share the same fate. This isn’t like Toy Story 3 where the toys are passed on to others, here their presence and comfort is a mere service. Obviously, this isn’t the only this theme of individuality pops up as it does so near the end.

Then comes the 2nd act which is probably the strangest part of the film. While watching the film, I remember finding this part to be the weakest and yet it’s probably the one I think back upon the most and almost all of it has to do with Gigolo Joe who personifies an idea that was hinted at earlier in the film: that love and hatred are 2 halves of the same coin. He brings a misanthropic view to the film that is counter balanced by David’s sentimentality. In many ways, his and David’s conflicting ideologies of love are representative of the film’s and perhaps it’s two creators. The film puts forth the fact that love is an illusion, something completely disposable and illogical but also that it’s something inherently necessary for humans, that it drives us forward and is a great motivator behind our actions. Therein lies the film’s idea of what it is to be human, something that functions on logic, cruelly so, and yet craves something that in the overall scale of things doesn’t matter, always torn between emotion and intelligence that, when push comes to shove, always goes toward emotion. That is what makes a human and that is our greatest failure, we trust our senses too much and are blinded by the truth. And nowhere is this more relevant than in the flesh-fair where David’s simulation and his manipulation of people’s emotion leads to his safe-escape. It also comes up when David decides to not head towards the moon influenced by his previous experience. The shot of the moon is of a regular moon that I suspect isn’t fake, yet David is still motivated by logic and turns back. Some people feel that the tonal shift between these scenes is quite jarring, but I disagree as I find that the horrific imagery is quite in line with the horror-like vibe that was previously established. Admittedly, there a few small nitpicks in this scene such as the wolf motorcycles which are a too-literal representation of the film’s fairy-tale attributes and the some cameos that are slightly distracting, although the Robin William’s one didn’t bother me. The whole fairy-tale aspect is probably the most annoying since, as I’ll explain, A.I. is not a fairy-tale but rather a tragedy. The act continues in a sunken New York where David is lured back home to his creator, and upon rebelling against his identity as one David among countless others, he dives into the water and finds the blue fairy. It’s hard not to watch this whole scene and not think about 9/11 which is odd since the film predates the event. I’m not going to stand here and say that this makes the film a visionary work, but it is a coincidental detail that makes me wonder if Kubrick perhaps had sensed the fragility of this city. Either way, the image of these buildings surrounded by water certainly lends it a sense of Olympian grandeur. In the end, Gigolo Joe is captured and extolls the infamous line I AM, I WAS which would have been a cliché had it not been for the fact he’s a robot, something not born but created, something that doesn’t die but is merely shut down. I would like to compare this statement to the one at the end of Victor Erice’s Spirit of the Beehive where Ana, freed from the lies and manipulations of the adults, announces her freedom with the following words: I AM ANA. Similarly, Joe believes himself to be just as alive as any human and this is in contrast with David who wants his Monica’s love as proof that he’s real. Abandoned by the world, David and Teddy dive beneath the cold water to the fairy statue where he continues to ask her to turn him into a real boy. He waits so long that eventually all the water turns to ice. Detractors usually have two complaints when it comes to this. Some argue that it makes no sense that he was never found or rescued which completely ignores the fact that, to his creators, he can easily be replaced with the dozens of Davids they have in reserve. Usually however, people complain that the film should have ended here. Personally, this would have been a good place to end the film. HOWEVER, the actual ending to this film is IMO far more powerful and is no way shape or form sentimental despite what the haters may say. In fact, I would argue that this proposed ending would have been more sentimental as it would ended the whole thing on a slightly cheap and unrewarding note.

Here we are, the fucking ending that everybody bitches and whines about to this day. The part that destroyed a perfectly serviceable film. The part that people laugh at, cringe at, close their eyes at or skip entirely. To all these people, I have one thing to say, WAY TO MISS THE POINT. I’ll go on record and say that it is the reason I love the film. It culminates, peaks, crescendos, climaxes, whatever you want to call it, the film in a way that can only be defined as PERFECT and, thus, it may just be the single greatest ending I have ever seen. What the fuck are aliens doing in this film? Why didn’t Spielberg have the balls to end it on a sour note? How could Kubrick have allowed for this to happen? First off, open your goddamn ears and eyes and take note of the fact that Gigolo Joe himself proclaimed that only the mechas would survive in the end and that their design recalls David’s introduction. In fact, the whole ending is a twist on the first act. It follows the film’s circular nature that’s present all over the imagery. Second, that so-called happy ending that people hate is one of the creepiest things ever, because, in the end, this new Monica is merely a simulation just as David is just a simulation of a real boy. It took a simulation to love a simulation. Everything on the surface is happy-go-lucky. The narration, the cheerful music, the shots of David smiling, this whole thing is a lie. Even the last shot, where David enters a perpetual sleep and leaves Teddy alone hints at the underlying darkness of it all. The people who don’t get it are actively proving the film’s greatness as they are unable to use their logic and deduce what is right in front of them. Third, maybe all the Kubrick fans in the world don’t know the man as well as they think they do and, certainly not as well Spielberg who was his friend and revered him as a teacher. This ending separates the fanboys from the fans, the blind from the perceptive and the frauds from the real thing, hence why Terry Gilliam hates it (hurray for another jab at Gilliam). The ending is like 2001’s but without the visual splendor, all the fancy stuff has been taken out and all that is left is the meat on the bone. David has gotten what he wanted, but it isn’t what he thought it would be. This element is why I referred to A.I. as a tragedy. Not only does it follow the three act structure but its main characters is driven, as all tragic figures are, by something he wants to obtain. Whereas in other cases, the tragedy comes from the catastrophic actions taken to obtain what is desired, here it comes from the sheer impossibility of it all. He can’t have true love because David isn’t human and thus he lacks one serious ability. David can only give and take love, he can’t reject it, which is what his family did to his affection. This ability to reject, to refuse, to hurt someone is another trait in this film’s vision of what it means to be human. The fact that David falls for this lie is also systematic of the last words Monica tells him at the end: I’M SORRY I DIND’T TELL ABOUT THE WORLD. The tragedy comes from the fact that he wasn’t prepared for all of this, that he is ignorant of what’s going on. Put this in context of the film’s future, where the world is mostly in ruins and there is a limit on child birth, and compare it to the actual world at this instant. We are 8 billion, and growing, on a planet that cannot support all of us, we are making more children because to do so seems healthy for the population. But A.I. proposes that whether or not these new children are ready for this world, the world is CERTAINLY not ready for them and their individual needs. All of this is certainly a misanthropic view of humanity, but unlike Gigolo Joe’s point of view, it is by no means hopeless and indifferent, rather it’s a cry, a warning, for change and improvement. Rosenbaum best description is that A.I. is a film that refuses to love us back, and that is why it’s admirers love it. Once again, I will compare this to Erice’s Spirit of the Beehive which shows how we fooled children, in the past, for the sake of a so-called higher purpose. Just as Erice’s film is a cry for the children of the past, Spielberg’s is a cry for the children of today and tomorrow. The idea of him making a film about children is nothing new (Close Encounters, E.T., Empire of the Sun), but it is hard to imagine Kubrick doing something like this, hence why he probably gave it to him. If all the haters think Spielberg is unfit for this project, I would argue that Kubrick himself would have been even more unfit.

To sum it all up, is A.I. a Spielberg film or a Kubrick film? While I think that only Spielberg could have achieved this film, it likely belongs to neither and that is what lends it its strength. To hell with the auteur theory, A.I. follows its own rules and doesn’t care what the world says. The film’s reputation is suffering for the naiveté of its detractors but, when the end comes, all that will be left is the film’s greatness. That’s why they hate it. Cute reference aside, the tide will inevitably turn and the film will be known as a Masterpiece. Just as the ocean will rise above the skyscrapers so too will the film above people’s biases. A.I. is this century’s The Searchers, Vertigo, 2001.

Thanks for enduring my rant for so long.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wba
Member Avatar
The Merciless
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Have to see this again.
Watched it when it came out in theaters, back in 2001. I liked it, but didn't think it was anything special.
During the following years, more and more friends kept telling me that it was a masterpiece. I guess it must have quite a following by now.
To please the majority is the requirement of the Planet Cinema. As far as I'm concerned, I don't make a concession to viewers, these victims of life, who think that a film is made only for their enjoyment, and who know nothing about their own existence.

letterboxd * tumblr * website

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · Steven Spielberg · Next Topic »
Add Reply