Skip to main content

I'm interested to see what you will choose.

Ex Machina
(2015)

(SPOILERS) Ex Machina is a handsome, meticulously crafted film that if nothing else evidences Alex Garland as a filmmaker of talent. As a screenwriter, however, the jury is still out. I’m a little surprised by the levels of discussion the picture has provoked, in fact. Anyone would think Garland was reinventing the AI wheel, or breaking profound new ground in the study of gender identification. He has directed an engaging picture, a chamber piece populated by fine actors giving fine performances, but one that treads familiar ground and allows its plot twists to lead it by the nose. It might be slightly unfair to suggest Ex Machina merely pays lip service to its thematic content, but plot is undoubtedly dominant, so theme ultimately gets short shrift.


As such, the picture probably offers up for more effective analysis its debut director’s (leaving aside whatever uncredited involvement he did or didn’t have helming Dredd) continuing obsessions than any overt ideas he attempts to explore. Unfortunately, by this point we have more than enough insight into his quirks. He’s all about the hook, and there’s a point with his work, usually during the third act, where the edifice crumbles and the viewer is left with not very much at all. Ex Machina is more polished than earlier efforts in this respect, and more controlled; the mayhem of The Beach, 28 Days Later and Sunshine is avoided, yet perversely the emphasis on talk rather than action exposes even more unflatteringly that any notions of intellect Ex Machina has are veneer; it’s the flesh and viscera Garland is interested in.


The set up is straightforward enough; coder Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) “wins a competition” to spend a week with Nathan (Oscar Isaac), the CEO of Bluebook, the company he works for. He’s delivered by helicopter to Nathan’s remote mountain hideaway, where his boss reveals he wants Caleb to probe the AI credentials (using the Turing Test, naturally) of the machine mind (and body) he has created, Ava (Alicia Vikander). Nothing is as straightforward as it seems, of course, and Ava warns Caleb that Nathan is not to be trusted. Caleb in turn develops increasing strong feelings towards the intelligence he is probing.


By structuring the picture as a grey box for Caleb to unlock, Garland makes Ex Machina about the revelations, rather than grappling with the carrot on the stick; the mind of the AI. He squeezes his players to fit his resolution rather than allowing the material to develop organically. So Nathan’s deeper motivation is rather suspect; he’s doing this to see how convincing Ava can be at manipulating others? Really?


Sure, we can attach irrationally egotistical foibles and failings to Nathan, but they fail to really satisfy in terms of his grand scheme. This is a guy (a bulked up bully, an alpha nerd who cannot form a meaningful relationship with an actual woman, but even more than that locks himself away and can’t form a meaningful relationship with an actual human being) with a first rate mind who carefully devises a plan to utilise hoodwinked doorstop beta nerd Caleb in his test. He is able to account for numerous variables yet lacks the crucial foresight to only pretend to get pissed when it comes to the week of his test.


Nathan’s behaviour is an act, except when Garland needs it to be otherwise in order to oil the wheels of the plot. He has the wherewithal to install a battery-operated camera in Ava’s cell, but why did he not have one there all along? It beggars belief that one with his genius couldn’t have added two and two and made Ava as the source of the power cuts; indeed, it reads as if he must have known for it to make any sense that Caleb and Ava could hatch a plan together. He’s also someone well aware of the danger of his creations yet he fails to programme any protocols or overrides in order to prevent just the kind of fate that befalls him (“Is it strange to have made someone that hates you?”)


Conveniences of plot aside, there are other more pressing problems with Garland’s tale. Much of the conversation regarding Ex Machina has focussed on the final scene in relation to its play with gender politics; that we (the male viewer, presumably) ought to be less concerned about the abandonment of Caleb and should rather empathise more with the mind-set of the imprisoned and subjugated Ava. This reading wasn’t foremost in my mind since I saw the picture predominately as a (not necessarily insightful) take on AI fare; Ava is not a woman, so it doesn’t follow to see her imprisonment of Caleb in Nathan’s fortress as the act of a woman betraying her heroic male saviour. Indeed, the rest of the picture makes a point that Ava is not the chassis Nathan has designed for her/it.


In seeing the picture as a simple metaphor for men’s objectification of women, Nathan is the overt transgressor. His entire motive for creating AIs is as a glorified sex toy; one might see this as an extension of how, with all the possible uses of IT and the Internet, the number one favourite is pornography. If so, that’s also what makes Garland’s a kind of rote choice. What else have you got for us here, Alex? Apart from immodestly congratulating yourself for being able to take apart your own gender’s motivations in a manner that really isn’t so profound (i.e. conveyed through a plot twist)? One might also see both Caleb and Nathan as avatars of the new phase of remote interaction of the human race, where “a beer and a conversation” are foreign tools of communication. If that’s the case, the analysis is a disappointment, and one rather opines Garland’s decision that the film is “not a seminar”; it might have been more satisfying if it was.


As such, the choice to make Nathan a monstrous pervert is perhaps the least interesting one Garland could have chosen. It’s the same unrefined impulse that fosters Colonel Kurtz clones in each of his pictures (if Caleb isn’t Captain Willard, the man sent to kill Nathan, the genius demi-god gone rogue who makes his own rules, he is responsible for his death). At one point there are the makings of an interesting conversation about the sexualisation of his AIs, where Nathan attempts to justify his choices (“Can consciousness exist without interaction?”), but it is quickly dropped for the question of Caleb’s desire for Ava (“You bet she can fuck”) versus his intellectual interest.


Oscar Isaac is a powerhouse as Nathan, but the character itself isn’t very interesting. The same with Gleeson’s Caleb. Even though they have far more screen time than Ava, they are still rudimentarily fashioned facilitators of the plot. Alpha and beta, nerd king and hero worshipper who turns. Not that readily recognisable types can’t work –there are only so many under the sun – but Garland has nothing new for them to do.


Gleeson playing the affably sensitive weakling already seems like the most typecast role for him. Caleb is more interesting when he is allowed to exhibit clinical interest, rather than proving Nathan’s kinky automata fetish (“She’s fucking amazing!”) and what a bad role model he is. Gleeson seems to be playing against a sexual response to Ava, and not just because his character thinks that’s the “good person” thing to do, but the character gets muddied in the third act dramatics. Ultimately it seems as if Garland is playing out a fairly basic polar scenario of his own battle with vying forces of masculinity; his objectifying gaze versus more empathic impulses (notably, for all his sensitivity, Caleb has a porn profile that informs Ava’s features).


In theory, we are seeing the film through Caleb’s eyes, yet Garland isn’t a writer who can keep authorial distance. His eyes and impulses take over. If he doesn’t allow Caleb to become Willard, the character nevertheless embarks on the familiar descent into blood and madness, exemplified by the scene in which Caleb cuts his wrist open to see if he is also an AI. It ought to be delirious and disturbing, but it’s obvious; Garland foreshadows the idea in the first scene of the picture with electronica reflections on Caleb’s face.


The main problem with the gender based interpretation of the ending, however, is that it derives from a cake-and-eat-it approach on the part of the filmmaker. It relies on the female character(s) being objectified through the male gaze throughout, the complete lack of effort to fashion a character for Ava being justified by the “Fooled ya!” of her not requiring the man to be her everything. The same is also true of the picture’s treatment of AI (the Turing Test is quickly dispensed with in any kind of meaningful way, and the engaged part of the sessions comes from the reveals about Caleb when Ava is characterised as a walking lie detector). We know Ava wants to stand at a busy intersection (to interact) but that’s about it.


I’m not going to suggest this is an elaborate ploy by Garland to circumvent an inability to write female characters (by making them impenetrable, or, in the case of Sonoya Mizuno’s Kyoto, mute), but its very easier to look at the picture and see self-awareness and “legitimate” intent as justification for a series of less worthy indulgences.  Such as the predilection for lingering on naked female bodies. If the great insight is that men don’t see women as people, well, it’s a perverse position coming from a filmmaker’s gaze that doesn’t see women as people. And the response is really rather “No shit”; this is a very familiar trope by this point.


Hinging the picture on Ava incarcerating Caleb creates a perverse situation where, by drawing attention to the expected dehumanising male gaze, Garland denies Ava the basic trait of empathy. She leaves someone to die and so shows her essential inhumanity (one would hope empathy for was seen as a universally cherishable emotion, rather than sacrificial for purpose of making a point about locking women in boxes).


Which is partly why the gender associative reading of the ending ought really be seen as only a layer, rather than a point. Ava isn’t human. She isn’t a woman. Sure, Garland is addressing the male gaze in his rather cack-handed way (one wonders if his mute Asian sex slave is also intended as rather cack-handed commentary), but he’s really illustrating the earlier conversation between Nathan and Caleb, in which AI is the next stage of development and we are no more important to them than Neanderthal man was to us (see also the recent Automata – Ava’s escape into humanity here is suggestive of that picture’s conclusion, where only the machines are destined to survive and breed -  and many others); one day AIs will see us this way.


There are many ideas worth exploring in the premise (should more advanced consciousness inherently carry with it more advanced concepts of “humanity” and value of all life?) but Garland opts not to go there. Ava is removed and unknowable – we understand HAL’s “grey box” better, which should be no surprise as 2001 was an influence (the design, with its hermetic, womblike interiors and ambient sound also acknowledges an overt debt).


Garland has dropped the most interest aspect of the picture for a “clever” twist and, particularly in a piece that designs itself around talk rather than action, that’s such a missed opportunity. Has Ava learnt her disregard for life from her impassive creator, who cares for no one? Does Ava even have no regard for her AI kin? It appears not, suggesting she operates from a basic survival instinct (not really that higher minded, then, but very sub-HAL). Vikander’s performance (and movements) are tremendously poised and modulated, but she’s in service of a blank canvas.


If the ending is the point, and you are questioning you response to Caleb’s imprisonment, then Ex Machina may be as rewarding and resonant as it would like to be. But if you don’t think its such a big deal, because you’re familiar with the odd slice of AI fare, then the sacrifice of character or insight into Ava isn’t worthwhile as this side is neither challenging nor provocative. Garland inserts some powerful moments, because – as noted – he has it as a director. In particular, the failed former experiments, with one razing its arms to points trying to escape its confines, have a stark horror. He also stages the occasional bizarre interlude; the impromptu Isaac dance routine is about the only moment of levity the picture offers. But he also makes heavy weather of his metaphors, what with Nathan explaining the Jackson Pollock on his wall (“The challenge is not to act automatically”) and the cardinal cliché of quoting Oppenheimer (see also season one of The 100).


So Ex Machina is pretty much what I would expect of Garland trying his hand at the cerebral. You know how the last act of Sunshine disappointed because it went all Kurtz? Imagine if it hadn’t and there was no excuse for it failing to wholly satisfy. That’s close to where this lands, cutting back on Garland’s obsessions but only enough to show his field is parched. He favours baser desires and voyeuristic impulses over stimulating conversation, but he has little to say about either. He creates ambivalence about characters’ fates but without the presiding godlike gaze of a Kubrick to render it meaningful. Ex Machina is diverting and occasionally intriguing, but it lacks the food for the brain its cool, clear polish and elegant compositions suggest. It’s a triumph of design and performance, but it’s more interesting for what it isn’t than for what it is.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who’s got the Figgy Port?

Loki (2021) (SPOILERS) Can something be of redeemable value and shot through with woke (the answer is: Mad Max: Fury Road )? The two attributes certainly sound essentially irreconcilable, and Loki ’s tendencies – obviously, with new improved super-progressive Kevin Feige touting Disney’s uber-agenda – undeniably get in the way of what might have been a top-tier MCU entry from realising its full potential. But there are nevertheless solid bursts of highly engaging storytelling in the mix here, for all its less cherishable motivations. It also boasts an effortlessly commanding lead performance from Tom Hiddleston; that alone puts Loki head and shoulders above the other limited series thus far.

Here’s Bloody Justice for you.

Laughter in Paradise (1951) (SPOILERS) The beginning of a comedic run for director-producer Mario Zampa that spanned much of the 1950s, invariably aided by writers Michael Pertwee and Jack Davies (the latter went on to pen a spate of Norman Wisdom pictures including The Early Bird , and also comedy rally classic Monte Carlo or Bust! ) As usual with these Pertwee jaunts, Laughter in Paradise boasts a sparky premise – renowned practical joker bequeaths a fortune to four relatives, on condition they complete selected tasks that tickle him – and more than enough resultant situational humour.

Damn prairie dog burrow!

Tremors (1990) (SPOILERS) I suspect the reason the horror comedy – or the sci-fi comedy, come to that – doesn’t tend to be the slam-dunk goldmine many assume it must be, is because it takes a certain sensibility to do it right. Everyone isn’t a Joe Dante or Sam Raimi, or a John Landis, John Carpenter, Edgar Wright, Christopher Landon or even a Peter Jackson or Tim Burton, and the genre is littered with financial failures, some of them very good failures (and a good number of them from the names mentioned). Tremors was one, only proving a hit on video (hence six sequels at last count). It also failed to make Ron Underwood a directing legend.

You nicknamed my daughter after the Loch Ness Monster?

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (2012) The final finale of the Twilight saga, in which pig-boy Jacob tells Bella that, “No, it's not like that at all!” after she accuses him of being a paedo. But then she comes around to his viewpoint, doubtless displaying the kind of denial many parents did who let their kids spend time with Jimmy Savile or Gary Glitter during the ‘70s. It's lucky little Renesmee will be an adult by the age of seven, right? Right... Jacob even jokes that he should start calling Edward, “Dad”. And all the while they smile and smile.

I’m just glad Will Smith isn’t alive to see this.

The Tomorrow War (2021) (SPOILERS). Not so much tomorrow as yesterday. There’s a strong sense of déjà vu watching The Tomorrow War , so doggedly derivative is it of every time-travel/alien war/apocalyptic sci-fi movie of the past forty years. Not helping it stand out from the pack are doughy lead Chris Pratt, damned to look forever on the beefy side no matter how ripped he is and lacking the chops or gravitas for straight roles, and debut live-action director Chris McKay, who manages to deliver the goods in a serviceably anonymous fashion.

Why don't we go on a picnic, up the hill?

Invaders from Mars (1986) (SPOILERS) One can wax thematical over the number of remakes of ’50s movies in the ’80s – and ’50s SF movies in particular – and of how they represent ever-present Cold War and nuclear threats, and steadily increasing social and familial paranoias and disintegrating values. Really, though, it’s mostly down to the nostalgia of filmmakers for whom such pictures were formative influences (and studios hoping to make an easy buck on a library property). Tobe Hooper’s version of nostalgia, however, is not so readily discernible as a John Carpenter or a David Cronenberg (not that Cronenberg could foment such vibes, any more than a trip to the dental hygienist). Because his directorial qualities are not so readily discernible. Tobe Hooper movies tend to be a bit shit. Which makes it unsurprising that Invaders from Mars is a bit shit.

What's a movie star need a rocket for anyway?

The Rocketeer (1991) (SPOILERS) The Rocketeer has a fantastic poster. One of the best of the last thirty years (and while that may seem like faint praise, what with poster design being a dying art – I’m looking at you Marvel, or Amazon and the recent The Tomorrow War – it isn’t meant to be). The movie itself, however, tends towards stodge. Unremarkable pictures with a wide/cult fanbase, conditioned by childhood nostalgia, are ten-a-penny – Willow for example – and in this case, there was also a reasonably warm critical reception. But such an embrace can’t alter that Joe Johnston makes an inveterately bland, tepid movie director. His “feel” for period here got him The First Avenger: Captain America gig, a bland, tepid movie tending towards stodge. So at least he’s consistent.

I'm offering you a half-share in the universe.

Doctor Who Season 8 – Worst to Best I’m not sure I’d watched Season Eight chronologically before. While I have no hesitation in placing it as the second-best Pertwee season, based on its stories, I’m not sure it pays the same dividends watched as a unit. Simply, there’s too much Master, even as Roger Delgado never gets boring to watch and the stories themselves offer sufficient variety. His presence, turning up like clockwork, is inevitably repetitive. There were no particular revelatory reassessments resulting from this visit, then, except that, taken together – and as The Directing Route extra on the Blu-ray set highlights – it’s often much more visually inventive than what would follow. And that Michael Ferguson should probably have been on permanent attachment throughout this era.

As in the hokey kids’ show guy?

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t think Mr Rogers could have been any creepier had Kevin Spacey played him. It isn’t just the baggage Tom Hanks brings, and whether or not he’s the adrenochrome lord to the stars and/or in Guantanamo and/or dead and/or going to make a perfectly dreadful Colonel Tom Parker and an equally awful Geppetto; it’s that his performance is so constipated and mannered an imitation of Mr Rogers’ genuineness that this “biopic” takes on a fundamentally sinister turn. His every scene with a youngster isn’t so much exuding benevolent empathy as suggestive of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang ’s Child Catcher let loose in a TV studio (and again, this bodes well for Geppetto). Extend that to A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood ’s conceit, that Mr Rogers’ life is one of a sociopathic shrink milking angst from his victims/patients in order to get some kind of satiating high – a bit like a rejuvenating drug, on that score – and you have a deeply unsettli

Somewhere out there is a lady who I think will never be a nun.

The Sound of Music (1965) (SPOILERS) One of the most successful movies ever made – and the most successful musical – The Sound of Music has earned probably quite enough unfiltered adulation over the years to drown out the dissenting voices, those that denounce it as an inveterately saccharine, hollow confection warranting no truck. It’s certainly true that there are impossibly nice and wholesome elements here, from Julie Andrews’ career-dooming stereotype governess to the seven sonorous children more than willing to dress up in old curtains and join her gallivanting troupe. Whether the consequence is something insidious in its infectious spirit is debatable, but I’ll admit that it manages to ensnare me. I don’t think I’d seen the movie in its entirety since I was a kid, and maybe that formativeness is a key brainwashing facet of its appeal, but it retains its essential lustre just the same.