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.





Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red (2022) (SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc . can be given an insi

I can’t be the worst. What about that hotdog one?

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022) (SPOILERS) It would have been a merciful release, had the title card “ The End ”, flashing on screen a little before the ninety-minute mark, not been a false dawn. True, I would still have been unable to swab the bloody dildoes fight from my mind, but at least Everything Everywhere All at Once would have been short. Indeed, by the actual end I was put in mind of a line spoken by co-star James Wong in one of his most indelible roles: “ Now this really pisses me off to no end ”. Or to put it another way, Everything Everywhere All at Once rubbed me up the wrong which way quite a lot of most of the time.

We’ve got the best ball and chain in the world. Your ass.

Wedlock (1991) (SPOILERS) The futuristic prison movie seemed possessed of a particular cachet around this time, quite possibly sparked by the grisly possibilities of hi-tech disincentives to escape. On that front, HBO TV movie Wedlock more than delivers its FX money shot. Elsewhere, it’s less sure of itself, rather fumbling when it exchanges prison tropes for fugitives-on-the-run ones.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

He's not in my pyjamas, is he?

Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (1969) (SPOILERS) By rights, Paul Mazursky’s swinging, post-flower-power-gen partner-swap movie ought to have aged terribly. So much of the era’s scene-specific fare has, particularly so when attempting to reflect its reverberations with any degree of serious intent. Perhaps it’s because Mazursky and co-writer Larry Tucker (also of The Monkees , Alex in Wonderland and I Love You, Alice B. Toklas! ) maintain a wry distance from their characters’ endeavours, much more on the wavelength of Elliott Gould’s Ted than Robert Culp’s Bob; we know any pretensions towards uninhibited expression can’t end well, but we also know Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice have to learn the hard way.

We could be mauled to death by an interstellar monster!

Star Trek Beyond (2016) (SPOILERS) The odd/even Star Trek failure/success rule seemed to have been cancelled out with the first reboot movie, and then trodden into ground with Into Darkness (which, yes, I quite enjoyed, for all its scandalous deficiencies). Star Trek Beyond gets us back onto more familiar ground, as it’s very identifiably a “lesser” Trek , irrespective of the big bucks and directorial nous thrown at it. This is a Star Trek movie that can happily stand shoulder to shoulder with The Search for Spock and Insurrection , content in the knowledge they make it look good.

I think World War II was my favourite war.

Small Soldiers (1998) An off-peak Joe Dante movie is still one chock-a-block full of satirical nuggets and comic inspiration, far beyond the facility of most filmmakers. Small Soldiers finds him back after a six-year big screen absence, taking delirious swipes at the veneration of the military, war movies, the toy industry, conglomerates and privatised defence forces. Dante’s take is so gleefully skewed, he even has big business win! The only problem with the picture (aside from an indistinct lead, surprising from a director with a strong track record for casting juveniles) is that this is all very familiar. Dante acknowledged Small Soldiers was basically a riff on Gremlins , and it is. Something innocuous and playful turns mad, bad and dangerous. On one level it has something in common with Gremlins 2: The New Batch , in that the asides carry the picture. But Gremlins 2 was all about the asides, happy to wander off in any direction that suited it oblivious to whet

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.