Skip to main content

He use to be a super toy, but now he's old and stupid.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence
(2001)

(SPOILERS) The thought that kept repeating on me revisiting A.I. Artificial Intelligence, which I hadn’t seen it was in cinemas, was what kind of film it might have been had it starred a typical moppet playing David, the AI boy, rather than the creepy facsimile of childhood that is Haley Joel Osment. His casting creates a pervasively unsettling effect, and consequently adds a range of layers to the film, some no doubt intentional, others “happy” accidents, and yet others hampering it from being all it might be. Steven Spielberg’s first feature of the new millennium would surely have been a very different beast had, say, it been made a decade earlier when Macauley Culkin was the kid star du jour. As such, Osment’s presence can only be seen in terms of the fortuitousness of circumstance rather than express design (that he was a versatile child actor at just the moment when the long gestating product became a “go”).


Which goes towards making a fascinating picture: flawed, but fascinating. With Osment as David, there can be no doubt from the beginning that the connection between this yearning artificial construct and his adoptive mother is deeply wrong. So much so, it’s difficult even to believe that she “fools herself” into developing affection for him, because his “off” presence is more akin to that of the devil child from The Omen than munchkin you’d fret about leaving home alone.


David’s uncanny (unblinking) attentiveness to Monica (Frances O’Connor), with all the Freudian overtones (DePalma would had a ball with this movie) that come with it (in the end his dream fulfilled involves sharing a bed with her*), and Osment’s very calculated, precisely performed emoting, where one can see the cogs slipping into a gear rather than providing a genuine response (or the impression of a genuine response) add to this unsettling dynamic. There is never a sense that David’s relationship with his mother is beatific or even straightforwardly benign, so Spielberg has nothing to unravel for it all to go wrong (and, as a consequence, there is no real pathos in the separation). The imprinting only takes for David, not for Monica, who has been pressured into adopting the child by a largely absent husband (Sam Robards) who then rejects his son when the going gets tough (very much the Spielbergian formula, as evidenced by E.T.; it would be interesting to see how the father was presented in the Stanley Kubrick and Ian Watson treatment).


David: Do I smell lovely?

Osment’s David is so integrally odd that when he becomes obsessive or deranged there’s little chance of being conflicted or empathising with his greater plight. When his brother (Jake Thomas) tricks him into cutting his mother’s hair, yes, the former is a little shit, but you only have to see Osment summon that cold, pugnacious look in his eyes to be alarmed by the unreal boy (the clearest expression of this being the later scene in which he destroys his – presumably also sentient, and therefore implicitly a murderous act – production line duplicate, to Dr Hobby’s studied indifference). When David laughs at the dinner table, any remotely sane person would send him back to the shop right there.


David: If I’m a real boy, I can go back, and she’ll love me.

The distancing from David, for me, makes this a much less compelling exploration of what it means to be human than Blade Runner’s, even though this is far more direct in addressing the mechanics of the whole (Scott’s film is more oblique in its depiction of sympathetic synthtagonists).


Perhaps because Spielberg/Kubrick take an approach that so consciously owes itself to fairy tales, the lines are blurred and the resonance muddled; the science fiction elements are coated with pixie dust. Even Dr Hobby (William Hurt), the film’s sometime Geppetto, creates his Pinocchio as if by magic (he just “decides” to produce a sentient life form, as if it were that simple, and miraculously David is there 20 months later). David is accompanied on his quest for the Blue Fairy by a Jiminy Cricket (Teddy) and Rouge City is his road to Oz.


The analogies don’t stop there; as a boy who won’t grow up (one who has no choice in the matter), and obsessed with having a substitute mother, there’s a clear connection between David and Peter Pan; of course, Spielberg (who declared himself to have always felt like Peter Pan; “I am Peter Pan”) previously experienced the disastrous consequences of allowing that much-loved character to reach middle-age. There are also allusions to Moses, albeit ultimately a propos nothing (David’s mother leaves him to fend for himself).


Gigolo Joe: The ones who made us are always looking for the ones who made them.

It’s not a picture then, that is particularly rigorous in terms of scrutinising its science fiction side. Reputedly, Kubrick wanted to make a futuristic fairy tale after seeing Star Wars, which he didn’t like; that in itself rather suggests the joke being on the director, who entirely failed to emulate the mythic, populist vein tapped by Lucas (because really, there’s nothing even vaguely equivalent in that regard). At least, if a wide audience is what he was shooting for. In terms of fairy tales themselves, A.I. certainly inhabits that element, but it’s very much the darkness of the pre-Disney, beautified fairy tales, cautionary stories which don’t end happily ever after. Because, despite the take away of some viewers, no doubt influenced by the syrupy score John Williams ladled over the final sequence, A.I. most definitely does not have a happy ending.


Throughout, there are allusions to the quest for the creator, allusions that are married, on a personal basis, with the quest for unconditional love David seeks from his mother. Hobby justifies his ethically dubious (or, at least, not one to be pursued as frivolously as he does) decision to create a sentient AI, with an active subconscious, with the flippant “Didn’t God create Adam to love him?” The belief in a benevolent creator (or agent of ultimate power; David’s Blue Fairy), and that of similarly intangible love, provides reassurance of something permanent beyond ourselves, but A.I., reflecting the austere Kubrickian universe, offers a rebuke to such ameliorations; humanity is doomed, life meaningless, and we learn that evolved A.I.s will, in time, take our place. The Blue Fairy encountered by David is an illusion, one propagated as real by the future mecha in order to advance their research into the history of the human race.


David: Will you die? I’ll be alone.

It has been suggested that David dies at the end, going to the “place where dreams are born” although this post, purportedly from website promotional easter eggs at the time, if accurate, indicates David’s experiences are entirely simulated; he does, after all, cry an impossible tear while experiencing an impossibly perfect day with a simulacrum of his now impossibly loving mother as the future mecha look on.


The report suggests David’s simulation was a result of trial and error, after it was found that replicating his reality furnished too negative an experience, and that too positive a one was also ineffective. Finally, the conceit of the Blue Fairy granting his wishes was arrived at (the mecha, as such, become the manipulative engineers of religion, offering God as the only way to survive in a godless world, one where love is likewise a mirage to be exploited).  So David’s heartfelt quest yields a resolution that is entirely illusory, a deception on the part of his evolved descendants. This reading makes a good deal of sense, as the explanation about a replicated Monica surviving only a day sounded far too pat and convenient, but fits completely with a story given to a boy with an appetite for pat and convenient (fairy) stories.


The question might be asked whether these future mecha have the same kind of facility for self-reflection as David, since their solution is, on the surface, highly cynical, a means to gather information rather than resolve his dilemma. Consequently, the final edit in this extra textual interpretation (suggesting David doesn’t die, as “we can now study a working sentient”), offering an olive branch of a mother who can endure as tangible to David, and the possibility that he will be able to age, a glimmer of “hope” for the character, represents an apotheosis of this deception. Are these mecha empathic towards David? Or are they, like Hobby, assuming the role of the indifferent creator themselves, dictating their subject’s reality, experience, happiness?


If that’s the intent, then the takeaway from Kubrick and Spielberg’s vision might be that mankind too is lost in a childlike realm of delusions, blithely unaware of the cold, harsh truths that we are no more than cultures in a petri dish. A.I. plays throughout not just with conceptions of sentience and soulfulness, but also with the fragility of belief, belief in a high power, faith in the same, and in the purity and permanence of love. One might see the conclusion as entirely undercutting and disavowing any legitimacy in such notions.


So how does that fit into the traditionally sunny, hopeful Spielbergian universe? Curiously, it makes A.I. a remarkably effective companion piece to Minority Report, a more “complete”, successful and consistent film, but one also offering an apparently happy ending that is its own blackly humorous fake-out. I think the critical difference between the two is that Spielberg’s self-penned screenplay often evidences unflatteringly unfinessed dialogue and motivations. One might justify some instances of the latter by emphasising the importance of the heightened and fairy tale over obvious internal logic (the whole set up David’s breadcrumb trail to Dr Hobby, waiting in a drowned Manhattan, is unlikely in any kind of realistic sense).


Elsewhere, the narration from (Sir) Ben Kingsley is on-the-nose and variously crude and patronising, be it explaining about the loss of a child or over-explaining the plot come the conclusion (as such, the future mecha lack the linguistic distinctiveness one might expect, and – even given the creator aspect – are excessively in thrall to the wonders of the human legacy). We see this too in the frequently convenience of the wisdom imparted by Teddy and Joe, who rather suggest sentient characters at various points (one might argue this is merely a reflection of logic circuits, but if mecha don’t plead for their lives, why do they even run away when they stand accused of murder?)


Likewise, amid the Kubrick-tinged world of robot sex and sadistic flesh fairs, the comment “No one builds children. No one ever has. What would be the point?” suggests a remarkably naïve view of the state of things (or just one that’s 12 certificate). On the general point, it appears to go against sound business sense that a production line of identikit Davids should be delivered to expectant parents; wouldn’t they want someone unique (as unique as David wants to be himself)? It wouldn’t do to have dozens of Davids running into each other in the mall. Further still, how long would these parents actually want a child who remains the same age forever? As noted above, A.I. is not a movie that’s particularly interested in creating a believable science fiction world. Which doesn’t prevent it from exploring a range of provocative themes, thoughts and ideas, just that they frequently manifest in jumbled and ungainly fashion.


While by this point I’ve become rather tired of Spielberg’s cinematographer wingman Janusz Kaminski, and would love to see someone else revitalise his approach, A.I. is frequently striking to behold. The shots are meticulously composed, including elaborate foreshadowing of the final act in the first, from David’s watery solitude at the bottom of the pool to his first shadowy partial silhouette, the shape of the future mecha. Indeed, every aspect of the production is first rate (bar one mentioned below). Stan Winston’s effects work is outstanding, from the elegant modernist sculpture look of the future mecha to the junkyard bots (Clara Bellar’s nanny, destroyed while ever-smiling, makes for one of the picture’s most potent moments).


And Teddy (voiced by Jack Angel) is an entirely wonderful character, the purest Spielberg creation since Gizmo (apparently a toy line was nixed when the picture underperformed; I'd have bought one. I still would). Less appealing are the naff Dr Know ‘Einstein’ visuals, perhaps intentional recalling the cute home-made toon approach of Jurassic Park but at-odds with the surrounding visual tone (Kubrick apparently recorded Robin Williams for this part when he was still planning to make the film himself).


I don’t think A.I. is a neglected masterpiece, but it is unfairly maligned. It’s simply too interesting, too replete with bleak, unsightly and unsettling ideas to be dismissed. For me, Spielberg was a much more interesting filmmaker before he felt it incumbent upon him
to “be” a worthy and important one, ambitiously tackling laudable, worthy subjects. So basically, he began to lose me around the time Kaminski started as his regular DP. His best foot forward is finding the layers within popular entertainments, rather than exposing his intellectual limitations by wading in after dense subject matter. I suspect it’s no coincidence that his most satisfying, rather than Oscar-winning, pictures this century have been in the science-fiction (Minority Report, A.I.) and adventure (Tintin) realm, or that his worst (Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) found him somewhat shame-faced at making the sort of film he now felt he was above.


Would A.I. Artificial Intelligence have been better with Kubrick at the helm? It would have been cooler (as in frostier), I suspect (and I doubt that he would have manifested what is obviously Spielberg’s Clockwork Orange homage for the ride into Rouge City), despite suggestions to the contrary by those who cite his being responsible for the Pinocchio aspect. I have a feeling it would also have been a nut he wasn’t quite able to crack, even if he’d taken another decade on it. There’s a potent idea here, but the marriage of the adult and the innocent, the logical and the fantastical, never quite gel; there is something awkward and dissonant in the premise that is very much of Kubrick rather than the ‘berg, but the Kubrick whose later films, while still frequently extraordinary, lacked his earlier structural integrity. As for the inheritor of the megaphone, in some respects, this might be the closest Spielberg has come to a horror movie, certainly in an existential sense, and whether consciously or not he has elicited a lead performance from Osment where sympathy is fleeting at best. In that sense, he may have done Kubrick too proud.


Is David's love really real, or is he an obsessive psycho child?


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Garage freak? Jesus. What kind of a crazy fucking story is this?

All the President’s Men (1976)
It’s fairly routine to find that films lavished with awards ceremony attention really aren’t all that. So many factors go into lining them up, including studio politics, publicity and fashion, that the true gems are often left out in the cold. On some occasions all the attention is thoroughly deserved, however. All the President’s Men lost out to Rocky for Best Picture Oscar; an uplifting crowd-pleaser beat an unrepentantly low key, densely plotted and talky political thriller. But Alan J. Pakula’s film had already won the major victory; it turned a literate, uncompromising account of a resolutely unsexy and over-exposed news story into a huge hit. And even more, it commanded the respect of its potentially fiercest (and if roused most venomous) critics; journalists themselves. All the President’s Men is a masterpiece and with every passing year it looks more and more like a paean to a bygone age, one where the freedom of the press was assumed rather than a…

You’re the Compliance Officer. It’s your call.

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014)
(SPOILERS) The mealy-mouthed title speaks volumes about the uncertainty with which Tom Clancy’s best-known character has been rebooted. Paramount has a franchise that has made a lot of money, based on a deeply conservative, bookish CIA analyst (well, he starts out that way). How do you reconfigure him for a 21st century world (even though he already has been, back in 2003) where everything he stands for is pretty much a dirty word? The answer, it seems, is to go for an all-purpose sub-James Bond plan to bring American to its knees, with Ryan as a fresh (-ish) recruit (you know, like Casino Royale!) and surprising handiness in a fight. Yes, Jack is still a smart guy (and also now, a bit, -alec), adept at, well, analysing, but to survive in the modern franchise sewer he needs to be more than that. He needs to kick arse. And wear a hoodie. This confusion, inability to coax a series into being what it’s supposed to be, might explain the sour response to its …

Oh look, there’s Colonel Mortimer, riding down the street on a dinosaur!

One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing (1975)
(SPOILERS) There’s no getting round the dinosaur skeleton in the room here: yellow face. From the illustrious writer-director team who brought us Mary Poppins, no less. Disney’s cheerfully racist family movie belongs to a bygone era, but appreciating its merits doesn’t necessarily requires one to subscribe to the Bernard Manning school of ethnic sensitivity.

I’m not going to defend the choice, but, if you can get past that, and that may well be a big if, particularly Bernard Bresslaw’s Fan Choy (if anything’s an unwelcome reminder of the Carry Ons lesser qualities, it’s Bresslaw and Joan Sims) there’s much to enjoy. For starters, there’s two-time Best Supporting Actor Oscar winner Ustinov (as mastermind Hnup Wan), funny in whatever he does (and the only Poirot worth his salt), eternally berating his insubordinate subordinate Clive Revill (as Quon).

This is a movie where, even though its crude cultural stereotyping is writ large, the dialogue frequen…

It's not an exact science, this business.

The Mummy (2017)
(SPOILERS) A pinch of salt is usually needed when reports of a blockbuster’s rep as great or disastrous start singing from the same song sheet, as more often than not, they’re somewhere in between. A week ago, Wonder Woman was being hailed as some kind of miracle (or wonder), when really, it’s just another decent-but-formulaic superhero movie. This week, there have been post-mortems up the wazoo over The Mummy’s less-than-remarkable opening gross (which have a predictably US-centric flavour; it’s still the biggest global figure for a Tom Cruise movie). Is The Mummy as terrible as has been made out? No, of course not. It isn’t particularly good, but that doesn’t make it significantly worse than any dozen or so mediocre blockbusters you’d care to pick that have been lavished with far less opprobrium.

The thinking behind the savaging is understandable, though. There’s so much hubris on display here, it’s ridiculous, from Universal assuming they can fashion a Dark Universe …

You keep a horse in the basement?

The ‘Burbs (1989)
(SPOILERS) The ‘Burbs is Joe Dante’s masterpiece. Or at least, his masterpiece that isn’t his bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you masterpiece Gremlins 2: The New Batch, or his high profile masterpiece Gremlins. Unlike those two, the latter of which bolted out of the gate and took audiences by surprise with it’s black wit subverting the expected Spielberg melange, and the first which was roundly shunned by viewers and critics for being absolutely nothing like the first and waving that fact gleefully under their noses, The ‘Burbs took a while to gain its foothold in the Dante pantheon. 

It came out at a time when there had been a good few movies (not least Dante’s) taking a poke at small town Americana, and it was a Tom Hanks movie when Hanks was still a broad strokes comedy guy (Big had just made him big, Turner and Hooch was a few months away; you know you’ve really made it when you co-star with a pooch). It’s true to say that some, as with say The Big Lebowski, “got it” on fi…

The head is missing... and... he's the wrong age.

Twin Peaks 3.7: There’s a body all right.
First things first: my suggestion that everyone’s favourite diminutive hitman, Ike “The Spike” Stadtler, had been hired by the Mitchum brothers was clearly erroneous in the extreme, although the logistics of how evil Coop had the contingency plan in place to off Lorraine and Dougie-Coop remains a little unclear right now. As is how he was banged up with the apparent foresight to have on hand ready blackmail tools to ensure the warden would get him out (and why did he wait so long about it, if he could do it off the bat?)


Launching right in with no preamble seems appropriate for his episode, since its chock-a-block with exposition and (linear) progression, almost an icy blast of what settles for reality in Twin Peaks after most of what has gone before this season, the odd arm-tree aside. Which might please James Dyer, who in the latest Empire “The Debate”, took the antagonistic stance to the show coming back and dismissed it as “gibbering nonsen…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

I have a problem with my liver.

Twin Peaks 3.6 Don’t die
The season resumes form with the sixth episode, and incongruity abounds – as much as anything in Twin Peaks is any more or less incongruous than anything else – from the most endearing to the most alarming. The latter of which is up there with the very nastiest nastiness witnessed in a David Lynch joint in the form of butcher for hire Ike “The Spike” Stadtler (Christophe Zajac-Denek), the most alarming killer dwarf since Donald Sutherland led himself on a wild goose chase around Venice in Don’t Look Now.


Lynch’s use of music in Don’t die is both eclectic and exemplary. He concludes with Sharon von Etten crooning Tarifa over the credits, but it’s Ike going on a bloody frenzy to the innocuous and innocent sound of BluntedBeatz’ “I AM” Oldschool HipHop Beat that really sets the episode on edge. This is Lynch at his most visceral, immediate and palpably perturbing. You hear it before you see it, the screams of the first victim in Lorraine’s office, before the pint-…

I will beat you like a Cherokee drum.

Fast & Furious 8 aka The Fate of the Furious (2017)
(SPOILERS) Fun. Brio. That’s what any director needs to bring a sense of to the ever more absurd Fast & Furious franchise at minimum. Action chops are definitely up there, but paramount is an active affinity with how plain silly the series is. And it’s a quality F Gary Gray doesn’t really have, or if he does, he’s never shown it, previously or here. Even his action leaves something to be desired (his The Italian Job remake is far superior in that regard). Which isn’t to suggest there isn’t fun to be had from Fast & Furious 8/The Fate of the Furious, but it’s much more sporadic and performance-based than the previous outing, lacking the unbridled gusto James Wan brought to Furious 7.

But maybe I’m wrong about this. While I’ve seen every instalment in the franchise (only the once, mind) I haven’t followed it avidly in order (1, 4, 5, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, I think, only the first and last two at the cinema), although, it isn’t as if t…