Author Topic: A.I.  (Read 5638 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cine

  • Pretttttyyy, Pretttyyyyy Pretty Good
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Respect: +281
A.I.
« on: April 05, 2003, 12:39:10 AM »
0
Plain and simple: I don't think Spielberg should've made "A.I." the way he did. Now before people attack that, I am fully aware that Kubrick told SS  that he wanted him to eventually direct the picture.. but it is certainly not the type of film Kubrick would've made.. and I find that very unfortunate since so many people hail it as a Kubrick masterminded film that was put together by Spielberg. I think "Minority Report" was more Kubrick than "A.I."

cowboykurtis

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +8
A.I.
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2003, 12:53:01 AM »
0
when you say AI is not the type of film that kubrick would have made, you're proving your own arguement wrong. kubrick knew that it wasn't a "kubrick film". that why he wanted speilburg to make it. Kubrick was very aware that it needed a warmer touch for humanity. taking that into consideration: why shouldnt speilberg have made it? when you say it was not masterminded by kubrick and really a speilburg film i believe you are also wrong. kubrick gave speilberg a 90 page treatment and extensive production notes. if he was planning to hand it over to speilberg anyway then where is your arguement?
...your excuses are your own...

cine

  • Pretttttyyy, Pretttyyyyy Pretty Good
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Respect: +281
A.I.
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2003, 01:07:38 AM »
0
I never said it was not masterminded by Kubrick. I said its unfortunate that it WAS.. because he was known for his dehumanization theme.. and I am aware that "A.I." was lighter.. but it would've been a much greater film if it stuck to the REAL idea of the film.. which was that he can't become a real boy. Can't happen. Then its this Pinocchio story that escalated to "Close Encounter" aliens, a blue fairy, and a happy ending when he sees his mother. This was a dark movie with a dark Kubrick-esque theme.. and THAT is the direction it took in the end? Hey, I liked the movie.. but I would've loved it if it was more Kubrick. Thats all. Personal opinion.

Cecil

  • Guest
A.I.
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2003, 01:47:04 AM »
0
i dont believe that kubrick told spielberg to make the film. at best, i think he told him as a joke. its a conspiracy i tell ya! spielberg STOLE a.i. from him.

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +638
A.I.
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2003, 01:49:15 AM »
0
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

cowboykurtis

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +8
A.I.
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2003, 10:19:57 AM »
0
if you think about the ending within the narrative context of the story, it is not a happy ending. he only gets to see his mother for one day. after that day he'll still be a robot and he'll never see her again -- thats a depressing thought. and too say its too bad that Kbrick WAS the mastermind because it's not a Kurick movie is  hypocritical circular logic.  KUBRICK came up with it, making it a KUBRICK film -- do all his films have to be the same?I feel it dealt with many "KUBRICKIAN" themes,dehuminzation being one of them. If you can say that A.I. has a warm outlook on the human race, maybe we saw 2 different films. If the only reason you think it's not a "kubrickian" film is because of the happy ending... Clock Work Orange has a happy ending -- is that not Kubrickian?
...your excuses are your own...

cine

  • Pretttttyyy, Pretttyyyyy Pretty Good
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Respect: +281
A.I.
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2003, 11:31:19 AM »
0
Quote from: cowboykurtis
if you think about the ending within the narrative context of the story, it is not a happy ending. he only gets to see his mother for one day. after that day he'll still be a robot and he'll never see her again -- thats a depressing thought. and too say its too bad that Kbrick WAS the mastermind because it's not a Kurick movie is  hypocritical circular logic.  KUBRICK came up with it, making it a KUBRICK film -- do all his films have to be the same?I feel it dealt with many "KUBRICKIAN" themes,dehuminzation being one of them. If you can say that A.I. has a warm outlook on the human race, maybe we saw 2 different films. If the only reason you think it's not a "kubrickian" film is because of the happy ending... Clock Work Orange has a happy ending -- is that not Kubrickian?

1. All he wanted was to see her again. He was granted that only wish he had and therefore I find that a happy ending. A darker ending would've been "Wake up, David.. you can't see her again.. there is no blue fairy. You're a robot. You can't be a real boy." I think it would've had a much more powerful message; its not as conventional.
2. "A.I." is all about dehumanization and I said that before. It's very Kubrickian. HOWEVER you and I both saw the same last 20 minutes. That was not Kubrick. I'm not saying it HAD to be Kubrick. But ALL I'm saying is that if it kept Kubrick's theme going it would've been a better film. That's it.  
3. I don't know if we saw the same "Clockwork Orange" but yes, the ending to the film is majorly Kubrickian... if you understood how he was "cured, alright."

cowboykurtis

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +8
A.I.
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2003, 02:44:57 PM »
0
do you think that becuase David saw his mother for one day, that he'll cease to search for her afterwords? he wanted to be a real boy. after that day is over, hes still a robot -- all alone in the world.  do you disagree? At the end of clockwork Alex says "I was cured alright" -- he can go back to murder and mayem without feeling sick from the treatment.  from alex's point of view it's a happy ending....  just like from david's point of view in AI it's a happy ending. However WE as the audience realize that these characters don't die after the titles role. if that was the case, films would not be affective. the reason clockwork orange is so disturbing at the end, is we know that the ministry of the interior "fixed" ale in order  to clear their name in the public eye -- even if it leads to more mayhem from Alex. It's the same in AI. David doesn't just become a REAL BOY at the end of the film becuase he saw his mother one day. David's MODEL of ROBOT has been programmed to search out thier MOTHERS-- he will continue to do so for the rest of his life -- thats depressing to me. his main goal is to become a real boy because he thinks his mother will love him back  -- this will never be obtained. Thats the depressing thing about the ending. humanity has created a robot with real feelings that will never be accepted.
...your excuses are your own...

cine

  • Pretttttyyy, Pretttyyyyy Pretty Good
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Respect: +281
A.I.
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2003, 03:34:42 PM »
0
I pretty much agree with almost everything you said.. the stuff I don't agree with is just insignificant minor stuff at this point. Those last few lines you said should've been emphasized a lot more at the end of the film. So many people I know perceive the ending as a happy one.. and I know somebody who even cried tears of happiness by the end because of how David gets his one wish.. I agree with everything you said when you deconstruct it.. but in terms of the storytelling from Spielberg, I just didn't get that out of him this time..

cowboykurtis

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +8
A.I.
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2003, 04:38:09 PM »
0
regardles of this debate, i do feel the ending is flawed -- to suddenly have aliens come and resolve the conflict 2000 years later is some what of a deus ex machina -- it doesn't seem like a logical /seamless development of the narrative. however, speilberg always does this, and can pull off well. like the t - rex coming in and saving the day at the end of jurassic park or the air tank at the end of jaws. I  think one of the reasons i enjoy AI so much, is imagining what kubrick would have done with it. that by no means is taking away from my opinion of Speilberg's ability. many people knock him because he makes commercial films -- his career has its ups and downs -- nevertheless there is no arguement that he is one of the greatest living film makers. after all, film making is about communication and his films are loved by a very large audience -- there is a lot to be said for that.
...your excuses are your own...

cine

  • Pretttttyyy, Pretttyyyyy Pretty Good
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Respect: +281
A.I.
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2003, 05:00:23 PM »
0
oh no doubt Spielberg is one of the best American filmmakers today.. not ahead of Scorsese and Altman of course.. but in any event, people shouldn't knock him because he makes commercial films.. because he's just like Kubrick - an artistic director who appeals to the commercial cinema. Movies like "Minority Report" with Tom Cruise.. absolutely amazing. Only a small group of people can pull that sort of thing off.. and Kubrick and Spielberg are two of the top directors.

Teddy

  • The Call to Adventure
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Respect: 0
A.I.
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2003, 12:41:06 PM »
0
-- SPOILER WARNING --


The ending is VERY Kubrick if you really think about it.  On the surface it seems like a Spielberg trademark happy ending: David gets to see his mother, becomes a real boy and is able to die.  BUT if you examine it closer, this is only one interpretation of the movie.  The other way to see it is that the advanced mecha at the end fabricated a representation of his mother just to appease him.  In the end, David is left BELIEVING he is a real boy and that his mother finally loves him.  The truth is she doesn't and never did because it is IMPOSSIBLE for a human to love something without a soul.  David looked and acted like a real child, but the thing that separated him was that he was not created by God, but by man, and man is not devine.  This same theme can be explored in the philosophy of Jurassic Park.  "God creates dinosaurs, God destorys dinosuars, God creates man, man destroys God, man creates dinosaurs."  The truth behind AI is that humans can never truly love mechas.  It just can't happen.  Just as Gigalo Joe says, "She loves what you do for her, but she does not love you."  See, David is made to believe at the end of the film that his mother loves him and we, the audiance are made to believe that David became a real boy, but this could be false.  The ending, if you think of it this way, is as heartbreakingly beautiful and ironic as Kubrick's best.

This view is present throughout the film as well.  If you look for it there is lots of foreshadowing that David will not complete his quest.  The most evident is when David finds the statue of the blue fairy.  He sits in the amphibicopter at the bottem of the sea and stares at her fair face for 2000 years.  Over this time she is diafied in David's mind exponentially.  Then, when he emerges from the vehicle 2000 years later, he wants only to approach the fairy and ask for her help.  However, just as he reaches her, she crumbles like the statue she is, showing that there is no blue fairy and that David's hopes and dreams are lost.  Of course the advanced mechas see this and see what David wants.  They have the technology to create a seemingly real fairy, and, soon after, a seemingly real mother from David's memory, NOT from the hair Teddy gives them.  Its all an illusion.  Its all a show.  The mechas need David so they give him what he wants.  This "fixed game" is evident in the shot where the camera pans out of David's little world and shows the mechas surrounding an overhead view of him, watching him.  They want to see if he will take the bait, and he does.

See, AI is the vision of two filmmakers, and, as such is really two movies.  You can watch the film on surface level and see what Spielberg wants you to see.  Then you can watch it from the Kubrick perspective and see that the film is a very dark journey, with an ending that is VERY Kubrick.
"I saved Latin.  What did you ever do?"

Teddy

  • The Call to Adventure
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Respect: 0
A.I.
« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2003, 03:32:14 PM »
0
Quote from: cowboykurtis
to suddenly have aliens come and resolve the conflict 2000 years later is some what of a deus ex machina


They were not aliens, they were very advanced mechas.  Remember Gigalo Joe's cryptic warning?  "They know that when the end comes all that will be left is us.  That's why they fear us."  The advanced mechas, called "super mechas" by AI-philes, need David so that they can uncover a lost past.  It is infered that there was a war between man and machine some time during David's big sleep and the mechas won, destroying all humans.  In time, mechas began to be facinated with humans and wanted to know more about this now ancient race that was lost in the sands of time.  David is the missing link between man and machine.  A being that has all the characteristics of a human, but is not one.  The discovery of David is pivitol to them.  They can now use David's memory to find out innumerable things about humans.  This is shown when they all connect to read his mind.  Also, Teddy gives them Monica's hair.  This, I assume, is very valuable to them.  This is viable human DNA that they can use for research in the future.  It is my opinion that they did not use the hair to re-create Monica, however.  See my post above for more information on that.  At any rate, they are highly advanced mechas, not aliens.  I think if you will watch the ending again with this in mind, it won't see like so much of a "deus ex machina".
"I saved Latin.  What did you ever do?"

USTopGun47

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 103
  • Respect: +1
A.I.
« Reply #13 on: May 18, 2003, 07:13:13 PM »
0
I find see AI with a Kubrickian backbone and highly Speildberg sugar sprinkling.  I mean - the blue fairy, the warm sunlight.  Minority Report also is very Kubrickian in nature, more so than AI.  Much less warm and fuzzy.  Though Spieldberg has down a 180 with his style since Private Ryan.  I think he should have stayed in his dark Schindler's List/Ryan style.  I don't know about this light over exposed look he's going for, though it worked nicely in AI. I don't think it fit Minority Report that well.  I think we saw a beautiful reaction here between Kubrick and Speildberg in AI, a happy balance.  I'm glad to see Speildberg lightening up with Catch Me If You Can.  These past few extremes have been quite a bit.
I'm somebody now, Harry. Everybody likes me. Soon, millions of people will see me and they'll all like me. I'll tell them about you, and your father, how good he was to us. Remember? It's a reason to get up in the morning. It's a reason to lose weight, to fit in the red dress. It's a reason to smile. It makes tomorrow all right. What have I got Harry, hm? Why should I even make the bed, or wash the dishes? I do them, but why should I? I'm alone. Your father's gone, you're gone. I got no one to care for. What have I got, Harry? I'm lonely. I'm old.

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
A.I.
« Reply #14 on: May 18, 2003, 07:49:47 PM »
0
Quote from: USTopGun47
I find see AI with a Kubrickian backbone and highly Speildberg sugar sprinkling.  I mean - the blue fairy, the warm sunlight.  Minority Report also is very Kubrickian in nature, more so than AI.  Much less warm and fuzzy.  


This is exactly right. I really despised A.I., though. I think Spielberg went far out of his way to play up the Kubrick connection, and the sugar sprinkling and warm fuzzies you mentioned are, I think, the one thing you can consistently say is nowhere near to being found in Kubrick's films. He's very sardonic, very anti-"enchantment" (the Spielberg definition, anyways). Spielberg's very style is so anathema to Kubrick's, I think it was a very dubious project from the get-go, and then when Spielberg couldn't stop glomming onto the artistic cachet and prestige of the Kubrick name even though he in no way made a Kubrickian film in any sense of the word, well... that really did it in for me.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy