Author Topic: A.I. observations  (Read 24359 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AnubisGOJ

  • The Call to Adventure
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Respect: 0
A.I. observations
« on: March 18, 2003, 08:17:26 PM »
0
As I've previously posted, I believe this movie to be more along the lines of a Kubrick movie, than one by Spielberg. After viewing it once again, the distinctions between the two styles, and some of the obvious changes by Spielberg are quite noticable.

1. Kubrick had a certain sexual energy to his films. If it suited the story, nudity or sensuality was never an issue. The opening boardroom scene where the machine is told to remove her clothing... pure Kubrick, and changed for... more ratings-friendly reasons. Like a vestigal appendige, this "strip" scene is still there, but why? Sexuality is spread like a thin veil throughout the movie. Had this been a pure Spielberg film, hardly if any would be here.

2. The infamous long takes- Kubrick's famous long takes are still present, although toned-down just a tad. Unfortunately, people still insisted this movie dragged.

Is it just me, or does this movie actually have two endings? Let me explain: The Kubrick ending would have ended with David in the flyer, trapped for all eternity looking at his "blue fairy". The Speilberg ending had a touch of Close Encounters, and although still pertinant to the film- had a completely separate feeling- almost as if it was tacked on. I guess certain threads had to be tied-up.

The folks on this board seem to be a wise and opinionated group, so here are a few questions...

1. Do you think David shutdown at the end of the movie?
2. Do you agree with me that Gigolo Joe is the only redeeming character and that is why he'd punished?
3. If David was modeled after his creator's dead son, why would his design begin to be mass-produced?
4. Did you detect malign intent from the aliens? Were they trying to decieve David?
5. And lastly, do you agree with my perpective that there is more Kubrick than Spielberg in this movie, and how could it have been more-so in either director's direction?
What does not kill you merely prolongs the inevitable.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
A.I. observations
« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2003, 08:56:59 PM »
0
I think this movie is more of an ode to Kubrick by Speilberg in many ways, but on the other hand, the developments by Kubrick for making this movie feel like Kubrick wanted to make a movie closer to the heart Speilberg had in his movies. It wouldn't be for the first time he did this though, because I am pretty sure The Shining was influenced by Jaws and how Speilberg approached the story. He had other stories to it than just the shark one, but it was a movie completely within its genre that did nothing to bring up drama over the terror of the shark. The ending was the shark being killed and thats it. Kubrick's The Shining very much based itself off that in showing the action scenes in a similiar way and building up of the suspence. Yes, it was Speilberg doing a Hitchcock movie in many ways but there were more elements like a story between people instead of just the suspence that prolly proved more influential. And in all the interviews of Kubrick, I've never once heard him even mention Hitchcock but I could have missed it. I think Kubrick had an admiration for Speilberg, in that at his best, he could mix the fantasy of Movieland with a very personal story and show emotions a lot of other directors would feel too good to show. In preparation for A.I., Kubrick talked highly of how much he admired E.T. and wanted something of the similiar feeling to his story of Pinnochio retold. I think Kubrick honestly wanted to show that, but would have failed and in return, what he would have created would have been much more cold and distant and then interpretated by many as being for a purpose. But I think he really wanted to make his own E.T.

Then there is the relationship of Speilberg wanting to be more like Kubrick and how he did marry themes of himself and Kubrick within the story. I don't think the story ever was really finished and if Kubrick did have a chance to make it, prolly wouldn't have finished it for another ten years minumum. Kubrick always went into films not really with set goals of what exactly to film in such and such time frame, but always trying to discover something through the process of shooting and editing. Also, A.I went through many many different stages and ideas and Kubrick went down the line of science fiction writers he was writing with. I think the end result shows his indecision by having an ending that seemed very similiar to 2001: A Space Odyssey, and showing a city that was reminiscient of A Clockwork Orange in feeling and style. I think Kubrick would have changed these details for the most part while keeping a movie that did focus on the Pinnochio aspect for the most part. In the end, I think the movie basically was Speilberg doing a movie that was very much of an ode to Kubrick without fully evolving into its own identity.

the questions I am confident to answer because to have not seen movie in a while,

3.) He did model it after his dead son, but he is a businessman too who realized he had made something very valuable too. In honoring his dead son, maybe his likeness being the official image to how far machines have come was important to him. If he kept his dead son in a very respected way that was to keep it private and to himself, maybe he wouldn't have created a machine like him. But I think the main aspect of that detail is to show David coming to the realization that he is no longer unique and a machine that can be mass produced.

4.) The aliens at the end very much go towards Kubrick's own beliefs to how aliens are. In many interviews during 2001, Kubrick always attested to the belief that if there were aliens evolved enough to build spaceships to travel so far in the galaxy and such that it would be safe to assume that their brain development would be that high too and they would be very peaceful and understanding instead of being all kill kill like popular culture has said.

Ghostboy

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4892
  • Respect: +377
    • http://www.road-dog-productions.com/
A.I. observations
« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2003, 01:07:18 AM »
0
I agree completely with Gold Trumpet's assessment. I did read, however, a rundown of Kubrick's original treatment which did include the ending in the future, with the advanced robots unthawing David and giving him a chance to be with his mother again. There was a bit more eerieness to it, though; rather than having his father and brother simply be absent, the reconstructed house simply had empty black spaces where they used to be.

life_boy

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
  • Posts: 581
  • Christmas has always smelled like oranges to me.
  • Respect: +1
A.I. observations
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2003, 02:08:10 AM »
0
Quote from: Ghostboy
rather than having his father and brother simply be absent, the reconstructed house simply had empty black spaces where they used to be.


That's cool.

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Respect: +470
Kubrick's ending
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2003, 01:38:57 PM »
0
I think Kubrick's ending was the one it's in the movie. It's way more complex and interesting than just end it with David frozen in the bottom of the ocean. Being pessimistic is very easy, I think, and the "second" ending has much more to it and expands the intelectual horizons of the film. That's pure Kubrick.

The film, in my opinion, is a curious and pretty effective blend of both filmmakers style, but it's a little more Spielberg than Kubrick, even at the beggining.

About the questions, I don't think David shut down. He became human, he started to dream through his love and therefore became a real boy. The film says that the element that makes us humans is our consciousness, which both David and Gigolo Joe get to discover at some point (Gigolo says "I am, I was" before being arrested). The film (ina 2001 kind of way) is showing the evolution of man till the point where man becomes like a god, creating humans out of nothing, and giving up his place to the next species: Robots. Cause the "aliens" are not aliens, are robots. Look closer, they are robots. Spielberg explains this on the dvd.

why is gigolo joe the only redeeming character??

I think the robots were sincere on their intentions...

A.I. is a fantastic movie cause it doesn't explain everything, you have to make your own conclusions...That's why is one of my favorite films, and I honestly think is speilberg's best film to date.

bonanzataz

  • Electrician
  • *****
  • Posts: 2887
  • Respect: +13
A.I. observations
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2003, 07:28:31 PM »
0
COOL! I never thought of them as being robots. This makes too much sense and...
 :crazyeyes:

BLAG!
The corpses all hang headless and limp bodies with no surprises and the blood drains down like devil’s rain we’ll bathe tonight I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls Demon I am and face I peel to see your skin turned inside out, ’cause gotta have you on my wall gotta have you on my wall, ’cause I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls collect the heads of little girls and put ’em on my wall hack the heads off little girls and put ’em on my wall I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +769
A.I. observations
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2003, 10:12:22 PM »
0
totally agree with everything postive said about AI.

it rulzx0rz.

the ideas of kubrick with the familiarity of spielberg, it's a (big) keeper.
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

©brad

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4506
  • Respect: +218
A.I. observations
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2003, 05:33:56 AM »
0
Spielberg said he was happy that the film got mixed reactions because that means he actually nailed something 'kubrickian.'

AI is worth watching just for the visuals. Janusz Kaminski is incredible. This and Minority Report are his best, I think. Love the scene at the pool with David and the kids.


FYI- Kaminski's filmography includes:

Catch Me If You Can (2002)
Minority Report (2002)
Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Amistad (1997)
Lost World: Jurassic Park, The (1997)
Jerry Maguire (1996)
How to Make an American Quilt (1995)
Tall Tale (1995)
Little Giants (1994)
Schindler's List (1993)
Class of '61 (1993) (TV)
Adventures of Huck Finn, The (1993)
Mad Dog Coll (1992)
Trouble Bound (1992)
Killer Instinct (1991)
Pyrates (1991)
Wildflower (1991) (TV)
Cool as Ice (1991)
Grim Prairie Tales (1990)
Terror Within II, The (1990)
Rain Killer, The (1990)

life_boy

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
  • Posts: 581
  • Christmas has always smelled like oranges to me.
  • Respect: +1
A.I. observations
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2003, 03:47:36 PM »
0
Wow, the Little Giants.

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10865
  • Respect: +1273
A.I. observations
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2003, 03:57:49 PM »
0
Okay, they're robots, but they still look like aliens, and I can't get over it. Bad movie.  :yabbse-thumbdown:
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
A.I. observations
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2003, 08:24:30 PM »
0
I really liked this movie, and if the last 20 minutes was gone, it would be a great movie. I want to know though from the people who didn't like the movie exactly why.

~rougerum

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +769
A.I. observations
« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2003, 08:27:36 PM »
0
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
I want to know though from the people who didn't like the movie exactly why.

they hate their mothers.
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10865
  • Respect: +1273
A.I. observations
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2003, 08:38:03 PM »
0
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
if the last 20 minutes was gone, it would be a great movie. I want to know though from the people who didn't like the movie exactly why.


That's exactly why.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
A.I. observations
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2003, 08:54:16 PM »
0
Though I disliked the last 20 minutes, I still felt the rest held up its own as a great movie and made the last twenty minutes seem like a more minor detail than anything else.

~rougerum

Xixax

  • Electrician
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Respect: +7
    • http://maddancer.com
A.I. observations
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2003, 09:01:06 PM »
0
I'm in a similar camp with you guys, but I disliked the lats two HOURS and twenty minutes.

That movie was three hours of my life that I'll never get back, and $7.50 down the toilet.
Quote from: Pas Rapport
I don't need a dick in my anus to know I absolutely don't want a dick in my anus.
[/size]

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy