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."
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?
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.
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.
Not again:
http://xixax.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=848
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?
Quote from: cowboykurtisif 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."
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.
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..
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.
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.
-- 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.
Quote from: cowboykurtisto 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 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.
Quote from: USTopGun47I 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.
Though I agree Speilberg's film carried a different tone with major hints of Kubrickian ideas and themes, I disagree Speilberg really added anything to the film to give it a hint of his own warm fuzziness. To set record straight, the blue fairy idea was specifically Kubrick's who had to defend through various collabarations with sci fi writers who hated the idea. The warm sunlight was taken directly from the original story. The best thing to look at when noticing the difference between each is how they both would have showed things. Kubrick, being very much influenced by the directness of Kiewslowski and fairy tales, would have brought a very observant feeling matched in a darker light overall. Speilberg runs through the story like an action film and loses that observance Kubrick would have. I would rather have seen kubrick do this, but I don't mind Speilberg doing it.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetSpeilberg runs through the story like an action film and loses that observance Kubrick would have.
True. Spielberg likes to be in the story he is wanting to tell, and when watching his films we can't get the Spielberg presence out of the thing. Kubrick just lets the story unfold observantly.
AI: The Kubrick Edit
http://www.djfilms.com/AI.html
this is kind of stupid, however there are some referance articles linked that reveal some interesting insight on kubricks treatment vs. steven's film.
Quote from: CinephileI think "Minority Report" was more Kubrick than "A.I."
i agree 100%.
tell me kubrick woulda used haley joe and jude law, and i will call you a liar.
Quote from: b. realQuote from: CinephileI think "Minority Report" was more Kubrick than "A.I."
tell me kubrick woulda used haley joe.
i heard kubrick wanted dakota fanning
do you lie to me? was she even present at current time? did she even exist before sam i am?
either way, i like her cute little face. just wanna pinch it, ya know?
Interesting article adressing some more insight on the contribution and authorship of ideas in AI.
Kubrick's Keeper
Stanley Kubrick's producer (and brother-in-law) Jan Harlan talked with TIME's Jess Cagle about the late director's role in the new film "A.I."
By BY JESS CAGLE
Posted Saturday, Jun. 16, 2001
"It's a bit of cinema history. I remember seeing it and thinking this is a repeat of '2001.' Some people will walk out and hate it."
—Jan Harlan
Cagle: What's something that Steven added that wasn't there in Kubrick's vision?
Harlan: The Gigolo Joe character, Steven turned it into a light-hearted colorful figure, very funny, very witty. Stanley's Gigolo Joe was a very very serious and dark robot. Had Stanley made this film, telling exactly the same thing, it would've been rated R. Stanley's Gigolo Joe, forgive the double entendre, did go all the way.
Where was the script when Steven stepped in?
There are two stages. Stanley bought the short story in '83, "Supertoys Last All Summer Long," from Brian Aldiss. So then he worked with Brian, he worked with Watson, he worked, mainly, himself. Very slowly. This was a long project. He wrote a script. It wasn't a treatment, it wasn't a conventional script. Before it was finished, he had spoken to Spielberg about all sorts of things. They were telephone pals. In the mid '90s, he offered Steven to direct "A.I." He completely opened up to Steven, gave him the story, gave him what he had, showed him over 600 conceptual drawings that he had already. He said to Steven, you have the better knack for this. It was monumental fairy tale that Stanley wanted, and Stanley always had these kind of black notes, very dark elements. They're completely different.
Stanley said this would be a Stanley Kubrick production of a Steven Spielberg film. But they drifted apart, there were other things to do. Stanley had planned to build a boy robot, failed in his attempt because the robot was totally unattractive. It's a totally important ingredient that this boy is very very attractive. At that time we had very rigid child labor laws and we had terrible trouble with Danny Lloyd in "The Shining." The authorities were breathing down our neck every day.
He also didn't consider a boy because he takes so long. If you take a year, a young boy can really change. He decided to put it off, do "Eyes Wide Shut." Then Stanley died. I didn't think about "A.I." at all. After all this was done and the dust had settled, I looked at "A.I." and realized there was this treasure that was about to collect dust. I called Steven Spielberg and Terry Semel and started the ball rolling. I tried now over a thousand drawings, two huge boxes full of material. I had to find it all because Stanley wasn't a very good file clerk. I met with Steven, I gave him absolutely everything I had with the total unlimited authority to do whatever he wanted to do. I knew that Stanley, who never let anyone interfere with his direction, would not have interfered with Steven. I felt totally authorized and justified in doing this.
Then Steven invited me to read, months later, his script, in his office. I was flabbergasted. He stuck basically to Stanley's storyline and still every page had now Steven Spielberg in it. It's a true amalgamation of the two. The two are so different, but what connects them is talent.
Is there a particular scene in "A.I." that looks exactly like the drawings of Chris Baker and Spielberg?
The whole Flesh Fair business. Steven was so taken with these drawings that he hired the same guy, Chris Baker, a black guy, real charming. The whole Flesh Fair thing, the apartment, comes from Chris Baker. I was so astonished when I saw the film the first time. In fact, it was very much Stanley's concept. The whole thing with the opening in the factory where the guy gives the speech and an employee is selected and he takes the boy home and the mother makes her first tremendous apprehension, and then the coding. All this was there.
Did Steven see this film as completing a vision by another artist?
I don't think so. He loved the story and he understood why Kubrick was fascinated. But there's no doubt that he had to make it his own. He's saturated with good ideas. He can't look over his shoulder. He may say he respected Stanley Kubrick's ideas. That's not a contradiction. Stanley's a great artist himself. But it really is a Steven Spielberg film. The same story would've looked different had Stanley made it.