[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "My God. It's full of stars" ( was: re: A.I.)
> I think that is a key thematic difference between Spielberg and Kubrick,
> one that makes the creative pairing of the two in this film especially
> interesting. The closest they've come to meeting each other
> philosophically in the past is Kubrick's "2001", from which Spielberg
> has borrowed liberally, especially in "Close Encounters". Otherwise,
> Kubrick's vision of mankind is much bleaker, much more prone to showcase
> mankind's proclivity for self-destruction. And in that context, "2001"
> may not necessarily be a vision of the future, so much as a fantasy for
> getting the heck out of the madness.
Actually, what _2001_ shows is that mankind's self-advancement is directly
linked to mankind's proclivity for violence -- note how the apes gain
technological know-how by using bones to kill each other, and how Kubrick
links the bone tossed in the air to the satellites orbiting the Earth.
That's a rather disturbing point to make, I think. Plus, humanity is
eventually superceded, either by machines or by the Star-Child which may
represent the next phase in our evolution. (Or both -- in the sequels
written by Arthur C. Clarke, HAL becomes a disembodied spirit too.)
> I would have no problem buying that the movie was totally a Kubrick
> vehicle if it had ended with David trapped on the ocean floor. Or even
> if the bits with the 41st century robots were still there, but David's
> day with his mother was less than he had hoped for. As it is, the
> ending of the movie is quintessentially Spielberg in the same way that
> "Hook" is quintessentially Spielberg.
Well, if I may quote from that EW article again ... oh, heck, here's the
whole thing:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/commentary/0,6115,168081~1~0~whyaistillcauses,00.html
Fight Club
Why "A.I." still causes arguments -- Change your mind, again, about the
Spielberg movie? That's not a bad thing, says Ty Burr
The book is closed on "A.I.," isn't it? With Warner Bros. now
acknowledging that the film probably won't crack the $100 million mark
that separates "success" from "abject fiasco" in the mayfly media
mindset, with general audiences recoiling in confusion and distaste, it
would seem that the culture has already moved on from Steven
Spielberg's collaboration with the late Stanley Kubrick. C'mon, there's
a new pastel-colored comedy with Reese Witherspoon playing -- let's go
see that, huh?
Personally, I'm in the minority that was fairly blown away by "A.I.,"
bizarro flaws and all. If for no other reason, it's refreshing to come
across a chunk of celluloid that's willing to risk being argued about,
that lingers and pokes at you throughout the week, coughing up images
and unasked-for questions. I'm intrigued by all the camps that are put
off by "A.I." This movie is flopping because it has united radically
different groups of moviegoers into one sneering mob. Let's tick them
off, shall we?
STANLEY KUBRICK IDOLATORS
These are the folks that found good things to say about "Eyes Wide
Shut." They seem to like "A.I."'s first half just fine, since the
grouchy futurism of the man behind "2001" and "A Clockwork Orange"
seems evident in the film's pace, tone, and, above all, in the chilly
sense that these mortals be fools indeed. It's only when David (Haley
Joel Osment) starts chasing that ridiculous Blue Fairy -- i.e., when
Spielbergian sentiment rears its head -- that the Kubrickoids revolt.
Worse, the Freudian paradise of the final scene has them retching in
the aisles. I have problems with the movie's wrap-up, too, but not
because it sullies the memory of Kubrick. In fact, by all accounts,
"A.I." ends exactly as Kubrick wanted it to (although not, it should be
noted, as he might have shot it).
STEVEN SPIELBERG ACOLYTES
They expect nothing less than masterful narrative filmmaking from the
heir to Hollywood's Golden Age and are willing to put up with any
attendant emotional goo. Unfortunately for them, "A.I." presents
Spielberg at his most meditative AND (ultimately) sentimental. There
are big, Kubrickian ideas here: What makes us human? Does our lack of
perfection ennoble or doom us? Is love without choice really love? And
Spielberg (to his credit) lets them hover behind the characters and
story for the most part, occasionally letting them pierce the scrim of
narrative. He also goes all out toward the end with a trippy plot
change-up reminiscent of "2001." Too bad nobody goes to the movies on
acid anymore.
MAINSTREAM FANS OF "E.T." AND "CLOSE ENCOUNTERS"
They want warmth, clarity, and a movie they can share with their kids.
They get darkness, a final 20 minutes that goes completely off the deep
end, and a movie that'll land the children in therapy. All I can say is
caveat emptor, folks. (And those things are NOT aliens, they're
advanced robots, all right?)
LOVERS OF DYSPEPTIC ART HOUSE CINEMA.
No luck for them, either, since "A.I." courts feelgood sentiment in
every close-up of Osment. That the movie's saved by the actor's
enormous talent -- just watch his face in the scene where he's
"imprinted" -- is all that keeps these folks in their seats. Too bad
that the Teddy toy morphs from a beguilingly creepy familiar to a
laughable Jiminy Cricket over the course of the film, and that the
final scene seems to topple into mommy-love bathos. I say "seems"
because I do think that Spielberg has more complex ideas about that
last sequence (remember the "Freud and Women" book Monica is reading in
the bathroom?), at the same time that I have to admit he hasn't put
them across clearly.
PEOPLE WHO LIKE PEOPLE
What may be most disturbing to many moviegoers is "A.I."'s underlying
assumption that the human race isn't particularly noble, nice, or
important. That's the thread that runs through all of Kubrick's work,
and why some critics dismiss him as a mere misanthrope. And it's truly
startling to see that belief refracted through Spielberg's visual
iconography. But there it is: Who we are is not as good as what we
make. The movie dares to imagine that humans are a passing phase -- a
brief virus caught by Earth, perhaps -- and that the robots who will
outlive us are the better gods we have fashioned in our own image. Chew
over THAT one at your next church meeting.
And be aware, too, that the kernel of this long-view message
(distressing to some, refreshing to me) comes straight from Brian
Aldiss' original 1969 short story, "Super Toys Last All Summer Long."
It's available on the Web at several sites, including Wired, if only as
proof that, whatever Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg have wrought,
they've stayed unerringly true to their source. Maybe future
generations -- or the robots who'll replace them -- will be able to
appreciate that better.
You've had time to think it over. What is it about "A.I." that's
dividing audiences? Have you changed your mind about it since you first
saw the movie?
> And did Robin Williams' cameo smack to anyone else too much of "The Last
> Starfighter"?
Never occured to me. Though it did bring to mind the fact that Williams,
too, has played a robot demanding his rights in _Bicentennial Man_.
> Still, it seemed David's ultimate flaw was his inability to grow. He was
> designed to be the child for people who had no children. But he would
> never grow up.
Physically, no. Mentally, there's no reason he *couldn't* -- I am told
that neural nets have already grown to reflect the psychology of a
two-year-old. If David is truly artificially intelligent, and not just
some deterministically programmed love machine, growth should be possible.
--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/
References: