4 July 2001 - Page Two

Not The Guy From Law & Order feels:  “"A.I." is not Steven Spielberg's best film, but it is his most fascinating.

What's the difference? His best films, like "Schindler's List" have a powerful impact with nary a misstep along the way. Few filmmakers are as intuitive as Spielberg, who has an uncanny ability to find the most captivating images that tell his stories so vividly.

"A.I" certainly has more than its fare share of captivating images, but it's an unusual entry in the Spielberg canon. It also has its fair share of missteps, which include under-developed storytelling and even imagery that doesn't quite work, something almost unheard of for Spielberg. Watching this movie is like looking at a beautiful kind of bird you've never seen before that has a broken wing. It may not work perfectly, but it's so unique you can't take your eyes off it.

So is the end result a Spielberg movie or a Kubrick movie? More than a few critics think that it's a strange hybrid that is too warm at times to be a Kubrick movie and too cold at times to be a Spielberg one, and ne'er the twain shall meet. I found the mingling of the styles to be a large part of what makes the movie so engrossing and challenging. I think the movie's heart belongs to Spielberg, while its eyes occasionally belong to Kubrick. Like the works of both men, the movie casts a spell that lingers.

Like almost all of Spielberg's movies, the movie is a visual marvel, creating worlds that are both beautiful and frightening. Spielberg puts intriguing spins on his visual trademarks. Often, he takes his own warm visual style, then shapes it with Kubrick's more exacting, critical eyes.  The moon, which was a symbol of freedom and joy in "E.T.," becomes a symbol of fear and danger here. Many scenes are infused with Spielberg's warm lighting, only to be filled with frightening imagery, shot with a Kubrickian, steady, slow-moving camera, such as a scene in which one character meets several duplicates of himself. The most stunning set piece of all is the submerged New York City, at once gorgeous and spooky.  Production designer Rick Carter, cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, and the team at Industrial Light and Magic will have Oscar nominations at the very least, in a just world.

At its core, the movie is about a child searching for love and a home a theme not unlike the one Spielberg explored in his other movie with two letters in the title, "E.T." And yet "A.I." adds levels of complexity to that. David is, in the end, a mechanical being, one who can never fully understand what it means to be human. Although David can love, the trick for him is to find someone who can love him back, and this theme cuts to heart of our very existence, questioning what makes us love and be loved. The movie makes the mind reel.

With so many ideas and so much to imagination to wrestle with, Spielberg has a harder time than usual pulling his movie together. Some of his transitions between the "acts" of his screenplay are jarring. David's journey into the woods as he tries to elude mecha-hating humans seems overly coarse and harsh after the wondrous, wide-eyed opening. The appearance of motorcycles and a hard-rock band just don't gel visually with the rest of the movie, and Spielberg doesn't do a very good job of explaining why some humans want to destroy mechas, while others accept them quite readily. That debate might have made for a fascinating subplot. Spielberg also has problems with the transition from New York City to the film's "2001/Close Encounters-esque" conclusion, forcing him to rely on clumsy narration rather than compelling visuals.

And yet I give the film an A+. Why, when it has such obvious flaws? Simple. When you get an A+ on a paper at school, you didn't necessarily do everything perfectly, but you did well enough to make your work stand out as something well-done and creative, and that's what "A.I." is. It has such vast, ambitious scope in its images and themes that its flaws, though distracting, can be easily forgiven.

It helps greatly that Haley Joel Osment is in almost every minute of this movie. Though he's given excellent support by O'Connor and especially Law, it's Osment who amazes.  He has proved he is not just the best child actor now working, but one of the best actors, period. Like his director, Osment has an uncanny way of finding just the right way to bring a scene to life. Watch his face just after the mother reads the imprinting instructions and David feels the first pangs of love.  Some actors would be tempted to overplay that scene with facial tics, but Osment's wonderfully subtle change in expression is a wonder to behold, just as the film is.

Not everyone will agree "A.I." is such a wonder. There's another way the ghost of Stanley Kubrick has haunted Steven Spielberg. While Spielberg's movies often draw across-the-board praise off the bat, Kubrick's movies tended to start off amazing some viewers, but alienating others who may come around only after seeing the film multiple times and letting it grow on them. That, I think, is what's happening with "A.I.". Some people, like me, will tell you it's marvelous. Others will tell you they hate it and think it's the worst movie Spielberg has ever made.

Who's right? None of us.  Decide for yourself. You may love "A.I." or you may hate it. But don't miss it, especially if you have a taste for good sci-fi, fantasy, and fairy tales. Give it a try or two. Loved or hated, "A.I." is a film that invades your imagination---and that's why it will stand the test of time.”

CB On Rye writes:  “A.I. was nothing.  It was not a Kubrick film, willing to provoke and stir our imaginations and having the balls not to give us simple answers.  Neither was it a Spielberg film, able to push the simple concept of hope amidst fear and leave us beside ourselves with an undeniable emotional reaction at the end.  It was darkly curious and saccarine sweet at the same time.  Would Kubrick have told a Pinocchio fable in character and story or would he have hammered it in our heads every twenty minutes that we were watching a Pinnochio fable?  Spielberg is an obvious filmmaker, and that's O.K.  It's why my film-loving childhood is made up of big emotions gathered from Spielberg films like E.T., where I was left crying with joy at the film's end.  But this film was not obvious.  It was obtuse, then suddenly clarity would rear it's head.   But now we're so far away from "art" in film that if Spielberg does something "strange" and "dark," it's an artistic acheivement.  No, that's crap.  Art has to connect or, in the frequent case of Kubrick, cause a disconnect at an emotional level.  And Spielberg, except in the eyes of a very talented Osment, has nothing emotional to give.  And what was up with the worthless, meaningless ending of forced closure?  There was a Kubrickian film made about robots that just want to love and live but are treated horribly, hunted and tortured, and it was called BLADE RUNNER.   Watch that again instead.”

Modus Operandi has a list:  “I'll list my major issues, because I have to get them out in written form because they're just sitting and burning right now:

(1) Who is Henry? What does he do for the company? He's obviously very wealthy with a stellar background and therefore important to the company. Why is he excited about bringing David home and then in basically the next scene he wants him out?

(2) We didn't see Monica fall for David to the point she wanted to set the code. He's an annoying mecha at one point, then she decides she needs him to love her.

(3) Minor point, but at the dinner table with the spinach- they yell at David from about 8 inches away, Henry could've smacked the spinach out of his hand at any point but instead we hear twenty seconds of "David don't! David stop it! Don't! Stop! David! No!" If the tv starts smoking you pull the plug, if a dog chews on a shoe you smack the dog and take the shoe- David's kind of a combo- an appliance with some feeling. And you can't use the argument of being lost in an emotional moment because they obviously recognized he was a robot and therefore shouldn't eat spinach.

(4) When David gets returned, why was it Monica's job? Henry was clearly unemotional about it, he didn't trust Monica to follow through because he walked her into the room to have the speech about them going for a ride, and he could've just dropped him off on the way into work. And then he doesn't even double-check.

(5) Monica knew about the flesh fairs- how did she figure it was better that she turn him loose for obvious capture?

(6) Remove Jude Law and you risk what... us getting bored because the movie is only focused on David, or maybe losing potential female audience members. He served no purpose except for getting to Dr. Know (by the way, was that scene supposed to be suspenseful as they ran out of questions?) and saying Manhattan was the end of the earth, which could've been done any number of ways. David saved him- twice, not the other way around, and then when they were done with him its just, "see ya", and he lifts into the sky. I liked Law, I just wish he would have had a more significant role- that he would've been necessary and integral.

(7) The professor... "David we lost you for a while, but we're so glad to have you back. I have a room full of smart people who want to ask you questions because you're the most advanced piece of technology ever invented. So I'm going to leave the room for a while and trust you'll be here upon my return.

(8) In relation to (7), why wasn't there a tracking device on David? I would think the actual one thing that would be handy about a robotic 11 year old is that you could find him when he wandered off alone at Six Flags.

(9) Just end the movie in the water. Just let it go. Alien robots? Especially one's that could telepathically read the David's mind by lifting their hand but had to touch on the shoulder to transmit to each other.

Any one of these things and I'm fine. I can handle maybe even four or five. That's nine things I picked up on one viewing. But on a summer afternoon I'll take a seat in the Mann Village over the office any day.

And the bear was funny, I really did like him. Its good Wicket the Ewok was available for the part.”

Not Rog From What’s Happening send I his list too:  “Let us see what A.I. has going for it,

Spectacular visuals
Fine performances by Haley Joel Osment & Jude Law
Engaging and haunting story
Ahead of the time, directing by Spielberg
Makes people ponder about love and human beings
Great background score
Smart moviemaking
Makes you think (what a novel concept)

And what does A.I. not have,

Dumbed down story line to appeal to today's younger viewers
Mindless action and violence
Pretty young faces acting stupid
Crude bathroom humor
Makes you think (duh! where are the explosions)

All in all, A.I. is one of the most daring, unique and special movies to come along in a long time. It is a movie some people will remember for a long time.”

And the final word goes to CG, But Not CGI:  “The movie I want to see is the further adventures of Teddy.

Not only is he the coolest frickin' stuffed animal ever imagined (I'm hoping my wife's Baby Elmo doll is not reading this over my shoulder as I write), at the end of the film he's the oldest surviving robot on Earth, the only robot left who had contact with the fabled lost race of humans.

I want to see a movie about Teddy, God Emperor of the Frozen Earth, leading the giant flowing liquid robots to the stars.  THAT would be worth my eight bucks.”

 

The debate on A.I., and the relative merits of Jerry Bruckheimer will continue in the next Civilian Voices ....

CIVILIAN VOICES IS ALL ABOUT RESPONSES!!!!  Write back to these folks and get your own say by clicking right here!