What does it mean to be human? What, exactly,
is it that defines us? Is it our capacity to use tools (once a commonly
accepted definition, now outdated), our complex problem-solving ability, our
creativity, our emotions? Or is it something less admirable—our capacity for
deception, betrayal, self-preservation above all?
Beware the android without a moral compass. |
These are the questions addressed in
writer/director Alex Garland’s (DREDD, 28 DAYS LATER) new film EX MACHINA, in
theaters now. And though the questions may be fascinating, the exploration at
times diverting, the answers Garland provides us are ultimately predictable and
disappointing.
The film revolves around a “Turing test,” an
examination of a highly sophisticated android (Alicia Vikander) to see if her
artificial intelligence has passed the point of self-awareness. But, of course,
the test, and all that surrounds it, is not what it seems--starting with the android’s
crazy/charismatic creator, Nathan (Oscar Isaac in an incandescent performance
building on his riveting role in the recent A MOST VIOLENT YEAR), and including
the fact that this android is purposely built to svelte female proportions.
The poor schlub from Nathan’s pioneering
software company brought in to test the android is Caleb (Domnhall Gleeson,
ABOUT TIME), a timid beta to Nathan’s towering alpha in every way. From this
point on in the story, nothing is a surprise—not Caleb’s falling for the
beautiful machine, her apparently falling for him, the evidence of Nathan’s
brutish cruelty toward his earlier iterations in the android line, the
manipulation occurring on all sides. That includes the manipulation of the
audience by the writer/director, wanting us to root for the underdog Caleb and
his threatened android sweetheart.
But about two-thirds of the way into the
film, you begin to wonder whether the android might be smarter than Caleb, at
least, and maybe Nathan, too. No amount of trickery can keep the smart human in
the theater seat (at least one who has seen a few SF films and read a few SF books)
from predicting the obvious result. I won’t spoil it for you if you plan to see
the film. Just be warned that if you are an old-school SF fan, you’ve seen it
all before.
This film has garnered a lot of attention
from the critics. I suspect it’s because of some neat CGI effects and the fact
that there’s a fair amount of female nudity in the film. Guys tend to think
that makes a film “edgy.” For me the redeeming factor was Oscar Isaac, acting
almost in isolation to bring energy to a timeworn plot. Gleeson mostly looked
confused and sad. Vikander did her job competently, which was to look innocent
and lovely, even while doing some pretty nasty things. (That’s the thing about
AI—it always seems to come without a moral compass.)
Just in case you’re wondering, this is NOT
science fiction romance. It’s straight SF. The romantic elements play a role in
the plot, but, for reasons I can’t explain without spoilerage, they do not
constitute true romance. Looks like we’ll have to wait a while for another SFR
film of worth on the big screen.
Cheers, Donna
I have zero interest in seeing this film, for all the reasons you articulated. Huge male gaze much? Seems like such a wasted opportunity.
ReplyDeleteI'll save my money for an SFR film featuring an android/sentient AI!
I suppose they've made for their target audience - let me guess which gender might be most interested... um...
ReplyDelete