by Sam Juliano
The idea behind A.I. was originally conceived by Stanley Kubrick, who subsequently entrusted the proposed project to Steven Spielberg. When Kubrick died suddenly in 1999, his widow successfully persuaded Spielberg to assume complete artistic control of the film, including the direction. Set in a future time when progress in robotics poses a conceivable menace to the human species, David (Haley Joel Osment), a robotic boy, is the artificial life form who is capable of experiencing love. As a prototype, he is given to a couple whose real son is mired in what appears to be an irreversible coma. After a discordant initiation David and his mother bond, at which point the “real” son miraculously awakens from the coma, rejoins to the family, and tricks David into engaging in dangerous things. The father concludes that they must return the robotic boy to the manufacturer for destruction, but the mother arranges for his escape via abandonment. For the duration of the film David seeks to be reunited with his mother, and for a time is joined by “Gigolo Joe,” a robot designed to function as a male prostitute. David becomes frozen I an the ocean, and millennia later–long after the extinction of the human species–robots of the future rescue him and allow him to reunite with his mother for one day that will last in his mind for eternity.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence, fueled by some profound philosophical themes and issues of motherhood, is arguably one of Spielberg’s masterworks, and for this writer it ranks with Schindler’s List, Empire of the Sun and E. T. on the short list of the director’s greatest achievements in cinema. Like the other three, it is extraordinarily moving, and it paints yet again a piercingly provocative view of childhood and of the human condition, tinged with an overwhelming sense of sadness. The film is based on a short story by Brian Aldiss entitled “Supertoys Last All Summer Long,” published in 1969, and it draws considerable influence from Disney’s Pinocchio.
The setting is futuristic, and the narrative commences after a catastrophic global warming-induced flood that has ravaged the landscape and exacerbated population pressures. Couples are required to secure licenses to have children, and the technological advances have now reached the point where companies are producing mechanical humans that are veritable doppelgangers of the real children, even to the extent of expressing genuine affection. Children who are obedient and stay young forever is an ideal scenario for prospective parents. Of course the very concept that “human love” has been replaced by “machine love” serves as the ironic juxtaposition of a film that strives to portray hope, but instead in large measure presents a dire picture of family disintegration, and lost capacity to love. In effect, the film is made up of three distinct parts. In the first, David strives to assimilate in a human family, while in the second part we follow his adventures during his search, until finally in the third part, he confronts his dream. The first part is clearly the most psychological as it documents the struggle for affection. The second part above all showcases Spielberg’s satire of American society in the context of David’s discovery of the world around him, after he is stranded alone. David’s abandonment suggests a ‘saturation’ of American consumer society where everything becomes disposable and interchangeable, once the trend is past.
The film’s most omnipotent and wrenching scene may well be the aforementioned one where the mother abandons her son to the forest. To save him she had no alternative but to abandon him to survive on his own, as the father had threatened his dismantlement and destruction. The robotic boy’s never-ending search for his mother of course mirrors the plethora of adopted, abandoned, lost and abused children in today’s society who are enlisted in an eternal mission to find love, only to become entangled in harmful vices when it is unconsummated. Then there’s a circus where robots are publicly sacrificed, reflecting a modern-day spectacle that’s all the rage in America, where an ecstatic crowd contemplates gigantic robotic trucks that clash and are eventually destroyed. Gladiator, Kubrick’s Spartacus and Spielberg’s own Schindler’s List are all recalled here.
In the film’s final chapter David meets Gigolo Joe (Jude Law), a superman whose only apparent goal is to satisfy women. Recalling the show Sex in the City, Joe seems to be a direct reference to the increasingly significant phenomenon of unmarried and independent women who do not need men to survive. He brings the child to the red city, a town of a thousand lights where vice reigns in what is an obvious transposition of Las Vegas.
Ultimately, as per chronicled in the utterly arresting sequence near the end, the earth becomes mired in a deep freeze, which is brought about by a planetary collapse of climate. The subsequent melting of the Arctic ice sheets and submersion of the coastal cities ends a two-thousand year freeze, which ‘reactivates’ David and his stored memories of a human civilization that has long ago disappeared, but his quest for his mother and human love endures with the advanced computer life forms that have replaced humanity–shapeless, sexless, emotionless, yet with a degree of compassion, as they assist David in realizing his goal. The short passage visualizing this fleeting moment is one of the most beautiful codas in all of American cinema since the advent of the new millennium. The conclusion of A.I. hasn’t pleased a number of critics and moviegoers, but it’s in keeping with the film’s myriad themes, which also includes the nature of existence, the responsibility mankind has to the sentient beings that it creates, and the issues that arise when man’s technical reach extends beyond his moral grasp.
The film again demonstrates Spielberg’s gift with young children, as can be seen with Haley Joel Osment, shifting seamlessly between a cold machine, a child in love and a dangerously obsessed creature. Francis O’Connor, who plays his mother, effectively conveys the ambivalence of her feelings, while Jude Law as the gigolo shines in his extroverted mode.
Spielberg alumni, cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, composer John Williams and editor Michael Kahn all make major contributions to Spielberg’s futuristic parable. Kaminski’s elegiac canvasses are tinged with melancholy, and are perfectly accentuated by the bittersweet music. But it’s a film that stays with you largely because of its philosophical themes, which in the end question the validity of eternal life, the fleeting nature of mortality and how the power of love can transcend centuries. It’s a film of lasting and significant emotional resonance and it’s my choice for the best movie of 2001.
Wonderful Sammy, very well written. I agree, AI was a great film\movie. Loved the relationship themes, especially between mother and child. And who will ever forget Jude Law, great job by him.
Thank you so much Father John Paul. I too thought Jude Law was exceptional in this film.
Beautifully written review Sam. I always saw this as one of Spielberg’s best films. Some have had problems with the final act, but I found it brought aching closure.
Nice way to frame the ending Frank. Thanks for the very kind words my friend.
No idea how I never have seen this movie. It sounds like a good one, especially how you relay the theme of the movie and all Sam Juliano. It’s on my ‘to watch’ list now Sam, Thank you for bringing this one to light for me, and excellent essay and review! I wish you’d make a public list of the reviews you have done, and additionally, movies you personally would recommend listed by genre. I know I’d enjoy going to the list of movies you recommend and would use it myself, and I’m sure others would as well. You have very good taste in movies Sammy! Thank you for again for posting this. I didn’t even know the movie existed and if I did, I never knew it was this deep.
Danna, thank you so very much my friend. I’d be most curious to hear your response to it!
It is, indeed, a great film and your tribute here is perfectly on point.
Thank you so much Pat my friend.
Has this film been written about here like 10 times? I feel like my comment is autopilot: ‘Not bad. Ending false. Wish 10 minute end was chopped off’. etcetera.
Jamie, at least that many!! 🙂
First-rate essay, Sam!
This Spielberg/ Kubrick entry is special, from my point of view, as posing the frontiers of sensibility and the priority of constant love, by way of cosmic melodrama. As I work my way through the films of Jarmusch, I’m struck by those matters coming about in mundane experience being challenged to make a doable but very hard change.
Most creativity framed there Jim! Thanks so much for the very kind words my friend.
I remember the audience at the session I attended laughing loudly and derisively at the final part where the advanced AIs recover the child. They seemed to be under the impression that aliens had arrived at the end of the movie and were openly mocking as ridiculous. It quite ruined my own appreciation for the emotional closure I’d hoped to experience.
Watching it later at home was far more satisfying. Hell (for movie buffs) is other people.
Jerseydreaming, I recall hearing the same derision when I first saw it in the theater. The film is definitely polarizing – great to hear you came down strongly in its behalf over time.
I saw this in the theater and didn’t care for it, there seems to be two endings. But then I gave it another chance and watched it at home and now I think it’s one of Spielberg’s best films. Mark Kermode of BBC4 has a video on YouTube explaining how his respect for the movie has grown over the years.
Peter, thanks for that information. I honestly had no idea that Mark Kermode was a fan – in fact I am outright surprised. I’m sure my friend Allan knew this. Seems like you are another who came around after earlier disappointment. Interesting.
The title of the Kermode video on Youtube is ‘A.I. Apology’.
I wonder if it could be a rare film that is better to see at home rather than in the theater. At least for me it was, as I thought it much too long in the theater, while at home I could take a break if I wanted. Bring back the intermission in theaters maybe ?
Peter S., there is a sure element of intimacy running through the film that might indeed make it a more profound experience in the cozy confines of the house. Thanks so much for identifying the Kermode video.
There was a period where I considered AI to be Spielberg’s best mature film, and while I still think its a success, I don’t quite feel as strong about it as I do Munich or Catch Me If You Can. And unlike many naysayers, its not the end that feels off (or wrong) for me, but the whole flesh fair scene. That seems like the biggest element of AI that is sorely lacking Kubrick’s biting satirical edge. Spielberg’s take feels tonally off and heavy-handed IMO.
Oh, the flesh fair scene is one of his worst scenes in his entire canon IMHO. It’s Spielberg’s chief flaw totally shown: he thinks the masses are mindless heathens that can be controlled easily. It’s cynical and highly condescending, and why one should never take his tear-inducing scenes in his others films (including this one) as anything other than heavy handed manipulation of another means. That the ending does what it does only drives this home more clearly.
Maurizio: I well remember you were always a fan of the film, and even with the toned down response here it is one of the Spielbergs you’d rate highest. Sounds like you and Bob haven’t a big problem with the ending, rather you, Jamie and Bob find the flesh fair sequence repellent.
Jamie: Scathingly and superlatively said!
I agree with you Marizio. I have a bit soured on this film since its release. The Flesh fair scene is terrible for sure but overall the film can’t sustain its slow pace and doesn’t earn its emotions enough.
Au contraire my friend, au contraire. It remains one of Spielberg’s very best films for me.
Still, I will admit that the film has been reviewed too many times at this site. This will be the last. 🙂
Haha Well that may be the case. I used to be a huge fan of this film. And you know I tend to like Speilberg. This one is just not as good as it used to be for me.
I love the diversity of disappointment with this movie. I personally think that the last act of the movie is the strongest stuff, and don’t have much use for a lot of the build up. To echo a few others here, the Flesh Fair is all kinds of accidental awful, something that’s trying to be a sci fi lynching, but with the cartoonish tone of the donkey island stuff from Pinnochio, but it all winds up doubling back and turning into a garish portrayal of minstrel-level caricature that seems both oddly fitting and absolutely sickening on a level of thematic execution. It’s the sort of thing you know Kubrick probably could’ve pulled off, but Spielberg, intelligent enough to recognize where he’s going but nowhere near savvy enough to either hit the breaks or damn the pedestrians, winds up stalling out on. All in all it’s more interesting as a kind of hotbed of clinical filmmaking, a look down deep into the director’s subconscious, or rather the mainstream pop-culture subconscious he stands as a bearded super-ego for.
I love the diversity of disappointment with this movie. I personally think that the last act of the movie is the strongest stuff, and don’t have much use for a lot of the build up.
Bob, you always throw in a curve ball, but in this case I am smiling. Actually I am always fascinated with your authoritative takes in this genre and this comment rates with the most wonderful of them all. Seems like the flesh fair sequence gets unanimous condemnation with Jamie and Maurizio in full agreement.
Not a perfect film, but still profound, and as you correctly assert emotionally enthralling. Wonderful review Sam.
Thanks Tim. Yes, for me the film remains one of the director’s finest.
Superb essay Sam. Thanks.
I’m an admirer of some of Spielberg’s work, ranking at least 5 of his films among the classics of their years, but the ending to this – his best SF film is so awful and such a crass cop-out that it really diminishes it for me.
Thanks so much Bobby. Yes the ending has been quite polarizing, and I completely understand and respect your position. I also remembered you did regard a few of his films highly from our discussions here over the years.