Ex Machina(2015)

[Trekker4747]

As it is, we're ultimately left with the same old anti-science "meddle not with forces beyond your understanding" trope, mixed with a bit of that old-fashioned fear/loathing of beautiful/sexy women.

I don't agree at all. That's only the case if you see Ava as the villain.
[...]
To be sure, there is a horror angle here, an ambiguity about the ending. The emergence of an AI race could bring the Singularity and the end of humanity. But I think the film is posing the question of whether we deserve to survive, if this is how we treat the life we create. At least Ava gave Caleb a chance to survive if he was smart enough to get out of his dilemma.

Isn't that the same logic the Jigsaw killer in the Saw movies uses? He isn't a serial killer, because the lethal traps he puts people in can be survived with the proper combination of sangfroid, cleverness, cooperation and luck.

And an "element" of horror? It turned into a full-on slasher movie at the end, with Ava as the villain. Sure, Nathan was scuzzy too, and Caleb wasn't being entirely altruistic either, but Caleb certainly didn't deserve what sure read to me like a probable death. The point you raise about her own security is a valid one, but she could have told Caleb that she'd call in a rescue for him once she felt safe. Your reading is an interesting one, but I think you're stretching to be so sure that Ava didn't pretty much murder Caleb by keeping him locked in an unbreakable cage.

Nothing is "unbreakable." Least of all a metal door with a likely plexiglass or Lexand window. It may be very, very hard to break, sure. But with very little thought and simple tools -which I'm sure could be found or improvised in the area- he could get through the door. The question then is what he'd do to be rescued from the isolated area. Which, again, it'd be possible to do with some improvising and maybe some light arson.

 

[Christopher]

Isn't that the same logic the Jigsaw killer in the Saw movies uses? He isn't a serial killer, because the lethal traps he puts people in can be survived with the proper combination of sangfroid, cleverness, cooperation and luck.

I have no idea, because I've never seen those movies. But I doubt very much he's an imprisoned sex slave seeking liberation.

And an "element" of horror? It turned into a full-on slasher movie at the end, with Ava as the villain.

I've never seen Spartacus either, but I imagine the slaves kill a lot of Romans when they make their play for freedom. Do you consider that a slasher movie? Or maybe a better analogy would be something like The Burning Bed or Double Jeopardy or some other movie where an abused and terrorized woman ends up killing her abusive spouse. That's only a slasher movie if you sympathize with the abuser.

Sure, Nathan was scuzzy too, and Caleb wasn't being entirely altruistic either, but Caleb certainly didn't deserve what sure read to me like a probable death. The point you raise about her own security is a valid one, but she could have told Caleb that she'd call in a rescue for him once she felt safe. Your reading is an interesting one, but I think you're stretching to be so sure that Ava didn't pretty much murder Caleb by keeping him locked in an unbreakable cage.

I'm not "sure," I'm just saying it's ambiguous whether he was doomed or not. He might die, or he might get lucky. As someone said, people know he's up there, so when he doesn't return, they'll send a chopper to investigate. It's just a matter of how long that takes and how long he can hold out. That's part of the suspense of the ending -- how complete is her escape? How much of a threat does she pose, or not pose? It's an ending that raises questions rather than giving simplistic answers.

Indeed, that's the strength of the whole movie -- that it's ambiguous, that it's two-sided. Nobody here can be defined purely as hero or villain. It would hardly be the first case where a horror-movie "monster" was sympathetic and arguably justified. Frankenstein's monster, in both the book and the Karloff movies, was basically an innocent who wanted to be accepted, but was persecuted and hated for his appearance and was driven to violent rage in retaliation. The Cylons in Battlestar Galactica/Caprica work too -- they did horrible things to humanity, but we can see how they were exploited and victimized and driven to those actions. Or look at Batman villains like Mr. Freeze (the modern version) or Two-Face -- people who were victimized horribly and became criminals and killers in response. We can disapprove of their actions while still sympathizing with their situations and understanding what drove them to those extremes.

 

[Christopher]

...Or maybe it's not so ambiguous. I just watched the SXSW panel discussion with the filmmakers on the DVD, and writer-director Alex Garland said that he was surprised to hear people interpret the ending as dark, because his sympathies were firmly with Ava and he saw the ending as a victory.

More generally, I was really impressed with Garland's intelligence and his awareness of the issues behind AI and consciousness research. I also liked his insistence that the experience of creating new life is not godlike, it's humanlike, that we are creators (and procreators) by nature. (Oscar Isaac added that we've already created new species, citing domesticated dogs as his example.) It's rare to come across a filmmaker who's so scientifically savvy and thoughtful, and I hope he continues to do science fiction films.

I see this is Garland's directorial debut, and I'm wondering if the earlier films he wrote are worth checking out. I've seen Dredd, and it seems the other main one he's known for is Sunshine, which I've heard mixed things about. Some say it's awesome, others say it doesn't work. And the premise of trying to restart fusion in the Sun with a nuclear bomb sounds idiotic -- heck, it makes The Core seem plausible by comparison. Reading about it on Wikipedia, it sounds like an odd mix of well-researched science and total fantasy, so I'm not sure how I'd feel about it. I often get more upset about bad science in a film that's at least trying to be plausible than I do in a film that's unapologetic fantasy, because the bar is higher.

 

[JD]

I definitely saw never Ava as the villain. I don't know if I'd say I rooted for her at the end, but I definitely sympathized with her. I don't know if I said this in my post about the movie, but I would love to get movie or book or something that followed up on what became of Ava.

 

[Commander Richard]

Ava wasn't the villain but neither were the billionaire or the kid he recruited, though the billionaire does step on that line here and there.

The consensus on Sunshine is that it starts off as a really great movie but in the last third it deteriorates into nonsense. It's worth watching just for the first two thirds. It shows just how lethal a force of nature the sun is, something other movies and shows don't do.

As for consciousness or self awareness, do people really think that animals don't have either of those? The idea that they do and that there are different degrees of consciousness or awareness seems evident.

 

[Christopher]

Ava wasn't the villain but neither were the billionaire or the kid he recruited, though the billionaire does step on that line here and there.

I think Nathan was definitely the villain. As I said, he made excuses about sexuality being necessary for consciousness, but the fact that he made all his AIs look like hot naked women reveals that it was his own sexuality that he was indulging. He was trying to create consciousnesses but simultaneously seeking to use them as sex toys, and that's messed up. Especially when you consider that, in a sense, he was their father.

There's also the inherent cruelty of creating intelligent beings and imprisoning them in a sterile, unstimulating environment. That's just counterproductive from a practical standpoint; intelligent minds need stimulation and sensory variety to develop adequately. So the fact that he did it anyway suggests a pathological need for control. It's not like he had to worry about security; he owned everything within a 2-hour helicopter ride of the house, so it's not like they could run off if he let them wander the grounds and experience something beyond that one small cage. Yet he still kept them perpetually locked up. He believed they could think, he wanted them to think, but he didn't care about their needs as thinking beings. That's downright sadistic.

The consensus on Sunshine is that it starts off as a really great movie but in the last third it deteriorates into nonsense. It's worth watching just for the first two thirds. It shows just how lethal a force of nature the sun is, something other movies and shows don't do.

A lot of modern movies seem to fall apart in the third act for some reason. It's weird -- you'd think getting the ending right first would be the most important thing. Now, Ex Machina builds to its ending rather organically, and there's even a sense of inevitability to it in retrospect.

As for consciousness or self awareness, do people really think that animals don't have either of those? The idea that they do and that there are different degrees of consciousness or awareness seems evident.

Lots of people think animals have no consciousness, considering how many of them we eat or otherwise exploit. Many people still scoff at the idea that dolphins or elephants have self-awareness because of the long-held assumption that it's exclusive to humans.

Heck, even educated people make this assumption. In Robert J. Sawyer's Neanderthal Parallax trilogy, he postulates that even Neanderthals didn't have true consciousness, that there was some mutation 40,000 years ago that led to genuine qualia and awareness emerging for the first time ever in modern humans and allowing us to outcompete the Neanderthals (while in a parallel Earth, it was the Neanderthals who got that spark and outcompeted us). The implausibility of that notion was one of my biggest problems with the trilogy. I just think it's silly to assume that consciousness is something that doesn't exist at all until a threshold is reached and then simply springs fully into being.

(I'm also amused by the people who insist that no animal less intelligent than a human can be intelligent at all, because they're basically saying that humans are as stupid as it's possible for a sentient being to get. Somehow I doubt that's what they intend to suggest.)

 

[Destructor]

Reading about it on Wikipedia, it sounds like an odd mix of well-researched science and total fantasy, so I'm not sure how I'd feel about it. I often get more upset about bad science in a film that's at least trying to be plausible than I do in a film that's unapologetic fantasy, because the bar is higher.

You should definitely watch it, even though it has warts. Also of course '28 Days Later' was his breakout movie as a screenwriter. I'd recommend his novel 'The Beach'- far superior to the movie.

 

[Christopher]

Also of course '28 Days Later' was his breakout movie as a screenwriter.

That's some kind of zombie-virus thing, right? Not my cup of tea.

 

[JD]

I'm a big animal person, and I've watched enough animal behavior in person, online and on TV that I find it hard to believe anybody who has really watched and been around animals could honestly believe there's isn't some kind of consciousness there. I don't think it works the same way ours does, but there is definitely some awareness, and more complex possessing than just pure instinct in most animals.