After seeing Baz Lurhmann's gutsy "Moulin Rouge," I marveled that he may be the only major film director in Hollywood left with any balls. Spielberg proved me wrong.
First of all, there are some things you simply cannot take away from this film. The performances, particularly by Osment and Law, are wonderful. The images are breathtaking. The ship made to look like the moon rising over the horizon was particularly memorable.
Two of the most common criticisms of the film need reexamining: the depth of the subject matter and the ending of the film. While there may be valid criticisms, I do not believe enough respect has been given to Spielberg's choices. Choices have to be made when telling a story; Spielberg made them, and he didn't always make the traditional ones.
The commonly held criticism that Spielberg failed to fully address the issues connected a machine capable of loving its owner - and thus sacrificing depth - is simply a let down of expectation rather than a flaw in the film. The path for the film divided into (at least) two possibilities: an exploration of the ramifications of a robot capable of love or the fantasy journey of a young robot boy to become real. Some viewers must have expected the film to be a commentary or message about humans and technology and felt gypped when they were instead confronted with a fairy tale. I personally believe Spielberg took the more interesting and what will over time prove to be the more rewarding route in the film.
Also, for those who also lamented any loss of Kubrickian elements: going deep into subject matter would have been a decidedly Anti-Kubrick move. Did Kubrick pontificate on the nature of man and war in "Full Metal Jacket?" No, he satirized such thinking. Similarly, he did not try to give any answers in "2001" and instead gave us a beautiful film that we could later ask ourselves and each other questions about. Spielberg does the same in "A.I."
Now, the ending - another choice. I admit that I thought it would end with David at the bottom of the ocean and I would probably have been content - at least temporarily - with this ending. Adding the last fifteen or so minutes was Spielberg's gutsy move. Again, it was a matter of expectation. A reeling audience member still looking for a film with a message or commentary (and they had better not be the same ones complaining about the *ending* being "spoon-fed" to the audience) would find these final minutes pointless. But the story wasn't finished. Would David's love last as long as he did?
A.I. is a modern fairy tale, not a social commentary. Fairy tales are stories where darkness meets light - Kubrick meets Spielberg in a mystifying, at times unusual combination of techniques and imagination.
The result is an undeniably beautiful work of fantasy.
First of all, there are some things you simply cannot take away from this film. The performances, particularly by Osment and Law, are wonderful. The images are breathtaking. The ship made to look like the moon rising over the horizon was particularly memorable.
Two of the most common criticisms of the film need reexamining: the depth of the subject matter and the ending of the film. While there may be valid criticisms, I do not believe enough respect has been given to Spielberg's choices. Choices have to be made when telling a story; Spielberg made them, and he didn't always make the traditional ones.
The commonly held criticism that Spielberg failed to fully address the issues connected a machine capable of loving its owner - and thus sacrificing depth - is simply a let down of expectation rather than a flaw in the film. The path for the film divided into (at least) two possibilities: an exploration of the ramifications of a robot capable of love or the fantasy journey of a young robot boy to become real. Some viewers must have expected the film to be a commentary or message about humans and technology and felt gypped when they were instead confronted with a fairy tale. I personally believe Spielberg took the more interesting and what will over time prove to be the more rewarding route in the film.
Also, for those who also lamented any loss of Kubrickian elements: going deep into subject matter would have been a decidedly Anti-Kubrick move. Did Kubrick pontificate on the nature of man and war in "Full Metal Jacket?" No, he satirized such thinking. Similarly, he did not try to give any answers in "2001" and instead gave us a beautiful film that we could later ask ourselves and each other questions about. Spielberg does the same in "A.I."
Now, the ending - another choice. I admit that I thought it would end with David at the bottom of the ocean and I would probably have been content - at least temporarily - with this ending. Adding the last fifteen or so minutes was Spielberg's gutsy move. Again, it was a matter of expectation. A reeling audience member still looking for a film with a message or commentary (and they had better not be the same ones complaining about the *ending* being "spoon-fed" to the audience) would find these final minutes pointless. But the story wasn't finished. Would David's love last as long as he did?
A.I. is a modern fairy tale, not a social commentary. Fairy tales are stories where darkness meets light - Kubrick meets Spielberg in a mystifying, at times unusual combination of techniques and imagination.
The result is an undeniably beautiful work of fantasy.