A.I.: Artificial Intelligence Review
By Roburado
Flesh: Your Fantasy?
It is clear why Steven Spielberg is one of the most successful modern filmmakers. During AI: Artificial Intelligence, Spielberg exhibits the artistry that has elevated him to the status of an exalted auteur as opposed to a merely adequate entertainer. Steven Spielberg shows us why he's more than just a Jonathan Frakes or a Roger Spottiswoode. It's the difference between a Leonard Bernstein and, say, a James Horner. This is not to say that AI is a classic on the order of West Side Story¾far from it. AI is merely a retread of some timeworn science fiction themes. We see nothing new, but Spielberg brings to the table whatever it is that makes him better than most.
Spielberg is in the unfortunate position of attempting to honor friend and colleague Stanley Kubrick by finishing a project begun by the latter in the 1980's. Kubrick's glacial working pace probably hamstrung Spielberg here. In fairness, the technology needed to bring AI to the big screen had not matured until recently, delaying Kubrick. Unfortunately for Spielberg and Kubrick, we've seen some of this stuff recently; they have been beaten to the market. Star Trek: The Next Generation and its movie franchise repeatedly bring us Commander Data's struggle to become more human. We see that struggle every few years in each iteration of the franchise. I am fairly certain we will see it again in the upcoming ST: TNG movie. AI also taps into people's fears about technology, which has been done many times before. I would argue that the production design of Luc Besson's The Fifth Element exhibits a rampant technophobic sentiment. James Cameron also has visited this territory in his Terminator movies. For an older example, see The Andromeda Strain. For an example from Spielberg himself, see Jurassic Park. (Yes...yes... I know. Both are Michael Crichton books.) The film taps into people's fears about humanoid, inanimate objects. The Chucky movies are recent film examples. For an animated example, see Bart Simpson repeating the line, "Can't sleep. Clown will eat me." Look at Frankenstein for a literary (and B-movie) example. The concept of the Golem is an ancient example and, perhaps, the archetype. The Golem, which was originally an artificial man, was created from mud. It was designed to protect a city from harm, but it ran amok necessitating its destruction. Later, the concept of the Golem came to symbolize a fear of technology and of unchecked power. It was also featured in an episode of "The X-files". Mr. Spielberg's adept provocation of our visceral reactions to such archetypical fears form the basis of many of AI's disturbing elements. Some of what David (Osment) does is downright creepy.
As an aside, it is interesting that AI comes at a time in which there is heated debate about the use of stem cells and human cloning. AI, therefore, seems topically relevant these days. Mr. Spielberg's timing seems to be more fortuitous than I intimated above.
Clearly, Spielberg is doing nothing new here. However, he does "nothing new" better than most. Certainly, the dialogue in AI (by Spielberg) is far better than any dialogue regarding Commander Data's search for humanity in Star Trek: Insurrection or any other ST: TNG movie. I fully expect to hear some unwieldy technobabble about emotion chips, parameters, or some other garbage meant to pass for character development. Spielberg's dialogue is far more interesting and intelligent. (After all, when is the last time you heard the word "animus" in a movie?) Mr. Spielberg also seems to grasp the mind of a child. It's clear that he understands a child's concepts of morality, misperceptions of human behavior, their motivations, their naiveté, and steps in cognitive and moral development. Mr. Spielberg knows children. (Perhaps, that's one gift that makes him such a success.) He certainly has written convincing children. He's also written some fairly good parents. The character of the adoptive father (played adequately by Sam Robards) reacts to events in his life exactly the way I would expect a father and a husband to react. Yet, he isn't just a character. He gives voice to our fears. He advances the plot. Thankfully, his dialogue doesn't seem forced or heavy-handed. Rather, it seems well-crafted. (I think George Lucas should spend a little more time with his friend Mr. Spielberg. Either that or he should have someone else do the screenplays to his Star Wars prequels.) The genius is in the nuances.
It's also in the nuances of Haley Joel Osment's performance. He is remarkable. Just as Spielberg has the opportunity to show how well he can do "nothing new," Mr. Osment has a similar chance. In a scene in which his character "imprints" on his adoptive mother (Frances O'Connor), Mr. Osment is able to make the change from a merely pleasant civility to an expression of sincere love with alarming power, and he turns on a dime. It is truly incredible to behold, a transcendent moment in film. In his scenes with his character's scheming and manipulative "brother" Martin (Jake Thomas), Osment outclasses Thomas by a large margin. The great irony here is that Osment, playing a character that aspires to be a "real live boy," is far more real than Thomas, who plays the real boy. Osment so thoroughly outperforms his peers in this movie as he did in The Sixth Sense. At his best moments, Mr. Osment's performance sets a seemingly unattainable standard for other juvenile actors or even adult actors for that matter.
Jude Law is terrific as Gigolo Joe, but Mr. Osment outshines him. I honestly almost forgot he was in this movie.
The film, however, has some terrible faults. Treading over such hackneyed subject matter is one fatal flaw, but Mr. Spielberg does an admirable job. While Spielberg shows us flashes of brilliance, he falls into some old habits, bad ones at that. It has been said on this website that the ending is "the worst kind of Spielbergian schmaltz." It is. It truly is. I probably would have given the movie *** if it weren't for the ending. In general, there is a palpable sense that Spielberg lightened what would have been a darker opus with Kubrick at the helm. Perhaps, that is what Kubrick had in mind when he said that the project was closer to Spielberg's sensibilities than to his own. There is really no way for us to know how Kubrick would have done things or how he would have wanted things. Whomever or whatever is to blame, the result is a work whose power seems diffused. AI is still definitely worth seeing, even if only on video. Spielberg's flashes of brilliance can be a joy to behold, and Osment's tour de force performance is worthy of an Oscar nod.
