10 May 2015
THE CREATION OF WOMAN
I wish Under the Skin wasn't so recent, because I'd love for the declarative statement "Ex Machina is the best science fiction film since Under the Skin" to mean something more profound and impressive than "Ex Machina is a better movie than Chappie".* But you plant flags in the soil you've been given, not the soil you daydream about. And whatever arbitrary comparatives we want to throw out there, the point is that Ex Machina is absolutely terrific - probably not so much a future genre classic as a future Gattaca-type deal that's remembered with furious passion by the very tiny number of people who ever think about it at all.
Speaking as one who plans to be part of that passionate furor just as soon as it becomes aggravatingly pretentious to do so, Ex Machina had its hooks into me before it even had the ghost of a plot. The first thing that happens is that Caleb (Domnhall Gleeson), an employee at Bluebook, wins the company-wide lottery. What's the lottery for? What does Bluebook do? What kind of person is Caleb? All of these questions are answered, some of them more directly and sooner than others, but to begin with, Ex Machina simply drops us in between Caleb and his computer screen, letting us grab at bits of detail presented in the corner of the frame, without a drop of spoken dialogue until Caleb is flying over an arctic wilderness in a helicopter, on his way to "the estate". As grabby, mysterious beginnings go, they don't get much more deliciously elusive, or presented with such thoughtfully dense images. From the confidence on display just in the opening minutes, one would never suppose that Alex Garland was making his directorial debut, after some two decades as a novelist and screenwriter for some conceptually impressive genre efforts that don't always quite live up to their potential. And for the sizable contingent of people who regard Garland's 28 Days later screenplay with a mild "it's so good! ...till the ending", or his Sunshine with a muted "it could have been so good! ...but that ending", it's unfortunately the case that Ex Machina commits sins in the same broad wheelhouse (heady concepts giving way to violence and cruelty), though I'd have a hard time seeing my way to any argument that this isn't the best film writing of his career. And I'm pretty much an unapologetic Sunshine booster, anyway.
Caleb's journey to the north turns out to be a wonderful example to meet the reclusive and fantastically wealthy Nathan (Oscar Isaac), founder and leader of Bluebook, who has used the enormous riches provided by that never-quite-detailed corporation (it's more Google than Facebook, but those are obviously the two companies we're to have in mind) to build himself a hideaway from all of humanity, where can pursue his most ambitious dreams in secret. And while the lottery seems to have promised nothing but a chance to relax with the mercurial Nathan for a week of indescribable luxury, it's immediately clear that Nathan, underneath his disarming bro-ish desire for camaraderie and a drinking buddy to legitimise his immediately obvious alcohol problem, wants to have Caleb join him in the greatest tech exercise known to history: he's about this far away from having built a totally self-conscious and emotionally alive artificial intelligence, and it seems that a coder with Caleb's gifts will be the perfect assistant to perform the last human test necessary to determine just how self-conscious she actually is.
Because oh yes, it's a she: Ava (Alica Vikander), whose recognisable human features are, in what feels queasily like it can't be an accident, exactly the ones you'd focus on if you were a psychotic genius in the wild who wanted to build a sexy fembot to rape. Flawless skin on an innocent face and lithe hands, with a perfect ass and full, perky breasts, their shape defined by a greyish material, and the rest of her body is some kind of rigid transparent mesh revealing a whirring mess of gyros and unfathomably high-tech electronics. She looks like pornography after the Singularity, and we'd need no other evidence to assume seriously cracked is going on in Nathan's head. And if she's not a flawless A.I., she gives an extraordinarily good impression of it, and in hardly any time at all, the easily dazzled and overly romantic Caleb has decisively fallen in love with Ava, though he seems to think that if he says sciencey things hard enough, he can make Nathan believe that it's not true.
From almost ludicrously modest ingredients (only four characters worth the name - the last being Nathan's mute servant Kyoko, played by Sonoya Mizuno - a confined location with lots of repurposed sets, and an unyielding structure based on seven mostly similar days), Garland's script gins up an unfairly robust number of ideas to play with. It is a most giddily unpackable piece of science fiction writing of the best '50s sort - as much as anything, Ex Machina is a wonderful 21st Century version of one of Asimov's robot stories - and that's true even if we concede that however smartly it explores them, the film's themes about the inherent danger of A.I. to its creators and the way that a created intelligence might be more honorable and worthy of life than one that came about organically were already old hat a half of a century ago. That still leaves the film's terrific three-handed exploration of gender roles, the way that both assholes and decent fellas can fall into the trap of objectifying women in different ways; it is easily the best exploration of gender construction and gender performance centered around a nonhuman built into the shape of an extremely sexually desirable woman since... oh, fuck you Under the Skin, why'd you have to go and be so definitive? But still, it's a hell of a gnarled and rewarding social text, even if most of the reasons why are buried in a third act that I firmly refuse to spoil in even the smallest detail.
And here's the really amazing thing: it's possible to not care about any of that, and still think the film is a kind of masterpiece. It's a feverishly tight romantic thriller that plows through its 108-minute running time with a constant sense of doom provided from every source. The music by Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury quietly hums along tunelessly, spiking into a disturbing drone just often enough that it feels like a constant threat; the sound design punches up the whirs and grinding sounds of Ava's mechanical body just to the point where it hits the point of low-grade body horror just to listen to her, no matter how sweetly she and Caleb appear to be connecting; and that's not including the absolutely splendid visual effects used to realise her half-formed, see-through body, one of the great triumphs of using CGI in strict service to story and emotional resonance in a long while. Rob Hardy's cinematography divides its time between being appallingly gorgeous, and casting the sleek interiors of Nathan's ultra-modern house in harsh, inhuman terms - the number of individual compositions that use glass as a shiny, glossy cage or barrier certainly runs into a couple of dozen, and all of them are excellent. And that's not even mentioning the three great performances in the film's center, all coiled-up energy and self-unawareness of people working hard to lie to themselves and destroy those around them (Isaac continues his run of being the most interesting actor you could possibly imagine, but I'm honestly more impressed by Gleeson and Vikander, neither of whom I've previously expected such depth from).
It's bleak and propulsive sci-fi noir, then, even without reference to its woozy intellectual depths, and Garland could not have hoped for a more promising or exciting debut. It's not totally flawless: there are too many insert shots of the Golden World of Nature that don't serve any real purpose (but there are also inserts that do), and the last few minutes seem to be more eager to score a few sucker punches than hew to the most rational plot logic; but then, they are exquisite sucker punches, and a great punctuation mark for a film that keeps throwing everything at us that it can come up with, without visibly breaking a sweat.
9/10
Speaking as one who plans to be part of that passionate furor just as soon as it becomes aggravatingly pretentious to do so, Ex Machina had its hooks into me before it even had the ghost of a plot. The first thing that happens is that Caleb (Domnhall Gleeson), an employee at Bluebook, wins the company-wide lottery. What's the lottery for? What does Bluebook do? What kind of person is Caleb? All of these questions are answered, some of them more directly and sooner than others, but to begin with, Ex Machina simply drops us in between Caleb and his computer screen, letting us grab at bits of detail presented in the corner of the frame, without a drop of spoken dialogue until Caleb is flying over an arctic wilderness in a helicopter, on his way to "the estate". As grabby, mysterious beginnings go, they don't get much more deliciously elusive, or presented with such thoughtfully dense images. From the confidence on display just in the opening minutes, one would never suppose that Alex Garland was making his directorial debut, after some two decades as a novelist and screenwriter for some conceptually impressive genre efforts that don't always quite live up to their potential. And for the sizable contingent of people who regard Garland's 28 Days later screenplay with a mild "it's so good! ...till the ending", or his Sunshine with a muted "it could have been so good! ...but that ending", it's unfortunately the case that Ex Machina commits sins in the same broad wheelhouse (heady concepts giving way to violence and cruelty), though I'd have a hard time seeing my way to any argument that this isn't the best film writing of his career. And I'm pretty much an unapologetic Sunshine booster, anyway.
Caleb's journey to the north turns out to be a wonderful example to meet the reclusive and fantastically wealthy Nathan (Oscar Isaac), founder and leader of Bluebook, who has used the enormous riches provided by that never-quite-detailed corporation (it's more Google than Facebook, but those are obviously the two companies we're to have in mind) to build himself a hideaway from all of humanity, where can pursue his most ambitious dreams in secret. And while the lottery seems to have promised nothing but a chance to relax with the mercurial Nathan for a week of indescribable luxury, it's immediately clear that Nathan, underneath his disarming bro-ish desire for camaraderie and a drinking buddy to legitimise his immediately obvious alcohol problem, wants to have Caleb join him in the greatest tech exercise known to history: he's about this far away from having built a totally self-conscious and emotionally alive artificial intelligence, and it seems that a coder with Caleb's gifts will be the perfect assistant to perform the last human test necessary to determine just how self-conscious she actually is.
Because oh yes, it's a she: Ava (Alica Vikander), whose recognisable human features are, in what feels queasily like it can't be an accident, exactly the ones you'd focus on if you were a psychotic genius in the wild who wanted to build a sexy fembot to rape. Flawless skin on an innocent face and lithe hands, with a perfect ass and full, perky breasts, their shape defined by a greyish material, and the rest of her body is some kind of rigid transparent mesh revealing a whirring mess of gyros and unfathomably high-tech electronics. She looks like pornography after the Singularity, and we'd need no other evidence to assume seriously cracked is going on in Nathan's head. And if she's not a flawless A.I., she gives an extraordinarily good impression of it, and in hardly any time at all, the easily dazzled and overly romantic Caleb has decisively fallen in love with Ava, though he seems to think that if he says sciencey things hard enough, he can make Nathan believe that it's not true.
From almost ludicrously modest ingredients (only four characters worth the name - the last being Nathan's mute servant Kyoko, played by Sonoya Mizuno - a confined location with lots of repurposed sets, and an unyielding structure based on seven mostly similar days), Garland's script gins up an unfairly robust number of ideas to play with. It is a most giddily unpackable piece of science fiction writing of the best '50s sort - as much as anything, Ex Machina is a wonderful 21st Century version of one of Asimov's robot stories - and that's true even if we concede that however smartly it explores them, the film's themes about the inherent danger of A.I. to its creators and the way that a created intelligence might be more honorable and worthy of life than one that came about organically were already old hat a half of a century ago. That still leaves the film's terrific three-handed exploration of gender roles, the way that both assholes and decent fellas can fall into the trap of objectifying women in different ways; it is easily the best exploration of gender construction and gender performance centered around a nonhuman built into the shape of an extremely sexually desirable woman since... oh, fuck you Under the Skin, why'd you have to go and be so definitive? But still, it's a hell of a gnarled and rewarding social text, even if most of the reasons why are buried in a third act that I firmly refuse to spoil in even the smallest detail.
And here's the really amazing thing: it's possible to not care about any of that, and still think the film is a kind of masterpiece. It's a feverishly tight romantic thriller that plows through its 108-minute running time with a constant sense of doom provided from every source. The music by Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury quietly hums along tunelessly, spiking into a disturbing drone just often enough that it feels like a constant threat; the sound design punches up the whirs and grinding sounds of Ava's mechanical body just to the point where it hits the point of low-grade body horror just to listen to her, no matter how sweetly she and Caleb appear to be connecting; and that's not including the absolutely splendid visual effects used to realise her half-formed, see-through body, one of the great triumphs of using CGI in strict service to story and emotional resonance in a long while. Rob Hardy's cinematography divides its time between being appallingly gorgeous, and casting the sleek interiors of Nathan's ultra-modern house in harsh, inhuman terms - the number of individual compositions that use glass as a shiny, glossy cage or barrier certainly runs into a couple of dozen, and all of them are excellent. And that's not even mentioning the three great performances in the film's center, all coiled-up energy and self-unawareness of people working hard to lie to themselves and destroy those around them (Isaac continues his run of being the most interesting actor you could possibly imagine, but I'm honestly more impressed by Gleeson and Vikander, neither of whom I've previously expected such depth from).
It's bleak and propulsive sci-fi noir, then, even without reference to its woozy intellectual depths, and Garland could not have hoped for a more promising or exciting debut. It's not totally flawless: there are too many insert shots of the Golden World of Nature that don't serve any real purpose (but there are also inserts that do), and the last few minutes seem to be more eager to score a few sucker punches than hew to the most rational plot logic; but then, they are exquisite sucker punches, and a great punctuation mark for a film that keeps throwing everything at us that it can come up with, without visibly breaking a sweat.
9/10
11 comments:
Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.
Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.
I never would have predicted they would knock it out the park, even though the design of the girl reminds me of Quantic Dream's awesome tech demo, Kara. Now I will click on the words "I'm not a robot" to post this.
ReplyDelete"Speaking as one who plans to be part of that passionate furor just as soon as it becomes aggravatingly pretentious to do so..."
ReplyDeleteWell, I've seen a few reviews of Age of Ultron kicking about making pronouncements to the effect of "well, if you want a real movie about AI gone bad, you should go see Ex Machina instead," so I think we might already be there.
Also: this is my favourite movie of 2015 so far. What jumps out at me about it isn't just its speculation on how AI might look and its engagement with coded gender roles, but how those two things are so delicately interwoven. The central thrust of the film is whether Ava possesses consciousness or a complex series of algorithms designed to mimic consciousness, and what the significance of the difference is - I'd never have expected a film that made it into mainstream theatres to wrestle so cogently with the concept of a "philosophical zombie." But that's all tangled up with characteristically male insecurities about whether women are representing themselves as they truly are or are just telling them what they want to hear, by way of the generic conceit of the femme fatale. It's amazingly dense, smart SF that you could spend hours mulling over and unravelling.
Ah! Ex Machina! It's been a while since I watched it back in January.
ReplyDeleteMaybe spoilery...? The movie ends precisely the way you know it was going to from frame 1
Not quite as ecstatic about it as you are, Tim. Even midst the commentary of how men, both decent and leery, objectify women in various degrees, there's a hint of unpleasantness, especially towards the end of how WOMEN WILL KILL US ALL OMG. Still, it's hard to deny it's truly remarkable science fiction (using genre trappings as a way to explore man's primal fears and hopes is a marker of great sci fi and horror obviously.)
What is far more impressive to me is its production design, which manages to capture the opulence and wealth of this mad science genius using a relatively low budget (11 million euros for the entire production.) Nice steel greys and whites showing how sterile the environment is. Making it all the more shocking when the colour red comes into the picture (which it does several times and it is always unnerving when it does). I've not seen a movie that makes such effective use of colour since...well, The Babadook is also as recent as Under the Skin eh?
This is definitely a star-making turn for Vikander (the one moment towards the end where she does a little jump of joy, the first obviously human emotion she has ever shown on screen, sent chills down my spine), but for me, Oscar Isaac still steals the entire show in a single scene. It's just too bad that particular scene is now mercilessly gifed on the Internet. It's up there with There Will Be Blood's milkshake scene as the funniest thing in a deadly serious movie.
Atrophy has partly pinpointed why I won't see it and would hate it in its entirety if I did. I've been into sf in many media since early childhood, and I am exhausted with what male writers and directors think about fuckable fembots. I can't care.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to that:
ReplyDelete1. Every time there's an android story where the android is "male," the protagonist's concerns related to them are primarily about violence. Every time the android is "female," the questions are primarily about sex; violence tends to be framed as a fear of independent female sexuality. This issue apparently goes away if it's an AI without a gendered body, I've noticed.
2. Why is it even a question whether it's okay to bring sentient, feeling life into the world so we can screw it without consequences? Why does that need to be asked over and over?
Despite loving the film as a thriller (it's design alone would make me cold in summer heat), I would have be closer to the side of Atrophy and Shalen on its commentary of gender politics...
ReplyDelete... that is if I felt it had any.
Let clear that up, sorry. I wanted to state that much of the film's feelings toward gender do come off to me on a surface level as "sexist". While there is never a question that the sexual liberties Nathan takes with Kyoko and possibly Ava are entirely unethical (the question isn't even brought up - we just get that bro-ish pseudo-frat-nerd attitude Isaac effortlessly displays immediately), the presentation of the ending where the women free themselves is presented in such a sinister and cruel manner - especially after trying to paint Caleb as sincere and innocent - that it seems to say that women are in a position to take you over. Which is kind of what you were saying. And it IS a reading.
I know it's silly and dumb and in the end ""La mort de l'Auteur" should always come first, but I can't help ignoring that this is a film coming from the guy who wrote 28 Days Later... - another film that dealt with the "WE, MEN, ONLY NEED WOMEN TO FUCK FOR PLEA-- Oh shit, I just got karmatically killed for being a reprehensible scumbag" thing in a more overt manner - or the fact that a friend of mine attended a screening that ended with a Q&A with Garland himself and said that Garland claimed Ava is supposed to be the most sympathetic character by the end of the film...
... and that just leads me to feel there are no gender politics whatsoever in the film. It is merely a mishap of direction in terms of storytelling (hardly in terms of design, though, as Garland is way too intelligent to mess that up).
That's just me, though.
I am not convinced we're supposed to like Caleb as much as a hostile reading requires. He's not a monster, but his motivations are explicitly pretty impure. (Also I prefer, when possible, to take stories as literally as I can, and on a literal level he's a meatbag who can't be trusted. What he "deserves" isn't part of that calculus.)
ReplyDeleteIt also helps that Ex Machina is pretty close to a horror movie. This doesn't necessarily mean it's for everybody, even folks who like horror movies.
Oh, and apropos of nothing but I just wanna say it, it's like 100 times better than Under the Skin.
I honestly was trying to not come off as hostile since I did love the movie, but I guess I was wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhat put me into a position to feel sympathetic to Caleb (Which I did, in spite of how frankly we know his feelings of lust for Ava) is in the fact that the film starts with him and has him put in this universe as a naive young man without anyway of being dishonest to us as an audience.
I barely registered the fact that there was supposed to be a perspective shift in the film (maybe I'm just blind) until the end where Ava kills Nathan (which btw I loved the musical cue they used for that moment - it subtly reminded me of all the Linkin Park and Massive Attack and techno-ish stuff I had playing on my headphones as I read sci-fi novels and comic books as well as providing that sort of giving the moment a bit more of a bunch).
By that point, I still didn't feel Caleb himself actually did anything wrong. I just knew that the movie was now expecting us to be happy that Ava betrayed Caleb in some manner but also find her imprisoning him extremely cold.
Maybe I'm just a guy.
@moviemotorbreath: SPOILERS
ReplyDeleteNah, as a girl I had serious problems identifying with Ava too. If she's supposed to be sympathetic by the end of the movie, there were some serious missteps made. Her imprisoning of Caleb was cruel and her dismemberment and disinterest of her robot sisters made me think that I was supposed to view her as just an AI that had managed to mimic human consciousness well. If there was ever a point where I was supposed to be disgusted by Caleb, I didn't notice it. I guess his viewing of her on the cameras was slightly voyeuristic, but who wouldn't watch a humanoid AI out of sheer fascination?
The perspective shift made me very dissatisfied with the ending. I could talk about how good I found most of the movie, but I found the ending to be a profoundly unsatisfying twist. What exploration is there to be done after that? I don't understand trying to frame it as "does she have consciousness, or is she just a robot" because she fails at the basic level of human empathy. She's a manipulative robot.
Also a plot hole that nagged at me during the ending: the power going out is supposed to be a signal that Caleb is not getting out since he fails to open the door afterwards, but earlier he had reversed security protocol to unlock all of the doors in case of an outage. Ava/Nathan never reversed it, so the doors should have just been unlocked.
The movie was a complete jumble. Most of the dialog was not believable. Plot holes everywhere. Some potentially good ideas brought up but never really explored. Nice CGI on Ava, nice cinematography and music, some good acting considering the poor script, but otherwise a mess.
ReplyDeleteIMHO, what makes Under the Skin (and specifically Johannson's performance v. Vikander's) so much more satisfying is the extent to which the character seems largely unaware of her purpose and what she is experiencing. (I get that we are talking "alien" vs. "AI" here, but the character development options the films start with are the same...) Whether it was intended for me to feel sympathetic towards Ava or not, the ending leaves me convinced that she was consciously plotting her escape at the expense of everyone else (human or otherwise) the whole time. In my experience with thrillers, this is what the "bad guy" usually does...
ReplyDelete