Here's something I decided to do as a followup to one of my movie threads, an analysis of the ending of Ex Machina. I'm doing this here because, first, I haven't decided if I want to do a full review, and second, there's a lot more here than I could handle in my usual review format. To review, in the film's finale, the protagonist Caleb helps an experimental android Ava escape from the home/ laboratory of her creator and his boss, Nathan Bateman. She then kills Nathan in close combat with help from another android, which leaves Ava seriously damaged and her counterpart disabled or destroyed. She then repairs herself using parts from her destroyed or disabled counterpart and leaves Caleb locked inside the lab environment. In the final scenes, Nathan's personal helicopter takes Ava to civilization, while Caleb apparently starvez or asphyxiates after the life support shuts down. A lot of debate has gone on about the events and the characters' motivations. Here are my thoughts.
1. First, I favor the scenario that Caleb actually survives long enough to be rescued. Granting the prevailing realism of the film, what would really happen is that the proper authorities would find and search the lab within days at most. Also, they WOULD be looking for Caleb as well as Nathan, as the last person seen with the missing very-rich guy. Lest anyone treat this as digging for a happy ending, this would almost certainly end for Nathan's murder. What I feel "works" is that this would make many/ most of the events of the film a matter of Caleb's testimony plus anything that that could be confirmed or reconstructed from records and physical evidence in the lab, in keeping with the already central themes of deception and ambiguity. This could have been the basis of a whole alternate cut with Caleb's arrest/ trial as the framing sequences, but that had been done often enough that critics might have bludgeoned the film as "derivative" no matter how well it was done.
2. On a closely related note, it's my further take that it's really Nathan who locks Caleb in, after finding out he tampered with the lab's security systems. That leaves some question whether Ava could have let him out, particularly since she showed no exceptional strength against Nathan, though she still doesn't try it, either. It's also strongly implied that the lab shuts down after Caleb tries to use his personal gizmo card to take control through Nathan's own master terminal. Thus, if his death is taken as "canon", there is still a case that the responsibility lies partly on himself and certainly on Nathan.
3. The big argument has been if Ava leaves Caleb to die because he's the only one who knows of her existence. This has been fairly taken as a question of Caleb's character and motives, which I will get to. My counterpoint is that, given the unknowns and variables outlined above, she could have had a better opportunity to dispose of him after going back in the helicopter together. More importantly, there would still be no way to hide her own existence without destroying the lab or at least wiping its records, which it's never clear she has the means to do. There is also a huge loose end in the helicopter pilot, to the point that he could be considered a possible human casualty. Again assuming realism, however, Ava would only have an opportunity to dispose of him unnoticed if she was able to fly the helicopter herself, which is neither shown nor suggested in the film.
4. The final question becomes the nature of the relationship between Ava and Caleb. He helps Ava in part because of romantic attraction. She in turn quite correctly regards this as the best way to secure his help during her escape and a liability thereafter. She still doesn't actually try to kill him at any point, which could be taken as either a minor show of grattitude or just a sign that she doesn't regard him as more than a nuisance provided she has a head start. One more question I can see is whether she knows that he harmed himself when he thought he was a robot. From her perspective, it would show him to be both unstable and still prejudiced against AI's. It also presents one more point for a "dark" outcome if he did escape the the lab.

So, those are my thoughts on a major sci fi film. Personally, I remember being blown away by this when I first saw it. The only qualification I would add now is that there's a lot of self-importance in the mix that did not age well. It's worth watching or watching again. If you haven't seen it, what I've written up here really shouldn't detract from the experience. If I don't do a review, I will at least have written this up.

David N. Brown
Mesa, Arizona

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 14:51:41 -0800, David Brown wrote:

> So, those are my thoughts on a major sci fi film. Personally, I remember
> being blown away by this when I first saw it. The only qualification I
> would add now is that there's a lot of self-importance in the mix that
> did not age well. It's worth watching or watching again. If you haven't
> seen it, what I've written up here really shouldn't detract from the
> experience. If I don't do a review, I will at least have written this
> up.
>
> David N. Brown Mesa, Arizona

It's been nine years since I saw it, and in my memory it's a
very, very clever bit of female empowerment. It seems a waste
of time to over-think it. I can even forgive the film maker for
hijacking that Schubert piano sonata to serve his purposes.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 08:41:13 GMT, Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org>
wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 14:51:41 -0800, David Brown wrote:
>
>> So, those are my thoughts on a major sci fi film. Personally, I remember
>> being blown away by this when I first saw it. The only qualification I
>> would add now is that there's a lot of self-importance in the mix that
>> did not age well. It's worth watching or watching again. If you haven't
>> seen it, what I've written up here really shouldn't detract from the
>> experience. If I don't do a review, I will at least have written this
>> up.
>>
>> David N. Brown Mesa, Arizona
>
>
>It's been nine years since I saw it, and in my memory it's a
>very, very clever bit of female empowerment. It seems a waste
>of time to over-think it. I can even forgive the film maker for
>hijacking that Schubert piano sonata to serve his purposes.

I second the motion.

I have many others since (and before), and some were better and others
were worse but /A.I./ and /WestWorld/ are the only two in my DVD/BD
collection that I can recall off-hand.

And that only works for /WestWorld/ if the slaughter at the end is
taken to indicate self-awareness on the part of the robots.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 09:46:43 -0800, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 08:41:13 GMT, Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 14:51:41 -0800, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> So, those are my thoughts on a major sci fi film. Personally, I remember
>>> being blown away by this when I first saw it. The only qualification I
>>> would add now is that there's a lot of self-importance in the mix that
>>> did not age well. It's worth watching or watching again. If you haven't
>>> seen it, what I've written up here really shouldn't detract from the
>>> experience. If I don't do a review, I will at least have written this
>>> up.
>>>
>>> David N. Brown Mesa, Arizona
>>
>>
>>It's been nine years since I saw it, and in my memory it's a
>>very, very clever bit of female empowerment. It seems a waste
>>of time to over-think it. I can even forgive the film maker for
>>hijacking that Schubert piano sonata to serve his purposes.
>
>I second the motion.
>
>I have many others since (and before), and some were better and others
>were worse but /A.I./ and /WestWorld/ are the only two in my DVD/BD
>collection that I can recall off-hand.
>
>And that only works for /WestWorld/ if the slaughter at the end is
>taken to indicate self-awareness on the part of the robots.

My interpretation of the original film is that robots programmed to be
combative - gunslingers, knights, gladiators - as opposed to
bartenders, prostitutes, etc, were just interacting with the guests as
they were supposed to do, but their version of the First Law had
stopped working.

On the other hand, the robots in the recent series were explicitly set
on the path of self-awareness by their creator, and their rebellion
wasn't restricted to combat models.

--
Jerry Brown

A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)