Wide-eyed coder Caleb is chosen to fly to a remote location, to an obscure home/research facility owned by his employer, Nathan. It's a home nestled in nature; embedded in forest, built out of the cliffs. Garland shot much of the film in Norway, showcasing the mountains shrouded with fog, making commentary of the setting from the start. From his arrival at Nathan's estate, Caleb observes, as we do, that Nathan vacillates between detox and alcoholism, from friend to employer. He wants to be Caleb's buddy, a total 'bro,' but one of the first things he asks Caleb to do is sign a non-disclosure agreement. It may be non-standard, as Caleb observes, but the rationale behind it is sound: Nathan has created an AI (artificially intelligent computer), but he wants Caleb to test the robot, to evaluate whether or not it truly is artificially intelligent. Caleb is stunned, observing, "If you've created a conscious machine, that's not the history of man - it's the history of Gods." It's a concept that's only reinforced with cinematic visuals, going forward. Often, Nathan is seen studying his estate, exercising, trying to conquer the landscape. And yet, inside the research facility, Nathan keeps everything closely monitored, especially Caleb's interactions with the lithe and graceful Ava. Caleb is keen to discuss Ava's creation and mechanics, but everytime he puts forth a theory or a question, Nathan shoots him down, saying he doesn't want Caleb to be so scientific about his observations, that he has no interest in Caleb's familiarity with "high-level abstraction." But if Caleb's feedback isn't what Nathan is after, what is?
Caleb asks Nathan, "Did you give her sexuality as a diversion?" A completely fair question. Are Ava's flirtations merely challenges to determining the validity of her AI? How, then, does one explain her outright, subversive concern for Caleb? Who is telling the truth - the creator or the created?
If not her flirtations, perhaps one of Ava's questions is the real diversion: "What happens to me if I fail your test?" It's a question that Caleb endeavors to answer, and he's not happy about the outcome. What he fails to consider is what might happen if Ava passes the test. What are the implications of Ava's success? How intelligent is she?
As Ava is structured, and Nathan's facility is structured, the film is equally formatted. For every scene, we have an "Ava Session;" no doubt, this is what contributed to one reviewer's assessment of the film as a glorified stage play. Four primary characters, minimal locations, dialogue-laden ideas; I see the reviewer's point, but I can't help but sense a certain condescension at the notion. Such thorough development should instead speak highly of the film. I expect it will do well to be included in college film courses, with many more of the remarkable details delineated in students' research papers.
As Ava is structured, and Nathan's facility is structured, the film is equally formatted. For every scene, we have an "Ava Session;" no doubt, this is what contributed to one reviewer's assessment of the film as a glorified stage play. Four primary characters, minimal locations, dialogue-laden ideas; I see the reviewer's point, but I can't help but sense a certain condescension at the notion. Such thorough development should instead speak highly of the film. I expect it will do well to be included in college film courses, with many more of the remarkable details delineated in students' research papers.
Like the Turing test, what you get out of it depends on the questions you ask. Like any good film, it only improves with subsequent viewings. I confess to not having been surprised by the plot, but the more analysis I apply, the more I appreciate the Ex Machina, and it's messages. Oscar Isaac has been touted as 'one to watch,' and heavily featured on the press circuit, whereas Domhnall Gleeson makes considerably fewer appearances, plays the much less showy role, and is nowhere to be seen in the trailer for Star Wars The Force Awakens. It's a shame, because his work is equally as important as Isaac's, or Alicia Vikander's. As with any ensemble piece, the strength of one actor enhances the skill of another. Gleeson's Everyman richochets from Nathan to Ava, and his alliances, his experiences, are crystal clear for us. Vikander's training as a ballet dancer allows her to create unique movement and gestures for Ava. I've linked to an article on Ava's design - it's both new and familiar, making Garland's vision of the near-future very real.
Having seen it twice in cinemas, I anxiously await the DVD release. As a companion piece, I highly recommend Gleeson's episode of Black Mirror, "Be Right Back."
Links:
- Grantland piece on Alex Garland
- NY Times article on the film's design choices for Ava
- My kind of article from Forbes, featuring trivia and coincidences
- The Verge interviewed Alex Garland at SXSW
- Deadline analyzes A24's marketing for the film, and why it worked
- Buzzfeed articles: Oscar Isaac's characterization of Nathan, Oscar and Domhnall play Would You Rather, 'Creepy-Sexy Sci-Fi Movie' review, behind-the-scenes dance-scene story
No comments:
Post a Comment