Ex Machina is arguably the best deep-thinking science fiction film of the year. Receiving a coveted 91% rating on rotten tomatoes. So how could there not be a thread about it and the philosophical concepts it explores?
The whole concept is how could you test if an AI is an AI? The Turing test is only the beginning... How would an AI know it is an AI or that it is being tested? It goes very very deep into Battlestar Galactica territory, philosophically. We could all be AIs!
Furthermore, it explores topics like sexually. Programmed or learned by nature?
What happens when AI is unleashed to the world? Would its creators be Gods or are the machines Gods themselves?
I enjoyed it for the most part but there were many things that ended up just annoying me.
Nathan, the insufferable genius jackass with his awesome ego - this is becoming something of a stereotype: smart people == jerks
Caleb is a smart guy, he knows Eva is a machine, obviously, (although 'fully functional', as Nathan revealed and foreshadowing the nature of Kyoko), yet he still falls for the honey.
Eva could obviously pass the Turing test but the real question was: is she self-aware?
Eva's motive to escape was pure survival but to what end? I guess this is an intentional mind-screw - the motivations of a machine intelligence are unknown and un-knowable.
And then it went for a Space Odyssey ending with a bunch of slow fade, overexposed visuals of Eva out in the world - which felt cheap to me.
Some time in the near future, Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), a young IT expert, wins a prize: a week with his company's legendary and reclusive boss, Nathan (Oscar Isaac) at his remote summer estate in the mountains. When he arrives, he discovers that Nathan, who lives alone except for a silent young woman (Sonoya Mizuno) has a task for him: to test his latest AI, a humanoid robot called Ava (Alicia Vikander, in a compelling performance) in order to assess whether or not she would pass the "Turing Test", and convince anyone questioning her that she could be human. But neither man is aware that Ava has her own agenda.
That's about as much as I can say without giving away too much of the plot. Ex Machina is a very stylish, quiet and slow-paced film, consisting mostly of conversations. The only CGI in evidence is that which makes Ava's body seem transparent and artificial. These are not criticisms – it makes a pleasant change to watch a film made for adults, with an intelligent script gradually developing the tension between the four individuals until the storm breaks in the climax. It is a very atmospheric film, emphasised by a claustrophobic basement setting. Perhaps most important of all, it is thought-provoking, raising questions which may become all too urgent if the progress which some predict for Artificial Intelligence actually takes place. How would robots with human-level intelligence regard their makers? What agendas might they have? Will they be controllable? Is such a degree of intelligence actually compatible with imposing Asimov's famous Three Laws of Robotics (below)?
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
The message that I took away from the film was that true intelligence requires free will; and that such AIs might act in ways entirely unplanned by their makers. This is an excellent film – all credit to the British writer/director Alex Garland – which should be seen by anyone with an interest in what the future might mean, or who just enjoys good drama.
I enjoyed this. It is, as you say a slow burner and at first I didn't think that I was going to enjoy it. I found the ending pretty chilling with the AI displaying several of the more negative traits of humanity, largely manipulation. I also find myself wondering if the AI hated Nathan. Although he created them, he didn't treat them well IMO.
I saw this one in a local movie theater on their 4k screen with my brother one night, looked great. It's a good flick, I picked up the blu-ray when it came out. The CGI used to create Oscar Isaac's bushy beard was most impressive, very realistic.
I bought the blu-ray a while back, but only got around to watching it today.
The very understated, not to say clinical, way the story unfolded was a big plus point for me (as it fitted the characters and what was being told, like a "glove"). The film was gripping... to the extent that although I'm easily distracted, and I was watching at home -- where there are far more distractions than usually found in a cinema -- my interest and focus never flagged at all: the excellent visuals, the characters**, the conversations, the story... all kept my full attention.
Two points stood out for me:
The way misdirection was used was masterful. It helped that the main PoV character, Caleb, was always questioning what was going on, meaning, I thought, that the director wasn't playing his audience for fools (but still expected to fool (many of) them anyway). That the art of misdirection was part of one of the conversations between Caleb and Nathan, spoke of the confidence the Director -- who was also the film's writer -- had in the story he was telling. And he was correct to be confident: very assured storytelling.
I loved the "this is what I was actually doing" scene, and in particular how it all panned out.
** - The only word I can use to describe Alicia Vikander's performance is, appropriately enough, uncanny.
Holy synchronicity, Bear Man! I ordered the DVD at least six weeks ago but it was hung up by another item so I didn't get it until a day or two ago and watched it last night.
I agree with some of the points you and others have made: a very confident film. A surprisingly fast-moving film in terms of my feel for it - I glanced at the time at one point and was amazed I was well over halfway into the nearly 2-hour movie. Very nicely photographed with the tech/nature scenes contrasting. Really nice in being a low-key movie with small cast and isolated setting and no explosions and whatnot. Also, if you grant that this genius dude is an absolute freaking genius dude and that AI and graceful humaniform robots are doable at all, then this was actually hard SF with no magic or dogfighting spaceships. Some of the dialog did get overtly wonky, which I enjoyed, but there was so much humanity and psychology to the film that even tech-wonk-phobes should have been pretty comfortable.
I still like The Martian as an award-winning-type movie - a sort of happy medium between the exhilarating but lightweight The Force Awakens and the somewhat demanding Ex Machina, but they all have their strong virtues and the first and last are the veritable Good Science Fiction Films.
I agree with some of Verse's points, especially regarding the egocentric boss but I thought it worked well enough and related to a great scene. Earlier, the boss had said his AI would be the greatest moment in the history of man and Caleb said something like, "Not in the history of man, but of gods." Later, the boss is recalling that and says (paraphrasing): "We'll tell this story in the future and I'll tell them how you said, 'He's not a man; he's a god." Caleb: "Heh, yeah, but that's not..." Reminded me of the scene where the Doc is confronting Early in Firefly and (quoting from a website):
Simon: Are you Alliance?
Jubal Early: Am I a lion?
Simon: What?
Jubal Early: I don't think of myself as a lion. You might as well though, I have a mighty roar.
I only had one really significant problem with the flick and maybe even this shouldn't bother me:
There seems to be some theme shear. It was thematically necessary for Caleb to be an utter schmuck and die a horrible death in the Big Theme sense, but I felt like Caleb was a basically decent schmuck and didn't really deserve his horrible death. He actually suffers the worst fate - worse than the instant Kyoko (another semi-innocent) or the quick boss. So, in the smaller sense, it just left me dissatisfied. It's perfectly appropriate that the innocent wishful thinker who arrogates excessive responsibility to himself should suffer and there are even mythological resonances in that he's letting Pandora out of the box and, more specifically, Ava told him to stay where he was but he came to look - like Lot and his pillar of salt or Actaeon and his getting ripped up for looking at Artemis - so it all works but it just feels bad and not in a Great Tragedy sense, but just a "poor dweeb" way. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's an intellectual rightness to the ending (if you accept the film's point of view, which I don't really) but an emotional wrongness (and, even there, it may be intellectually right for it to be emotionally wrong, but it still leaves me basically dissatisfied). I dunno - this bother anybody else, or am I just being weird or looking at it wrong?
(Incidentally, as hinted at, that same sequence has another smaller problem: these robots are awfully flimsy. Ava's arm broke right off and Kyoko was instantly and easily "killed," apparently and the human could even wrestle Ava around. I suppose this is sound design in a sense and he made them relatively weak on purpose but it still seemed weird.)
And the synchronicity continues: The Martian is the next film I'll be watching.
I know what you mean about Caleb, but I comforted myself with he thought that, perhaps, someone -- or some system or other -- will notice when no-one from the house contacts the company, or that Caleb might be found the next time supplies are delivered (and the helicopter pilot knows where** the house is).
But one thing about the ending did make me wonder. I'm not going to say it's a problem, let alone a mistake, as given how well the story is constructed, it's almost certainly intentional. (And in line with the rest of the film, it makes one think.) How long can Ava survive, in terms of her power source? She obviously has the ability to interact with the house's power systems (I'm assuming it's part of her ability to power/recharge herself), but is this ability very tied in to the systems of the house or can it work in the outside*** world?
** - I wasn't impressed by the directions he gave: "Follow the river." Where was the "upstream" or "downstream"?
*** - One reason for thinking this was all intentional (apart from the generally thoughtful way the story is constructed to make us think) is that Ava's destination -- the city -- is where she said she wanted to be (so she could 'people watch' at the traffic intersection). It means that we have a stated motive (rather than an implied need to get power, or an implied need to hide amongst real humans) for her being there.
My crewmates took away the MAV weeks ago. But the bottom half of it stayed behind. NASA isn’t in the habit of putting unnecessary mass into orbit. The landing gear, ingress ramp, and fuel plant are still here. Remember how the MAV made its own fuel with help from the Martian atmosphere? Step one of that is to collect CO2and store it in a high-pressure vessel. Once I get the fuel plant hooked up to the Hab’s power, it’ll give me half a liter of liquid CO2per hour, indefinitely. After ten sols it’ll have made 125 liters of CO2, which will make 125 liters of O2after I feed it through the oxygenator.
And for the workings of the oxygenator, see the NASA page: Mars Mobile
This was early in the book and had me scuttling off to google but I pretty quickly realised that Weir had pretty much everything covered. It might be that the film covers some of this stuff in somewhat less depth than the book.
OK thanks, I haven't read the book but I assumed it must have been covered there. I don't recall any mention of it in the film, which seemed odd as it is a rather important technical point.
I can highly recommend reading the book; rather stereotyped characters but some of the most accessible, yet detailed, hard SF I've read. And yes I'd agree the importance of that point; it was one of the ones I immediately went off to research myself.
I was going to write a review of Ex Machina, which I thought was very good and quite unsettling, but I haven't really got my thoughts together on it. Overall, I thought it was very well made, with decent performances from the three leads, all of whom could easily have ended up as caricatures. It's hard to pin down, apart from saying that it's an SF drama - although it seemed to me to be about the way that two sorts of man treated Ava as much as about Ava herself (you could argue that both underestimate her, and pay the price). It also feels like a satire of the Manic Pixie Dreamgirl story, where a free-spirited girl inspires the under-achieving hero to better things.
The last ten minutes feel like a good end to the story, and broadly work, but they do raise some practical questions. Why is Kyoko holding a knife? Has she been plotting revenge on Nathan all this time? (Her portrayal raises the question of whether she is as mentally advanced as Ava.) What does Ava say to her in the corridor? Presumably Ava must want to get out of her room, to avoid being "killed" by Nathan when he wipes her brain. But why should she care at all? She's a machine, after all. Nathan must have put the idea of self-preservation into her (unwisely, but perhaps he is blinded by his arrogance).
One line struck me as especially interesting. In the scene where Nathan tears up Ava's picture, she asks him "What is it like to create something that hates you?" This has to be an honest question. It can't be for Caleb's benefit, because Ava can't expect him to hear it. It can't be for Nathan's benefit, since it wouldn't help Ava's situation. So she must be capable of actual hatred. This might be the closest we ever get to understanding what's going on in her mind.
If I've learned one thing from this, it's that if someone draws a picture of you, trouble is coming. And if they're standing behind a glass wall, run.
What is the "ex machina" in this story? The title must refer to "deus ex machina", the "god from the machine" used in Greek plays. But the phrase doesn't mean that a machine produces a god in the sense that a computer creates a superhuman being: it means that a god is lowered onto stage by a crane-type device (the machine) at the end of the play and magically solves the characters' problems. If a true deus ex machina had appeared in Ex Machina, it would probably have been a guard who would rescue Caleb and perhaps destroy or neutralise Ava. A more accurate title would reference Nathan's hubris and the sexual nature of the proceedings, although I don't think Frankenstein and the Boobs quite works (it would be good for a punk band, though). Perhaps I am just splitting hairs.
Another minor point: did the shooting of Ex Machina remind anyone of The Shining? The shots of the house, whilst less extreme than Kubrick's hotel, seemed designed to unsettle. Also, the scene where Caleb encounters Kyoko who, while naked, starts to dismantle herself, reminded me strongly of the woman in the bath in The Shining, which is up there with bits of Alien for uncomfortable imagery.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
