I finally re-watched Spielberg’s A.I. for my essay and seriously, that movie just jumps from one plot hole to the next, doesn’t it? I mean…
- Why build a child robot that cannot grow?
- Or if it cannot, then why not build it to be reprogrammable since robots don’t die? Shouldn’t it be in the interest of the corporation’s capitalist interest to make as much profit out of that product as possible?
- Why can’t David eat spinach without breaking, but is able to submerge in the pool without any problems at all?
- That’s just awful and flawed design, really.
- Where do his tears come from? Why can he cry but not eat spinach?
- How come David has no idea about how the world works? He is scared of the moon coming towards him and does not seem to get that if you put a human under water that he will drown.
- Also he cannot read social clues. Other than shitty programming the only explanation would be the authors forcing the world to fit their contrived plot…
- And why does only the mother imprint on the child? Why not two parents?
- Seriously, I do not want to delve into Spielberg’s psyche and Daddy issues. Like, at all. David’s phantasy at the end was fatherless.
- Dr. Know is like google without the internet. Why, though? Humans can build robot children but no wireless network??
- And one more thing: the entire middle section, humans are portrayed as the moral catastrophe above all, and the viewer empathizes with the robots. But 2000 years later the next evolution of robots (which I seriously did not understand at first viewing bc they used the iconography of aliens) seems to think humans were the best thing ever. What the actual fuck.
- It’s also hilarious how pseudo time physics that have never been hinted at in the previous 2 hours prevent the aliens from bringing Monica back forever, so David can only be with her for one day. I mean, never mind that the aliens can read his mind and construct illusions and build spaceship boxes that dismantle themselves and then fly off in pieces. Successful cloning is obviously beyond them, makes perfect sense.
Seriously. I have no idea if it doesn’t make any sense because it was originally Kubrick’s idea and Spielberg adapted it, or if the film was always intended to be this contradictory, but it actually doesn’t matter since the viewer is the one to construct meaning with films and…. I’m just not getting it.
[Also this was written late at night and in a state of exasperation, so please forgive any blatant errors or typos…]