Hmmm. What to say...? I think I had so many problems with the film that it prevented me from seeing the greatness that a number of commentators seemed to detect. In no particular order: (Well, of course they're in *some* particular order (what's the alternative?) but simply in no *particular* particular order.) SPOILERS! SPOILERS!
1. So, at the beginning when the question is asked "What responsibility do we have to a robot that really loves?" the questioner admits this is a moral question. William Hurt calls this the oldest (moral) question. I'm something of an expert in old questions, and I'm pretty sure this is not in the top five oldest. "Where the hell are my keys?" is likely older. This bit of intellectual grandstanding was a bit jarring.
2. OK, so what genius programmed the "Keep me safe!" response? Was it the same genius who made sure that little robot boys didn't stop themselves from dragging little organic boys under the water and hold on with a grip of steel? (Speaking of which, doesn't it seem clear from the film that David is stronger than just about everybody, including Gigolo Joe? Why would this be?)
3. "Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, we want this little mechaboy to play exactly the role in your life that a little orgaboy would. We want the experience to be just the same as having your very own live son. That's why we're going to omit the simple hardware required to make it possible for the little abomination to participate with you in one of the primary human bonding rituals, shared meals. Instead, we've just developed the niftiest little software that will have him mockingly emulate you at the table, reminding you with every bite of just how much of a little freak the monster is."
4. In the future, police do not chase suspects who steal police copters. Nor do they retrieve amphibicopters that have children in them that go under the sea.
5. William Hurt tells David he'll be right back after he rounds up the scientists who created David, who want to hear all about his adventures. I wish his line here had been a bit less insulting to the intelligence of the audience and instead been, "Since my character is not longer needed for the story, I'm going to exit the scene on a preposterous and transparent pretense so that you can be alone to do whatever it is the story will require without my interference. David, you can rest assured, as the rest of the audience has already discerned, that you'll never see me again." Or at least have him deliver the line the way he did in the film "I'm going to go get the gang..." and then turn full-face toward the camera and give a long, slow, exaggerated wink.
6. OK, so the scientists tell Dr. Know to tell David to go the the end of the world where lions cry. Why not just have Dr. Know tell them that the blue fairy is in the Cybertronics plant in New Jersey? Wouldn't *that* have been an equally good test of whether or not he had desires, self-motivated reasoning, etc.? And that would have saved the expense of moving all that stuff across the sea. No one thinks, do they, that this is the plant where David's father went to work every day? Maybe it was the secret lair, where the new model was worked on in secret? Yep, no better way to hide your plant than to start up making lots and lots of flights to an abandoned city with lots of high-tech equipment and contractors. That's a much better idea than just burying it in some obscure lab in Cybertronics.
7. OK, the parents have lots of issues that I'll group under this number. First, daddy brings home David unannounced. To an emotionally unstable woman. Who has a son-cicle. No talking, no nothing. Second, mommy goes through the imprinting when she is obviously unsure of whether or not she wants the kid. Third, the parents *do* *no* *parenting*. It is surely plausible that the kid would use all the Chanel No. 5, but is the proper response to give him a teddy bear? Or is it rather to smack him around (given that it is a Kubrick film) or even give him a time out (given that it is a Spielberg film)? Fourth, neither mommy nor daddy *ask* what the hell is going on with these episodes that make them uneasy about him; nor do they consult with the creators/programmers. They decide to have him destroyed. Fifth, mommy leaves him in the woods. This makes for a moving scene and the best acting in the film, but for a monster-mommy whose enormity we're supposed to forget in our sharing of David's fantasy of being reunited with her. And these are the parents selected after a tough screening procedure. I suspect it is the staggering ineptitude of the potentially parenting population, rather than any resource scarcity, that explains the government's rationing of reproductive opportunities.
8. Speaking of not consulting with the creating, programming scientists, where the hell were they? They make this unique creation and then, with no fine tuning and no monitoring, they send him off and then (apparently) it's Miller Time.
9. Gigolo Joe, it seemed to me, was just about entirely unnecessary. And his introduction and "development" made the film unnecessarily long, and longer than the natural plotline could sustain.
10. David meets the second David at the end of the world, and he goes *totally* *psycho*. Second David asks him if he'd like to read together and first David takes a lamp and *knocks* *his* *head* *off*. Not just a little off. Flying-across-the-room-and-rolling-out-the-door off. Of course, that prior to flying across the room as a result of the last bash, the head must have been hanging on by a thread as a result of the next-to-last bash. So David, perhaps infuriated by his being deprived of opportunities to play T-ball with pop, decides that a head hanging by a thread isn't enough and he needs to take just one more swing. What kind of psycho thing is that? OK, justify it by jealousy. Go ahead. I dare you. And, what's more, this episode is not even *mentioned* by William Hurt's character. It makes his leaving David alone (see #5 above) even sillier.
Well, I'll stop with 10, as this has already gone on too long. Have I really just missed the point of a great film, as some contend this is? I just found too much on the ground-level of this film problematic to willingly scale the heights some people seemed to think it climbed to. As far as I can tell, the foundation could not support the weight of spires.
1. So, at the beginning when the question is asked "What responsibility do we have to a robot that really loves?" the questioner admits this is a moral question. William Hurt calls this the oldest (moral) question. I'm something of an expert in old questions, and I'm pretty sure this is not in the top five oldest. "Where the hell are my keys?" is likely older. This bit of intellectual grandstanding was a bit jarring.
2. OK, so what genius programmed the "Keep me safe!" response? Was it the same genius who made sure that little robot boys didn't stop themselves from dragging little organic boys under the water and hold on with a grip of steel? (Speaking of which, doesn't it seem clear from the film that David is stronger than just about everybody, including Gigolo Joe? Why would this be?)
3. "Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, we want this little mechaboy to play exactly the role in your life that a little orgaboy would. We want the experience to be just the same as having your very own live son. That's why we're going to omit the simple hardware required to make it possible for the little abomination to participate with you in one of the primary human bonding rituals, shared meals. Instead, we've just developed the niftiest little software that will have him mockingly emulate you at the table, reminding you with every bite of just how much of a little freak the monster is."
4. In the future, police do not chase suspects who steal police copters. Nor do they retrieve amphibicopters that have children in them that go under the sea.
5. William Hurt tells David he'll be right back after he rounds up the scientists who created David, who want to hear all about his adventures. I wish his line here had been a bit less insulting to the intelligence of the audience and instead been, "Since my character is not longer needed for the story, I'm going to exit the scene on a preposterous and transparent pretense so that you can be alone to do whatever it is the story will require without my interference. David, you can rest assured, as the rest of the audience has already discerned, that you'll never see me again." Or at least have him deliver the line the way he did in the film "I'm going to go get the gang..." and then turn full-face toward the camera and give a long, slow, exaggerated wink.
6. OK, so the scientists tell Dr. Know to tell David to go the the end of the world where lions cry. Why not just have Dr. Know tell them that the blue fairy is in the Cybertronics plant in New Jersey? Wouldn't *that* have been an equally good test of whether or not he had desires, self-motivated reasoning, etc.? And that would have saved the expense of moving all that stuff across the sea. No one thinks, do they, that this is the plant where David's father went to work every day? Maybe it was the secret lair, where the new model was worked on in secret? Yep, no better way to hide your plant than to start up making lots and lots of flights to an abandoned city with lots of high-tech equipment and contractors. That's a much better idea than just burying it in some obscure lab in Cybertronics.
7. OK, the parents have lots of issues that I'll group under this number. First, daddy brings home David unannounced. To an emotionally unstable woman. Who has a son-cicle. No talking, no nothing. Second, mommy goes through the imprinting when she is obviously unsure of whether or not she wants the kid. Third, the parents *do* *no* *parenting*. It is surely plausible that the kid would use all the Chanel No. 5, but is the proper response to give him a teddy bear? Or is it rather to smack him around (given that it is a Kubrick film) or even give him a time out (given that it is a Spielberg film)? Fourth, neither mommy nor daddy *ask* what the hell is going on with these episodes that make them uneasy about him; nor do they consult with the creators/programmers. They decide to have him destroyed. Fifth, mommy leaves him in the woods. This makes for a moving scene and the best acting in the film, but for a monster-mommy whose enormity we're supposed to forget in our sharing of David's fantasy of being reunited with her. And these are the parents selected after a tough screening procedure. I suspect it is the staggering ineptitude of the potentially parenting population, rather than any resource scarcity, that explains the government's rationing of reproductive opportunities.
8. Speaking of not consulting with the creating, programming scientists, where the hell were they? They make this unique creation and then, with no fine tuning and no monitoring, they send him off and then (apparently) it's Miller Time.
9. Gigolo Joe, it seemed to me, was just about entirely unnecessary. And his introduction and "development" made the film unnecessarily long, and longer than the natural plotline could sustain.
10. David meets the second David at the end of the world, and he goes *totally* *psycho*. Second David asks him if he'd like to read together and first David takes a lamp and *knocks* *his* *head* *off*. Not just a little off. Flying-across-the-room-and-rolling-out-the-door off. Of course, that prior to flying across the room as a result of the last bash, the head must have been hanging on by a thread as a result of the next-to-last bash. So David, perhaps infuriated by his being deprived of opportunities to play T-ball with pop, decides that a head hanging by a thread isn't enough and he needs to take just one more swing. What kind of psycho thing is that? OK, justify it by jealousy. Go ahead. I dare you. And, what's more, this episode is not even *mentioned* by William Hurt's character. It makes his leaving David alone (see #5 above) even sillier.
Well, I'll stop with 10, as this has already gone on too long. Have I really just missed the point of a great film, as some contend this is? I just found too much on the ground-level of this film problematic to willingly scale the heights some people seemed to think it climbed to. As far as I can tell, the foundation could not support the weight of spires.
Tell Your Friends