AI, Kubrick, Spielberg etc

[tabuno]

There is a great shift that you mention that occurs in AI after the boy gets to the bottom of the sea. I agree that there was a whole different feel, but that didn't detract from the movie because the shift occurs at the point when humanity suddenly disappears and a whole new dimension arises - the whole human world that has been disparaged and turned upsidedown in this alien environment. Leaving the boy at the bottom of the sea would be like creating another Brazil (original ending) or director's cut of Bladerunner. But Spielberg, provided a holistic touch, otherworldly spin on the whole movie. And still the ending remains ambigious when the boy sleeps - what happens then?

I liked William Hurt's character disappearing because here the reality of humanity comes full front and center and it becomes clear what lies beneath the veneer and plaster of real mankind. This Kubrick touch was great, sliding humanity into a darkened portrait, giving Hurt's character a more complex character than the ordinary movie character that audience have come to love and enjoy.

And as I mentioned the clownish artificial persons really represent the humans who created them, they became bigger than life, they become the exaggeration of humanity while humanity degraded into even more distorted, twisted characters themselves. Thus, the whole behavioral ludicriousness becomes so marvelously tied together and integral to the movie's intent.

[jacobic216]

I feel that the end of AI is very necessary the way it is. The being at the end are not aliens but the are the evolution of AI. After the boy sleeps, he has a dream and it all is right with the world. He never dreampt before. What could he dream? It's left ambiguous. I think that's what Kubrick himself had intended. I guess it also goes with Spielberg's DREAMworks.

FYI: It seems to me that the AI at the end are the very same mat that Lucas used to create the cloners in Attack of the Clones. They are identical in design and both done by ILM.

All movies are art. I find it to be the finest medium today to show art: More people go to movies than museums, more people are reached and it can express visions, sounds and anything you can imagine. Even Showgirls is art. Bad art, but art just the same.

[tabuno]

Isn't "jacobic216" a genius or what?

[stevetseitz]

>>I have a problem listening to critics when it comes to my preference in movies, or anyone else but myself for that matter. Critics are known to be harsh on the artistic genius that many directors have. <<

You have to understand that by creating a work of art and offering it to other people you are, in a way, asking for approval. It's that way for painters, sculpters, composers and directors. While many critics are wrong (a critic once called Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto no. 1 unplayable; another said his Violin Concerto "stank in the ears") Movie critics are just doing what they do, reviewing movies. While some objective asthetic may exist, most critics are subjective humans use their own training, experience and opinions as tools to critique film.


>>...AI and Eyes Wide Shut are not as popular because it's not the way anyone else wants the films to be. Well, I call bullshit on that. The movies done by a true artist are just that, a work of art by the film maker. He did movies in his vision, not the vision of what the audience wanted. If someone doesn't like it, I say go make your own movie. At least then if you don't like it you have no one to blame but yourself.<<

Who defines who is a "true artist"? Movies are a commercial concern and the reason some actors make $20 million
for acting in a movie is because movies can make a lot of money. I mean, if Kubrick didn't care if anyone saw his film, why did he cast Cruise and Kidman? Why not unknowns?


>>As for Showgirls, there is not a single redeming quality about that film. I'd rather watch Barry Lyndon every day for the rest of my life than sit through that film one more time. Believe me, I've tried. Ed Wood is a cult phenomanon who seemed to make bad movies on purpose. Verhoven didn't to do it on purpose. Basic Instinct, Total Recall and RoboCop are terrific films, the latter two contributing quality pictures to the sci-fi tone of 20th century film making. <<

I'd have loved to see "Total Recall" in the hands of a director like Spielberg, John McTiernan or Wolfgang Peterson. It would have been a hundred times better. After watching a Verhoeven film I feel as if I need a shower. "Soldier of Orange" and "The Fourth Man" were decent but I despise his recent stuff.

>>When box offices, critics and audiences are not in favor of a particular film, it doesn't always mean it's bad. Many people loved Pearl Harbor, I thought it was one of the worst movies since Showgirls.<<

Pearl Harbor was crap, which was easy to determine because it was directed by Micheal Bay and looked like a Coke commercial.

>>One of my favorite horror flicks is The Stuff, which is inherently a bad film but it knows it, makes fun of it, has very high entertainment value, and it's fun to watch every time I do. Therefore its is a good movie. <<

It's a guilty pleasure movie, you know it's bad, but you enjoy it nonetheless. My guilty pleasure is "Cannonball Run".

>>I'll also mention about Star Wars, I liked The Phantom Menace but there is no way I would have if it came out first. By itself, it is a horrible film. As a part of the Star Wars saga, it adds much of the needed story that Lucas is telling. But, like any film, we can't tell Lucas how to make Star Wars. If something in it isn't the way we wanted it to be, get over it. I've been generally let down by the new Star Wars movies. The original three blow these two out of the galaxy. Still, they tell the story we all asked to hear and I'm entertained to watch it and along with the others. If the original hadn't been the phenomanon it was, we'd never have seen Jar Jar Binks (which may not have been a bad thing). <<


It's OK to say that Lucas dropped the ball with "The Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones". He did. He confused technology with epic storytelling and like the mythical Icarus tried to soar to high while not sweating the details. It doesn't change the fact that "Star Wars"and "The Empire Strikes Back" are terrific movies. In fact George's other early films "American Graffiti" and "THX-1138" are among my favorites.

[tabuno]

"Total Recall" had a geniune appeal to the general theater going public. It had mainstream action, values with a sci fi twist. The idea of the wife's betrayal was well-done and had good shock value. The movie was entertaining and captivating as a popular sci fi, mainstream movie - on that basis it was a hit. While I wouldn't call it hard core, serious, substantive science fiction, it had that summer action movie theme, feel-good entertainment value. Not bad for a movie I'd say and it made money.

[jacobic216]

I disagree that artwork is about asking for approval. On the surface, sure. And maybe your are correct if you are looking for approval from yourself but no one asked my approval when they made Titanic or Pearl Harbor, which I believe are two of the worst movies ever. As a matter of fact, the majority of the films shown at Cannes are quite the opposite. It's about the quality of the film, the entertainment value and love/blood/sweet/tears/etc that went into making it. Not all movies are commercial. As a lover of films you should know that. Showing a movie to other people can be just that, showing off. If you can make money while doing it, then more power to you.

Stanley Kubrick never asked anyone for approval. If you know anything about his films you'll see that each and every one pisses someone of somewhere. Lolita was ostrosized by the catholic church, he received death threats for making a clockwork orange, and here we are debating the quality of AI. Of course they want to make money, who doesn't? The Godfather is a masterpiece but it was completely commercial. However, to label all movies as such is not accurate. I believe he cast Tom and Nicole because they asked to work with him. I know that they worked for less than their usual paycheck for that film.

If a filmmaker can't take the criticism, then they are in the wrong business, as is anyone who does work that would be critiqued, novelists, playwrites, athletes, etc. All films are subject to criticism. I critique movies as I see them just so I know how much I liked it but I don't consider myself to be a critic. I just know what I like.

You want to know who defines a true artist? The artist themself. By their impact on and contribution to the culture, by their achievements and by their satisfaction with their work. I don't believe the real artists are ever truly satisfied. They want to make a better movie every time. Kubrick wanted to do just that with AI and with Aryan Papers but he never got either of them off the ground.

I have several guilty pleasures, especially in movies. The Phantom Menace is one of the guiltiest of them all. I like all of the new star wars films. I don't love them as separate works but as part of the Star Wars saga. I agree that Lucas dropped the ball big time on what should, nay needed to be done with these prequal films. Star Wars was about the adventure in space, not about George Lucas' ego. I just hope Episode III is as bleek and depressing as we all know it should be. If there is a glimmer of hope in it, I'll never forgive him. That's what Episode IV is called anyway, "A NEW HOPE." Most people forget that. Another guilty pleasure could be that I believe that "The Blues Brothers" is the greatest musical ever made, but that's just me.

Who knows if Total Recall would have been the great film it is in the hands of another director? It would have been interesting to see it done by someone else but it would have not been the same movie at all. I think it would have lost a lot of its luster. AI would have been a different movie if Kubrick had directed it, yes?

[tabuno]

Give jacobic216 a job! He's earned it.

[stevetseitz]

1. To lump "Titanic" and "Pearl Harbor" together is incorrect. "Titanic" won Best Picture and was well received by critics. Just because a film is popular with 13 year old girls does not make it bad. Certainly the non-stop publicity machine was annoying but that isn't the fault of the film. Pearl Harbor just stank.

2. A film need not be unpopular or "controversial" in order to be good. "The Bicycle Thief is one of the most beloved films of all time and has few if any detractors. The same applies to "Lawrence of Arabia".

3. A film can be "art" and still have a big box-office or commercial success. If you adjust for ticket prices "Gone with the Wind" will never be surpassed for box office success, yet it's a great film; a classic.

4. It takes talent on the part of the writer, director, actors, cinematographer and editor in addition to love/blood/sweet/tears/etc to make a great film. And even the most talented people don't always achieve success every time. Steven Spielberg was responsible for "The Lost World: Jurrasic ParkII"

5. The Godfather wasn't commercial. Crime films were considered passe in the early 70's. It wasn't popular to make a film of the Cosa Nostra at that time. Francis Ford Copalla, a true artist, rarely did anything to please producers and directors. He even had to start his own studio, American Zoetrope, to get classics like "The Conversation" made.

6. The Blues Brothers IS one of the greatest musical movies. It just happens to be hilarious also.

[jacobic216]

1) When people ask me if I liked Pearl Harbor, I tell them I hated it the first time I saw it when it was Titanic. I can't stand either film and they are both done very much the same way. 3 hours of sappy nonsence. The best part was when everyone died.

2 and 3) Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, when first released in 1977, was a box office success, a low budget art film, very popular, uncontroversial and one of the most beloved films of all time. I completely agree with you on these points. But for someone to say a film, any film is not art is absolutely inaccurate. I believe the greatest medium for displaying art from the end of the 20th century through today is through film. It reaches more people than paintings, books and sculptures ever did. Just look at the box office verses admission prices to museums or book store sales.

4) It does take talent to make a good movie. However, much of what is made today is not entirely talent. And even talent can make a poor film (e.g. Jurassic Park II: The Lost World), I agree. And yet there are some talents out there that have never done a poor film (Kubrick, Coen Bros, Lynch). Those are whom I would not hesitate to call call the true artists.

5) The Godfather had the claws of Paramount so deeply sunk into its skin that it was a miracle it was finished with Coppola at the helm. I'm partial to Godfather part II partly because Coppola would only do it if they gave him complete control (also partly because it was the greatest sequal ever made). It was his baby and no one could tell him bubkas.

6) The Blues Brothers was in my top 10 until the release of Being John Malkovich and to a later extent Lord of the Rings. It's one of the most quotable movies ever.

By the way, I actually am looking for a job now. Any openings? I am eager to relocate!!!

[tabuno]

jacobic216, What can you do? While I don't have a lot of connections, I have access to community resources and information here in the community. There is growing interest in the arts and movies in the State.

<4. It takes talent on the part of the writer, director, actors, cinematographer and editor in addition to love/blood/sweet/tears/etc to make a great film. And even the most talented people don't always achieve success every time. Steven Spielberg was responsible for "The Lost World: Jurrasic ParkII">

I don't think this statement is mutually exclusive - on the one hard you have job titles and other the other you have human descriptors - thus either or both could be construed to be accurate.

[stevetseitz]

Originally posted by jacobic216
1) When people ask me if I liked Pearl Harbor, I tell them I hated it the first time I saw it when it was Titanic. I can't stand either film and they are both done very much the same way. 3 hours of sappy nonsence. The best part was when everyone died.

2 and 3) Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, when first released in 1977, was a box office success, a low budget art film, very popular, uncontroversial and one of the most beloved films of all time. I completely agree with you on these points. But for someone to say a film, any film is not art is absolutely inaccurate. I believe the greatest medium for displaying art from the end of the 20th century through today is through film. It reaches more people than paintings, books and sculptures ever did. Just look at the box office verses admission prices to museums or book store sales.

4) It does take talent to make a good movie. However, much of what is made today is not entirely talent. And even talent can make a poor film (e.g. Jurassic Park II: The Lost World), I agree. And yet there are some talents out there that have never done a poor film (Kubrick, Coen Bros, Lynch). Those are whom I would not hesitate to call call the true artists.

5) The Godfather had the claws of Paramount so deeply sunk into its skin that it was a miracle it was finished with Coppola at the helm. I'm partial to Godfather part II partly because Coppola would only do it if they gave him complete control (also partly because it was the greatest sequal ever made). It was his baby and no one could tell him bubkas.

6) The Blues Brothers was in my top 10 until the release of Being John Malkovich and to a later extent Lord of the Rings. It's one of the most quotable movies ever.

By the way, I actually am looking for a job now. Any openings? I am eager to relocate!!!

1. Titanic was sappy nonsense? Romance and Love are far more important to the female 50% of moviegoers than all the "Star Wars"," Lord of the Rings" and "Godfather" films combined. Just because you might not enjoy this aspect of film, certainly your "other half" can.

2 and 3. I wonder about the book store sales vs. box-office returns, the theaters around here have been sold about three times in the past few decades and they struggle to make money, but according to your previous statements exposure to mass audiences isn't what art is all about anyway. Isn't it aethetic value?

4. The Coen Brothers made "The Hudsucker Proxy" and "The Man who wasn't there". Kubrick made "Barry Lyndon" and "The Shining". David Lynch made "Dune". None of these films are that great. I don't want to hear anything about a 6 hour director's cut of Dune floating around the net. The Sci-Fi channel series seriously outclassed Lynch's effort.

5. I admit that Godfather II equalled the brilliance and quality of the original. The Godfather Epic is even better with it's careful editing of the other films and extra scenes.

6. Moulin Rouge was a recent musical that had it's share of what you might consider "sappy nonsense" I'm curious as to how you reviewed that film. I loved it.

[stevetseitz]

[i]Originally posted by Tabuno

<4. It takes talent on the part of the writer, director, actors, cinematographer and editor in addition to love/blood/sweet/tears/etc to make a great film. And even the most talented people don't always achieve success every time. Steven Spielberg was responsible for "The Lost World: Jurrasic ParkII">

I don't think this statement is mutually exclusive - on the one hard you have job titles and other the other you have human descriptors - thus either or both could be construed to be accurate. [/B]

My point was the love/blood/sweat/tears don't make the film. I can try hard to paint a oil portrait but if I don't have the discipline, the training and the talent, it will still be a poor picture. Good intentions and hustle only get you so far. Casablanca (an amazing film) was just one of hundreds of studio pictures put out by the MGM "machine" in 1942. It didn't get any more love/blood/sweat/tears than the others, but it was made by extremely talented individuals with job descriptions like writer, director, actor, cinematographer and editor.

[docraven]

Originally posted by tabuno
There is a great shift that you mention that occurs in AI after the boy gets to the bottom of the sea. I agree that there was a whole different feel, but that didn't detract from the movie …

You express yourself well with respect to why you like the ending of A.I., Tabuno. But I do find your explanation very interesting and fascinating. I also like your remarks concerning the ludicrousness of the “clownish artificial persons.” You cannot, however, declare that to be the intent of the film -- only your interpretation of it. Only Spielberg can speak to the intent.

The problem for me is that this still does not address the issue of the form of the advanced robots who retrieve David. They were, in my opinion, inappropriate in the context of the film. Everything else, even the various bizarre (but interesting) human creations like Gigolo Joe and Gigolo Jane, were believable in the context. The super advanced creatures who first appear in the final 25 minutes of the film were barely three dimensional and were visually inconsistent with the look of the rest of the film.

Originally posted by jacobic216
The being at the end are not aliens but the are the evolution of AI. After the boy sleeps, he has a dream and it all is right with the world.

This is also a very interesting interpretation, and I note that you say you think it is what Kubrick intended (Does Spielberg have a voice here?). Of course, unless Kubrick has stated this, it remains your interpretation. Good point though! I do agree that when there is resonance, a certain ambiguity is quite appropriate. I still do not think the super advanced creatures were appropriately visualized for even a dream.

jacobic216 and stevetseitz on art
All movies are art. I find it to be the finest medium today to show art: -- You have to understand that by creating a work of art and offering it to other people you are, in a way, asking for approval.

I have no problem with the idea that all movies (or all paintings, or all plays, or all poems) are works of art. If this is how you wish to use the term, then what matters is whether or not it is good art (or whatever scale you wish to create). These judgements, of course, are individual, although some films are obviously admired by discerning viewers more than others. The confusion comes, then, when we use the word “art” or “true art” as a qualitative judgement.

jacobic216 thinks Kubrick, the Coen Brothers, and Lynch never made a poor film. That is his assessment, but it is not a universal truth. It is a judgement. stevetseitz thinks some of the Kubrick films are overrated, and he finds, for example, “Dr. Strangelove” to be very boring after the first viewing. That, too, is a judgement. I have different opinions, but they, too, are only opinions.

I think it’s great that we all bring different sensitivities to film, and that we can argue about our various interpretations.

originally posted by stevetseitz
4. It takes talent on the part of the writer, director, actors, cinematographer and editor in addition to love/blood/sweet/tears/etc to make a great film. And even the most talented people don't always achieve success every time.

Come now, Tabuno. This statement is perfectly clear. You’re trying to make a muddle out of one of the best written statements in this string. If you want to see lack of clarity, check out the following jacobic216 remark:

“FYI: It seems to me that the AI at the end are the very same mat that Lucas used to create the cloners in Attack of the Clones. They are identical in design and both done by ILM.”

Talk about lack of clarity. What the hell does this mean?

[tabuno]

Finally, a person who is mature enough who can disagree and make a lot of sense - "docraven." Until now, all I've ever received was immature, personal venom from people who just couldn't be criticized. However, "docraven" owns up to values and possesses confident reasoning. docraven's comments are great.

If I may, however, I would like to expand though in response to one observation:

<The super advanced creatures who first appear in the final 25 minutes of the film were barely three dimensional and were visually inconsistent with the look of the rest of the film.>

In AI, I understand how you might have a strong, negative reaction to the advanced super creatures and their apparent dissimilarity to the rest of the movie. I had some of the same reaction, but taken in context one has to try to project into the future while recognizing the changes that have occurred just in human history over the past hundred years that have made many past experience mere pale afterglows compared to today - like the difference between the original 1951 "The Thing" and Carpenter's remake years later. I perceive the same element of discontinuity and allow for the possibility of the disconnect between what we experience today and what super advanced beings of the future might be. Who knows what dimension and appearance they may have? To just make something that we are used to in AI at the end, in my opinion, would have been the more inappropriate approach to take, In keeping this movie consistent with its symbolic theme of humans, AI, and super beings, these beings needed an element of significant difference if we are to really believe in this movie.

[stevetseitz]

>>Finally, a person who is mature enough who can disagree and make a lot of sense - "docraven." Until now, all I've ever received was immature, personal venom from people who just couldn't be criticized.<<


In this thread? Where? From whom? Looking back at the discussion it appears there has been no personal venom. We are all clearly mature enough to disagree. If you think "A.I." and "Total Recall" good films, I'll disagree with you to my dying day, but that doesn't make it "personal". Maturity? It's about having the confidence and courage to respond directly to someone. Personal venom? That would be making a snide comment and sweeping conclusions about those who disagree with you in some other post. Let be honest and direct, that way we can simply agree to disagree and move on to the next subject.