What do I think A.I. is about? Well, lots of things. Largely about ethics, especially ethics regarding use of technology. Are we responsible for what we create? What happens when we create something that is useful or operable or in the case of Osment's charecter "living" long after we are gone? Is it possible to love a mechanical thing? Can mechanical things express love? Does this make them 'alive'? When we are capable of making something mecanical that is 'alive', how do we treat them? As human, or as sub-human? I also think its about the future of humanity once machines can self replicate. Or maybe its more about where 'humanity' exists. Can humanity only exist within humans? I also think it's kind of a deconstuction of the myth of the happy childhood. This is especially interesting given the peter pan syndrome present in a lot of Spielberg's work. And ultimately I think it's fairly misanthropic, suggesting that humanity ultimately will exist as nothing more than a fleeting but pleasant memory for something that probably wasn't alive in the first place.
None of these themes are necessarily original to A.I.. They've all been explored before in various films, books, etc. I kept picking up Blade Runner's scent while watching A.I. (I think Blade Runner is a disturbing film too). One of the things that makes A.I. original is the Speilberg/Kubrick mix. At times it felt very much like a Kubrick film, other times very Spielbergian. The two don't mix particularly well, but unlike a lot of others I found that tension really worked well. It plays with the viewer's sense of what to expect. --- colin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > My feeling was that people didn't like what > appeared > > on the surface to be a (kind of) happy ending but > on > > further reflection turned out to be deeply > disturbing. > > it was deeply disturbing. Not at all a happy ending. > > For sevral reasons. The fact that humans had died > out(maybe not too > disturbing), the fact that his 'mother' could be > brought back to life > but only for a day. That was distubing(althought the > comments regarding > space/time were very interesting but not gone into) > and also because all > this efffort was for a Robot. Why? > > So anyway Tyler, you say you thought it was very > good. So I guess then > you know what it was about? Fancy telling those of > us who didn't get it? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards. http://movies.yahoo.com/
