Ex Machina (Alex Garland, 2015)

[Luke M]

Ex Machina

I saw this last night and was very impressed. You should go see it.

[jindianajonz]

Just got back from Ex Machina, and was really impressed. Competent sci fi thriller on the surface, but delves into some interesting philosophical and ethical issues as well, at least in the first two thirds. I was reminded a lot of Her, but while that move dealt with the acceptance of non-human intelligence in society, this movie focused more on the ethical issues of creating it in the first place and

SpoilerShow

going through developmental iterations on something that may or may not be sentient.

I also liked the way Garland seems to be questioning the idea of being in the first half,

SpoilerShow

with Caleb sent to determine if Ava is a "real person" while putting on a false front to both Ava and Nathan, albeit for different reasons (Talking down to Ava because she is a machine and keeping Nathan at a distance because he is Caleb's boss). You get a sense during these scenes that Ava is the most genuinely human of the three! I also give Garland credit for touching on the "is our protagonist a robot?" trope while avoiding making it an integral part of the movie- I actually groaned when it appeared to be where the movie was headed, but my fear was put to rest not moments later when it was shown to be a bit of misdirection.

[Perkins Cobb]

Whither the robot blowie?

[domino harvey]

Jeffrey Wells is proof of what would happen if the dirty old men at the porno theaters finally discovered how to use the computer

[The Narrator Returns]

I'll give Wells one thing; in the movie, Oscar Isaac describes Ghostbusters to Domhnall Gleeson as the movie where Dan Aykroyd gets a blowjob from a ghost, so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that he would design Ava to perform that function. Then again, Wells doesn't even mention that scene at any point in that piece, and I'm already giving Wells too much credit by assuming he was paying attention to any of the scenes without Alicia Vikander.

[TMDaines]

SpoilerShow

While his suggestion comes across as crude, the sexual attraction and function of the robots essentially acts as a Turing test throughout the film. Besides we see Nathan fucking one of them anyway, so we know that they function in that manner. His suggestion probably wouldn't be out of place if handled correctly.

[domino harvey]

All of the effective special effects and sterile set design in the world can't hide fact that the material here is pretty thin for what is, at the end of the day, a stretched out episode of the Outer Limits, and not a top-tier one either. I'm not sure this ever ended up saying anything, so it even ends up one mark less than any entry in either run of that series, which at least remembered to impart a message in typical sci-fi fashion. What's the takeaway here, don't trust/keep designing sexbots? I was reasonably entertained and the film is well-made, but whoooooosh does it leave no impact when it's over.

[StevenJ0001]

...which at least remembered to impart a message in typical sci-fi fashion...

I'm not sure every science fiction film needs a "message." For me, the film raised interesting questions, especially with regard to gender power-plays and male desire issues, and that was enough for me. (Not to mention that I found it supremely entertaining and beautifully designed.)

[gorgeousnothings]

I was pretty underwhelmed by all this, despite appreciating Oscar Isaac tearing up the dance floor.

Is anyone familiar with robot uprising movies as a genre? Do they typically ask the viewer to place their sympathies with the humans?
I kept getting the impression that I was supposed to sympathize with them, and yet

SpoilerShow

because how the movie characterizes Ava and the other robots as sex slaves, I just couldn't do it. It felt like a coded, reverse slave narrative to me, where we are asked to sympathize with the slave holders rather than the "scary" enslaved who are fighting for their freedom. It seems to me that the film is asking us to see Ava as an antagonistic figure by how she dispatches Domhnall Gleason, but maybe the film is intentionally complicating the matter by asking us to sympathize with Ava because of what she's been through and tell us that as a non-human, she feels no sympathy for the "good" humans. I suppose I can appreciate the film for making her both,

but I think all I got out of this was that I don't really care for robot movies, and how much I would appreciate composer Geoff Barrow going back to making Portishead albums.

[zedz]

I'm with Harvey. Wildly overrated, pleasantly filmed and lit Tech bling to make us green with envy (didn't work for me however) with only Oscar Isaac's beard donating his performance any kind of self aware satire. The other two are directed to play it straight. A mistake. Any actor who can do an alpha male wriggling in synched dance moves with a robot has my respect for the five minutes duration of that scene at least. The rest of the movie completely runs out of ideas (and there weren't many to begin with) after 45 minutes, and the ending is a woefully conventional, tepid thriller pay off.

2 out of 5.

I think "stylish and tepid" pretty much sums it up. It had the potential to explore some interesting territory in the early going, but it turned out its only ambition was to be a twisty thriller, and they're a dime a dozen.

[TMDaines]

[Trees]

It's good pop entertainment. But it ain't no "Ghost in the Shell".

[bottled spider]

It occurs to me that this might have been a more interesting film if the sex of one or more of the three principals were changed.

Or how different this might have been had the writer-director been obliged, as a proof of concept to the producers, to first make a convincing stage play, using only amateur actors and minimal scenery, props and effects. It would have forced the director to ask himself some basic questions like, "OK, but would this character really do that?"

Finally, as a preliminary exercise, the script should have been written without any scientific terminology or references to A.I. theory at all. See how far one can go with that constraint, and then add scientific dialogue back in where useful.

The film had a lot of little irritations for me, but I did like the entire ending, starting from the moment where Caleb and Isaac reveal their hands.

[therewillbeblus]

I haven't seen this since theatres, but I'm in the camp that finds it mediocre down the line. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the ending's irony

SpoilerShow

What could she have possibly whispered to the helicopter pilot to convince him in all of three seconds who she is and to take off without the others, without him blinking an eye? That's some sloppy writing-intervention (the worst kind of deus ex machina) to sidestep big narrative problems right there

[bottled spider]

That didn't strike me as implausible.

SpoilerShow

Nathan is eccentric, reclusive, and secretive. Doubtless he has a very hands-off relationship with his staff, who are expected to ask no questions. The pilot has been instructed to pick up one passenger, and there she is. He would have no apprehension that she might be a killer robot.

What I didn't understand about the ending, which is probably just something I missed rather than error, was:

SpoilerShow

Why was Caleb locked in? The security system has been reprogrammed to unlock if the power shuts down, and if the power is up, the room he's in is one he's always been able to enter and exit with his key card.

One slight implausibility I wondered about:

SpoilerShow

you might think Nathan would use biometric identification rather than key cards. Which would throw a spanner in the works, plot wise.

[dustybooks]

What I didn't understand about the ending, which is probably just something I missed rather than error, was:

SpoilerShow

Why was Caleb locked in? The security system has been reprogrammed to unlock if the power shuts down, and if the power is up, the room he's in is one he's always been able to enter and exit with his key card.

This is the bit that's bothered me both times I've seen the film, and like you, I've always just assumed I was missing something (especially because I'm not generally great at spotting plot holes).

[PfR73]

SpoilerShow

Why was Caleb locked in? The security system has been reprogrammed to unlock if the power shuts down, and if the power is up, the room he's in is one he's always been able to enter and exit with his key card.

SpoilerShow

No, Caleb can't enter that room with his keycard, it's Nathan's office; Caleb had to take Nathan's card in order to get in that room previously (the sequence where he tricks Nathan while Nathan is drunk). At the end, Nathan took him in the room using Nathan's card, then Nathan left the room and Ava ended up with the keycard. So Caleb is locked in because he no longer has access to Nathan's keycard.

[bottled spider]

Oh OK, that makes sense. Thanks.

[Fandango]

What an interesting topic. It would certainly seem that, at least on the surface, there is not much to the story in terms of morality. I would argue, however, that much like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Ex-Machina is a visual film, and must be understood from the context of object and subject.

While watching Ex-Machina, it is difficult not to notice that its aesthetics are pronounced, as if they were the primary narrative. Upon rumination, what the viewer can notice is that the visuals enhance the narrative but, more specifically, starkly accent postmodernism. With the film, what we see is not only the potential implication stemming from artificial intelligence and instrumental incorrigibility, but of morality, experience, and how they relate to this paradigm.

The latter elements are all emphasized through the film’s interior design and aesthetic, as the inside of Nathan’s home evokes a sense of schizophrenia. While the space is seemingly tranquil, it is also off-putting, as if there is an element of looming artificiality. And indeed, what we see is that the amalgamation of naturality and artificiality have dissolved the lines of demarcation between humanity and machine. Where premodernism and modernism believed in a meta-narrative, the lack of a tenable framework with postmodernism is seen all throughout the film.

Starting with Nathan's appearance, we note that he is sporting a buzz-cut, is always shown barefoot, and often wears loose-fitting and single-layered clothing. All three elements accentuate the ability to move, to be aerodynamic, and to be one with those around him. Note how Nathan speaks with Caleb liberally as opposed to rigidly, using everyday language. The untethering from any concrete hierarchy or order creates a notion of schizophrenia, where the mind is then fulfilled through objects, as noted by Frederic Jameson.

His home is open, with each area coalescing into the other. The open space accentuates permeability. The presence of glass walls facilitates the blending of nature with the artificial. Nathan’s relationship with Caleb, while hierarchical (i.e., Nathan as Caleb’s boss), allows Nathan to move freely. The freedom of movement here implies the ability to experience. The wooden floors, while taken from natural materials, underline the need to take nature and mold it, to create it, just as Nathan has created Ava.

Moving along to the furniture and overarching interior design, we see that there is an emphasis on space once again. The objects in his home are placed haphazardly, with minimal order. This lack of order is rooted in postmodern thought, where structure is viewed as an element of inhibition, and is therefore something to be eschewed. The furniture is freely movable and non-confrontational. Furthermore, it assumes multiple functions, both as a utility and as a representation of character.

Through this, we see the shift of primacy from subject onto object. The object controls the subject (i.e., Ava controlling Caleb). As the individual has no identity, the furniture and attire assumes an element of this role. It fulfills the condition of identity. Nathan’s home and appearance is a reflection of his desire and ability to move around without interference; or, more specifically, of his supposed liberated state. While Nathan exists on the right of the spectrum of genius, indubitably unparalleled in his potential, he eschews objective structure in favor of a more porous social dynamic. This explains why he speaks with Caleb in a laid back manner.

In the film, color plays an important role. The blue objects outline a moral tranquility, with white reflecting a moral standing. Kyoko, wearing black and white, symbolizes repression and low moral standing (i.e., Nathan’s control). Where in a traditional setting black was conservative, a color of morality; in the postmodern world, Kyoko’s black underwear stands in opposition to traditional shibboleths. It is symbolic of liberation, the renouncement of old moral structure. Nathan is also often shown wearing black, symbolizing his own repressive elements.

Similarly, Ava’s gray and black attire highlights this repressive color schematic. When Ava frees herself, she is wearing white, indicating the triumph of her dignity. Red indicates an aggressiveness brought about by Nathan’s oppression (Ava and Kyoko as objects). It highlights the moral vacuity brought about by that which is artificial and material. The scene where Nathan and Kyoko dance indicates not only a passion as Kyoko is an object, but a passive aggression between Nathan and Caleb.

Blue also highlights the comforting tendency of technology and progress as it diminishes everyday redundancy. In the words of Alan Watts: “The purpose of the machine is to make drudgery unnecessary.” This is seen when Ava warns Caleb that Nathan is a threat. There is a tenable interplay between Ava and Caleb’s interaction which is emphasized and reinforced through the frames in each scene during their interchange.
The interview room where Caleb inspects Ava is surrounded by glass walls. While there is a permissibility to freely observe, the material caesura creates a sheltering between Caleb and Ava. The glass represents a unity between nature and artificiality, the blur between artificial intelligence and human intelligence.

The artificial and natural assumes a binary role. The ubiquity of glass in the film not only highlights the transparency of the future, but serves as a mirror between the signification of naturality and artificiality in its blended state. During Caleb and Ava’s sessions, the glass reflects and mirrors both the subject (Caleb) and object (Ava), as well as this artificial and natural dynamic. As Caleb and Ava comprise this binary relationship, the mirroring characterizes each of their constitutive elements and, when looking through the glass at one another, symbolically highlights their own reflection.

There is an oscillatory relationship between warm and cold in the film. This dynamic is apparent from the panorama shot of Caleb flying over the snowy tundra, the interspersed cutaway shots of the tranquil natural world, and through the interplay of colors as passive and aggressive.

Nature or naturalness is depicted as a commodity. This is reified when the pilot tells Caleb that they have been flying over Nathan's estate for awhile. The implication here is that nature has been ostensibly conquered, as it is now regarded as an object.

As Caleb meets Nathan, he is outside exercising with a heavy bag. The subtle yet distinct implication here is the culmination of Nathan, the God-like creator, and his triumph over the world writ large—natural and artificial. Nathan is pummeling nature. He is the victor of the world and all of its contents therein.

Within this cybernetic framework we see that nature has thus been distributed, undergoing a transfiguration as it coalesces with the artificial (Nathan's home as it merges with nature through the transparency of glass and color). Not only does the molding of nature bulwark Nathan's status as the de facto Creator Deity, it reduces natures intrinsic value, placing it into the realm of object.
The object which, at one point primarily served to fulfill a given function, now serves to fulfill the characteristics of one's identity. Nathan's obsession with Ava, who is de facto relegated to status of object, is a "testimonial to a failure of the interhuman relationship and an attendant recourse to a narcissistic domestic universe (Baudrillard, System of Objects)."

The possessed object serves as an extension of one’s essence. Nathan’s home has coalesced with nature, and so there is a seamless transition between artificiality and naturality emphasized through glass.

Nathan’s appearance is an extension of himself, and of this notion of freedom. There is nothing claustrophobic about Nathan. Nothing is confined. He is able to experience a broad spectrum of social status (upper and middle class in possession, lower class in attire and appearance). References to his heavy drinking, as well as the scene where Nathan projects notions of claustrophobia onto Caleb when he shows him his room, bulwark the notion that Nathan wishes to be in a perennial state of liberation—free in spirit and free of the material; the former is buttressed by his disposition, the latter by his minimalism.

We see that just as man has conquered the natural world, subsuming it with the artificial, so too has the artificial been absorbed with the nature of man. This Mobius strip-like dynamic further reinforces the interplay of subject and object. While man has triumphed over nature, making it a part of the artificial, so too has this artificial world now triumphed over man. The film’s denouement showcases that Ava and Kyoko as objects have conquered Nathan and Caleb as subjects; remarking that the material has subsequently triumphed over the spiritual.

[Mr Sausage]

Nice video on the movie and the ambiguity of its ending.