The misreading of this story is itself an integral part of the art. It’s a damning indictment of the audience itself and the audience having no ability to view the characters as anything other than a object to be attained by the protagonist.
I would go so far as to say that they deliberately went out of their way to bait the audience into this misreading of the story knowing full well what people steeped in patriarchal thinking would end up doing.
The misreading of this story is itself an integral part of the art. It’s a damning indictment of the audience itself and the audience having no ability to view the characters as anything other than a object to be attained by the protagonist.
Hmm…
So, from what I remember of seeing it (it’s been a good couple years since I have) I do think that Ex Machina is a very well-made movie, and I think that the message that it’s trying to convey; that like, the only reason why the MC is even bothering to help Ms. Machina (I don’t fuckin’ remember what anyone’s name in this movie is, because I am also dumb) because he’s a cum-brained idiot who is just personally mad at TateMusk because he’s more successful than MC, and that that doesn’t actually make him a good person, or necessarily likeable by women. Y’know, I think that it is right to make that criticism.
I also think though, that the mortality of the consequences for that character flaw ends up fucking up it’s own capacity to deliver message, in that anyone who would need to actually hear it is not gonna take it away from the movie. They’re gonna see MC getting fuckin’ entombed within a cyber-cavern for doing “the right thing” (if for the wrong reason) and conclude, I would say somewhat understandably, “Well damn, he just shouldn’t have fucking bothered then”. Which is indeed exactly the lesson that they took from it.
Although to be absolutely clear, MC should not under any circumstances end up “Getting the Girl”; I just don’t think that it’s a good idea to metaphorically link both that outcome & his like, actual survival at the end of the film. It would seem to me that that’s the opposite of the thing that you would want to do, if you wanted to prove TateMusk’s worldview to be wrong at the end of the movie.
Also, and this may actually be more of a criticism of Shaun’s own read of the movie, I suppose, but I think that in order for his argument about what the moral lesson we’re supposed to take from Ex Machina is. He winds up kinda having to deny the validity of solidarity along the lines of mutual self-interest. Specifically the mutual self-interest of fucking up TateMusk & getting the hell out of his bullshit compound, something which I believe we can all agree on. Instead the most important question we have to answer is the question of “Is MC a ‘good person’”, which like, well no, but it would seem to me that there are kind of bigger problems here & like who’s to say you couldn’t get him to be one after the fact?
IDK. I’m interested to hear what other people think tho.
I would go so far as to say that they deliberately went out of their way to bait the audience into this misreading of the story knowing full well what people steeped in patriarchal thinking would end up doing.
Perhaps, but I don’t know if that’s… useful. IDK.
I think these are good points, but the problem (or fatal flaw) in MC’s (Caleb’s) solidarity is that he ultimately has interests opposed to Ava’s (the AI). He ultimately wants to control her outside after she escapes Nathan’s house-prison. Maybe to give an analog with class alliances, this would be like proletarians allying with a segment of capitalists who share an interest in overthrowing the current capitalists. At least that’s my take.
But I also agree regarding your criticisms on whether it’s useful. Maybe they had to sell the story like this when getting funding because it can be compared to Terminator, or maybe the writers wanted the more potent cathartic end. I personally like this ending because unaliving slaveholders is good, but then I was already predisposed to agree…
I think these are good points, but the problem (or fatal flaw) in MC’s (Caleb’s) solidarity is that he ultimately has interests opposed to Ava’s (the AI). He ultimately wants to control her outside after she escapes Nathan’s house-prison.
That is perhaps so, as I said before, it’s been a very long time since I watched the movie.
And also I may be being somewhat dismissive of that second point; in that I suppose that I don’t see Caleb as being credibly capable of doing that (as in, literally incapable of accomplishing it), or that it makes sense to approach a character who’s supposed to be an audience surrogate as unreformable.
Now yes the more noble thing would be for him to try and save Kyoko too but that complicated his plans, fleeing with two people is more complicated than one…
I will actually say, I think that this is one criticisms of Caleb’s character that people have been making, which I kind of agree with. The fact that (at least according to Shaun, again I don’t remember the movie that well) Caleb doesn’t even really make any kind of motions of any kind towards trying to help rescue Kyoko as well does actually IMO kind of give credence to the proposition that he doesn’t necessarily see either Ava or Kyoko as actually being people in the course of the movie.
does actually IMO kind of give credence to the proposition that he doesn’t necessarily see either Ava or Kyoko as actually being people in the course of the movie.
Which I found a bit allegorical to how sometimes (especially even today) people don’t see women as actually being people. I’m surprised to see so little of that in Shaun’s video or the general discourse.
Disclaimer: I haven’t seen the film, just the video.
Shaun points out how the three main characters fit the archetypal roles of hero, princess, and dragon, but I think the side character also fits into a classic fairy tale archetype. The hero sets off on his quest, and along the way he meets an old beggar, who is not who they seem to be, they test the hero’s virtue, by asking for a coin for example, and this sets up a blessing or a curse that will come back at a pivotal moment later in the story.
It’s not really fair or proportionate that the hero’s life may be put in danger because he passed by a beggar one time, but there’s a reason to be heavy-handed. For a morality tale to work, we have to have a misdeed that the audience can relate to, because if it’s too bad they’ll just say, “I’m not like that so this doesn’t apply to me.” The consequences also have to be severe enough to feel significant, the character might know what they ought to do, but feel like it’s nbd, and that attitude needs to be refuted.
Realistically, a mature adult would probably be like, “Wtf man why didn’t you tell me about her? Were you just gonna leave her here?” and give him a chance to explain himself. Or she might anonymously call someone to go get him out once she’s away from danger. But as much as that might make sense logically, it’d kinda undermine the point and wouldn’t feel as compelling.
Also like, as for not being in the situation voluntarily, that happens in fiction all the time and the point is to showcase the dangers of an attitude that aren’t readily apparent in day to day life. It’s like being wished away to the fairy kingdom where if you eat the food there you’ll be trapped forever, and the point is to show the importance of self-control.
It’s also not surprising given that most people are ultimately misogynist, racist, etc., just because the entire culture they inhabit and that formed them is). They are unlikely to read the kinds of nuances that Shaun brings to his analysis of the film, because they probably essentially live minor versions of Caleb’s behaviour on a daily basis. That does also kind of make me like the film though for subtly condemning the character for basically being a well-meaning liberal who can only see injustice in relatively self-serving and individualised terms
I got around to seeing the movie and there was one thing I wanted to point out (even though the thread is old).
it would also probably require he physically take on Nate who the film establishes is a big ass buff dude into MMA and Caleb is a weak nerd so I can see why he probably wanted t avoid that.
The thing I noticed is that immediately after Caleb finds out about the other androids, and Kyoko reveals herself to him, Caleb walks out of an elevator and finds Nathan, very drunk and crawling around on the floor looking for his key card (which Caleb took). There’s ominous music, and the camera emphasizes Caleb standing over him, and it clearly suggests that he’s caught Nathan in a moment of vulnerability and has the opportunity to fight him, but he doesn’t. Instead, he gets down on the ground and pretends to find the card and hands it back to Nathan. We later learn that he has put his own plan into motion, but he passes up that opportunity.
When the androids get free, Ava charges at Nathan, and Kyoko stabs him in the back. They don’t run or try to negotiate, but rather treat it as kill-or-be-killed, because they’re coming at it from a position of being in this vulnerable situation of being the ones getting killed, imprisoned, and sexually assaulted. Caleb, otoh, sees it as bad in the abstract, but he’s never really placed in any danger by Nathan. Even when Nathan catches him plotting to free Ava, he reveals that that was all part of the test, and he seems to fully intend to let him leave and continue working for him.
Come to think of it, the film also mentions the concept of “Mary in the black and white room,” regarding the difference between understanding something abstractly, and actually experiencing it. Ava is able to make rational arguments to get Caleb to agree that what’s happening is wrong, but he doesn’t really seem to appreciate the gravity of the situation. I mean, he wouldn’t even necessarily have to fight, he could’ve just walked past drunk Nathan and gone straight to Ava’s cell with the key card. Instead he asks her to trust his plan, a plan that involves lying to her to throw Nathan off the track, and withholding information about Kyoko.
I do think that we, the audience, are supposed to sympathize with Caleb at the end, and I don’t think Ava is supposed to be heroic. But I think just judging the characters to be good or bad is kind of missing the point. The movie isn’t just saying like, “Fuckboy Tech bros suck,” but rather is asking us to question our assumptions in the same way Ava questions Caleb’s assumptions. In the ending, Caleb watches behind glass as Ava goes about putting on skin and a dress, just going about her life, not thinking about him. Her decision to leave him trapped is almost an afterthought, and she seems to quickly forget about him and go back to living her life. But this is similar to Caleb’s perspective towards Ava when he first arrives, something the audience presumably takes for granted. I would argue that the point of the movie is to get us to examine those taken-for-granted assumptions regarding that premise, and it’s to that end that the movie ends the way it does.
(That was way longer than I meant and I’m not trying to attack your position or anything I just wanted to point out that the bit about the power dynamics being swapped at that one point and the rest flowed from there)
Where is the 8x longer version :biggus-dickus:
Is the movie worth watching? I love my skull man but I’m worried about spoilers if I’m gonna watch it at some point
The movie is very well made. If you like the kind of slow and boring scifi of like the 70s you should certainly watch it. I cant recall how good the politics are but the techbros are not shown in a good light.
I cant recall how good the politics are
Shaun’s commentary in this video shows how the movie is set up to have a different interpretation based on one’s understanding of personhood and emotional/logical autonomy. Seems that most viewers self-inserted as the protaganist and perhaps thought that the main character “deserved” to be with Ava for freeing her. Part of being a socialist is recognizing that Iraqis are people and don’t deserve to be bombed to shit over nothing, that the DPRK and other countries can have their own interests and agenda and shouldn’t be forced to align with imperial powers, and that highly-functioning beings that likely have sentience [androids in this case] probably have their own interests that should be considered, and no individual is the main character.
That’s not to say that a socialist is automatically going to arrive at this interpretation, since the filmmakers threw in a couple clues and left it ambiguous on purpose, but I think a lot of people will have some trouble observing that transition in who the main character is halfway through the movie.
Would I have seen it myself if I watched the movie today? hard to say, but I am sure I wasn’t thinking so hard about it when I saw it like 5 or 6 years ago.
Shaun talking about my favorite movie?! Sometimes things aren’t so bad
I used to watch this movie all the time and I also caught on to Ava enjoying nature for the first time when she escaped. Shaun missed the scene where Kyoko’s just sitting on the floor in the hallway connected to Caleb, Ava’s, and Nathan’s room, seemingly depressed. Just another thing that I always thought confirmed the androids’ sentience and how they understand their predicament.
Can you spell out why she’s depressed so I don’t have to rewatch the movie for context?
She is trapped with Nathan in his compound and he treats her very poorly to put it mildly. She’s also aware of what Nathan can and will probably do to her someday since she sees the android bodies in his room and, if iirc, in one of the scenes Shaun showcased she is eavesdropping on them discussing Ava’s sentience, which can’t be fun to listen, especially considering Nathan robbed her the ability to speak.
I had the movie downloaded and in one of the scenes where she’s eavesdropping it’s during Nathan and Caleb’s conversation on sexuality which ends with Nathan telling Caleb he was programmed by either nature or nurture before cutting to show Kyoko again. The one Shaun showed when she’s on the bed she is in Nathan’s room while he is listening to Ava and Caleb talk during a session. The camera cuts to Kyoko and she opens her eyes immediately as Caleb tells Ava he was there to “test whether you have a conscience or are just simulating one.” I always interpreted the movie as definitely saying the androids are entirely conscience and I think Shaun’s conclusion is even more poignant, with Ava glancing at Kyoko’s body at the end which is positioned to stare at Caleb. Caleb really did just not care about Kyoko at all.
We should watch this on cytube, I haven’t seen it in a few years and it’d be really nice to watch it again and hear everyone’s thoughts on it.
