COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER
Subject: AI_Artificial_Intelligence
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001
From: SSB

This modern day Pinocchio retelling could have been a lot better had Kubrick been alive to finish off his ideas. The thought that Speilberg would stay true to the idea is non-sensical because we all bring our own thought and ideas into everything that we do. As a religious person, I see this movie as an affront to God, whereas man tries to become like God by trying to create life. The good doctor keeps trying to create a better robot (man), science won't let a person die (freezing ill patients) and the search for the blue fairy who is supposed to grant life (God). Even the "alien" creatures toward the end of the movie, who can basically bring the dead back to life, if even for just one day.

I especially did not like the morality of this movie. It teaches that we should hate anything not like us, except children. The robots are caged and brutalized for the entertainment of the masses, just like different societies have been since the dawn of man, from Roman times up through slavery of the African peoples. We'll hunt you, enslave you, torture you, all for our joy! What kind of message is this?

Also taught - When you get tired of something, say a family pet, take it into the woods and leave it there, without any notion of how to survive in the wild. Either that or get it euthanized (or disassembled as in the fllick).

Remember, if you pray hard and long enough to a plaster statue of a fairy tale creature (say, 2,000 years), a "Close Encounter" creature will return and reamimate the dead for you...

LEFT ME UNSATISFIED
Subject: AI_Artificial_Intelligence
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001
From: Darrel Manson

I'm one of those who wasn't as thrilled with AI as I'd hoped to be. Not because I expected it to be cute, but because at the end it tried to be. I might have liked it better to end with the Sartean Hell of constant unfulfilled hope at the bottom of the sea. It would at least have been thought provoking and something I could fight with. In stead he gets his moment of heaven and then is ready to dream for eternity. Better films dealing with what it means to be human are The Truman Show and even the somewhat light-weight Bicentennial Man.
-- Darrel Manson
><>Artesia Christian Church ICQ 5624184 ><>Artesia, CA http://netministries.org/see/churches/ch01198
First they ignore you
Then they laugh at you
Then they fight you
Then you win
-Gandhi

BEYOND THE BLUE FAIRY
Subject: AI AI_Artificial_Intelligence
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001
From: Dotcom

This film is simply a re-telling of the story of Pinocchio. It goes beyond the obvious references of the Blue Fairy. Consider the bear (Jiminy Cricket), being captured for money, caged and in show business (the lure for Pinocchio), going to Rouge City (Pleasure Island), searching underwater for the Blue Fairy (searching for Geppetto/the whale). I watched the cartoon the same day as the movie, and couldn't believe the parallelism. What a disappointment. (This is the second time Spielberg has retold a classic. His Jurassic Park 2 was a re-telling of King Kong. It had no resemblance to the book.)
Dotcom

USE OF THE TULIP
Subject: AI AI_Artificial_Intelligence
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001
From: Mike Parnell

David, I have been wondering about the choice of words to imprint David to Monica. The one that jumped out at me is tulip. The word tulip is a an acrostic for Calvinist theology. The letter T represents total depravity. The letter U represents unconditional election. The L represents limited atonement, while the I signifies irresistible grace. The P symbolizes the perseverance of the saints.

How this relates is that the humans in the film are all caught in their totally depraved mind. This phrase does not mean what many hold that it does. According to John H. Leith, the phrase means that humans are blinded by sin. The humans in the film are blinded by the sin of hatred toward the mechas because they would endure even after the humans were gone. This truth is evident by the ending with the advanced mechas finding David. The idea of unconditional election means that those who are the elect are those who are redeemed. Redemption comes in the form of the re-creation of Monica. Monica is re-created and freed from her grief, which is sin that blinds her from the love of David. The limited atonement speaks to the limit of redemption only for the elect. Those who are chosen to be re-created are those who are elected. The irresistible grace means that the unconditional love of Christ cannot be ignored. David holds that unconditional love and it is so great that Monica cannot ignore it. The perseverance of the saints is the belief that those who are elected are responsible for their actions after election takes place. In other words, fulfillment of their task is the role of those who are elected. Monica's task was to love David. Here blindness to that, because of grief, kept her from fulfilling her role. The love of David, which is agape, speaks of her unconditional election. David loves her unconditionally and her choice as Mommy is an unconditional choice. The love of David is limited to her. David does not love Henry in the same fashion that he loves Monica. David loves Monica and that love is irresistible. His love cannot be stopped. In the end, Monica achieves her purpose. She perseveres to the end and does declare to David her love.

It may be that the film is speaking more about the redemption of Monica than it is in the fulfillment of David. David is the means in which redemption is offered to Monica. His love brings her to the point of being able to be free of her grief over Martin's illness. The wound of the illness, and near death, acts to blind her. She only sees David through the eyes of being a wounded person. The lens she views David is always the distorted lens of Martin. Martin proves his true colors by the way he treats David. When the grief of Martin's illness is gone, then the distorted lens is gone. David is seen for what he is: a person who loves and longs for the return of love. David, you don't know how much I am grateful for what you do in your ministry. Just to be able to take a few minutes and write some rambling thoughts about a film is one of the great gifts that you provide for me. Thanks and may God continue to use you to spread his message to the world.
Mike Parnell

CRIED SEVERAL TIMES
Subject: AI AI_Artificial_Intelligence
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001
From: Paul

Although not a particularly effusive person, I came close to crying several times in this film and again when reading your wonderful analysis.

This film has many precendents and influences: D.A.R.Y.L. is also about a child-robot who not only wants to be a real boy, but in his case believes that he is, and is devastated to learn otherwise. But A.I. (no offence to Barret Oliver, who played Daryl beautifully) is an altogether deeper and more sophisticated treatment of this theme.

There are remarkable precedents also in Blade Runner, about life between mostly degraded humans and sentient, sometimes rebellious androids in a terrifying, decadent future American metropolis. In both Blade Runner and A.I., an android meets his human maker personally and is disappointed. Is this future (followed, as in A.I., by extinction of our species) what the human race is heading for? Don't trust an overoptimistic assumption if you arrived too late to see your local cinema's own previews of coming attractions. This film is a cult classic, and by following so closely in its footsteps Spielberg et al. have much to live up to. I think they contributed worthily to the same themes and genre.

A memorable sermon by one of my favorite clergymen almost twenty years ago contrasted this film, in which robots aspire to human status, with "The Stepford Wives", in which humans are forced to become robots. If you think that perceiving the humanity and worthiness of those who are different might not be the will of God, the latter film's contemplation of the consequences of doing the reverse might clarify the picture.

One of the most moving episodes of AI occurred at the end, in which David was allowed to live (or re-live) a single day with his mother, and found it rich enough to satisfy all the aspirations that had driven him literally for millennia, also opening the audience's eyes to the preciousness of life and relationships. Thornton Wilder had proffered such a scenario to very edifying effect in his drama "Our Town." It says something about the value of our "threescore years and ten" set against an eternal destiny.

David, our host, you are too humble. You should have been the first to point out the meaning of the name you share with the film's hero. It means "beloved." How ironic that name became during the course of the film! I agree with the contributor who said that intelligent children should not be kept from seeing it. It was the behavior of David's young peers toward him, who was made simply to love and be loved, that spoiled everything for him. This happens every day among children themselves when they don't think.

IT GOT TO ME
Subject: AI AI_Artificial_Intelligence
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001
From: David Morrissey

Even though the story seemed to fade towards the end, I still enjoyed AI very much and (as all great movies do) it got me to think. The most amazing thing about the movie was how it looked. Even if you hated the story, you couldn't deny that Speilberg did an excellent job of making the screen look magical. Beyond that, I thought the story did a couple things to expand my imagination.

First of all, the movie, because it takes place far in the future and goes even farther by the end, it really expanded my belief of how big God really is. I was truly humbled when I realized that God is so much bigger than my life, than David's life, and than the years and years that pass in the story.

The second reason I liked it is because of how real and personal it made our quest (as humans) for "higher meaning". Joe and David even bring it up in the movie. I thought it amazing that even as a robot, David's only goal was unconditional love. The thought of that made God's gift of grace also so much more amazing.

AI is a great movie for anyone who enjoys sci-fi and a great discussion starter too.
David Morrissey
Youth Pastor
Waukeenah, FL

DIDN'T CARE MUCH FOR THE MOVIE
Subject: AI_Artificial_Intelligence
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001
From: "Daniel Baer"

Dear David, This letter is my two cents worth regarding A.I.

In a nutshell, I didn't much care for the movie. "In-this-world" science fiction (as opposed to fantasy science fiction) should have the feel of plausibility to it. A.I. stumbles on this count in various ways.

For example, the emotion/logic dichotomy introduced in the film--wherein the old-style robots have logical minds but not emotional ones--seems artificial. Scientists who are studying A.I. know that if a machine were to develop consciousness it would have to be of quite a different quality than the "deep blue" machines which play chess so well. Deep-blue type machines are logical but have no consciousness. Humans who play chess well (and lets not forget that grand masters still more often than not beat the chess machines) solve chess problems in an entirely different manner from that of the deep-blue type machine. Deep blues "think" through billions of possibilities; humans seem to leap over most and concentrate on those relatively few possibilities which show the most promise (this is called solving the framework problem). Merely increasing a computer's speed or the number of possibilities which it can think of per second will not bring about consciousness. Spielberg, though, seems to believe the idea that conscious-attaining machines will follow after some point in the progression of computers of today--that is, after they have attained a certain amount of computational power. Hence, he arrives at the conclusion that these first machines will be logical but not emotional. Also, even if machines were to have logical but not emotional consciousness--it is doubtful that such machines would do humans much good in their day-to-day tasks. An analogous situation is the genie who keeps on getting the wishes wrong of his master--because he doesn't understand his master's intent. A computer without emotion would be extremely user-unfriendly because it would have no idea of what its master's intent was unless its master expressed this intent in an extremely cumbersome, technical jargon (i.e., computer programmer's jargon).

Other problems: How is it that Monica can be resurrected for one day only? In the hard sciences, constants generally are vanishingly small or of astronomical proportions (think Avogadro's number). The idea that there exists a constant in the space-time continuum of "from sun-up to sun-down" somehow rings on the contrived side.

Also, if David imprinted onto Monica, why couldn't the robots of 2,000 years into the future simply create a simulation of Monica which would make David happy? Obviously David didn't imprint onto Monica's personality--the imprinting process occurred only after Monica said five words--therefore, the imprinting must have involved Monica's looks, her voice, or her handprint (she was holding David behind the neck). These things could easily be duplicated by the futuristic robots (with or without a strand of hair).

Also, why do Professor Hobby's speeches to David just so happen to explain so much and also advance the plot along. Again, things seem contrived. I found it difficult to believe that the speeches just happened as opposed to being "set up" by Spielberg to move the story to the next plot point. Also, what about the manner in which David's memories show up on the futuristic robots' faces? Never mind that today we have computers which have screens that fit right in front of one's eyes--2,000 years in the future they'll still have full-facial screens. This wouldn't have anything to do with Spielberg attempting to "show not tell" something, would it?
Sincerely, Daniel Baer

THOUGHTS
Subject: ai AI_Artificial_Intelligence
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001
From: Ken Tunnell

Greetings David,
I've been visiting your website for years now and thank you for the work. Our views on Christianity and movies are generally similar (to give you a real quick sketch of where I'm coming from I'll use our common language and tell you my five favorite films - The Matrix; BladeRunner; Chariots of Fire; MP's Holy Grail & Life of Brian and I trust The Lord of the Rings Trilogy will usurp something from this list); but, we are far apart on AI. I left the theater feeling the film had several serious flaws - and upon further reflection have divided these into plot and message.

First, the more mundane area of plot. That the father would be so involved in the beginning and then fade away for no apparent reason was troublesome. I found it quite odd that the mother would imprint alone - I saw this as a spiritual scene also, but more reminiscent of Eve's Temptation and Fall in wanting to be like God (by creating a being to love her outside of the natural order). Interesting that in the Fall story, Eve is also alone (some have indicated that this reveals the male's primary sin of disattachment, of not engaging - but that's a different topic all together). And again at the abandonement, father is remote and absent. The death of Joe's regular customer just seems a quick and dirty method to move Joe into the escape story (OK, so Moses killed and that's why he fled too - but in the film it just seems to come out of nowhere, better to have Joe kill a human who was abusing someone). At the Flesh Fair I saw the turning of the audience against the "prophet" as utterly unrealistic - if these were truly rebelling against artificiality, then David should have been the epitomy of anethema. That he escapes so easily does not ring true (as for the baby Jesus imagery, it would have been much more true to have him pursued - Herod certainly did). It is the triumph of appearance over substance, but I'm getting into the message part. So, they find the place where the lions weep in a wasteland, but lo, this is a highly sophicticated assembly plant for mechas. Where's the infrastructure? Who in their right mind would do this here? The Cain/Abel scene seemed gratuitous and just furthered ambivalent feelings towards David. If the creator wanted him to come home (seemingly of his own free will - "we gave you just enough information"), why did they just let him escape? Where did they go? It seemed inevitable that we would have the creator/being conflict ala Frankenstien or BladeRunner. But no, the creator just disappears. How can spinach totally inactivate him but freezing salt water is no problem? Why do the cops show up and only take Joe? What the heck does he mean by saying "I AM, I WAS" as he ascends? Is Joe the Christ figure, leaving David to sort it all out? I just found myself repeatedly thinking, this makes no sense. Yes, it's a fairy tale, but they especially need to make sense on the mundane level or the message is further diluted.

Hmm, quite a rant it seems. Now on to the message part. In the beginning scene, a colleague of the creator asks if this is an ethical issue, and they all seem to be amused by it - as if some reference to the world being flat has just been made. So, David is set out for a test run by the creator - with seemingly little preparation for the real world and no further guidance by the creator. It seems that all you need is love. David is cast out of his own garden of Eden and left to make his way in the fallen world. To help him we get two creatures who are admittedly less than he is. He finds his creator only to realize that David's purpose is to be just a cog in the industrial machine (he is not unique) so it's escape once more. He prays to his God for two thousand years and when he finally gets to touch his God archetype, it is hollow and crumbles. So, he settles for the appearance, the facsimile of his Garden of Eden, his paradise. The triumph of appearance over substance. This film left me with a very hopeless materialism - and if God or anything supernatural exists it is either uninvolved or just in it for fun and profit (I wonder if this is why the creato's name is "Hobby").

I agree that the film is technically a treat, but I found the plot devices to be very weak and the message quite in contrast to the Christian worldview. In your review, you state that, "Again, in a very real sense, the film is about the search for true humanity, love and God." If this is so, then the film would seem to say, none of it exists - so the best you can do is just settle for your own little dream. Realize that this is a quick lunch-break review, so if there's anything that doesn't make sense or seems undeveloped, please ask me to clarify.
Under The Mercy,
Ken Tunnell

SEEING WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE
Subject: AI_Artificial_Intelligence
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001
From: "Traci"

I am surprised that there are so many christians who don't recognize something bad when they see it. Now I like movies as much as the next person maybe a little more. I like Sci-Fi best of all. I wait and wait for the next good one to come out. I am not in a rush to like them all though. You have to be espectially discriminating when it comes to S. F. Don't be fooled by the good feeling generated by this movie. It is full of hatred of the human race as a whole. The humans are the bad guys in this movie and the only enlightened and good beings are artificial intelligence or aliens. I knew from the first few lines of the movie what I was in for. Humans had destroyed the earth and caused the polar ice caps to melt. Humans were only out for what they could get and on there way to decimating themselves which we saw happened soon enough in the movie. They were nearly all selfish, mean, and violent.

Response: Actually Traci, there is a great devotion toward humans at the end of the film and a real search for true humanity and human value throughout the entire film. To miss this is to miss the intent of the film. There is a cautionary note about the harmful exploits of humanity toward the environment, but this should not be read as hatred for humanity.

In terms of humanity, according to the Bible, "all have sinned... there are none righteous." It is human rebellion that brings the apocalypse (as in the movie). The Bible also teaches that God's wrath will be poured out on humanity. Do you see the Bible as filled with "hatred of the human race" because of these statements? By the way Traci, there are no aliens in the film. Those "aliens" represent the works of humanity. According to scriptures, after the "end of the world" (as in the movie) humanity will be judged by their works (as in the movie). Spielberg personifies our works as Mechas. I think, Traci, you are confusing your political views with biblical teaching. -David

HOPE
Subject: AI_Artificial_Intelligence
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001
From: Mark

Paul said, "The key to a righteous life is to believe in hope." David was the only character to have hope, and hope in something more powerful than man or machine. And he was rewarded." A wonderful film.

PROFOUND SPIRITUALITY IN UNLIKELY PLACES
Subject: AI_Artificial_Intelligence
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001
From: Michael Franz

While other "Christian" reviewers seem to do nothing but complain about the number of "f"-words in a movie, you always seem to find profound spiritual meaning in the most unlikely of places. It's people like you that restore my faith, not just in God, but in humanity. There's a review of AI from another Christian site that is much like your own. I think you might find it interesting. It's at http://promontoryartists.org/lookingcloser/ai.htm. I've never seen such a comprehensive and deep look at ANY movie before.
Check it out!
Michael Franz
rick_summon@yahoo.com

Response: Thanks for the good words.

LOVED IT!
Subject: AI
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001
From: "Hiawatha Bray"

The bad reviews for this movie leave me mystified. I think it's the best SF film in years, and one of the best movies Spielberg has ever made.
Hiawatha Bray
Technology Reporter
Boston Globe

Response: Absolutely. This is an amazing film. Critics should take a second look at this important film. There is nothing else like it. -David

THE POWER TO LOVE
Subject: AI Artificial Intelligence
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001
From: Mike

AI is a true masterpiece. It has caused me to think in ways few movies have in the last few years. Spielberg has outdone himself and given us an understanding of what it means to be an abused child. The story of David's journey is a mirror of those who have been abused and yet still hold on to the belief that there is love that can be given that will redeem and renew and fulfill. There is such yearning in all the characters of the film that I was breathless when I left the theater.

What I witnessed is the power of unrequited love and that love can move, even a machine, to strive to see filling of the emptiness that is in all of us. From Monica, the mother, to Dr. Hobby, David's maker, to David, we see people trying to find a fulfillment of self, a move toward self-actualization. This self-actualization is not found within, but without. There is no completion of life until love that is given and received makes us complete. I was taken by David's determination to see the dream of the "Blue Fairy" realized. His dream is to become real in order to give the love that will make him complete and make Monica complete. He becomes human because he loves and love is what drives him. At the Flesh Fair, we see how love overcomes the human hate of that which the humans made (the mechas) that lives on beyond ourselves. Love is the factor that makes us human. For without love we are nothing more than robots that strut and fret our hour upon the stage and then are gone. Love is what makes the vapor of life, that James talks about, meaningful.

Humanity is flawed at its core, but is redeemed by the yearning to love that motivates us all. Without this yearning we lose sight of what is the purpose of life. God is love and created us to love him. We love others and that love is a reflection of the love of God.

I know that what I write sounds like rambling, but I truly was moved to the point of tears by this film. Let me say one word in closing. I was listening to NPR this morning. Scott Simon was interviewing a nun who had been tortured in her service to Christ and the church. He asked her where was God during the time of her torture. The nun replied that her God went into the place of torture, but died during the time of her captivity. When I heard that I shed tears of shame of how humans that can be so inhuman. Those who tortured this servant of Christ were able to be so devoid of love that they destroyed the relationship between this nun and God. The power of love is so great that when someone is deprived of it that it can cause them to lose sight of the greater lover of all and make them believe that the love is gone out of the world.

Thanks to Steven Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick for reminding me that the power of love (agape love) is what makes me human and thanks to the story of that tortured nun that reminded me that when we are so unloving we can kill the God of a servant of Christ.

Page 1- Review
Page 1a -Reviews continued. Bulletin Board
Page 1b -Bulletin board continued
Page 2- Spielberg's Homage to Kubrick
Page 3- The 30 Year Journey to the Screen
Page 4- Production of an Intelligent Adult Fairy Tale