Quick Buzz Feed
When the scientist proposes creating a robot child who can love, the audience is bound to be asking the obvious question: Is that possible?
The article introduces 'AI: Artificial Intelligence,' a film often linked to Stanley Kubrick and completed by Steven Spielberg, noting its basis in Brian Aldiss's short story 'Super-Toys Last All Summer Long.' Both the film and the story fundamentally question the meaning of 'real,' especially in the context of replicating life and existence, suggesting that the definition itself is often fluid.
The author criticizes the film's dark answer to the question of 'real,' equating it with the value of life. The movie's nihilistic message, though disguised as a technological 'Pinocchio' tale (a concept derived from Kubrick himself), is seen as twisting the moral of the original story, thereby diminishing the inherent value of life.
Set in a 22nd-century world ravaged by melting ice caps and facing strict population control, the film presents a scientist's ambition to create a robot child. This isn't just a mechanical replacement for parents, but one designed with the profound capacity to love, raising immediate ethical and philosophical questions about artificial emotion and companionship.
The author points out that director Steven Spielberg subtly manipulates the narrative to prevent the audience from dwelling on critical questions, such as whether a robot can truly love or merely mimic emotions. This redirection is crucial for the movie's core premise, which, influenced by Kubrick and Aldiss, posits that 'nobody really knows what ‘real’ really means,' making it a quintessential Kubrick work with multiple layers of interpretation.
The first redirection involves presenting love as a purely neurological phenomenon, reducible to neural pathways. The film's writers simplify love as solely residing in the brain, conveniently sidestepping deeper philosophical questions about the soul or genuine emotion, and thus avoiding the complex debate on consciousness and sentience.
The second method involves a subtle switch in terminology. While discussing robot love, the term 'imprint' is introduced, implying a programmed devotion rather than authentic love. This allows the narrative to avoid the profound ethical implications of a robot genuinely loving its owner, presenting a convenient 'bait and switch' to the audience.
The final and most significant redirection is shifting the story's central question from 'Can a robot truly love?' to 'Can a human love the robot back?' This reframes the narrative as a story about prejudice rather than the nature of artificial sentience, aligning with the film's thesis that the definition of 'real' is ambiguous and removing the 'Pinocchio' aspect, making the Turing test almost irrelevant.
The article concludes by arguing that Spielberg's strategy of reframing the core question to one of human prejudice, while aiming to support the film's thesis on the ambiguity of 'real,' ultimately leads to narrative incoherence and detracts from the intended 'Pinocchio' comparison. The author promises further explanation of these issues in upcoming reviews of the film.