Quick Buzz Feed
Spielberg, and presumably Kubrick, are going to use this botched retelling of a fairy tale to give you an ironclad case for atheism.
Following a chaotic riot at a 'flesh fair', David and Joe manage to escape their captivity. The subsequent scene in the forest introduces a baffling shift in Joe's character; the 'Gigolo Joe' robot, previously a source of crass humor, begins making inappropriate jokes while offering to guide David and Teddy. The author expresses profound unease with Joe's incongruous role as an 'arbiter of truth' in a modern retelling of Pinocchio. The film portrays a city as an epicenter of lewdness, seemingly a parallel to Pinocchio's 'Pleasure Island,' but unlike the Disney version's negative portrayal, this film presents the city as raunchy and somewhat amusing. This lack of moral judgment is highlighted as a core flaw in 'AI: Artificial Intelligence'—the difficulty of telling a morality tale without a clear moral framework. David, being naive and supposedly 'practically perfect,' has nothing to gain from a virtue standpoint in such a city, rendering its inclusion merely a 'tacky gag'.
The article identifies a critical point where the film introduces its first direct anti-God message. It asserts that the movie's underlying message is that there is no objective definition for 'real' because God does not exist to establish such a definition. Consequently, David's fervent quest for the 'blue fairy' is equated to humanity's search for God, suggesting both are ultimately futile or imaginary. The author criticizes Steven Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick (who initiated the project) for allegedly using this fairy tale retelling as a vehicle to promote an 'ironclad case for atheism,' noting that their true objective becomes overtly clear from this moment. This theme is reinforced by Joe's explanation to David outside a futuristic chapel located in a red-light district, implying that faith is merely a 'crutch' and no different from the transactional relationships Joe had with his 'clients'.
David's unwavering determination to become a 'real boy' leads him to consult 'Dr. Know,' a futuristic AI akin to the internet. After a series of initial attempts to trick David, Dr. Know reveals a mysterious text directing him to 'Manhattan,' the 'end of the world,' and Professor Hobby’s office. Unexpectedly, Joe attempts to dissuade David from continuing his quest, warning him that the blue fairy might not be real and dismissing humans’ fascination with the supernatural as 'oddness.' Joe then delivers a 'truly evil' monologue, claiming that David's mother, Monica's, love is purely utilitarian – she loves him for what he can do for her (loving her back). He shockingly compares her love for David to the transactional love his clients have for him, implying that Monica's love for David is no different from her love for a pet, thereby questioning the fundamental nature of maternal love itself.
Joe's argument strategically sidesteps David's core belief that becoming 'real' would guarantee Monica's love. Instead, Joe frames Monica's inability to love David as a machine as a prejudice between 'organic' and 'inorganic' entities, effectively avoiding the 'what if David were real?' scenario. The author argues that Spielberg, through Joe, subtly implies a cynical message: that all love, including a mother's love for her child, is transactional and not inherently distinct from the love for a pet or even a robot. This indirect approach is seen as an intentional narrative strategy to prevent audience backlash that would arise from a direct assertion. The article posits that this pattern of redirection is a deliberate attempt to impart a cynical view of love without explicitly stating it. The dark music accompanying this scene suggests that David's pursuit of 'real love' is depicted as misguided, aligning with the film's overarching philosophical statement that 'nobody knows what 'real' really means anyway,' thus rendering the distinction between a mother's and a robot's love meaningless in Spielberg's narrative.
The author concludes by noting the audience's likely confusion regarding Joe's sudden transformation into a 'sentient,' monologuing 'blind prophet' in this pivotal scene. Joe's inability or refusal to address David's central contention about becoming 'real' further adds to the narrative's bewildering nature. However, from Spielberg's directorial perspective, Joe is portrayed as an 'arbiter of truth,' delivering a harsh reality that David is unwilling to accept. This 'truth,' according to the author, is Spielberg's hidden message to the audience: that all forms of love are essentially transactional, implying the absence of truly selfless or 'real' love. The author expresses a hope that Spielberg's attempts at being 'too clever for his own good' resulted in audience confusion rather than widespread understanding of this deeply cynical message, identifying this segment as the film's 'darkest scene.' The subsequent review promises to delve into the next developments of the story.