Reviews

I'm concerned both about the people who love this movie as well as the people who hate it. Either way I think Friedkin should be satisfied because ultimately he achieves his stated goal (DVD commentary); he gets us talking about the issues and moral questions the film touches upon. His intention is not to meld our views to his. Some of the more interesting issues follow:

Does the U.S. have a moral obligation to sacrifice its military members when not to do so would mean war for the U.S. and more killing? (Utilitarian dilemma)

What is the nature of the obligation that our nation's politicians have toward our military members? Should we underwrite their mistakes or hang them out to dry? Abandon them, like we did subsequent to Viet Nam? Underwrite their questionable deeds the way we did in Somalia?

What is the nature of men in arm's moral responsibility when under fire? Can we civilians hold military men morally culpable for crimes committed, with the best of intentions, in the heat of battle? Is there something here that military men understand, yet civilians do not? Is it always as simple as establishing a set of rules?

Why does Islamic world seem to hate the U.S.? Are there radical factions that plot against us? Who would take advantage of an incident to turn a friendly country into one that hates the U.S. by plotting to 1) Stage a peaceful demonstration 2) Make sure the security cameras record a peaceful situation, then blow out the cameras and provoke the Americans to kill a crowd that is firing against them? This seems far fetched, but it's the standard terrorist modus operandi, e.g., Shining Path in Peru.

Finally, many have criticized plot holes that simply are not there if one thinks the situations through. The politicians motive, the engagement of the crowd, the importance of the flag, the lack of witnesses, the Viet Namese Colonel's salute, why Jackson's character chooses Lee to defend him, the friends at the farewell, Jackson's character standing up while warning the rest of snipers: all have plausible explanations. See the movie with some friends and discuss.

Thinking about the ideas in this movie could make a better future for human beings. Essentially, this movie resonates the themes in Philip K. Dick's writing about what it is to be a human being, and in current thinking about the future for human beings in the face of quantum leaps in technology (Kurtzweil's THE AGE OF SPIRITUAL MACHINES-- read this if you don't understand how machines could evolve). What is love? Human purpose? Fulfillment? A life well lived? Does begetting children make us immortal beings. Is creativity the human essence? Etc.

A.I. is an updated BLADERUNNER really-- in mood and motif, and character especially. It will have the same following that that movie did, despite its flaws. Bladerunner, plot holes and all, has become part of the cultural and philosophical landscape. A.I. will too for people who are thinking not only about what the future will bring, but about what brings meaning to life in today's technological age.

It's very "hip" but wrong to suggest that the ending should be emended because the public should simply face up to what the future holds a la Clockwork. Clockwork's book ending was left out for different reasons altogether than "it was too happy". Shining, 2001, Eyes Wide Shut have hopeful resolutions. (Spoiler below)

Indeed, I find AIs resolution, the notion of an end to humanity not very happy at all, even though I can recognize the genuine hopeful intentions of the ending. I think what the multiple endings gets us is a preview of how our future could work itself out. Spielberg's treatment is brilliant. Let me demonstrate. Ending (1) We simply take an experimental viewpoint of this A.I.'s life by having another meeting-complete with a now mental demonstration of David's pain. The callback here being when Dr. X demonstrated how a pinprick damaged, but didn't hurt the subject. And Joe's speech about loving what the machines do for human beings, not the machine's themselves. Callback also to Teddy's characteristics (2) The lifeless puppet, devoid of hope tips himself into the abyss. Ah, he is human after all. Is this what it is to be a human being? To give in? (3) We really grind up the audiences' emotions by showing what a fairytale it is to believe in anything silly, like achieving a dream. (4) We'll focus on what it is to be a human being, through the eyes of a naive created intelligence.

What's the best ending?

I'll now take my disagreements about the worth of this movie to Yahoo.

Possible Spoilers

There were some masterful moments in this film and the film asks us to entertain certain pertinent questions about the morality and conduct of war.

Still, I thought that the characters were too one dimensional, especially the "evil" generals. This film went overboard in reinforcing the stereotype of the uncaring officer whose out of touch with the dog-faced soldier he is ordering into battle. Rather than depict a true moral dilemma the screenwriters flinched and made evil people the scapegoat for the "necessities of war". If the practices of directing futile orders and of making examples out of innocent soldiers is allowed by the French people and politicians, then they cannot blame the generals for carrying out those practices. We should not blame the generals for acting in accordance with the established procedures.

Also, the battle scenes were unconvincing to me. Directors like Speilberg and Malick know that it's more effective to shoot battle footage from more than one point of view. The viewer needs to see not only what the attackers are seeing, but what the defenders are seeing as they mow down those coming at them. The fact that the camera followed our hero's profile across the battlefield with those around him slumping over now and again did little to portray the violence of a frontal attack.

The film did make some daring choices. For instance, it does not sugar coat the execution scenes or the fact that innocents sometimes die, but I hoped for a film that more adequately reflected the moral confusion in war, as opposed the the absolute injustice in it.