Cinema Blind Spots: A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

We all have films we really, really want to see, but many of them never make it from our Blu-ray shelves to the television, and simply remain on a list for years. As an aspiring film historian, I have read so much about, and seen so many signature scenes from, several important films that, honestly, I sometimes forget to actually watch them from beginning to end. And in other cases, there are pop-culture hits that I have yet to make a priority. So I have decided to use this column as motivation to check off many of the titles I’ve wanted to see for so long. These are my Cinema Blind Spots.

For my second blind spot, I wanted to look at sci-fi movies in preparation for Alex Garland’s upcoming film, “Ex Machina.” With that in mind, and after scanning my long list, Steven Spielberg’s “A.I. Artificial Intelligence” (2001) seemed surprisingly appropriate. I had heard so much about “A.I.” – some good, some bad – that I figured it was about time I saw Spielberg’s take on Stanley Kubrick’s unfinished, futuristic Pinocchio story.

In the early 1970s, Kubrick began developing a sci-fi picture based on a short story by Brian Aldiss titled “Super-Toys Last All Summer Long.” Kubrick hired Aldiss to write the film treatment and began putting together a much-needed dream team to get this film underway. After many years of development, Kubrick fired Aldiss in 1989 due to creative differences, which, knowing about Kubrick, isn't surprising. He went through two more writers over the next year before landing Ian Watson, Aldiss's longtime nemesis. As the story goes, Kubrick handed Watson a copy of “The Adventures of Pinocchio” in order to give the writer a direction and context in which to move forward.

In 1991, Watson handed Kubrick a 90-page treatment only to see the director shelve the project, as he felt visual-effects technology had not yet caught up to his vision. A few years later, after nearly two decades in development hell, it was none other than “Jurassic Park” (1993) that gave Kubrick hope for “A.I.” Christopher Baker came on as concept artist, and Chris Cunningham took the role of effects supervisor. The film was beginning to put itself together, but Kubrick still wasn’t happy.

After Kubrick had once talked to his close friend Spielberg about producing the film, he later attempted to pass the film on to Spielberg in 1995, thinking maybe the subject matter would better fit his style and tone. However, Spielberg convinced Kubrick to stay on as director, with plans for Warner Brothers to co-finance and handle domestic distribution while DreamWorks would handle international distribution. Yet the film was again put on hold, due to Kubrick turning his focus to “Eyes Wide Shut” (1999). Sadly, Kubrick died prior to the release of "Eyes," his last film, and “A.I.” seemed to be a lost cause much like Kubrick’s other inevitably great unfinished work, a biopic based on the life of Napoleon Bonaparte. Following Kubrick’s death, his widow, Christiane, and her brother, Jan Harlan, approached Spielberg and asked him to complete the film. He agreed.

Spielberg rewrote Watson’s 90-page treatment and created “A.I. Artificial Intelligence” as we know it today. It ended up being a film about a young, one-of-a-kind “mecha” robot burdened with obsessive dreams of becoming a real boy – which explains all of the Pinocchio references. Created by Professor Hobby (William Hurt) of the Cybertronics Corporation, he was given to a family as a test run in order to see if the "mecha" boy could truly and unconditionally love. The film has many ups and downs, and ultimately follows the young "mecha," David (Haley Joel Osment), as he ventures into unknown territory in search of the “blue fairy.” And honestly, it’s a pretty cool flick!

Osment is really good here, which is no surprise because as a young up-and-comer around the new millennium, he had a way of outshining all of his pre-adolescent competition. His character of David is exaggerated when needed in order to emphasize the fact that he’s not human while simultaneously remaining subtle overall. David embodies the deeper themes of the film surrounding the question of what it means to be human.

Jude Law plays Gigolo Joe, a male prostitute “mecha” who, through a series of unfortunate events, leads David through the real, dangerous world of the late 21st century. Law is good, but I think his character is written strangely at times and it doesn’t always work. But he pulls it off as well as he can. Another surprise is Hurt. I’m a big fan of his, but he gets little screen time here, and I found those few moments mesmerizing. Hurt knows how to control a screen, and that ability is exhibited here.

Other familiar faces appear, such as Brendan Gleeson and Frances O'Connor. Gleeson is Lord Johnson-Johnson, a "mecha" snatcher. Once he captures the robots, he forces them to perform in his sadistic circus, which always results in dismembered "mecha" corpses. O'Connor plays Monica, David's adopted, human mother. She's good as well, but has a bad case of melodrama. At times she is perfect, and other times I begged for recasting. Luckily, she quickly becomes a part of David's past, thus left tucked away in his memory bank. And although their faces are not visible, there are some notable celebrities that provide some voice work, including Robin Williams, Chris Rock, Meryl Streep and Ben Kingsley.

Spielberg handles his actors with care, resulting in mostly effective performances and moody expressions. However, Spielberg’s true strengths in “A.I.” lie within his balance of style and blend of special effects. He was able to keep Kubrick’s cynical vision while making it his own; imagine seeing a Kubrick film through a Spielberg lens, so to speak (and quite literally, actually). The film is dark, but warm and emotional at times, which helps elevate the project to new heights. And the blend of practical and CGI special effects is really … awesome! The CGI holds up pretty well, and the practical effects add a tangible component to “A.I.” that, without which, it would be undoubtedly lost. I’m not a big CGI fan, personally, but it's used appropriately here — some for spectacle, some for mood, all with purpose. Spielberg shot the entire film on a soundstage, and knowing that gives the film an added component of surrealism. As a whole, the vision is impressive.

So does the film hold up today? I believe so. But is it perfect? Absolutely not. The story is a little loose, opting for unnecessary moments to keep the audience’s attention. Sadly, whole scenes could be thrown away with few to no changes. Furthermore, although the end is interesting, it would have been in better hands with Kubrick. Spielberg’s tone leaks through a bit too much for me, and with an ending that deals with heavy, powerful themes related to existentialism, love, death, humanity and the like, it just doesn't pay off quite as well as its set up had promised.

Kubrick is my favorite filmmaker of all time. That alone was enough of a reason for me to make “A.I.” an immediate priority. The fact that Spielberg is able to balance Kubrick’s vision with his own style is not only impressive, but admirable. As stated above, “A.I.” is not perfect, and for many Spielberg fans it may seem long-winded and slow. However, it’s definitely worth a watch, which is why I recommend it. With a good soundtrack, appropriate special effects and a lot of heart, "A.I." is an early, post-millennial gem in many ways. Whether watching it for the first time or seeing it again, take the opportunity to gain a new perspective and enjoy it!

Next week, I will talk about Guy Maddin’s “My Winnipeg” (2007). Feel free to get caught up and let us know your thoughts on “A.I.”, “My Winnipeg”, or movies you would like to see me check off the list in the comments below.

Check out my last Blind Spot: Bullitt (1968)