Saturday, June 30, 2001
Watching A.I.
Erika and Vanessa have headed up north to Deloro for the long weekend, giving me the golden opportunity to catch up on some recent movies. After running a few errands (posting copies of the party invitations, posting the copies of the family history to Aunt Audrey and my Mother, dropping off the video of Pleasantville) I went to see a matinee of Spielberg's latest movie: A.I..
The reviews I'd read up until that point lead me to believe that he cops out at the ending, but I was surprised at just how dark a film this actually is. Yes, yes, Spielberg being Spielberg he does have a special way of dealing with themes involving children -- perhaps it was this that led Kubrick (the press would make it seem as if this film was as much Kubrick's as Spielberg's, whereas I suspect it to be the opposite) to hand over the script to him. This is not a heavy-handed film -- for while I hated Close Encounters and E.T. for their far-too-obvious pulling at the heart-strings, this film sustains a dark mood pretty much throughout. Those who hate Spielberg films and those that love them will find plenty of supporting material for their arguments in this film -- but I think this will ultimately be seen as one of his better films to date.
A good ensemble cast, an effective score by John Williams, wonderfully realized special effects -- but ultimately everything hangs upon the story. And the story is a good one. It is based upon a story originally by Brian Aldiss, though from what I remember of Aldiss' writing, I suspect that the story owes any emotional depth more to the essential story of Pinocchio than whatever Aldiss had written. This story is essentially that of Pinocchio taken to the nth degree. Having said that, this helps to explain the ending of the film -- the one that everyone seems to hate. Ultimately I have to agree with those critics and say that it would have been a better, more genuine story if the wish that the protagonist had asked for went unfulfilled. How much more like real life it would have been, knowing that sometimes the answer to one's prayers is "no". While the ending may have been more in keeping with the story of Pinocchio, it is ultimately less satisfying for the same reason. But what comes before it is well played out and sustained, and I was genuinely moved at times (though I suspect being a Father makes me much more susceptible to stories involving children in peril).
It's funny, I have been looking over the many reviews of the film on the IMDB, and there are plenty of mentions of Spielberg's E.T. and Kubrick's 2001, and yet to my way of thinking it has more in common with Spielberg's own Empire of the Sun (which I think is a better film than most people give credit to -- though I remember the acting of Christian Bale as wooden) in both mood and story. Both feature a child abandoned, a child alone. In Empire, the child grows up. In A.I., he can't, ultimately lending more pathos to the story. Also, I can't help thinking that Spielberg must like the imagery of collapsing Ferris Wheels.
Oh yeah, this is not a story for children.
Speaking of magic, in the 15 minute prelude of ads and coming attractions (or should that be "repulsions"?) prior to the start of the movie, they had a trailer for the Harry Potter film. I've enjoyed the stories, and was pleased to see that it looks as though it will be well worth seeing -- in fact it was the only movie out of the bunch they previewed that I had any interest in going to. It does not seem dumbed-down, and it looks like the casting is a good -- in particular I am looking forward to seeing as Alan Rickman as Professor Snide.
Erika and Vanessa have headed up north to Deloro for the long weekend, giving me the golden opportunity to catch up on some recent movies. After running a few errands (posting copies of the party invitations, posting the copies of the family history to Aunt Audrey and my Mother, dropping off the video of Pleasantville) I went to see a matinee of Spielberg's latest movie: A.I..
The reviews I'd read up until that point lead me to believe that he cops out at the ending, but I was surprised at just how dark a film this actually is. Yes, yes, Spielberg being Spielberg he does have a special way of dealing with themes involving children -- perhaps it was this that led Kubrick (the press would make it seem as if this film was as much Kubrick's as Spielberg's, whereas I suspect it to be the opposite) to hand over the script to him. This is not a heavy-handed film -- for while I hated Close Encounters and E.T. for their far-too-obvious pulling at the heart-strings, this film sustains a dark mood pretty much throughout. Those who hate Spielberg films and those that love them will find plenty of supporting material for their arguments in this film -- but I think this will ultimately be seen as one of his better films to date.
A good ensemble cast, an effective score by John Williams, wonderfully realized special effects -- but ultimately everything hangs upon the story. And the story is a good one. It is based upon a story originally by Brian Aldiss, though from what I remember of Aldiss' writing, I suspect that the story owes any emotional depth more to the essential story of Pinocchio than whatever Aldiss had written. This story is essentially that of Pinocchio taken to the nth degree. Having said that, this helps to explain the ending of the film -- the one that everyone seems to hate. Ultimately I have to agree with those critics and say that it would have been a better, more genuine story if the wish that the protagonist had asked for went unfulfilled. How much more like real life it would have been, knowing that sometimes the answer to one's prayers is "no". While the ending may have been more in keeping with the story of Pinocchio, it is ultimately less satisfying for the same reason. But what comes before it is well played out and sustained, and I was genuinely moved at times (though I suspect being a Father makes me much more susceptible to stories involving children in peril).
It's funny, I have been looking over the many reviews of the film on the IMDB, and there are plenty of mentions of Spielberg's E.T. and Kubrick's 2001, and yet to my way of thinking it has more in common with Spielberg's own Empire of the Sun (which I think is a better film than most people give credit to -- though I remember the acting of Christian Bale as wooden) in both mood and story. Both feature a child abandoned, a child alone. In Empire, the child grows up. In A.I., he can't, ultimately lending more pathos to the story. Also, I can't help thinking that Spielberg must like the imagery of collapsing Ferris Wheels.
Oh yeah, this is not a story for children.
Speaking of magic, in the 15 minute prelude of ads and coming attractions (or should that be "repulsions"?) prior to the start of the movie, they had a trailer for the Harry Potter film. I've enjoyed the stories, and was pleased to see that it looks as though it will be well worth seeing -- in fact it was the only movie out of the bunch they previewed that I had any interest in going to. It does not seem dumbed-down, and it looks like the casting is a good -- in particular I am looking forward to seeing as Alan Rickman as Professor Snide.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
