The real reason why Kubrick didn't want to direct AI

AI was a successful failure. It didn't work. The first two-hours were jekyll and hyde. Some parts were inspiring; some weren't. The last half-hour was horrible. The tone was all over the place. It switched between grotesque horror to sweety-pie sentiment all too often. And yet, it is just behind Moulin Rouge as my second favourite film of the year. Perhaps because of its effort.

Spielberg gave everything to this adaptation of a Kubrick idea. He wanted desperately to prove to one of his idols that he could make his idea work. He gave too much, especially that cop-out ending. Kubrick never finished a film on a sappy ending. He either killed the main character or destroyed the planet.

That's my review. But the real point of this thread is to tell those Spielberg fans that Kubrick wanted Spielberg to direct the film, not because it was more attuned to Spielberg's sensibility, not because Kubrick couldn't grasp the material, it was because Kubrick's insistence on long shoots would have meant that the child would have aged by the end of the shoot and it would have been difficult to explain why an android had aged.

__________________
I couldn't believe that she knew my name. Some of my best friends didn't know my name.

Only Kubrick knows for sure, of course, and he ain't talking. B-U-T, I suspect one of the main factors that prevented Stanley from going ahead with A.I. by himself all of those years is the growing level of sophistication and departmentalization in special effects.

Throughout his career, including and especially 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick was an innovator, an artist using Film in a unique way who could and did discover ways to bring his vision to the screen. From lighting to filmstock to intricate camera effects, there wasn't anything Kubrick didn't know how to do by himself. By the time A.I. started floating around his head as a real idea that may one day be filmed, Film technology - especially in visual effects, had passed him by. He no longer knew how to do everything himself.

As everyone knows, Kubrick was a notorious, almost pathological, control freak. Can you imagine someone who needs to be involved and in charge of in every detail handing over HUGE chucks of crucial material to Lucas' folks at Skywalker Ranch, to have literally HUNDREDS of various specialists involved with so much of a 'Stanley Kubrick picture'? There's no WAY he was going to give up that kind of control.

Even if Kubrick took a crash course and learned the basics of C.G.I. (and he was fascinated with technology and he was quite smart, so it was probably within his grasp), with A.I. needing some sort of effect for almost every shot, there's NO WAY he and even a small skeleton crew that he 'trusted' and could keep an eye on would finish the film in any reasonable amount of time (not even the three years it took for Eyes Wide Shut).

That leads into your concern, Valbowski, that a long shooting schedule would mean the lead supposedly ageless character might age too noticeably on screen.

Whatever else was preventing Kubrick from going ahead with Artificial Intelligence, not being able to control the entire production by himself must have been a huge factor. Spielberg, on the other hand, makes his living by majorly delegating the specifics of effects and such to gigantic faceless teams of people, then overseeing it all to his vision. I don't believe Stanley Kubrick could have ever worked that way.

Too bad, because A.I. the movie, as is, filtered through little Stevie Spielberg, was a crushing disappointment for me. From John Williams' over-orchestration to an easy sentimentality (two Speilberg trademarks), the movie is just about completely devoid of anything 'Kubrickian'.


[Edited by Holden Pike on 10-02-2001]

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

See, I don't understand why that's a criticism of the movie. A.I. is Spielberg's movie whether anyone likes it or not. Stanley Kubrick 'gave' the movie to Spielberg for a reason, and Spielberg came through with flying colors. I think that's a really pretentious thing to say, "little Stevie Spielberg". He's just as much an artist as Stanley Kubrick was, and Spielberg's oeuvre is, most people would agree (I do), more impressive.

As for my defense, John Williams' score was solid, and underlined the events well. It wasn't quite as memorable as some of his other stuff, but it didn't distract from the movie for me at all. And about that "sentimental" ending. That is Steven Spielberg. He believes in the good side of human nature, that things will all turn out okay, that mom will always be there. The ending of A.I., from an artistic point of view, made perfect sense. Spielberg's work is optimistic - both Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, two of his "serious" movies, were bogged down by sentimentality (and in the case of Ryan, irony).

In the case of this movie, however, Spielberg masters the same themes that are so prevalent in the rest of work through a story in which he can use that sentimentality as a metaphor for how he TRULY feels about life. A.I. is Spielberg's best movie because it's the first time Spielberg has let out the darkness that we all know he's been keeping bottled up inside...and he does it in a profound, unsettling, brilliant way. The ending of A.I. is Spielberg saying "yeah, I've asked all the questions that are bugging me, but I still have faith. I still believe humanity will prevail."

__________________
**** the Lakers!

I don't agree that Spielberg's body of work is better than or even as good as Kubrick's. But that's a taste thing.

Hey, I liked all of Spielberg's earliest work: The Sugarland Express - very underrated and effectively understated drama, Jaws - masterpiece of adventure cinema, Close Encounters of the Third Kind - sincerely hopeful examination of and redefinition of a genre, 1941 - I'm one of the few who actually enjoy this intentionally over-the-top ride and think it has a bad rap, and of course Raiders of the Lost Ark - endlessly fun hommage to adventure serials. I think those are all good to great films that hold up extremely well - though I don't think any of those come close to the level of Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying & Love the Bomb or Paths of Glory.

Then starts Spielberg's downward period, in my estimation at least. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is OK for a kiddie movie, but this is the first time Spielberg's mawkish sentimentality rears it's head in full form. Works OK in the context of a children's fairy tale, but will soon prove to be a huge deficit. The Color Purple is not a very good adaptation of that novel, and Spielberg's sensibility doesn't match-up well with the harder-themed material. Beautiful to look at cinematically, but out of his range. Empire of the Sun is a good movie, but a bit too loose to work as well as the David Lean territory he was aiming for. Always, like 1941, I actually champion as underrated. Not a great movie, but decent, and his optomistic world view fits with the fantasy element. Hook is a complete mess of tone and intent, too dark to be fun, entirely too stupid to be interesting. Jurrasic Park is a dumb ol' popcorn movie. Compare it to Jaws and tell me which deserves to be a classic?

Schindler's List is a somber and important film, though it is a bit undercut by the ridiculous end speech at the factory - a manufactured movie moment that was totally superfulous. Scorsese originally had the Schindler's project, and I can't help but think how even more powerful the film would have been in his hands, minus those few false moments. But that's nitpicking. Overall Schindler's List deserves its reputation.

Then we're right back into garbage. The Lost World made Jurrasic Park look like Lawrence of Arabia. Amistad is another sincere but intellectually and emotionally holllow piece. Saving Private Ryan is one of the most overrated films of the past decade. Yes, the technical recreation of D-Day was impressive, but the narrative was straight out of a rah-rah '40s Government Bond-pusher, and worst of all those maudlin bookends in the cemetary defuse whatever inherent power is captured in the brauva battle sequences. Now comes A.I. Taken completely out of the context of its history through Kubrick (if that's possible), for me A.I. is still another mess from Spielberg. Never before was I so aware of how coddling his reliance on John Williams' over-orchestration has become. Every time I felt myself even begin to be drawn into the story (which wasn't often), up would come that intrusive score, 'telling' me how and where to feel. It's endemic of Spielberg's chief weakness in the latter part of his career, that he feels compelled to telegraph every emotional moment like he's telling a bedtinme story to a six-year-old.

I didn't see any darkness evident in A.I. It was Speilbergian melodrama in Sci-Fi clothing, with an awkward stab at a fable. While I'd point to the score for evidence of Spielberg's mawkishness, the ridiculous and unnecessary CODA is ample example of his lack of insight into the narrative.

But it's cool that you dig A.I. and think it's his 'best' work. Hey, diff'rent strokes and all. But personally, I'd rank it in the bottom half of his filmography. I think 1941 is a better movie.

Than A.I.!? Tell me you're joking.. I mean yeah 1941 is a good movie, but I can't see it being better than A.I.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

Spielberg saying "I've asked all the questions that are bugging me, but I still have faith. I still believe humanity will prevail." - Steve N.

Humanity will prevail! It's artificial intelligence that prevails at the end of AI, is it not? And this is one of the reasons behind AI's failure. How can we care in the end about a machine? It doesn't have any real emotions, it's simply got an advanced programme running inside its nuts and bolts.

Still I do appreciate your admiration for the film. I wish I liked it more. It was so close to greatness - a half hour close.

Onto Holden Pike. You're a bit harsh on Spielberg. It's very easy to knock success. Just because Spielberg's films made money doesn't mean they're any less successful as cinema than anything Kubrick has done. Personally I think ET and Schindler's List are his only two classics while Jurassic Park and the Indiana Jones trilogy are very, very good entertainments.

AI is quite Kubrickian. From the emotionally sterile parents [Frances O'Connor's character changed completely in the end dream, she was never very nice to David] to the colourful sets to the horrific flesh fair [maybe a bit of Schindler's List]. I'll agree that the ending was rampant with sentimentality but most of what went before was very dark, not very Spielberg.

Oh yeah and I've been waiting a long time to talk to someone who dislikes Private Ryan. What an over-rated piece of garbage.

Steven Spielberg, for me, is one of the best movie directors of all time, and deserves to be mentioned in the same league as Kurosawa, Godard, Ozu, Renoir, Herzog, Powell, and all the rest. The fact that he makes his movies inside the studio system (and some even blame him and George Lucas for the turnout of crap we've been recieving - sequels, movies meant to be blockbusters, etc) is secondary. Spielberg is the Shakespeare of modern movies - no one, except possibly Kurosawa, has released so many movies that have captured the general population's imaginations (and made so much money). I'm not sure why all of the cineastes turn up their noses at him - he is as much an artist as any of the directors mentioned above.

Spielberg has made his share of poor movies (Hook comes to mind), but all of them are undeniably what you call 'Spielbergian'. It is an artist's touch.

I think that Jaws, E.T., Raiders of the Lost Ark, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Schindler's List, and A.I. all deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Kubrick's best - 2001, Dr. Strangelove, Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut, Paths of Glory. They're simply two different styles of moviemaking. Kubrick was a cynicist, Spielberg an optimist. Kubrick was calculating, controlling; Spielberg at his best has a childlike spontaneity that is unmatched anywhere (watch the scene where the child is attacked in Jaws intercut with the cop's reactions, and tell me that's not virtuoso moviemaking).

I disagree with your opinion of E.T. That's a movie made from a child's perspective - to watch it is to gain insight into how a child's mind works. And let's face it, kids need happy endings - hearing happy endings are one of the building blocks of childhood. E.T. is too often dismissed as a kiddie fairy tale, when in reality it's Spielberg channeling his own feelings into a child's POV.

David is a metaphor for Spielberg's own feelings about the nature of love, and how you define 'real love', and whether or not this 'real love' makes you human. Spielberg is saying that yes, he believes that love is what humanity survives on, and David's reuniting with his mother represents Spielberg's feelings about human nature in general, not just about David. I think it's a testament to Haley Joel Osment's acting ability that people were getting choked up (I sure was.) And the artificial intelligence that prevails in the movie (and it does), strikes me as Spielberg's dark side. Ultimately, no matter what Spielberg thinks, love loses to artificiality. At least, this is what I got out of it.

I didn't like Private Ryan much either. I thought it was brilliantly directed, and from a technical standpoint, it was masterful, but the entire movie was dulled by the stupid irony. I wouldn't call it garbage, but I wouldn't call it a great movie either. Certainly overrated.

Nope, I'm not joking, spdrcr. I happen to think 1941 is a better movie than A.I. You're perfectly free to disagree of course (and thank god for that), but that's truly how I feel.

I didn't think the Flesh Fair was at all dark or frightening. The imagry was not anything new - a bit of Logan's Run mixed with BladeRunner by way of The Greatest Show on Earth, and except for a couple moments of Osment's acting, the entire segment was not at all emotionally involving. Using Chris Rock's voice for a vocal cameo in the midst of what was supposed to be horrible carnage from David's point-of-view is yet another one of Spielberg's bad judgement calls.

Chris Rock popping up there and doing his schtick before being destroyed is like a bit striaght out of an episode of "Futurama" or "The Simpsons", not a chilling Sci-Fi parable. Watch how any one of the Replicants in BladeRunner is retired, or Ash's kinetic frenzy when attacked in Alien, or even Dave Bowman disconnecting the HAL-9000's higher brain functions in 2001. Those are all riviting and memorable moments in serious Sci-Fi, where the 'death' of machines is made emotional and/or terrifiying. Spielberg obviously wants to veer towards that kind of impact with his Flesh Fair, but sadly has no idea how to do so. Looks more like outtakes from the final battle in Hook to me.


But I don't mind being in the minority on this board in terms of reverence for Spielberg. That's fine, we all have our likes and dislikes. For me, I outgrew Spielberg and find him more and more condescending these days. But that could well just be me. I'm a different breed of cat.

Meow.

SPOILERS BELOW (A.I. and Saving Private Ryan)





Wha? In a later post you think Spielberg was showing a darker side by having the A.I.-based beings prevail. Humans died out in the end, if you'll remember. I'm sorry, but the movie was N-U-T-S, and here's why:

1) The robots looked bizarre. Half the people who see A.I. think that they're aliens. Very poorly executed in that respect. In fact, it was a complete mistake to even try to portray those creatures on screen...you're going to end up looking stupid no matter what. Find another way to go about it. And why the hell did it have a British-sounding accent? Crazy crap man...

2) Dr. Hobby, or whatever his name was, would not have left David there on his own. He wouldn't have even had the chance to jump like that. They should have had him being chased as he ran to try to jump...just another stupid little thing that didn't make sense.

3) How were they monitoring him? How did they know he'd find them there? Why did they station themselves all the way out there?

What? Artistic point of view? That's a remarkably subjective way to judge whether or not a movie makes sense. The way they brought his mother back was bull, pure and simple. A big, fat load of crap. There were too many leaps of faith in this movie.

Well, the odds alone say that Spielberg likely intended for you to get something else out of it. A.I. is a movie with a great concept, that executes on it very poorly.

I guess that shows you the difference between us. I thought it was fantastic because you damn-well cared about what happened to those men. The line "Tell me I've led a good life" absolutely murders me. I lose control have the time I hear it. I can't help but imagine myself in his place: what would I do if I had to live with the fact that people had died to save me?

Oh, and I thought E.T. was a great movie. There were many subtle things throughout it. If there's one thing Spielberg can do, it's capture what kids are like on film (IE: Close Encounters of the Third Kind). Damn all you Kubrick fanatics...you guys are searching for artistic meaning that probably just ain't there.

I'm saying that Spielberg DOES believe that love and humanity will prevail...but it doesn't in the movie. The movie is Spielberg confronting this. And THAT, my friend, is the real tragedy of the movie.

Probably isn't there? Have you seen a Kubrick movie?

Well, you did like the Mummy Returns.

In Private Ryan, I thought that it was SOOO cheap to have that same German come back and kill Hanks. This is the worst, and most disgustingly ironic thing I've ever seen in a movie. It manipulates the audience to the fullest degree - what the movie is saying is that all Germans look alike, and that it doesn't matter who kills Hanks, just that he gets killed. It basically dares the audience ask 'but why?' Also, I think opening and closing the movie with 20 second shots of the American flag is absolutely hilarious.

See below...

Yes, I have...though that's not really relevant. If Kubrick isn't talking about the meaning of his movies, and you're finding some deep, complicated, intricate meaning, then the raw odds say you're way off. It's not likely that you'd understand the movie SO well and know Kubrick well enough so that you'd get the exact meeting, despite it's complexity.

It was about action...that was it's aimed. It delivered. A.I. was about a realistic, potential future, and a problem that we will surely face in the future: can a machine come alive? Can it love and feel? Does love make it a human? Do other emotions mean it deserves the same rights that we, as humans, enjoy? It failed in that because of some lazy execution.

Why is that funny?

The American Flag waving is funny because it is so corny, so cliche. It was too simple an emotional gesture. Oh look at this film, it's so patriotic, come on everybody let's cry.

And you Yanks weren't the only ones in the war. Russia, for instance lost a lot more men. And France and Britain were savaged at D-Day too.

I love a lot of Spielberg, but the man has the intellectual capacity of a carp.

No one said we were the only ones...but what do you expect us to do? Do you expect France to make a movie about the English? We all make movies about ourselves primarily. And personally, I don't think the flag is always corny. That's just me, though. Obviously you guys feel differently, but I'll tell you this: even if it is a little corny, I certainly don't think it's funny. Ever hear Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA"? It's corny as hell by most standards, but sometimes it just doesn't matter.

Oh, and Spielberg is a very intelligent man.

Well, I guess I don't have the total liberty of trashing your opinion on this only because I never have seen A.I. I was hearing so much mixed feelings on it I thought I should wait. 1941 is a funny movie no doubt about it. It had its moments(some of that is where I fell asleep), but it was funny in parts. Belushi's character was hilarious(of course), and the whole cast was a hoot. The whole thing with Slim Pickens cracked me up.

Marty S. beats both directors any day of the week!

[spoilers]

Anyway, that was a nice try for Stevey Spielburg during the end of A.I. when the boy is re-united with his mother to shine a bright light in the background. It was a nice attempt to bring a tear in the crowd's eyes.

I thought it was a big let-down. I remember really liking it, but somewhere during the end I just realized what a let-down it was.

Aliens att the end of A I

I have to say that I really would like the ending better if it were aliens at the end.....And I'm going to keep beliving that that's the case...I mean, why would mechas want to know things about their own past? One would think that they somehow would know that by heart...you know generation to generation.....or program to program....
I have to say that I find that pretty stupid...if that's spíelberg/kubrick's stupidity or someone elses I don't know....If it is aliens the movie becomes beautiful if it's mechas I find it illogical....What speicies would leave something important as thier own history out of their evolution?