Ex Machina [Blu-ray] [2015]

This film asks several important philosophical questions, inadvertently or not.• What is human if what we think it is can be artificially replicated?• If consciousness can be created, does it prove that it’s not a delusion (which some neuroscientists think it is)?• What happens to God when man becomes one?• What do words such as ‘sacred’, ‘soul’, ‘spirit’, ‘divine’, ‘transcendent’ or ‘holy’ mean post-AI, if anything?• What of morality, perhaps man’s finest cultural invention?• If curiosity killed the cat, will it kill us too?• Was endgame preprogrammed into us from the start? Are we predisposed to suicide? Is man congenitally mad?• What, in a related development, do the existence of 15,000 armed nuclear warheads in the world say about us as a species?• Also related, why do we continue to foul our own nest, to behave as though this planet’s resources are infinite when we know with absolute certainty they are not?The premise of the film is simple enough and hinges on the so-called Turing Test. Alan Turing (1912-54) was a brilliant British mathematician and wartime codebreaker — see Codebreaker (2014), an excellent docu-drama on his life, or the equally superb feature film on his intelligence heroics during the Second World War, The Imitation Game (2014), an Academy Award winner. Turing is also regarded as the father of modern computing, computers and AI.The Turing Test requires at least three participants or entities: (1) a machine (computer, robot), (2) a human being (who interacts with the machine, usually verbally), and (3) a neutral human observer whom the first two participants are not aware of/cannot see. The test is not scientific and cannot be. It is subjective, based on the assessments and conclusions of the observer. Thus by make-up and design it is philosophical, not scientific in any empirical way.The test in a sense is quite simple, even if its methods are not. Its purpose is to help the neutral observer distinguish between human and artificial intelligence. If the machine passes the test, it means the observer cannot determine if its intelligence is human or artificial, so by default in a way it can be regarded as human (whether it is or isn’t), as the effect is the same (human-like and human essentially indistinguishable). If the machine fails, it means its AI has failed to convince an observer that it is human.It stands to reason, and is suggested in the film, that the more sophisticated OS programmes become, the harder it will be for an observer to distinguish human intelligence from AI; or, put the other way round, the easier it will be for machines equipped with AI to fool humans by passing themselves off as human among humans. Did I say “fool humans”? Yes, I did, which is exactly the philosophical dilemma this fine film faces.The Latin term from Greek ‘deus ex machina’ refers to a plot device that seeks to resolve seemingly untenable difficulties in a story, successfully working its way out of paradoxes or ambiguity. This situation sometimes is also called the ghost in the machine, an unseen force that tries to make sense of things by reducing contradictions in a story. The human mind strives for patterns, order, clarity, reason. It hates loose ends, unresolved difficulties. It wants stories to make sense. But to their credit, the producers, director and writer of this film demonstrate that such neat endings may not be possible where paradox and ambiguity are overwhelming.The plot of the film has been written about, discussed and debated extensively by others. Instead of tackling that subject, I’ll just mention the three main characters briefly now.Nathan Bateman (played by Oscar Isaac) is the mad scientist, the Dr. Frankenstein of the piece. Rich, eccentric and experimental, he’s a software and digital genius, the CEO of a computer company in the city. But he spends most of his time tinkering in the bunker (built underground in a wild and remote landscape best reached by helicopter). His ego game is to create a perfection that God and nature have failed to devise. Here his ‘monsters’ take shape, intelligent and interactive female androids, young and beautiful. They are aesthetically and sexually attractive because Nathan likes them that way. The idea of the perfect woman interests him. If she can’t be found in nature and society, he will create her. Nathan is on an ego trip, as all megalomaniacs are, everything made subservient to his will to power. He is not short on confidence and self-esteem.Caleb Smith (Domhnall Gleeson) is a 26-year-old software programmer who works in the city for Nathan’s company. He’s a human guinea pig selected by Nathan for his Turing Test experiment, though Caleb is unaware of having been selected (he thinks he has won an online contest on the merit of his video game-playing skills).Alicia Vikander (Ava, the android) is a beautiful actress in at least two senses of the word. First, she is lovely to look at. She is physically beautiful, even if in this case she’s mostly made up of plastic, metal and electrical wiring. Second, she is beautiful in her art, her craft. At times her flat voice sounds artificial, clearly contrived. But in other moments she’s capable of deep emotion and this is reflected by the voice. If I were blindfolded and put in the same room with her, there isn’t any way during those moments of tenderness I would think she is a machine. I might love her for her compassion and empathy.It’s interesting, I suppose, that the heroic anti-hero of George Orwell’s novel 1984 was named Smith (first name Winston, whom Orwell said he named after Churchill). Our hero here is also a Smith, an everyman named Caleb. You or I, put in Caleb Smith’s position, would probably go just as batty as he does. Is Ava real, an authentic woman? She sure seems to be. But Smith knows she is artificial. Or, he knows it rationally, intellectually. He knows Nathan has designed and built her. Or, as time in Caleb’s confined condition passes, has he? Nathan reveals nothing. He is the observer. At least ostensibly. But we know he is machiavellian. There can be no neutrality with him. What he wants is for Caleb to lose his faculties of reason so completely that he falls in love with Ava. If this happens, Ava passes the Turing Test. And if that happens….The deus ex machina of the drama tries to find a way out of the impasse we are led into. Crises occur and sparks will fly. There will be a winner and more than one loser. If we’re still not quite enlightened at the end of the film it’s because paradox and ambiguity are built into the situation. Perhaps there are no comfortable answers to the questions raised by the film. Maybe that’s precisely what it wants to say — namely, that we can never know the future, so we don’t know where this story is headed.But there are still questions to be asked. What will it mean in the future if we love robots and they love us? What will happen to human love, meaning love exclusively between humans? Why is this apparent future being created, and for whom? Where will the Dr. Frankensteins lead us and why will we choose to follow them? Who will rise from our ranks to terminate the terminators of our humanity?If this film disturbs you, that’s a good sign. You are not an android yet. Your heart, not a battery pack, powers you.

Ex Machina generates cerebral philosophies that both entertain and stimulate. As a computer programmer and all-round technologist, I'm consistently in awe of the advancements made in the development of artificial intelligence. It provides many discussions regarding moral implications, psychological awareness and the inevitable fear of transcendence (another film we shall not discuss...). Ex Machina, for me, is the closest film to AI perfection that we're ever going to receive. It is without a doubt, and this is me confidently stating the adjacent claim after my fifth viewing, a modern sci-fi gem. A programmer wins a competition to stay at his CEO's luxurious home, where he is proposed to administer the Turing test to an artificially intelligent sentient robot.Hollywood tends to exploit AI as villainous plot devices, that when turned on they instantly want to wipe out humanity from the face of the Earth. "Judgement Day" and all that "bio-digital jazz, man". In reality, not the case. AI has to learn, it has to adapt and exhume the capabilities of thought and consciousness. The human approach is a fundamental aspect into making AI instinctively relatable, and Garland is the closest into realising this potential. His analytical screenplay is nothing short of genius.Utilising the Turing test to intrinsically provide character driven backstory for Caleb, acting as psychological therapy driven by the sentient humanoid Ava. Exploring the integral complex of a "God", including Nathan's narcissism, and the moral implications of terminating Ava despite her awareness of death. An exercise in psychological manipulation, harnessing every accessible aspect of humanity including sexuality, imagination and self-awareness. The fundamentalism behind the existential questioning is palpable. It's captivating. It's sublime. The intellectual approach and Promethean dialogue stimulates all senses. The Jackson Pollock remark, the programming of sexual orientation and even the Oppenheimer quote. Ironically self-aware dialogue that tickles the brain cells and continually divulges into omnipotent behaviour. Extraordinarily acute.Initially, the premise looks to be a simple analytical test. However the claustrophobic subterranean environment forces the dynamics between these three entities to become serrated, allowing us to question the identities and motives of these individuals. Garland unravels the thinly veiled mystery with confidence and minimalism, complementing the outstanding visual effects that exhume clinical aesthetics. The excessive implementation of fluorescence, Ava's pristine fibre glass body structure and the colourless architecture reflecting the egotism of Nathan. Always matching the euphoric polyphonic score that invites the viewer into this lair of deceit and beguilement. Forever enhancing Hardy's gorgeous cinematography that delicately paints true intelligence through visceral shots of splendour, especially when using glass and mirrors to reflect and refract colour.On a technical level, Ex Machina is perfect. On a literary level, Ex Machina is perfect. On a theatrical level, Ex Machina is perfect. Vikander, Gleeson and Isaac give three commanding performances, each offering a unique perspective on the technological advancements made in AI development that refers to our own reality. My only gripe? The dance sequence. It doesn't belong and provides an unnecessary distraction from the innovatory narrative. Many criticisms have been placed on the concluding ten minutes. I strongly disagree. Whilst it may seem unfair, it's actually the only reasonable outcome and further illustrates why Garland understands AI. It demonstrates the inferiority of man, further cementing the fear of transcendence.Ex Machina, despite the smooth moves presented by Isaac and Mizuno as they dance to "Get Down Saturday Night", is a near-perfect representation of advanced AI. Utilising its technical astuteness to isolate fragments of consciousness that questions what it means to be human. And even if you aren't into technology, it's a stunningly written thriller that will induce a fear of everything computerised. Best not to use the microwave tonight...

I like how this movie ended. All of the actors did an amazing job. I highly recommend this movie.

Excellent movie with a director who is worthy of keeping an eye on.

アンドロイド系の映画は、あまり観ませんが、この映画は風景も美しく、脚本も良く、とても素敵な内容でした。

No juzgo la película, que es excelente, sino el producto. Según recuerdo, la calidad que tenía la versión antes disponible en streaming en un proveedor que todos conoceréis era mejor. Este Blu-ray casi parece mas un DVD. Esperaré a que esté disponible en UHD 4k.

Dieses SF-Drama hatte bei mir im Vorfeld seiner Veröffentlichung hohe Erwartungen geweckt und konnte sie voll und ganz erfüllen - ein absoluter Volltreffer!Kammerspielartig, in überzeugender Kulisse und getragen von hervorragenden Darstellerleistungen wird in intelligenten Dialogen und faszinierenden Bildern über die Frage sinniert, was Menschlichkeit ausmacht, ob die erschaffene Künstliche Intelligenz den vorprogrammierten Pfad tatsächlich verlassen hat und als eigenständige Persönlichkeit zu betrachten ist - oder ob sie diesen Anschein nur als Teil ihrer Programmierung erweckt."Ex Machina" vermittelt in seinem Verlauf ein langsam, aber sicher zunehmendes Gefühl der Beklemmung, da Nathans futuristische Behausung und Kreativwerkstatt mehr und mehr wie ein Gefängnis erscheint und Caleb aus seinem Vorgesetzten und Gönner einfach nicht schlau wird.Auch irritiert Caleb die beinahe unheimliche Anziehungskraft, die das Forschungsobjekt Ava auf ihn ausübt - eine Regung, die sich ebenfalls auf den Zuschauer überträgt. Und das ist auch kein Wunder, präsentiert sich hier doch eines der faszinierendsten Robotergeschöpfe der Filmgeschichte.In den Gesprächen der überzeugenden Hauptfiguren wird über die Vorzüge technischen Fortschritts sowie das Wesen des Menschen reflektiert, jedoch ohne dass der Film dabei zu einer trockenen Vorlesung verkommen würde. Stattdessen wächst die Spannung stetig an, bis sie sich in einem überraschenden und eindrucksvollen Schlussakt entlädt.Wie schon geschrieben, ist "Ex Machina" für mich ein absoluter Volltreffer, vor allem die KI Ava ist ein tricktechnisches Designwunder, sie wird von der mir beim Erscheinen des Films noch völlig unbekannten schwedischen Schauspielerin Alicia Vikander (inzwischen Oscarpreisträgerin) auch perfekt verkörpert.Durch die Dialoglastigkeit und die dadurch geforderte Aufmerksamkeit des Zuschauers ist "Ex Machina" aber sicher weniger für SF-Freunde geeignet, die sich eher von bombastischen Effekten beeindrucken lassen und ihr Hirn dabei nicht allzusehr anstrengen möchten. Wer aber an "Laberfilmen" Geschmack finden kann, dürfte bei diesem Film wohl gut aufgehoben sein.