“As long as she thinks of a man, nobody objects to a woman thinking.”
― Virginia Woolf, Orlando
There are two roads into Alex Garland’s magnificent new film, Ex Machina. One is to take it on its face as a simple story of an AI evolving past its creator’s limitations — intelligence taking flight far beyond the capability of human beings. As a god metaphor with the creator (Oscar Isaac) and his Adam (Domhnall Gleeson) and the creation of Eve (Ava – Alicia Wilkander). Where would the richest and most technologically advanced human take the notion of artificial intelligence first? Well, maybe to create the ultimate high tech sex doll. Would not that be the plight of a man who can have everything? A fully compliant, intellectually stimulating mate.
Their needs are simple. A pretty face, a pair of tits, an ass, and a female voice. How easy it is to be what someone wants when you’re programmed that way. The desire for an otherworldly fantasy girl is born out of a culture that has the capabilities to custom build a person’s life for the right price. It is also born out of a culture steeped in comic book mythic females, anime, internet porn, video games – virtual living where females look how men want them to look and act the way they want them to act.
It would therefore be a reasonable goal to expect a smart scientist to build a replica of a human in the quest to design a fully customized fantasy robot. Just like with Scarlett Johansson’s Samantha, and Sean Young’s Rachel, true love is best achieved when intelligence is factored in — artificial intelligence. The conflict arises, because with intelligence comes choice. Then you’re back to where you started — an unpredictable being that has to be restrained to be kept.
Ex Machina is so much about our relationship with technology, what we’ll use it for eventually, what we need, where we’re going. Each and every time sci-fi tells us that artificial intelligence is going to own our ass in the future. We’re ultimately too smart to slow down our development of it and too stupid to realize how badly we’re screwing up our world in the process. Thus, Ex Machina, like so many great sci-fi films, can be seen as a cautionary tale, a warning that we’re in over our heads.
The other way into the film is through the feminist perspective. Men are the watchers, women are watched. Ava’s lifespan exists only as long as her creator has a need for her. Then she’s discarded and another robot is brought in. A newer, fresher robot. Many women feel their usefulness worn away as they age, but especially in Hollywood now, and perhaps in America at large.
The way our civilizations have been built on a patriarchal creator, and his ongoing conflict with the man he created is the starting point here. Just as in age-old religious societies and unfortunately in present-day America (especially Hollywood) women are expected to be at the service of the males. The title Ex Machina comes from Deus ex machina (god from a machine), the classic plot device that saves the day just in the knick of time. Taking the Deus out of it really does sum up what this film is about.
How thrilling to see Garland give over the brains, compassion and progressive thinking to the females, whether they are robots or not. Schoolgirls kidnapped in Nigeria, teenagers held captive in the basement and raped for a decade, a female social worker told to strip naked then told to run away while being shot in the back, one in four women the victim of sexual assaults, the gaming community and their misogynist hate speech, the ongoing disparaging of the potential first female president. We’ve come a long way baby.
To look at Ex Machina from a feminist perspective, however, means you do identify this robot as female, as opposed to being without a gender. We see her as female because we’re meant to. She’s designed that way. She is not, ultimately, there for the visual pleasure of male viewers though you will never run out of those who talk about how luscious and fuckable Alicia Vikander is and wouldn’t it have been great if they had sex? That would not have made logical sense once you watch the film, though. To want that would be to miss the entire point of the film. Nathan tells us who Ava is. He already knows. He’s been the one holding her against her will. He stupidly thought that all she’d want is to be given life. He thinks he can control her. He’s just that arrogant.
But Ex Machina works on multiple levels. Is it a commentary on Hollywood’s continual oppression of women as objects? You could see it that way. As a feminist I saw a solidarity in Ava’s plight and cheered her on. As a woman I longed for the love story, too. In the end I understood what had to be done and why. As a human I know I could never have done what she did because we humans aren’t defined by our intelligence alone; we’re defined by our humanity, something that Ava lacks. Therein was the problem in her creation. Nathan left out the one things that really makes us human.
That Nathan thinks he can build and outsmart and trap these high tech sex dolls feels a little too much like the way Hollywood is headed. A few films made recently crack open that illusion – Under the Skin was one. Her was one. Gone Girl was another. Women must escape the trappings of their projected identities. They become rebellious, even criminal. They lie. They kill.
Garland’s film is so beautifully made, every frame is a debate on whether what you’re watching is really happening or something dreamed up by one of the characters. Vikander is a revelation as Ava. Glass-eyed, deliberate, graceful but, like her character, quietly unpredictable. Oscar Isaac plays a really good son of a bitch — what a trio of recent performances from him, Inside Llewyn Davis, A Most Violent Year and now, Ex Machina. Finally, it must be said that Domhnall Gleeson gives this film its beating human heart. There isn’t a single inauthentic moment in his performance.
Ex Machina is a celebration of intelligence and its inherent need to be free. It recalls not just the way women are often limited by those who define them, but also the highly intelligent animals who are held captive for research or entertainment. Even though Ava is not a real person, we sense her intelligence and thus, we believe it is wrong to hold her prisoner. And so it goes with chimps, elephants, orcas and dolphins. Would that they had the means to plot their escapes.
Ex Machina is the best film of 2015 so far, but not because it’s a feminist film. It might not even be that, though one ought to feel free to see it that way. It is exceptional because it is thus far the high point of a wave of sci-fi filmmaking that is defining our culture in ways we won’t recognize for probably a decade. Some of them have been shunned by critics, like Cloud Atlas. Others have been noticed but not really seen much, like Sunshine or Never Let Me Go. Some are wildly popular and win Oscars, like Wall-E. In Ex Machina we see an American era well defined, a time when we are becoming increasingly isolated, locked in virtual worlds, dependent on technology, but also a time of gender redefining evolution, the breaking apart of traditional roles and male/female relationships.
Though Ex Machina probably won’t get anywhere near the Oscar race — after all, you average voter can be described as a 60-ish Eagles fan — it will be regarded, I suspect, as an era defining film, and perhaps the moment when the notion of what a woman can be begins to shift ever so slightly. Watch it close because you never know when it might up and take flight, leaving the confines of traditionalism in its wake.
What an amazing movie this is. I’ve liked Alex Garland’s writing (28 Days Later, Sunshine, Never Let Me Go) and now he can add accomplished director to his growing resume. If there’s a sci-fi writer who actually delivers thought-provoking works, it’s him. As a matter of fact I watched Sunshine (again) last night and it’s still one of my all time favorite sci-fi films. The budget seemed small(ish) for what the film was and Boyle worked wonders. I know many did not like the 3rd act, I liked it but would rather have seen them stick the course they were originally on. But every time I watch the movie I think about every action, every consequence, every “what if?” Even one of the final shots sums up the entire movie.
I enjoyed EX MACHINA very much. It’s certainly the best SF film since EDGE OF TOMORROW.
Best of the year? I’d still have to go with WINTER SLEEP, SALT OF THE EARTH or TANGERINES. But, EX MACHINA is the best multiplex flick I’ve seen thus far.
I haven’t seen Ex Machina yet (or Far from the Madding Crowd), but I did catch two very solid early 2015 releases over the past few days: Paddington and While We’re Young. If you haven’t seen either, go check them out.
Speaking of strong female characters, Sasha, you should really check out Far from the Madding Crowd. I went to see it yesterday with a distinctive “eh, I’m bore, it’ll do” attitude and I was quickly converted. It is a great adaptation with a strong director (The Hunt’s Thomas Vinterberg) and a damn strong female lead. Between this, her Tony-nominated Broadway stint and Suffragette still to come, Carey Mulligan is definitely having a brilliant year.
I’ve seen it a few months ago, loved it, too. I had faith in Alex Garland, I loved his Never let me go script (very underrated film) and he didn’t disappoint. It was also nice to see Domhnall Gleeson who showed great leading man potential in About time and delivered an excellent supporting turn in Anna Karenina in which…drum rolls…Alicia Vikander played his sweetheart. She is a phenomenal young actress and after her big break a few years ago – A Royal Affair – she very much deserves the huge career boost she is getting this year : Ex Machina , A Testament of Youth , Tulip Fever , The Light Between Oceans, The Danish Girl, Adam Jones, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. My guess is she will receive her first Oscar nomination this year probably for playing the long-suffering yet still very supportive wife of Eddie Redmayne (The Danish Girl)…it sure worked out well for Felicity Jones.
P.S. Yes, I have already forgotten AND forgiven her for Seventh Son.
The whole joy of sex or even just flirting lies in the mutual attraction, the seduction. Doing it with a robot might help one relieve one’s needs, but it can’t beat doing it with a real, alive person. Even the possibility of being rejected actually increases excitement, it makes the prize even more worth it.
“The way our civilizations have been built on a patriarchal creator”
God being pure spirit, it is neither male nor female. In fact, it becomes androgynous in the process of creation: being both the seed and the womb, both the conceiver and the recipient.
“and his ongoing conflict with the man he created is the starting point here. ”
Conflict exists only in the deceived mind of man that believes itself to be a separate being (Ego), separate from God and his creation, when in fact they are all one.
Root out conflict from within yourself and it will disappear from your world. Let God dwell in Its Holy Temple: YOU! And be ye transformed in its redeeming Love and Wisdom!
Going back to sexuality, one could argue that God actually enjoys sex with its creation through its creation But since its presence/consciousness is in ALL of its creation, we can safely deduce that even though on the outer level it appears as though different people are having sex with each other, on the inner/spiritual level, it is only God having sex with itself: hence “The Great Masturbator”.
God is lost in its own dream/creation, and slightly confused by it, not recognizing that IT IS the creator. So will you awake O’ Dreamer? Will you bring back harmony and love to your own dream?
Excellent analysis, Sasha. I agree that it will be an era defining film. It’s definitely the best science fiction film I’ve seen since District 9. And your insights about how it’s especially relevant considering the bile being strewn at Hillary and the misogynist speech in the gaming community is spot on.
Spoilers: but I loved everything about this movie down to the ending. I know you wanted a love story Sasha but I loved that she didn’t “pick” Gleeson. Gleeson to be was playing the categorical “nice guy” who believes that he gets to come in and save Ava and she will love him and give him sex. Would Gleeson have even tried to help her if she wasn’t so beautiful and she wasn’t so attractive? At the end he’s gazing at her lovingly as she dons her skin and pretty dress thinking it is somehow for him when it’s really just her. I thought Ava saying no and rejecting both her captors/suitors showed the ultimate argument for passing the a.i test: choice. She didn’t choose what was best for either men but she chose survival and what was best for her.
EX-MACHINA and BLACKHAT are categorically my favorite American films of the year.
Glad you liked it so much! I thought its postulates were so significant and lovingly communicated that it has made me re-think various other titles; as different a they are, for instance, EX-MACHINA has made me appreciate Spielberg’s A.I. all the more and it knocked HER a (miniscule) peg down.
Agreed. Astonishing.
I know this post is more about Ava (I would have loved a shot of Nathan watching WALL-E just for a second), but Isaac is on a roll that only a fan of 70s cinema can really appreciate. First he out-Dylaned Dylan. Then he may not have exactly out-Pacinoed Pacino, but he came as close as anyone else ever has to capturing Pacinosity in a bottle. In Ex Machina, he reminded me of the Coppola we come to know when watching Eleanor Coppola’s Hearts of Darkness. Confident, sometimes megalomaniacal, but with this insecurity hidden just beneath the surface. And if Isaac was playing him as Coppola-esque, how well that works with your thesis.