Skip to main content

Ex Machina - revisited

Just watched Ex Machina, while working on a review for Annihilation. Both by Alex Garland.  Because I've seen it before, I knew the twists were coming - and yet... it's still not as simple as it proclaims to be. 

If we accept that Caleb is there as a foil, that Nathan is testing Ava's ability to manipulate him to get what she wants (to escape,) there are several problems with this.

First off, he's a terrible subject for this test. An only child whose parents died when he was young and spent a lot of time in the hospital growing up and has no girlfriend or apparently friends to speak of - everything about him screams naive, lonely, and easily emotionally manipulated. He is clearly below average on the emotional IQ scale.  Could she manipulate a more savvy person? 

Second, and more confounding - after all, the test is whether or not she can manipulate a human being to get what she wants, not especially how good at it she is - is all the ways Nathan helps her out.  Every time Caleb gets suspicious, Nathan is there to help her out - and he's a much better manipulator than she is.  Caleb wonders if her flirting is a programmed behavior, Nathan says for the record it isn't - she really likes you, she has a crush on you, can you blame her?   Caleb figures out that he's not there by random chance, he's been selected, and Nathan's there to blow sunshine up his ass - it's because you're the smartest and best, not lucky, chosen.  Which of course is bullshit; he's there because he's easily manipulated, evidenced by the fact that he buys this line of crap from Nathan, and even comes to believe he's capable of manipulating Nathan.  The easiest way to con someone is to let them believe they're conning you. 

Could Ava have manipulated Caleb without Nathan's help? Unanswerable, but it would be a really different test if Nathan had stayed out of it, or confirmed Caleb's suspicions, or if Caleb had been generally more savvy to begin with. 

All of which makes it seem extremely unlikely that Caleb would be able to set Ava free by re-programming the security protocols the night before, instead of that night.  Nathan, who has been a step ahead the whole movie, is suddenly dumb enough to get black out drunk and leave that door wide open? Inconsistent. Also, Nathan is not smart enough to develop some kind of failsafe in his robots, just in case something goes wrong? Implausible. He's arrogant, no doubt, but everything about his house, and his plan to test Ava, shows careful and meticulous planning.

Annihilation is on some level about our urge toward self destruction - it makes some sense (though it doesn't solve all the problems) to believe that Nathan, on some level, wants Ava to defeat him, wants her to escape and destroy the world (or something - she seems to only want to people-watch.) "It's promethean, man."  He seems to know he's created something horrible, something world-changing, and can't bring himself to destroy it/her.  It's evolution, man.  It's inevitable. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Trip to the Moon (1902)

Fantasy works best in cinema because film is fantasy - nothing we're seeing is actually real, so why pretend it is?  Let's do away with that altogether, and embrace the possibilities of crazy costumes and sets and camera tricks. I was surprised over and over again that things that appeared to be matte paintings actually had dimension - like the rocket itself.  The fun of a certain kind of movie is trying to figure out what's real and what's a camera trick.  And a camera trick is just like a magic trick - we should be wondering and guessing, "how did they do that?"  Nowadays, there's none of that left.  The answer is just "CGI. They did it on a computer."  It's all animation.  Nobody ever wonders how Bugs Bunny did that. Movies have stopped being magic shows, and that's a shame.

Can Indie Filmmakers Save Religious Cinema?

Great article  by Alissa Wilkinson. As “faith-based” films flooded into theaters last year, writers fell over themselves to declare 2014 the “year of the Bible movie.” It seemed as if the market—meaning Christian audiences to many—had finally come into its own, a decade after the runaway box-office success of The Passion of the Christ. Certainly, movies that reinforce beliefs their target audience already hold can make a lot of money, from political documentaries directed by Michael Moore or Dinesh D’Souza to films titled with declarations of religious certainty. God’s Not Dead, a drama about an evangelical student who clashes with a philosophy professor, earned $62.6 million on a $2 million budget. Heaven Is for Real, starring Greg Kinnear, cost $12 million and made $101.3 million. Son of God, which cut down the television miniseries The Bible to feature-film length, made $67.8 million, or three times its budget. And even Biblical epics that religious audiences found questionable,

A Trip Down Market Street (1906)

(You can watch this on YouTube.) Surprisingly thrilling, as people in 1906 seem to have a death wish. No road rules. Pedestrians everywhere. Stupid crazy drivers. I swear, I just witnessed seven near-death experiences. Are we sure no one was harmed in the making of this film? There's an essay in here about the nature of thrills in action scenes.  Early movies are fun to watch because we know there is an actual element of danger in what's going on - e.g. Harold Lloyd. Modern films need to find a way to reestablish that sense of danger and thrill.  These days an action sequence, or a thrill, can be well choreographed, but we all know that the whole thing is safe as milk.  This desire is perverse, I guess - it's not that I want people to be hurt, or even to risk being hurt. But it certainly does give a film an edge. Maybe this has to do with the popularity of YouTube videos, and even the Jackass series - real people doing really dangerous stuff.