The Turing test, named after the inventor of the modern computer, Alan Turing, is the test to see if an entity is intelligent to the point of being aware; if it is conscious. This test concerns AI, or artificial intelligence. In testing to see if a piece of software has achieved true AI. The climactic goal of AI is to create a machine that thinks. Not a smart computer, but a truly conscious mechanical intelligence. This is thought by many to be impossible, (except perhaps through evolution.)
‘Deus Ex Machina’ is a term from classical drama and literature to mean an event in a story where the entanglements of the plot are resolved by the hand of God. In other words this is not achieved from the story itself, and from the characters. It is cheaply and cheatingly resolved in one move by a higher power, by something outside of the story.
Deus Ex Machina is latin, approximately translated as ‘From God, the Machine.’ ‘Deus’ meaning God, ‘Ex Machina’ could mean ‘from the machine’.
I wondered when I started watching this movie if the reference in the title was going to be important to the story. Essentially it’s a reference to a filmic/dramatic term, but this story is not about drama or film. The extraction of the word God is possibly important and purposeful, because the story says that there are no Gods here.
From the Machine tells us that this is a story about a machine. There are twists and turns in the story, but they don’t feel surprising or well designed. The characters begin as interesting, but do not evolve. We do not feel what the robot is feeling, despite our protagonist sympathising with her. This film attempts a mind trip, but it is only skittered over, so it doesn’t feel meaningful or effective.
Is this person AI? Is it true AI?
There are questions, but none of this is really explored beyond the attempt to screw with our minds. Eva (Alicia Vikander) is beautiful and believable as a robot, but lacks personality, so why would we empathise with her. Why would we care about her investment in the situation? What happens at the end of the test? What happens if she fails? What happens if she succeeds?
Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) is a remarkable soul, a sympathetic person, a man of character. He is not a remarkable talent, but does that matter? Nathan (Oscar Isaac – Inside Llewyn Davis) is a genius, but how much will we forgive him, because of his talent?
There is an implied cat and mouse game, which never materialises in this story. A mystery, where one character is trying to outguess the other character; each takes a turn and we never know, but ultimately desire to know, what will happen next and who will win.
The mystery is not really present; the only thing we don’t know is if she is truly conscious. It’s what we were asked from the beginning. The design of the plot; to flick back and forth around the questions, gradually revealing the mystery – there is no mystery, so there is no design.
The ending feels forced, violent and unsatisfying. The beginning of this movie is strong. The middle lags and lacks substance, therefore the simplified ending has nothing much to support. A failure of a film, not through concept, not through performance, or even through direction – the imagery is believable, this is a failure through design and therefore through writing.
If it is supposed to be a mystery/suspense then it fails because there is no investment from the audience, we don’t care what is going to happen next so when nothing does, we don’t care. If it is supposed to be a spectacular science fiction film, nothing much happens. It’s not even an interesting conversation in a room, for the length of the movie, (like a great Mamet picture.)
0 stars
the joy of eating and the folly of thinking 