In The Darkrnby George McCartneyrnSo What’s a Metaphor?rnA.I., Steven Spielberg’s fantasy about a roboticrnfuture, should stand as an object lessonrnto directors: Any film that includesrnFred Astaire on its soundtrack had betterrnbe light on its feet. Astaire’s eloquent walkonrnhere reveals A. J. to be shod in concrete.rnFort)’ minutes into tlie narrative, we meetrnGigolo joe ()ude Law looking like a rejectedrnCar Grant effigy from Madame Tussaud’s).rnJoe is an android programmed tornlift the spirits of lonely women. But whenrnthis mechanical loverboy plays Astaire’srnpeerless rendition of “Cheek to Cheek” onrnhis built-in circuitry, the effect is sadly deflating.rnHe inadvertently confirms whatrnwe’ve already concluded: A.I. is to Astairernas lead is to mercury. It ain’t got an ouncernof dance in it.rnA.I. is not bad in the usual Hollywoodrnway. It’s been made with care by peoplernwho want to engage their audience seriousK.rnIts cinematography is exquisite,rnand its visualization of the future is oftenrncompelling. Unlike most big-budgetrnfdms toda), its special effects serve its stor’rnrather than overwhelm it. The actingrnis excellent throughout, especially that ofrnHalev Joel Osment, the boy who gavernThe Sixth Sense its uncanny intensity.rnF>en William Hurt, who has been sleepwalkingrnthrough his recent performances,rntakes fire in the role of a well-intentionedrnbut shortsighted Frankensteinian scientistrnwho insists on creating robots capablernof genuine feelings. If they can be madernto experience love, he reasons, they’llrnhave the “mechanism” by which theyrnwill develop a subconscious. (Perhaps hernmeans soul.)rnThere are even moments in whichrnquestions of faith, morals, and mortalityrnare raised far more sharply than otherrnmainstream entertainers would dare.rnBut Spielberg, perhaps under the influencernof the late Stanley Kubrick (whornhad originally planned to make this film),rnhas picked up the wrong end of his narrative’srnpremise—and he never lets go. Hisrngrip is as firmly literal as it is aestheticallyrnfatal.rnWorking from Brian Aldiss’s story “SupertoysrnLast All Summer Long” and arnpreliminar}’ script developed by Kubrick,rnSpielberg tells the tale of David, a roboticrnA.I. Artificial IntelligencernProduced hy DreamWorksrnand Warner Bros.rnDirected hy Steven SpielbergrnScreenplay by Ian Watson,rnbased on a story by Brian AldissrnReleased by Warner Bros.rnSexy BeastrnProduced by Channel Four Films andrnRecorded Pictures CompanyrnDirected by Jonathan GlazerrnScreenplay by Louis Mellisrnand David ScintornReleased by Fox Searchlight Picturesrnreplica of an 11-year-old boy programmedrnto love whoever “adopts” him.rnThe trouble begins when he’s taken intornthe home of a couple as a substitute forrntheir biological son, Martin, who is sufferingrnfrom some unspecified maladyrnthat has rendered him indefinitely comatose.rnDavid does his job too well. Thernmother becomes completely attached tornhim. Understandably, when Martin recoversrnand comes home, he sees the robotrnboy as his rival. Programmed forrngood behavior and tireless decency,rnDavid would prove an unendurable trialrnfor any ordinary child, let alone a sicklyrn”sibling” recently back from the hospital.rnSoon, Martin is plotting David’s downfall.rnInstinctively taking advantage of thernrobot’s innocence, he lures his mechanicalrnbrother into activities staged to seemrnwillfully malevolent. The parents feelrnthey have ho choice. They must get ridrnof David for the safety of their real child.rnBefore David finds himself abandoned,rnhowever, he has overheard hisrnmother read Pinocchio to his flesh-andbloodrn”sibling.” He reasons that, if herncan become a real boy, his mother willrnlove him once more and take him backrninto her home. And so he begins tornsearch for the Blue Fairy who rescuedrnPinocchio from his wooden fate. David’srnquest takes him (and us) on a swift tour ofrnthe narrative’s future world. We discoverrnthat the greenhouse effect has become arnfait accompli. Coastal cities are underwater,rnand population growth has neverrnbeen more menacing. Governments ofrnthe developed world have made pregnancyrnwithout special licensing illegal. Thernaffluent live comfortably by virtue of robotsrnwho do the scut work of society.rnMeanwhile, what’s left of the shortchangedrnworking class seethes with resenhnentrnat having been replaced in thernlabor market by “thinking” metal. Thernworkers of the world are now united inrntheir hatred of robots. They celebrate organicrnlife by kidnapping their mechanicalrncompetitors and sadistically destroyingrntliem in demolition-derby-st’le events.rnThe hapless robots are shot from cannons,rnset aflame, and melted with industrialrncorrosives. Programmed for obediencernto the end, the rational mechanismsrnoffer little resistance to the rabid humansrnbeyond meekly pleading that their sensoryrncircuits be disconnected before thernwreckage begins.rnDespite witnessing this all-too-humanrnbeasriiness and nearly becoming one ofrnits victims, David persists in his quest tornjoin the ranks of flesh and blood. He’srnwilling to do whatever it takes to win backrnhis “mother’s” love. We’re encouragedrnto believe that he’s more genuinely humanrnthan the humans. This is the film’srnmoral, and it’s a real sentimental clunker.rnWhile it may be pretty to think so, genuinernhumanity does not reside in thernkind of automatic goodness David exhibits.rnIsn’t this Carlo Collodi’s point inrnthe original Pinocchio? The puppet boyrnbecomes a “real” boy by overcoming hisrninnocent susceptibility to being misledrnand then decisively putting his father’srnwelfare before his own. Isn’t this thernmoral challenge we all face if we want tornbecome humanly worthwhile? It’s alwaysrna struggle to overcome, howeverrnpartially and provisionally, our innaternselfishness. Spielberg has put the cartrnbefore the horse, goodness before thernstruggle. David is a liberal’s sentimentalrndream. As such, he’s too inhumanly sweetrnto serve as a serious reproach to our admittedlyrnsinftil natures.rnFilmmaking is Spielberg’s talent, notrnphilosophizing. As usual, he’s created arncorrect thinker’s Manichean universernpopulated by the inherentiy good (thisrntime the robots) and the irredeemablyrnnasty (the humans). Worse, he seems tornbe playing with a notion that Kubrick isrnSEPTEMBER 2001/47rnrnrn