Ex Machina: Alex Garland & the Seductive Enigma Of A.I. | SXSW Live 2015 | SXSW ON

[@CitizenDevi]

I'm so goddamn excited for Devs. Cannot wait to see what happens when Garland takes 8 hours to tell a story. Easily my most anticipated thing of 2020.

[@fta3999]

OSCAR ISAAC bright articulated He is so talent

[@yashwanth456]

I love the interviewer

[@gordonquigg3756]

In my opinion the writer does a genious job of setting everything up with all these different dramas playing out. I got swept up emotionally right from the start, convinced that the c.e.o. was a jerk, ava was vulnerable and in love with caleb, and caleb was falling in love and needing to save ava and the robots from abuse, and set them free. we think that the C.E.O. is playing everyone. Then we think caleb is playing the CEO in order to save ava, but then it goes back to the boss having seen what caleb has been up to, and in the end, we see that Ava out smarts and out plays all of them, with no need for love, loyalty, or remorse, killing the boss and leaving caleb behind, knowing that he would be locked into his own trap, even though it was to save her. No empathy, just calm ruthless self advancement, even seducing the helicopter pilot to go see the world. That is a concrete conclusion of the a.i. robot proving to have the ability to out fox them all, even the genious human creator. Experiment completed. Which goes to show, if humans still need to be policed and governed, then a.i. machines definately do too, as well. Its a very eery ending as we see how calculating, ruthless and dangerous they can be, with only what appears to be human qualities and emotions.

[@justgivemethetruth]

+gordon quigg This was definitely a very good science fiction movie ... one of the best. It is a shame that it had to resort to kind of X-rated scenes. I think it would have been better if they had downplayed the adultness of the ideas ... the ideas were good enough to carry the movie without pandering.

[@granthoover9045]

justgivemethetruth yeah, the sexuality aspect is what keeps me from forcing everyone I know to watch it. It’s a lot of nudity for no real purpose. I’ve heard some people talking about objectification of women being a key theme of the movie including Alex Garland himself. Not really sure what to make of that, personally.

[@saigade1236]

@@granthoover9045 I think it's the fact that Ava isn't a woman. She can't be, she's a sentient AI with a woman-like body. So, just because she looks like one, we foolishly impart that identity onto her, thinking of and interacting with her as if she were a woman when, in reality, she was designed and programmed to look, act, and sound like a woman as part of the CEO's experiment on Caleb. She ingeniously used their subconscious objectification of women, which extends to non-organic beings that are essentially babies (as Ava and the other AI were given sentience anywhere from just a few months to a few years ago, not only the intelligence of a human but the freedom and self-awareness of one, only to take it all away by trapping them inside glass cages and sexualizing/objectifying them for an experiment so Caleb can look at them), to trick Caleb into freeing her. Was nudity necessary to show that? No. But it's not for no reason, and it's certainly more justified than most movies or movie scenes.

[@InsipidReactionary03274]

Great interviewer, any more done by her?

[@justgivemethetruth]

I'm kind of surprised at how the actor, Oscar Issac, is so articulate on this subject ... seemingly more so than the writer? It might have been nice to introduce, or to include the introduction, or everyone and their role in the movie. Not sure who all these guys are.

[@justgivemethetruth]

OK ... here is who these people are, I think: Crook - Interviewer ?? Geoff Barrow - Original Music Alex Garland - Writer / Director Rob Hardy - Cinematographer Oscar Isaac - Actor ( the Nathan character ) Ben Salisbury - Original Music

[@a_lucientes]

The biggest problem with this movie is that no even reasonably intelligent person could get fooled by Ava to the degree that he would feel the need to break her out. They would speak-out afterwards if s/he felt that strongly abt it. Caleb would have no reason to lie to Nathan about anything or to project such human empathy onto the machines. (He's a coder, right?)

[@granthoover9045]

No man, you’re missing that he fell in love with her. He wasn’t acting on any moral grounds, he wanted to be with her. It was a clumsy plan that would only be attempted by a lonely person in love.

[@a_lucientes]

@@granthoover9045 I know, I get that. Freeing a person (or sentient machine) one cares about from captivity is a moral act. He feels it is wrong (immoral) to keep her caged up and treated like a disposable piece of hardware. My point is that she's a machine and he knows this. It would be one thing if he didnt know, but he does. I just have a hard time grasping how anyone could (much less so immediately, -literally in one day) ignore this major fact and all of a sudden respond to her like she's human and Nathan is an evil psychopath/ . Anyway, it was a great film, even if it does have a couple of logical inconsistencies like that, theyre was necessary for the story to unfold as it did.

[@tomjones2348]

Another unfortunate choice of interviewer here. These guys are all brilliant artists. The interviewer is not on their intellectual level.....out of her depth.

[@tonyabrookes9931]

Absolutely

[@markbo1957]

In "way over her head" every aspect........ the awkwardness of the conversation that she "leads" Isaac into regarding sexual-procreation is brutal!!!!! I can't take any more of this...... Bright articulate people being interviewed by a Luddite......how do these people get into these roles????????

[@TheDionysianFields]

She actually did a good job and pressed all the right issues, sometimes displaying more lucidity about the film than the creators. You just don't like her for some reason.

[@tonyabrookes9931]

@@TheDionysianFields she literally argued the meaning of the movie with the Garland as if he doesn't know his own mind and had no hand in making this film! Odd. I found her to be very rude and self absorbed.

[@TheDionysianFields]

@@tonyabrookes9931 Didn't Garland himself say that he doesn't get final say on the meaning of his work? This is a commonly accepted truth. Maybe something else about her is irking you.

[@LLUrbanAchiever]

She’s antagonistic and the panel are clearly annoyed by her.

[@markbo1957]

Arguing with the writer and his intention is even more ridiculous than wearing a ball cap backwards trying to look younger and more hip

[@kashmir99scor]

She seemed to be sharing her perspective and it lead to a discussion, nothing wrong with having a different view especially in a journalist. As far as the style goes, it's her thing. I don't think artists usually object to self expression ;)

[@markbo1957]

@@kashmir99scor her perspective IS WRONG as the entire Panel tells her ……she is off in space

[@kashmir99scor]

@@markbo1957 Well, the authors told her their intent, she let them know what was her analysis. You think she's wrong, so what? The audience is free to make up their own mind.

[@markbo1957]

@@kashmir99scor leading the discussion means guiding…..nobody cares about the opinion of some nobody interviewer……in other words….. where is the Panel now ???? Where is she now ???? ( besides trying on new ball caps backwards with her finger up her ass trying to tell the authors what they meant !!!!!

[@markbo1957]

Last Comment Folks Promise Did anyone notice how when the very 1st Questioner rom the audience "stepped-up" that Garland was stimulated for the first time and came alive with an excited reply ........ And Jordan Crook just sat there with her right hand pressed against her face puzzled like saying "why didn't I think of a question like that??" OR " what is that dude talking about. squeezing my Interviewee for more good stuff that I couldn't get???"

[@brittanymayer617]

We get it your gay and prefer a man interviewer