I think this is one – have not seen…

Artificial Intelligence, 2001

Despite the obvious about this film, I think it dramatizes the aspects of the control and manipulation of individuals and the end result of those who fail to control and direct themselves. It is about a seemingly lone scientist who lost his son, obsessed and refusing to accept his loss. In desperation to recapture his son’s life, he has masterminded the creation of a robotic boy called David, who looks like his son. This sounds like the accusations made against scientists acquiring and using stem cells 30 years ago. Upon finding out about his origins David runs away. David’s replicas are sent out and one is purchased by Henry Swinton, for his grieving wife Monica, who’s son Martin is terminally ill. The story moves through the twists and turns of Monica and Henry’s adjustment to David. During this time Martin recovers and is brought home. Martin becomes envious of Monica’s attention to David and various competitions and childish pranks go on throughout his adapting to David. David too grows more interested in the human qualities of Martin’s relationship with his mother, wishing to be treated more human. Just when Martin is getting over his jealousy of David, an innocent prank causes an accident resulting in the near drowning of Martin and David is thought to be the cause. Unaware of the manner in which David would respond to a knife striking the palm of his hand (The Woman in Green) he is thrown into defense mode. He grabs Martin and unable to release him, they both fall to the bottom of the pool. Henry rescues Martin while David remains behind. Because Monica imprinted with David, giving him his human like qualities, they cannot return David and Henry then insists Monica dispose of David and takes him to a forest where he is left alone with his teddy. She gives him money and points him in a safe direction, apologizes for not teaching him about the world and then leaves. He responds to Monica’s abandonment as if he were a real boy. The story then moves through the various trials and tribulations David faces out in the world. He befriends a Loverboy mecha who gets David in and out of his many predicaments but is captured and returned to scrap for his misdeeds. David finally crashes into Manhattan, depicted in the future as being beneath the sea, where he remains for a long period of time. Upon awakening he discovers the Blue Fairy he sought for so long and believed could make him a real boy. The remainder of the film involves his re-acquaintance with Monica who went to sleep, but is brought back to life briefly, enabling David to recapture his relationship with her if only for a short time.

Do we possess artificial intelligence? Are we the result of what has been programmed into us? I think this is the true intent of the film, to explore this thinking. We do develop thoughts and feelings in response to what we see and hear, the nature of our brains. We as humans can develop thoughts and feelings independent of what we are programmed to think and believe. It takes the work of attention, a willingness to gain knowledge of ourselves and a reflection upon ourselves and what we have done and what we do, in creating our future selves and our future lives.   At some point in the process we do learn to love ourselves.  It may start by simply saying I love myself even if we don’t feel it and then we learn what it means to love one’s self and to act toward the self in a way that is loving.  Sometimes we acquire knowledge from the observations of the behaviors of others as David did and Martin failed to do in order to learn about ourselves and how to be, but turning our attention outward may fail us more often than turning our attention inward. We may choose not to love as we are programmed to do and at other times we love when we are made to think we should not. The following argument between the female colleague and Professor Hobby is the crux of the film.

Female Colleague: It occurs to me with all this animus existing against Mechas today it isn't just a question of creating a robot that can love. Isn't the real conundrum, can you get a human to love them back?

Professor Hobby: Ours will be a perfect child caught in a freeze frame. Always loving, never ill, never changing. With all the childless couples yearning in vain for a license, our Mecha will not only open up a new market but fill a great human need.

“Female Colleague: But you haven't answered my question. If a robot could genuinely love a person what responsibility does that person hold toward that Mecha in return? It's a moral question, isn't it?”

“Professor Hobby: The oldest one of all. But in the beginning, didn't God create Adam to love him?”

Did God really create Adam to love him or were we made to think this? Did love really enter the picture or was Adam the product of a sexual urge? Like David and the rest of us, Adam and all of his descendants learned to love through pain and suffering, yet as I have learned from the wisdom of others, suffering is optional and if we open our ears and our minds we learn to avoid unnecessary suffering.  Is hating or disliking certain kinds of behavior really inappropriate? Doesn’t it lead to a better way of behaving? I am reminded of Scott Peck’s book The Road Less Traveled. A love of money or the ruthless acquisition of it with no regard for others has nothing to do with love and in my opinion should never enter the market place. The word love is frequently and impulsively misused and exploited. Greed is destructive and is evil. An unloved child or unrequited love can become destructive and evil. Love for others in our capitalist society has been equated with the emptying of one’s pocket often for products that cause harm to the self in the end, and at the expense of the self. Caveat emptor, beware the ouroboros, he who wishes to escape the trap he has set for himself.  For some love thyself as thy neighbor should be the order of the day.