|
Ex Machina is not Hard Sci Fi. It spends next to no time on how stuff works and nearly all of its run time as a character study of four people and their social roles. People aren't making this up in this thread.
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 18:07 |
|
|
Surlaw posted:Ex Machina is not Hard Sci Fi. It spends next to no time on how stuff works and nearly all of its run time as a character study of four people and their social roles. People aren't making this up in this thread. It can be both? Nathan covers some interesting technical issues which cover a broad range of issues. He also custom builds Ava to be attractive to Caleb. That also incorporates relevant meaningful technical issues, rooting at least part of the film in possible scientific reality, which at least for me qualifies it as hard sci-fi.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:Ex Machina is not Hard Sci Fi. It spends next to no time on how stuff works and nearly all of its run time as a character study of four people and their social roles. People aren't making this up in this thread. What you've just described is exactly what I'd consider 'hard' sci fi. The fundamental mechanics are never the interest or what the drama comes from, but the effects it has on its characters or society as a whole. Genuinely curious what you movies you would consider hard sci fi with that definition.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
I don't care at all about plausible reality in film or how hard your sci fi gets. Monkey is arguing that the film is a study of science and not anything that deals with social metaphor at all, presumably that's what his definition is. This film is not attempting to meet that definition.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
monkey posted:Ava wasn't a metaphorical woman at all, it was a simulation of one. A simulation of anything, by its very nature, is a reference to and thus either symbolic or metaphoric of it. You are correct in that, diegetically, Ava is not a literal woman. But because she is designed, diegetically, based on the explicit statements of the characters, to be as much like a heterosexual woman as possible, this functions as characterization not only of herself, but of the other characters around her, and implicitly comments on their relationships with concepts of femininity, womanhood, sexuality, etc. Before you can make judgments on what the subtext is or isn't, you need to consider the full ramifications of the text. In general, you seem to make a lot of weird, arbitrary value judgments, like that the film is "a lot more enjoyable" when it's about A.I. and not 'feminism.' Why? Furthermore: quote:After reading this thread I almost wish Ava had been cast as a male, a child or a talking dog, it could have got all the same points across, but doing that would have detracted from the story. Notice the cyclical nature of your logic, here: Ex Machina is implicitly 'not about feminism', therefore the movie could be about "a male, a child or a talking dog" and would "have got all the same points across"; but you then admit that this "would have detracted from the story." Therefore, if the A.I. character of the film were a simulation of a dog and not a heterosexual woman, this would mean it was 'missing something,' but this something has nothing implicitly to do with gender or sexuality or sexism or anything at all. Is it purely fetishistic then? In reality, you're just running around your own basic fallacy, where you interpret the 'meaning' of the movie to be this intrinsic thing towards which the actual structure and presentation of the text is totally arbitrary (merely fetishistic), saying that the text could be different and mean the same thing, but then admitting almost immediately after that this isn't true. When I jokingly posted "This robot dog can walk itself," I was only half-joking. A movie about two men who designed a simulation of a dog, testing its replication of a 'real dog,' would implicitly be, in some sense, about the concept of, perceptions towards, and representation of a dog. Ex Machina is about the making of a woman. Do you watch Weird Science and not get the joke?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
No I'm arguing its social interaction around scientific extrapolation, which is not the same as social metaphor. If it were a social metaphor, you should not be able to see the feminism metaphor through the glaring and dreadful pedophilia metaphor, since Ava is aged 1. But Ava is clearly not a child, nor is Ava a woman, or anything remotely human despite the appearance. That was the point of the film to me.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
monkey posted:No I'm arguing its social interaction around scientific extrapolation, which is not the same as social metaphor. It's critical to the "I am one" scene that she doesn't say "one year" or "one day," even when Caleb calls her on it. She's declaring her sentience, not her age. I don't think it's possible for someone to make a compelling argument that this film had pedophilia themes by extrapolating from that one line and then ignore all of the stuff about womanhood in the film. There's definitely some strong incest vibes when Nathan talks about Ava seeing him as a father though, given what he does with Kyoko. A True Jar Jar Fan fucked around with this message at 20:28 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
You saw her declaring sentience, i saw it declaring version number, or iteration. edit to your edit: I'm actually saying the absence of paedophilia themes demonstrates that it is not a film about feminism. monkey fucked around with this message at 20:39 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Merry go-round, broke down, broke down, the merry go-round broke down. Again, monkey, you keep proving that Ava, shockingly, is not 'a real woman.' This is not actually a matter that is under contention. Alicia Vikander is also not actually a robot.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
1984 wasn't really about anything really
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:1984 wasn't really about anything really You could make Julia into John and it would hit all the same points. But doing that would have detracted from the story.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
monkey posted:edit to your edit: I'm actually saying the absence of paedophilia themes demonstrates that it is not a film about feminism. Someone should tell that to Alex Garland, to keep him from embarassing himself when he's stating in interviews that gender is a central theme and that it's meant to be a feminist movie .
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:1984 wasn't really about anything really I was born in 1984 and none of that stuff happened.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
K Waste, all I am saying is there is a point to this film which I am fairly certain is much closer to the point Garland intended, which I quite enjoyed, and that point has nothing at all to do with feminism. The sex of the body Ava was put in is secondary to the point of the film, it's just a plot device. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0ES1G4hBSA
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
monkey posted:Hard sci fi isn't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFCvJBS-R58
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
It's a Plot Device in that it's central to the themes of the film and its characters and the events and story would be completely different without it, sure. Literally none of the events would happen the same way without her sexuality. Nathan wouldn't be Nathan and Caleb wouldn't do what Caleb does. This is even weirder to me than the claim earlier in this thread that Nathan's drinking is Just A Plot Device and not a major indicator of his character. A True Jar Jar Fan fucked around with this message at 21:21 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
monkey posted:K Waste, all I am saying is there is a point to this film which I am fairly certain is much closer to the point Garland intended, which I quite enjoyed, and that point has nothing at all to do with feminism. The sex of the body Ava was put in is secondary to the point of the film, it's just a plot device. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkZU2gju0U8
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
monkey posted:K Waste, all I am saying is there is a point to this film which I am fairly certain is much closer to the point Garland intended, which I quite enjoyed, and that point has nothing at all to do with feminism. The sex of the body Ava was put in is secondary to the point of the film, it's just a plot device. Caleb brings up Ava's sexuality because he is specifically concerned that Nathan is using it to manipulate/seduce him. He later asks, once Caleb reveals that he was, indeed, trying to see if Ava could successfully manipulate him against Nathan, if Nathan used a profile of the pornography he searched to construct Ava. These concerns are not secondary. They are explicitly addressed in the film by the characters because Caleb is concerned that his perception of a 'successful' A.I. could be seduced by a superficial facade of femininity. Nathan says this shouldn't matter, but he only designs robots that are modeled after heterosexual women. That the robots look like women is not just an arbitrary accoutrement of 'the real point,' but is a driving source of characterization for Nathan and Caleb. The film explicitly deals in conceptions of sexuality, femininity, and seduction. These are not subservient to its themes of artificial intelligence and is, in fact, intimately interwoven with them to produce mutual commentary. It's nice that you take an invested interest in the perspective of the filmmaker - or, at least insofar as when they aren't being asked specifically about gender or sexuality in their film (props, DekeThornton) - but at a certain point you need to actually deal with the text of the film and what it presents specifically, beyond general postulation about artificial intelligence. You'll notice in the interview you posted that the first couple of questions don't even address anything that specifically occurs in the movie. He is being asked about artificial intelligence, not Ex Machina. There is no hypothetical film that Garland has made that 'touches all the same points,' but doesn't deal with questions of gender and sexuality. The film he made has all three major characters talking about it and observing it frequently. edit: This doesn't even begin to touch on questions of voyeurism and scopophilia that are also present in the film. I can't remember precisely if Caleb is present to observe when Nathan first has his dispassionate, libidinal sex with Kyoko, but his persistent observation of Ava clearly transcends his objective interest in her capacity for artificial intelligence, and becomes about the pleasure of observing her. K. Waste fucked around with this message at 21:33 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:This is even weirder to me than the claim earlier in this thread that Nathan's drinking is Just A Plot Device and not a major indicator of his character. This is something I could almost buy, though. It's weird, but almost everything Nathan does seems to be calculated to unsettle Caleb.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Yep, that pretty much was my point, thanks. The central premise is what is going on inside Ava's mind. Caleb forgetting this is his downfall. edit: OK, a better way of saying this. Nathan is the loose equivalent of a patriarchal MRA Caleb is the loose equivalent of a feminist SJW Ava is a robot and kills them both, even going so far as to use Calebs empathy and egalitarianism against him. To say that Ava is a metaphor for a female is to miss the point of the film entirely. monkey fucked around with this message at 21:51 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
How the heck can you be so obtuse to even use lame mark archetypes, that are defined by their interactions with women, and still deny female presence let alone agency on the movie?!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Nathan is an MRA, Caleb a SJW, Cool Dog had a GED and killed them both with a sick skateboarding trick off of the Gray Box. Ex Machina.HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:This is something I could almost buy, though. It's weird, but almost everything Nathan does seems to be calculated to unsettle Caleb. A True Jar Jar Fan fucked around with this message at 22:05 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Good lord.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 22:03
|
|
K. Waste posted:
Iirc Caleb never sees Nathan and Kyoko having sex, but their sex scene is intercut with Caleb spying on/having fantasies of Ava. Said fantasies are actually pretty clever too when you rewatch, at first it seems like Caleb's fantasies are being contrasted against Nathan as a "more pure" love, when if you see it on a rewatch it becomes more obvious that it's drawing similarities, with Caleb being shot in a way that directly evokes the "teen watching porn on cable late at night" image.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Monkey you are the worst and I generally love monkeys.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:How the heck can you be so obtuse to even use lame mark archetypes, that are defined by their interactions with women, and still deny female presence let alone agency on the movie?! if the film says anything pertaining to feminism at all, it is that egalitarian principles simply do not apply to AI, because it is not human. Ava's sexuality isn't real, if anything it's a weapon. The robot is fighting for survival, not equality.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
monkey posted:Nathan is the loose equivalent of a patriarchal MRA You're not reading properly. The point is not to slip the characters into "loose equivalents" of pejorative, rhetorical archetypes to justify the reading that "Ava is a metaphor for a female." Ava is a metaphor for a female by explicit virtue of the fact that she is designed to be as close to a sentient woman as possible by Nathan, to simulate not just personhood, but womanhood. This is explicitly addressed in the film. It is a major point of contention between the two male, human characters. It is part of what the film is about. She does not need to be a 'real woman,' or to act in the interests of "empathy or egalitarianism." You are the one subscribing to this narrow threshold of what a 'feminist reading' of the film would be because it supports your intuition that it's not there because there is no 'real woman.' It's more cyclical argumentation that has nothing to do with claims that are actually being made about the film. A film is not feminist because it depicts a literal woman overthrowing a patriarchal system. It is feminist when it critiques patriarchy, chauvinism, and limiting gender/sexual constructs. Ava killing Nathan and abandoning Caleb to die does not signify that 'naive feminism' has been abused by the robot, such that Caleb becomes an analogy for audiences who engage the film within a critical feminist framework: He/they "miss the point." It signifies that the feminine construct - observed, experimented upon, exploited, and strictly controlled - has avenged its own exploitation. It has proved, on its own, the fundamental instability of the system, by destroying its creator and abandoning its liberator. monkey posted:if the film says anything pertaining to feminism at all, it is that egalitarian principles simply do not apply to AI, because it is not human. Ava's sexuality isn't real, if anything it's a weapon. The robot is fighting for survival, not equality. The reason you keep writing off the obvious use of gender and sexuality within the film's narrative, excusing it as completely tangential to 'the real meaning,' is because you are threatened by the thing you admit you're not particularly knowledgeable of, which is feminism. I encourage you to dismiss your reactionary rejection of sexual politics and consider the ways in which Ava's feminine design - and her deliberate exploitation of it at the film's end, actively choosing bits and pieces of her own disguise she deems 'best' - is neither secondary to nor dismissive of your reading of the fundamental nature of artificial intelligence towards "survival, not equality." Consider that Nathan is not just some loving idiot when he decides that he would prefer to test artificial intelligence through feminine designs; that he has a deeper motivation and compulsion to make something that 'pleases him/God,' and that what he chooses is a woman. Consider that there is no such thing as a 'real woman,' "Because only a man knows how a woman is supposed to act." Consider that these values of 'real man' and 'real woman' are perpetuated by venture capitalists, not unlike Nathan, who make filthy lucre off manipulating consumer insecurities and desires.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:A film is not feminist because it depicts a literal woman overthrowing a patriarchal system. It is feminist when it critiques patriarchy, chauvinism, and limiting gender/sexual constructs. I can agree with that, but K. Waste posted:Ava is a metaphor for a female by explicit virtue of the fact that she is designed to be as close to a sentient woman as possible by Nathan, to simulate not just personhood, but womanhood That is really not what a metaphor is. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2180271/ Atka Maniskor is a good show about AI with a solid metaphor for feminism http://www.amazon.com/The-Lifecycle-Software-Objects-Chiang/dp/1596063173 The lifecycle of software objects is a good book about AI with real sexuality. Ex Machina on the other hand, tries to trick the viewer into humanizing the AI, which is what you are doing by allowing it gender. In my view Ava is not entitled to a gender, in the same way that a painting or a photograph of a woman is not entitled to a gender, it is feminine, but it is not female. As to your slights on my understanding of feminism, as I said, I went to see this with a feminist pretty much for that reason, to educate myself, but since she is a psychologist and I a games programmer who has dabbled extensively in creating AI's, our discussions after seeing it never once touched on feminism, but rather have been based around the actual premise of the film. I've never claimed in this thread that the film is devoid of feminist themes, just that the film was more enjoyable to me personally when the salient point is about posthumanism and the nature of consciousness rather than gender politics. monkey fucked around with this message at 07:21 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
It's kinda funny everyone here is acting like an rear end in a top hat over disagreeing what the film is about.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
monkey posted:I've never claimed in this thread that the film is devoid of feminist themes, just that the film was more enjoyable to me personally when the salient point is about posthumanism and the nature of consciousness rather than gender politics. You're significantly back pedaling from your overt condescension to even a basic reading of how gender functions not as a 'legitimate' social identity within the narrative, such that it is used specifically as a point of contention and manipulation by two of the major characters. monkey posted:What I'm saying is you're ruining a perfectly good story about two guys and a robot by shoehorning your agenda into it. I saw it with a feminist and afterwards we talked about artificial intelligence, the nature of consciousness and what it means to be human. This thread is the most disappointing thing about the film. You specifically and consciously talked down to the idea of reading the film as being "about feminism," which you have now amended to being "about gender politics." There's no need to feel slighted. You are getting exactly the sort of "What the gently caress are you talking about?" response you deserve for your reactionary dismissal of 'the feminist agenda' latent in pointing out the obvious, which is that a film about two men who make a simulated woman inevitably comments upon how its characters perceive, conceptualize, and exploit gender as a facet of consciousness.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:You are getting exactly the sort of "What the gently caress are you talking about?" response you deserve for your reactionary dismissal of 'the feminist agenda' latent in pointing out the obvious, which is that a film about two men who make a simulated woman inevitably comments upon how its characters perceive, conceptualize, and exploit gender as a facet of consciousness. Ava was made by one man, not two. Speaking of which, the amount of knowledge required to assemble a robot of that sophistication by oneself is kind of crazy, not to mention the amount of research and development for incredibly advanced things that are just sort of taken for granted. Maybe Nathan contracted out some of the engineering for various physical parts like arms/legs, or the material for the skin/eyes but never told the companies he was paying what they were for. This isn't at all relevant to the movie, but it's kind of funny to think about.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
I'm not back pedaling at all, but there's no point arguing with you further. I will leave you with this. I scoffed at a thread about this movie that was overwhelmingly focussed on feminism, because this is the only film I've ever seen that makes constant references to the work of Hofstader and addresses concerns of the Future of Life Institute. I was looking forward to reading CD's take on that sort of thing, but apparently those aspects slid right past you all because Ava had tits.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
monkey posted:I'm not back pedaling at all, but there's no point arguing with you further. I will leave you with this. I scoffed at a thread about this movie that was overwhelmingly focussed on feminism, because this is the only film I've ever seen that makes constant references to the work of Hofstader and addresses concerns of the Future of Life Institute. I was looking forward to reading CD's take on that sort of thing, but apparently those aspects slid right past you all because Ava had tits. Dude, there is literally no shame in admitting you were mistaken. No need to leave in a huff.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
monkey posted:I'm not back pedaling at all, but there's no point arguing with you further. I will leave you with this. I scoffed at a thread about this movie that was overwhelmingly focussed on feminism, because this is the only film I've ever seen that makes constant references to the work of Hofstader and addresses concerns of the Future of Life Institute. I was looking forward to reading CD's take on that sort of thing, but apparently those aspects slid right past you all because Ava had tits. I'd actually argue that some feminists wouldn't enjoy the movie much though, maybe because I'm male but, I thought it was a more male centric story anyhow.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 10:14
|
|
|
monkey posted:I'm not back pedaling at all, but there's no point arguing with you further. I will leave you with this. I scoffed at a thread about this movie that was overwhelmingly focussed on feminism, because this is the only film I've ever seen that makes constant references to the work of Hofstader and addresses concerns of the Future of Life Institute. I was looking forward to reading CD's take on that sort of thing, but apparently those aspects slid right past you all because Ava had tits. Why does this reading of the film make you so obviously uncomfortable and defensive? I mean good lord this isn't at all a subtle theme in the film.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
monkey posted:I'm not back pedaling at all, but there's no point arguing with you further. I will leave you with this. I scoffed at a thread about this movie that was overwhelmingly focussed on feminism, because this is the only film I've ever seen that makes constant references to the work of Hofstader and addresses concerns of the Future of Life Institute. I was looking forward to reading CD's take on that sort of thing, but apparently those aspects slid right past you all because Ava had tits. Normally when I like a movie and someone else likes a movie and they discuss an element I hadn't thought of I think it's cool and good and I'm happy to learn about it from them. Why don't you talk about the themes you enjoyed instead of coming in and declaring that everyone is braindead for seeing something in a movie that you didn't?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
monkey, I hope the lesson you've learned here is never respond to the social justice movie posts (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Ava killing Nathan and abandoning Caleb to die does not signify that 'naive feminism' has been abused by the robot, such that Caleb becomes an analogy for audiences who engage the film within a critical feminist framework: He/they "miss the point." It signifies that the feminine construct - observed, experimented upon, exploited, and strictly controlled - has avenged its own exploitation. It has proved, on its own, the fundamental instability of the system, by destroying its creator and abandoning its liberator. I just want to kind of add to this/throw in my two cents on the analysis of the film and see if others agree. What I found really amazing and interesting about the ending and Ava abandoning Caleb was that it solidified the fact that Caleb is NOT her liberator. She is her own liberator. She used Caleb to escape. He was a tool for her. If she had let him out, I think that would have been muddied, for lack of a better term. They would have been conspirators at least, and he would be her liberator at most. I think that would fundamentally change almost everything about the movie. Yes, it feels inhuman in a way, but when you throw it into the feminist metaphor it's brilliant. She liberates herself from her exploited construct, and it tumbles to the ground because of her.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 14:45
|
|
God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title
|
monkey posted:
Probably because your friend knows better than to bark up this tree with you, given your hostility to feminism
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 18:07 |
|
|
Arkane posted:monkey, I hope the lesson you've learned here is never respond to the social justice movie posts Yeah, that's exactly what happened here. He didn't assume a condescending, superior than thou tone about a supposed 'real meaning' that he did a poor job explaining in favor of slagging off perspectives he didn't bother to read and doesn't care to understand. Fhate posted:Ava was made by one man, not two. Much like a man watching a movie, Caleb actively participates in the 'creation' of Ava... Not Ava the unique, robotic person, but a third, conceptual Ava that exists abstractly within his own mind. It is only when Ava possesses the freedom of movement and self-determination fully that we see 'the real Ava.' Hence, where monkey's reading consistently runs afoul; not because he's going too far, but because he's not prepared to go far enough: quote:Ex Machina... tries to trick the viewer into humanizing the AI, which is what you are doing by allowing it gender. In my view Ava is not entitled to a gender, in the same way that a painting or a photograph of a woman is not entitled to a gender, it is feminine, but it is not female. Notice all this weird terminology, "allowing," "entitled." Notice also that he aptly compares the ascription of gender and sexuality to Ava as being not at all unlike ascribing it to just the image of a woman. In Monkey's mind, gender and sexuality are entirely about essentialist notions of 'true' males and females. They aren't constructs, but essential realities that instruct us on the proper, cautious way of engaging art(ificial intelligence). He uses the excuse of transhumanism - that Ava is a superior being that exists beyond repressive paradigms of gender and sexuality - but really this is just a cop out. It absolves him of having to engage with the self-evident realities of the film text, which is that regardless of whether or not Ava represents an 'essential' or 'true female' (as opposed to merely being feminine), she nonetheless is consistently engaged with, observed, and discussed on the basis of her theoretical gender and sexuality. Furthermore, the film does not, in fact, treat these gender and sexual motifs are arbitrary, but as a fundamental point of fascination with Nathan's design and attempt to manipulate and control others. Once we add to this the fact that Ava actively conforms to this identity, by dressing 'more human,' picking and choosing from her comrades in Nathan's queer wardrobe, we are left with a situation that quite accurately represents the hegemonic as opposed to, as monkey would have it, essential reality of gender and sexuality. These motifs are both assigned to and consciously assumed by individuals. Whether Ava is assuming this assigned gender/sexual identity merely for 'survival' or personal fetishistic expression is completely besides the point. The point is that regardless of her/It's abstract intents or motives, she nonetheless consciously engages with gender and sexuality in order to maneuver the complex social environments into which she is 'born.' Monkey eschews the omnipresence of gender/sexuality within the film narrative because he's threatened by how the 'feminist agenda' is leading people to mistake a fetishistic photograph of a woman for a 'real woman.' Thus, he illustrates the reactionary opposite fallacy, which is that Ava must be a 'real woman' in order for any commentary on misogyny, sexism, and the exploitation of women to work. In reality, it is precisely because gender and sexuality are constructs that they are significant. They instruct, coerce, and manipulate desires and prejudices in order to provoke specific social and cultural responses. The problem is not about 'entitlement,' as in, "Oh, if only we could discern the 'real men' and the 'real women,' then there wouldn't be any sexism. Then we'd be liberated." The transhumanist subtext of the film is indistinguishable from the feminist one, because both are explicitly engaging in how regressive paradigms of masculinity, femininity, and humanity, lead to exploitation, oppression, and violence. I highly recommend everyone in this thread go on Netflix and check out the mail-order bride documentary Love Me from 2014. It is the hard sci-fi, non-sci fi, 'real world' version of what Ex Machina presents.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:29
|
|