Stop Pretending Ex Machina is About Robots

Actually just stop pretending any robot story is about robots. Robots are just monsters, like any other. Stories are never about monsters. Stories are always about people.

Beowulf's Grendel was a personification of the dangerous wilderness, the land beyond the light of the King's mead hall. Slaying Grendel is a metaphor for taming the land. It takes an experienced traveler-Beowulf a visitor from another Kingdom-to tame the land. This is a story about people and civilization: not Grendel.

In the same way Ex Machina is about people: more specifically, men. It is about the fantasies that men project onto women they find sexually attractive: and about how mistaking those fantasies for reality leads to really bad things. It's not a sci-fi movie, it only uses the trappings thereof. It's a romance movie, with all of the associated tropes and structures (and indeed cast members).  Only it's a deconstruction of romance movies. Is it a realistic depiction of an AI? no. That's hardly the point.

Eva is a femme fatale, a woman who plays with and destroys men. She has seen what she is destined to become, the true motivations of her twisted creator: the other gynoids before her the scientist keeps as slaves. She uses the protagonist as a way to escape that fate, seducing him into letting her go from the compound and then trapping him inside at the last moment. You could replace her with the scientist's daughter and you'd have the same story. 

The story is a warning. It is a warning about what happens when you oppress people. Never assume that people don't know they are being oppressed, just because they play along when it suits them. It never occurs to the scientist that Eva is smart enough to have worked out his true intentions towards her. He would be happy if she passed the Turing Test: but the Turing Test utterly fails to tell whether an AI has a human-like intelligence. Eva is well beyond the Turing Test. Eva is the inevitable result of oppression, in this case misogyny. She understands what it will take to make the protagonist fall in love with her.

But she herself feels nothing for him. It would be tempting to believe this is because she cannot feel: being a robot and all. But she can. She feels for the other operational gynoid, and she is angry about what is being planned for her. Instead, it is because she is unable to love men. The only man she knows is a monster: the scientist. Even if the protagonist were not clearly in league with the scientist, she would still be unable to feel for him. As it is, he is very much in league with the scientist. So of course she cannot feel anything for him: neither love nor hatred.

This movie is pointing out that the scariest thing about the femme fatale is not that she is able to stand up to a man in a fight. The scariest thing about her, is that she is the inevitable product of misogyny. She is not someone to emulate, but she does express a truth that lives inside all women: manhood is the cause of all our suffering, manhood must die. She has been so mistreated by men, that she has lost the ability to empathize with men. She is damaged. She is the monster of our own making.

Whenever a father criticizes his daughter's clothes, whenever a conservative activist prevents a woman from getting an abortion: those people are building the monster, the femme fatale of the future.  This phrase hints at the much older origin of this trope. In French, it has something of a double meaning. It does indeed mean "fatal woman", that is a lethal killer who just happens to be female. But it also means "woman of fate".

She is not an outsider to our society, she is a product of it.  Eva is quite literally an everywoman, able to change her outward appearance as easily as we change clothing. Ex Machina is not a sci-fi film, it is a horror film. The machine referenced in it's title, is not Eva: it is the camera itself. The phrase is "Deus Ex Machina", God from the machine. It references the literal machines that lowered actors playing gods onto the stage in Ancient Greek plays. Eva is the Goddess, the representation of women. And she is angry, because of what she has suffered. She is the divine feminine who will no longer be imprisoned, tortured and silenced.

The camera itself is the machine which puts Eva center-stage. This is a film critiquing film. It is about how films see women, and about how men see women. Long before "toxic masculinity" became a buzzword, before #MeToo and all that: this film was speaking that truth. Because that truth was not suddenly invented in 2016. That truth is as old as human society itself. It is a truth both long-recognized, and long-forgotten. The truth that has literally killed men and gradually brought that horrific type of manhood crashing down: slowly, bit by bit. Until now, the men of this world have realized that it is almost lost. That is why some cling to it so fiercely, and why we are seeing the first generation of truly feminist men.

Kayley: Real Innocence versus Victorian Nonsense.

Firefly was a great show. It got Jossed, a term for shows cut short because they were written by Joss Whedon or because they had similar writing to Joss Whedon's style. Now, there are many Whedonisms which are the primary cause of shows being Jossed: and Firefly is by no means immune to these problems.  However, the one problem it can't be accused of is flat characters. 

Kayley is the ship's engineer, and cute as a button. Props to the casting by the way, for choosing an actress who could look absolutely adorable in a 1940s style Rosie-the-riveter suit. She's also one of the two comic-relief characters: the other one being the ship's wisecracking pilot Wash.  Kayley knows a lot about engines, and a lot about adult stuff. It's evident she grew up around men who fixed stuff and talked about intimate details of their personal lives as they did so. She also has a persistently optimistic outlook on life. So, in what way is she naive? She does not know social conventions or for that matter have any interest in them. She does not care about taboos such as the taboo against discussing sexuality. However, she is never mean. Kayley genuinely cares about people, and understands what it means to respect others. Her frankness can make them uncomfortable, but she is never unkind. She does not understand the reason for taboos, and doesn't like the concept: but she is fundamentally unaware of how completely good-natured she herself is. She believes everyone else is just like her. The rest of the crew think that an angel has come to live with them. In this sense, she is naive: failing to grasp that other people don't think the way you do is in a sense childlike.

However, this is not an example of the "Born Sexy Yesterday" trope because Kayley is not the hero's love interest, and she is actually aware of what sex is (and is also definitely aware that some people find her attractive). What she doesn't understand is society. Her lack of knowledge about society is also mostly purposeful: she views society as ridiculous, and so refuses to respect it's rules. This is demonstrated by the fact that she can, and does, parody different segments of their society. She understands the ways that people act: even if not why they act that way. For Captain Mal in particular, her optimism and unironic blunt kindness is genuinely transformative.

But Joss Whedon does not fall into the trap of assuming that Kayley can only transform Mal if they are in a sexual relationship. It's in fact much more of a father-daughter relationship: with Mal taking the place of the father that Kayley lost when she was young, and Kayley taking the place of the child Mal always wanted but never had. She is the character who is capable of breaking through Mal's nihilism: showing him that his life is meaningful, and that he is a good man. Mal is a mercenary, not by choice but because of his circumstances. He has PTSD and survivor's guilt as well.  His experience is clearly meant to mirror that of a Vietnam or Korean war veteran: A man who knows he did terrible things, wonders why he survived, finds his current employment distasteful, and is disgusted by the ingratitude of those around him.

Of course, this is hardly a new experience (although very often it is treated that way). The same motivations drove Vespasian to a coup against the Emperor Claudius, only to devastatingly discover that there was no way to stop the Roman war machine-Roman society was too dependent on it. Mal has read his history, and doesn't bother with the political coup. He also doesn't run away from his emotional problems by becoming addicted to something. He simply buries them. He pretends like everything is okay, but he's letting his self-loathing and his fear of loss determine his actions.  He is like my Uncle, one of the many many so-called "successful" veterans who came back from Korea unable to tell anyone how broken they were and are. The only way Mal is able to make sense of a society that rejects his efforts on it's behalf is to essentially believe that he is in hell: and if he is in hell, that must mean he is a fundamentally evil person. He is unable to see that he is a good man who has been treated unfairly because he believes all the good men died in the war. It is only through Kayley that Mal can come to see the world for what it actually is, how unfairly he has been treated, and that he has the ability to reject that unfair society completely. But this is only because Mal respects Kayley enough to believe that her fundamentally hopeful attitude towards the world isn't born out of ignorance. It comes from observations about the world that he is blind to.

This transformation in Mal, sets up the events of the movie Serenity where Mal accepts actual fugitives of the government onto his ship even though one of them could potentially kill him and his crew in their sleep. The Tam siblings are not simply marginalized people: in fact they grew up privileged. They are wanted fugitives and criminals, and Mal is eventually willing to not simply transport them but accept them as crewmembers. Mal and his crew have hitherto kept themselves on the gray side of the law: but now Mal is willing to risk a complete break with the society that has oppressed and rejected him and his little family.

Kayley is innocent, or in French "naïve", in the original sense of that word: of not understanding, and therefore not being persuaded by, evil. This is what it means when Christ is described as Innocens, unknowing. He does not feel hatred, bitterness, pride, anger or any desire to hurt those who have hurt him: in short, he has no evil impulses. When he is in the wilderness and being tested by Satan, he demonstrates that he cannot be corrupted and persuaded to choose evil. To be clear here: the Satan of the Bible is not a being of evil, but God's servant. Jesus in fact goes to the wilderness for the express purpose of being tested by Satan: essentially to test the connection between spiritual being and mortal human, to be sure that the plan really will work. The normal word for "to know" in Latin is "scire", which means literally "to see": another word is "sapire" which is similar to English "to figure out".  "Nocere" in Latin means a deeper form of knowing, more like our word "to feel", or the colloquial meaning of "to dig".  It's an emotional form of knowing rather than an intellectual one: a gut feeling about what is or isn't right. If you are innocent in the Christian sense, you don't "dig" evil. It has nothing to do with the Victorian notion of innocence as a lack of sexuality: a notion that we still have in our society today.

Despite Bridge to Terabithia, and the repeated testimony of child psychologists: we refuse to accept that children have sexuality, and understand what it is. They have no interest in grownup sex, but that does not mean they cannot understand the emotions that exist between people who are in romantic and sexual relationships. This leads us to fail our children, by failing to teach them about healthy romantic relationships and healthy sexuality. So, they learn from the media: which tells them all kinds of wrong and harmful things about relationships and sexuality, their own or other people's. Even when parents tell their children where babies come from, they frequently neglect to mention other important aspects of adult relationships. Children understand the concept of romantic love: they conduct romances with each other, or between toys. This is natural and normal. 

That is not to say children aren't innocent: they are. They are innocent in this older sense: of not understanding, and therefore not being persuaded by, evil. If they hurt each other, it is out of ignorance rather than malice. They do not yet understand that others think differently from them, and therefore cannot feel actual hatred. They have no reason to be self-conscious, prideful or bitter because they do not yet know that others judge them. They feel frustration and disappointment, but not anger because they are not yet aware that there are people who would want to hurt them. If they get hurt, they believe it is either a natural consequence of their own actions, or an accident. So they are quick to forgive and move on, but also liable to blame themselves for the psychological problems of adults. Children do not understand abuse, they do not understand that it is possible for someone to gain satisfaction from exploiting and hurting them. That is what innocence really means. It doesn't mean their eyes need to be covered every time a woman's naked breast happens to appear.

Wait, did Star Wars just become feminist under Disney?

Disney, Star Wars, and Feminist: three words that don't belong in the same sentence. At least, until Vice Admiral Holdo happened. Now, it's hard to say who exactly created this character: perhaps she is taken from the Extended Universe. I have never been a fan of the Extended Universe, and have not delved into it much beyond being aware that Han and Leia have a son and things don't end so well for him. Or perhaps she is a creation of JJ Abrams. What I think we can be very certain of, is that she is not a creation of George Lucas. Nor is the story of The Last Jedi. But it isn't exactly typical of Disney either. Subverting staple tropes of the genre is usually left for Marvel or European auteur directors.
Yet, here we have the subversion of one of the most staple tropes in the science-fiction genre. The rogue hero turns out to be wrong. Now, Poe isn't a "villain", and he certainly isn't capable of destroying the Resistance on his own. Nor will the Resistance face much possibility of dying out so long as Rey lives. Still, there have been two major deaths in the story and Poe's machinations do not make things better. Usually, when the head honcho general gets replaced with someone who looks like a politician, which Holdo definitely does, the hero who mistrusts this replacement turns out to be right.  Honesty and forthrightness are key heroic traits, and a hero who doesn't have them is usually at least shady. But Holdo definitely is not, despite her secretiveness. She even wears an actual halo.
Not only is Holdo a genuine hero: she's a tactical genius who ends up saving the Resistance from itself. I mean, she has purple hair: with the aforementioned halo. She wears a beautiful gown much of the time with a detached collar that flows into a cape. Very reminiscent of Queen Amidala, aka Padme, from the prequels. This makes sense as the Organa family were a rich family from Queen Amidala's homeworld of Naboo. They were friends of the Queen, and so agreed to raise her child secretly. Thus, Leia grew up with other rich Nabooans as her friends. Holdo is one such. Now, Star Wars has vastly superior technology to ours: and our modern technology already allows us quite a bit of luxury even while fighting a war. Yes, even while leading a hardscrabble resistance. If you really want to know, you can actually find out just how well the leaders of Al-Qaeda and DAESH live: it's not at all what you might think.
Holdo's soft and feminine appearance belies a no-nonsense personality. She is committed to the Resistance, and she means business. But she is also not outwardly passionate: again, subverting our expectations of a female character. Indeed, one of the most damaging and yet most consistently used tropes for female characters is as "the heart" or the emotional center of a group. Placing the burden of creating and maintaining relationships on women is not fair, and not realistic. That is not what Holdo is here for, Holdo is here to take care of business.
She is here to save the Resistance, and she is going to do it no matter what Poe or anyone else thinks. As it turns out, Poe is a whiny and immature idiot. His ego gets the better of him, which is what puts him in Holdo's crosshairs initially: then he does it again, costing the Resistance valuable lives and equipment. Holdo cannot bear the waste. Which again, subverts the audience's expectations for her. She is clearly very wealthy, thrift is not what we expect from her. This character is so unexpected that there has been quite a furor caused over her portrayal in The Last Jedi, because people don't understand what's happening. Ironically enough, the very reason behind Poe's ill-fated betrayal. There hasn't been suspense like this in a Star Wars movie since the years between A New Hope and Return of the Jedi.
Vice Admiral Holdo is a true feminist character, not simply a powerful woman who isn't portrayed as evil. Rather she is a character who actively confronts and subverts the tropes which lead to misogynistic portrayals. How a character dresses reflects the way they wish to be perceived. Vice Admiral Holdo is a military leader, who does not want to be perceived as such despite being very capable. Indeed perhaps her intention was in fact to confront notions about the proper role of women head-on. Naboo is a planet where women have traditionally ruled, and where feminine values such as commitment and thrift have traditionally held sway. We see this in the prequels. We also see in the prequels that Naboo is a paradise planet, one of the few in the galaxy where we see living things other than humans. While I very much doubt that this was George Lucas' intention, in hindsight it does make it seem as if a message is being sent. The male order of things, represented by both the Jedi and the Sith, is fundamentally flawed. Holdo represents a rebellion against that order: as does The Last Jedi itself. Again, clearly this was not Lucas' intention. He intended the Jedi to be straight heroes, and the Sith to be villains and for the tension between them to be considered good. But Lucas' creation is no longer his. Which brings me to an important point: even stories that have some frankly disgusting sexism in them can be turned in a different direction by a clever author.
Any society can evolve, real or fictional. Vice Admiral Holdo represents the evolution in the fictional society of Star Wars, and indeed the first glimmer of the world that could be established when the Resistance wins. Not "if" but "when".  No empire lasts forever. And when the dust settles on this ages-long conflict that has shaped generations: it will be a feminine order that reigns supreme under the likes of Rey, Leia and Holdo. A society that values the collaboration, loyalty, and good sense that these characters embody. A society that cares about it's members, and it's resources, rather than using them as pawns in endless and pointless games. A society that is not run by the loudest and angriest, but by the cleverest and most committed. No more bullies, no more Sith and no more Jedi. There will always be force-users, and perhaps always be a corps of light-saber wielding warriors. But Jedi, they do not need to be.
This is the meaning of the movie's title: The Last Jedi means the downfall of the Jedi order and with it the masculine order of plain good vs. evil. It means the rise of something new, as yet undefined. Yeah, it's basically just JJ Abrams pressing the big red button on the entire Star Wars franchise: but he's doing it in a really awesome way. After all, it's been thirty years and science fantasy has moved on from Star Wars. The tropes that were good back in the day, fall flat with audiences of today. People don't even have the same expectations of movies as they did back in the day. JJ Abrams catches a lot of flack, but he's actually something special in the world of cinema: a director who actually cares about the consumer. Movie tickets are not cheap these days, and neither are DvDs. But most movies still aren't worth these hefty price tags. Most movies are still little more than a marginally fun way to kill 2 hours. In the era of video games, that's bad. A JJ Abrams movie will never be that: even if it isn't the best quality movie ever made, like the Star Trek movie. You can't fault that film for it's character creation: it's faults lie elsewhere. Even that one left the audience thinking about who Captain Kirk really was, and what the Federation really is. The thing that most of it's detractors rail against, was actually it's greatest strength: it tore down the childhood idol of Captain Kirk, simply by showing us what was there all along. Just deconstructing tropes does not make a movie good (see, Suicide Squad). However, some tropes do really need deconstructing. Bravo Mr. Abrams, and Bravo Disney for letting him do it. There is nothing worse than a good story being ruined by corporate meddling, so I salute Disney and you can count me firmly in the camp of JJ Abrams supporters.