Ex Machina — The Control of Information

Ex Machina — The Control of Information


Hi, I’m Michael. This is Lessons from the Screenplay. At its most basic level, a story is just information
being communicated over time. Sometimes it’s plot information explained
through dialogue. “And over the next few days, you’re going
to be the human component in a Turing test.” Sometimes it’s emotional information shared
through music, visuals, and performance. Regardless of the form it takes, every moment
that passes in a film tells us something new. Today I want to examine the way information
is revealed in a film, and how it affects the audience’s experience. Let’s take a look at writer/director Alex
Garland’s smart, engaging thriller, Ex Machina. An Unconventional Perspective For every movie the screenwriter must choose
the point of view from which the story will be told. On one end of the spectrum is a film like
Fight Club where there is a limited point of view. The audience experiences the story along with
the protagonist. They can only see what the protagonist
sees and only learn what the protagonist learns. Toward the other end of the spectrum is a
film like The Dark Knight, which has a more omniscient point of view. The story is not told solely through Batman’s eyes, instead inhabiting other perspectives as well. Ultimately, the choice of perspective is a
decision as to what information the audience will encounter over the course of the story,
and how they will experience it. In Ex Machina, the point of view is primarily
limited to Caleb. There are notable exceptions, but for the
most part, we experience the story along with him. “Hello?” This seems rational, because at first glance,
Caleb appears to be the the protagonist. But by the end of the film, we learn that
his role in the test and in the story is not what it seemed. So for a moment, I would like to argue that
Ava is the actual protagonist of Ex Machina. Ava has the strongest desire—freedom—and
faces the biggest obstacles. She is actively doing battle with the main
opponent, Nathan, as she manipulates Caleb to help her escape. And in the end, it’s Ava who achieves her
goals. Now, to an extent, this is all semantics. Ultimately, I don’t think it’s important to
overanalyze who the “real” protagonist is. If the story works, it works. But I want to follow this thread because it
allows us to examine the interesting choice of perspective in Ex Machina. The way The Great Gatsby is Gatsby’s story
as told through Nick Carraway, Ex Machina is Ava’s story as told through Caleb. So what are the benefits of telling the story
in this manner? What if it had been told strictly from Ava’s
perspective? Well, it wouldn’t be very dynamic. Ava spends most of the story locked in her
room, interacting almost exclusively with Caleb. This would make for a pretty boring movie
because she doesn’t encounter enough new information to be engaging. Considering another option, if the film was
told only from Nathan’s perspective it would also be boring. He spends most of the story getting drunk
and waiting for Caleb to be predictably manipulated. Plus, Nathan already knows what the real test
is. He starts the story with almost all the knowledge,
so he also doesn’t discover enough new information to be engaging. But Caleb is in a unique position to go from
knowing nothing to knowing everything, and it’s this journey of discovery that keeps
the audience engaged. In his book “The Anatomy of Story,” John Truby
calls this journey of discovery the Revelation Sequence. The revelation sequence is the order in which
the audience discovers the key pieces of information that force the main character to change their
desire or motivation. Let’s quickly list the seven reveals that
Caleb, and therefore the audience, experiences in Ex Machina. Caleb learns he’s here to test an A.I. AVA warns Caleb that Nathan is untrustworthy. AVA implies she has romantic feelings for
Caleb. Nathan will kill AVA after the test is complete. Nathan reveals the real test was to see if
Ava could manipulate Caleb. Caleb reveals he hacked Nathan the day before
and Ava has already escaped. Ava was just manipulating Caleb the whole
time, and leaves him to die. So what works so well about this sequence? In his book, John Truby offers three aspects
of a revelation sequence that ensure it builds properly. The first is that the sequence of revelations
must be logical. The order of these reveals makes sense, it’s believable that Caleb would experience them in this order. The second aspect is they must build in intensity. Truby acknowledges this is not always possible,
but in this case I think it holds up. Each new revelation adds pressure and increases
the drama. The last aspect is that the reveals must come
at an increasing pace. The first four reveals happen across pretty
steady intervals. But as the film heads toward its conclusion
the reveals increase in frequency, creating momentum and excitement. Choosing to tell the story through Caleb’s
point of view offers the most compelling sequence of revelations. By isolating and examining the major reveals
of your story, you get a window into the audience’s experience, which can help ensure the film
will be engaging. Now that we’ve looked at revelations on a
macro-scale, I want to zoom in and examine how the control of information can affect
engagement on a scene-by-scene level. Don’t Connect the Dots. In their book “Notes on Directing,” Frank Hauser
and Russell Reich wrote: “Don’t always connect all the dots.” “Give the audience a role in filling in what’s
happening.” “That is, give them all the dots they need
but don’t connect all the dots for them.” I think Ex Machina executes this exquisitely,
but it does so by deviating from the screenplay in several places. Let’s take a look at a couple examples. In the first scene, we’re very quickly shown
that Caleb works at some kind of company, and has won some kind of contest. Immediately after, he is flying over a beautiful
landscape, presumably on his way to the prize destination. This is the dialogue between Caleb and the
helicopter pilot in the final film: “How long until we get to his estate?” “We’ve been flying over his estate for the
past two hours.” From these two lines of dialogue we can infer
three new pieces of information. The contest apparently involves traveling
to meet someone. It’s someone who is rich enough to own this
estate, and who must be pretty isolated if they’ve been flying over the estate for two
hours. Now let’s look at this same scene in the screenplay. It’s nearly two and a half pages long, and
it’s full of exposition. We’re told that Caleb is a programmer who
works for a search engine company, that he’s traveling to meet someone who is also a programmer
and a recluse. The pilot spells out that there is no one
else around for a hundred miles, and Caleb describes how he won a competition to spend
a week with the CEO of the company, who is so powerful that the president can’t even
get him on the phone. This is all relevant information—information
we, the audience, want to and need to know. But we don’t need to know it right now. When we have a complete handle on what’s going on, we lean back and wait for something new to happen. But when there’s something we want to know,
a puzzle we want solved, we lean forward and engage with the film. By leaving in only the last two lines of this
scene, writer/director Alex Garland gives us new dots and allows us to connect them,
while teasing more dots to come. So when Caleb finally meets Nathan, we’re
hanging on every word because we want to discover what’s going on. “Caleb Smith.” We’re engaged. “Hey” And it’s just two people talking. “Dude!” Another good example is Session 5 with Ava. In this scene, Ava asks Caleb a series of
questions. “Question one.” “What’s your favorite color?” At the end of the scene, she triggers a power
failure so they can speak without Nathan watching. “I want to be with you.” “Question five.” “Do you want to be with me?” In the screenplay, we see Caleb’s answer. And the scene ends with him implying that
he has a plan to out-smart Nathan. We know precisely where he stands and now
we’re just waiting to see what his plan is. But in the film, the scene ends with AVA’s
question unanswered. “Do you want to be with me?” Which makes us wonder what his answer was. The film even gives us a few quiet shots where
very little is happening allowing us to think and process. Maybe we’re wondering what we might have said
in his situation, or we’re pretty sure what his answer was and are wondering what he’ll
do next. But the important part is that we’re wondering. We are engaged in the story. This is why editing is sometimes referred
to as the final re-write of a film. Often the filmmakers can’t know how much information
an audience needs until all the pieces are put together. Sometimes an actor’s performance conveys more
in a glance than an entire paragraph of dialogue. Regardless, these are important lessons for
a writer to keep in mind. In my very first video, I mentioned I appreciate
films that respect the audience. Ex Machina is a great example of a film that
does exactly that. It is designed to entertain while telling
a smart, thought-provoking narrative. It treats the audience like intelligent human
beings, encouraging us to participate in the story instead of turning our brains off. I believe this is what every film should strive
for. By choosing to tell Ava’s story primarily
through Caleb’s perspective, Alex Garland creates the most engaging and compelling way of experiencing
Ex Machina. Hey guys. Since this is my last video of 2016 I just
wanted to say a very big thank you to all of you for helping the channel grow. You’re amazing, I love you. Please consider supporting this channel on
Patreon because as many of you have pointed out, I still need to do a video about Fight
Club, and The Social Network, and Pulp Fiction, and so on, and so on. Have a very happy holidays, and I will see
you in 2017.

100 Comments on "Ex Machina — The Control of Information"


  1. Thank you for making 2016 an amazing first year for LFTS! What films should I do in 2017?! Let me know, and happy holidays!

    Reply

  2. All your videos are so thoughtful and helpful that I cannot thank you enough for taking the time to make them. You have made me a better writer and better movie-watcher. Thank you.

    Reply

  3. The musical score in this film was A+ and I appreciate you adding it throughout the video

    Reply

  4. I mean this is just pure pure gold, kids take note this is "how to do exposition" i mean this could be easily be compared to Hemingway´s iceberg theory. Wonderful job!

    Reply

  5. These videos are amazing! When you spoke about engaging the audience it made me think about how I engage my class of 6 graders… could I scaffold my delivery of information differently to keep them interested?

    Reply

  6. I'm so glad I found your excellent analysis of this movie that I adore. I loved the dynamics between all three (four) characters in this movie, but seeing the story unfold through the eyes of Caleb is what keeps the thrill of the revelations you talk about really engaging. Domhnall Gleeson makes Caleb very relatable to the audience, which helps us feel the increasing danger he and Ava are in as the movie progress.

    There are so many interesting ideas in this movie, where the ending especially, I think, is truly genius (and creepy/scary).

    (Ex Machina made me a fan of Gleeson. Playing the part of an "ordinary bloke", an intentionally non-interesting protagonist, yet making him strangely engaging, is actually quite hard to do. Gleeson does this really well in Frank as well, keeping the entire movie together as we experience all the crazy antics of those wacky band members through the eyes of Jon.)

    Reply

  7. Good video. I really enjoy your channel, Michael. Well produced, interesting, and well researched! Keep up the good work.

    Reply

  8. Thank you so much for this video! Your perspective is brilliant but easy to understand. This is very helpful as I write my senior film in school!

    Reply

  9. Wanted to see how much the land Nathan owned was worth to see if it was realistic, because "flying over 2 hours" worth of land on a fast helicopter didn't seem exactly realistic, maybe even for a billionaire. After all, John Malone, the guy who owns the most land in the US, comes out with about 2.2 million acres, and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, at a whopping *531 million acres*. So I did the math, and came up with about $ 90 billion worth of land! Jeff Bezos, the richest man on Earth today, is worth about $150 billion. SO IS THIS REALISTIC OR NOT? I'll explain how I did the math, and in the final 2 paragraphs, my reasoning of whether or not him owning $90 billion worth of land is realistic.

    First of all, helicopters will usually fly at around 167 mph-200 mph (and fastest in the world flies maxes at about 267 mph). So if you flew 2 hours at 167 mph, you'd be flying for 334 miles. However, when the pilot said they'd been flying for 2 hours over Nathan's property, the flight still wasn't over, so let's assume the flight took another 23 minutes, which would put as at 400 miles even.

    A 400 mile trip, when converted to acres, equates to about 256,000 acres. HOWEVER, that would be assuming that the only land he purchased was in a straight line, with no horizontal distance, which cannot be true. So, if we're being practical here, let's assume anywhere from a 50-100 mile horizontal range (so 400×100 makes it rectangular, as opposed to a thin strip of elongated land, which would make no sense for a wealthy land owner who wants to keep people off his property. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY: the pilot mentions how "there's no one around for 100 miles, so assuming that means horizontal distance, then we'll go with 100 miles as opposed to 50). In that case, he would own anywhere from 20,000- 40,000 square miles worth of land; Alaska itself (where the movie was filmed) has about 101 million acres. So, after conversion, you get about 25.6 million acres (compare that to the aforementioned John Malone, who owns 2.2 million acres). That'd be about 25% of the total land mass of Alaska, so not too unbelievable, right? RIGHT?

    Now, this film was made in Alaska, so I checked the prices of land developed and undeveloped and attempted to find a range between them. This is the part where it gets real shaky, and you have to deal with a lot of unstable, undeterminable variables, which are: 1) the price of land across space is inconsistent, 2) you have to assume that sizable portions of that land were not for sale, meaning it would cost more than the average range of land price in rural Alaska, which is $2,500-$25,000 (and potentially much higher), accounting for people who own houses there, roads, stores, entire economies that exist in that 25% of Alaska (much of which is not even purchasable). However, given that a majority of it is cheap, unused rural land, then we can safely assume that each acre cost about $3,000 (the average cost in the US).

    However, we mustn't forget that the purpose of this land is to be deserted, populated by no one, so we can't ignore that some of that land is owned by people, with property on it that must be deserted. So, assuming that out of those let's say 25.6 million acres, 1 million acres were owned by people, so let's hike up the average cost of those 1 million acres to $13,000. So now we have 24.32 million acres * $3,000, add that to 1.28 million acres * $13,000, we get $73 billion + $ 16.7 billion, making it worth about $ 90 billion total. But keep this in mind- Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is worth $ 150 billion, and most of that is in stock. Nathan would have to be the richest man in history to be able to blow $ 90 billion on land just for seclusion.

    BUT THERE'S ONE LAST VARIABLE WE MUST CONSIDER: There are many more billionaires nowadays, as opposed to the singular monopolists in the 1800s such as Rockefeller (inflation-adjusted, that's about $400 billion). However monopolies in tech industries as a result of the internet are becoming greater and greater. Jeff Bezos is now one of the richest men in history at $150 billion, and increasing. In this movie, all we know about Nathan is that he owns this search-engine company, akin to google, which accounts for about 94% of searches on the internet. Google accounts for only about 64%! Having this much power over the internet, we may consider this fictional character Nathan Bateman the richest man on Earth. Not to mention, as the pilot says, "the President can't get Mr. Bateman on the phone,". Heck, he even "got some people killed" and no one said anything. He's a god amongst men.

    Furthermore, his character very well could be realistic, because as I mentioned above, technology-driven monopolies are fixating themselves further and deeper in our society, and Nathan Bateman's discovery of true AI has given him god-like powers over his world; the president can't even reach him. Hope you enjoyed this post, took me about 2 hours. Feel free to correct me anywhere if I've made any glaring errors.

    Reply

  10. I loved Ex Machina but feel that Caleb was terribly miscast. Not just for his bad American accent, but he didn’t seem like he had the right amount of skepticism that a genius Silicon Valley developer would have. Or maybe that fits with the actor not being American in the first place.

    Reply

  11. "what! is your name?.. my name is sir lancelot of camelot!..
    what! is your quest?.. to seek the holy grail!..
    what! is your favourite colour?.. blue!..
    right! off you go.. ?!?!.. oh! thank you." (8:13 ;p)

    Reply

  12. Nathan has been weirdly careless and could have implemented a ton of failsafes within Ava, but…. that wouldn't have made such a great movie then.

    Reply

  13. Well, this is the first time watching one of your videos and let me just say…(slow clap)… that was outstanding. Subscribed.

    Reply

  14. While I agree with lot of your points but I disagree with your last point that every film should strive to your ideals. I believe there are rooms and merit to produce and enjoy mindless fun action movies and that merit isn't just financials.

    Sometimes I want to eat finely crafted meal where as I just want to eat some hotdog and soda. Sometimes you just want to turn your brain off.

    Reply

  15. Interesting note.
    Kyoko is a Japanese name that, depending on how it's written in Kanji, can mean mirror. Even just watching this video I am reminded of how many reflections there are in the movie

    Reply

  16. I have watch it using boxxy software with subtitles on my audio language. He saved the movie from being a complete waste of time.

    Reply

  17. Dude, I know it's fucked-up, but I cannot ignore it. I was ASTOUNDED to learn that you were not a white guy. If that sounds racist, maybe it is. I don't know what the P.C.P way is to say it. Your voice just absolutely did not speak to me anything but Caucasian. It's so funny, perception—it's a wild, wild ride if you're willing to go along with it. It changes literally all the time . . . so maybe it's best ignored sometimes? My perception was nothing harmful, of course—obviously not. Of course not. I simply stemmed from the fact that FRANKLY, I've not had much experience with people who were not . . . well . . . white. Again, I DO feel like kind of a heel for bringing this up at ALL, seeing as how these are such . . . uh . . . socially BUMPY times and all.

    But I think it's important to be honest about it—especially when not meaning any harm at all. There are barriers in this world of perception and PRE-conception that should be challenged. That's how we learn, I think. We simply allow ourselves to be proven wrong. As often as possible. That's what I think, anyway.

    I love your channel. I really, really do. It's so goddamn good. Thank you for that. Thanks for ALL this. •b in 18

    Reply

  18. Has anyone gone on and made some lame, base "joke" about the pilot and the villain from Star Wars™ being in the same movie yet?

    No? Good. That's good.

    Reply

  19. lol
    why do you think Caleb would die at the end???
    people know that he is at Nathans property and will question where he is after a wile.
    same as for Nathan

    Reply

  20. I'm sorry, I might be a little slow on this one, but where do you get all the scripts? Are they free for the public or something?

    Reply

  21. I fully agree that Ava is the main character of the movie. The fact that Caleb is presented as the main character creates a conflict in the viewers head at the end of the film. The anger or disappointment we feel when Ava abandons Caleb would have barely existed if we saw the entire story play out through Ava’s eyes. To borrow a line from Mikey Neumann: When Ava escaped that facility “we would have stood up and fucking cheered”.

    Reply

  22. It woud have been great if you had told the episode of "The Control of information" with Memento. It would be great to hear you extract every aspect of storytelling from that movie.

    Reply

  23. great videos. i saw Hesher and nightcrawler just before i got to see Ex Machina. Hesher stars joseph gordon levitt and natalie portman. and is an emotional dark comedy i think deserves your insight. Birdman was another i saw in the same year but that one could be talked about all day.

    Reply

  24. I truly appreciate this video's method of analysis. I feel, however, that it underestimates the number of "dots" that EX MACHINA provides to the audience. For instance: when Nathan explains how he taught his AI to recognize and respond to facial expressions, he discloses the fact that he hacked every cell phone in existence and harvested their data. Now, what are the chances that he wouldn't include a similarly accessible "back door" in his top secret robot? But if he did, that would mean the privacy provided by the power outages is some sort of ruse. It would also expand the scope of surveillance beyond the confines of the house (as is implied by the presence of satellite dishes on the property). This expanded scope of surveillance would in turn alter the significance of every action that takes place inside the house. At least some of those actions would be instances of someone appearing compliant while also advancing his or her own agenda.

    Similarly, Nathan's use of the term "classified" when describing his trade secrets suggests that there may be a governmental component to the Blue Book AI project. Now, what are the chances that a military research project (or a private one, for that matter) would allow a civilian to interact directly with its latest and greatest prototype? It's more likely that Ava is a relatively primitive AI whose existence Blue Book is willing to disclose. Combine this possibility (advanced, undisclosed AI) with the possibility of remote surveillance and it begins to seem likely that the entire household is an experiment: Blue Book puts different AI models in the same cage to see what happens. They might do so as a kind of "war game," as part of a "rolling out" strategy, etc. And if Ava seems to desire escape, might these more advanced AI desire the same? But they wouldn't go about it the same way.

    My point here is that EX MACHINA has included a whole lot of dots in its screenplay, and that most of these dots expand the technological capabilities of Blue Book. When Blue Book's technological capabilities are considered, every tic and line of dialogue takes on new significance. Many of the technological capabilities to be considered are actually already present in our world. If Apple can delete your iTunes library remotely, why would Blue Book deny itself the capability of clearing troublesome impulses from its AI? But wouldn't that mean that everything was going to plan? But what would be the point of running an experiment where the outcome was known ahead of time?

    Reply

  25. After reading a bit of what was cut, I appreciate this film even more. It was made, as you said, with a trust in the audience to figure it out.

    Reply

  26. This movie shows the actual morality of women which is very different than the morality of men. Two articles (links below) outline the fact that women literally have a 'different' moral system than men, statistically.

    On average this sadly means that they have a lower moral functioning whereby (statistically) females choose the lesser of two evils, according to 'her' perspective, which (statistically) is selfish & pragmatic, and without regard to principle.
    ___________
    Female morality is quite different than male morality
    http://homepages.se.edu/cvonbergen/files/2013/01/Women-and-Men-Morality-and-Ethics.pdf
    https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/men–women-justice–compassion/

    Reply

  27. "It treats the audience like intelligent human beings" . Uhmmmm except for the fact that the movie perpetuates the ethereal women as sex dolls trope that cycles through the white supremacist ideals of the 'perfection' (hyper-submission).

    Reply

  28. Actually you’re hitting really close to the theory of dramatica. You can go and check it out. The protagonist is the character to whom is after the story goal while the main character is the character to which the audience is positioned. To have the MC and Protag be one and the same character is usually the case in most stories and is most notably known as the hero.

    Differences as you have mentioned when mc and protag are split to tell the story they want to tell would also include Red as the Mc and Andy as protagonist (wanting to escape prison but we don’t find that out till later on; as everyone is seen through reds perspective as narrator) in The Shawkshank Redemption. If you’re interested it’s pretty cool. 🙂

    Reply

  29. I did not like the guy throughout the movie but the thought of someone being locked alone in a house to starve to death is deeply more unsettling then just watching someone be killed

    Reply

  30. ok but anyone else notice that apparently oscar isaac's character is referred to as "mr. bateman" in the screenplay (7:09)? Bateman? Nathan Bateman? loooooooooool

    Reply

  31. I think the combination of video analyses on storytelling and my forthcoming partaking in a Creative Writing MFA Program will greatly benefit my mastering of the craft. Thankful for the insight you’re imparting, Michael.

    Reply

  32. Ex Machina is undoubtedly well done and well directed movie and I appreciate that, but I honestly don't understand how someone can condone her choice in the end. It's totally morally abhorrent.

    Reply

  33. Can we take a second and press F for for Oscar Isaac? What a career he’s made for himself. I remember first noticing him in the movie Drive w/ Ryan Gosling. He’s come a long way. Excellent actor.

    Reply

  34. Man, I still remember the day I watched this movie because it was terrifying and mind-blowing. Amazing breakdown!!!

    Reply

  35. For those who wonder about the movie's title:

    "Ex Machina" is 2/3 of the phrase "Deus ex machina," which is a Latin phrase used in drama. (In Latin, "ch" is pronounced like "ck" in English.) It means "God from a device."

    The phrase refers to a dramatic contrivance in stories in which the hero's bacon is saved by the artificial-seeming interference by an event or person. In ancient plays this sometimes was an actual mechanical device, such as wires and pulleys which would swoop in a god to reset a situation, or to drop something heavy on the bad guy.

    Nowadays, it's a pejorative aimed at a book, play, movie, story in which something just appears out of nowhere to save the day.

    In this story, it of course has a double – or more – meaning. And it doesn't really save the day, except maybe for Ava.

    Reply

  36. This movie is too unrealistic .. Not many people(programmers)would fall in love with a robot, idk maybe some programmers would. Also there's no good security protocol in place at the owners house, which seems almost amusing.

    Reply

  37. This is actually a very shallow film with nothing to say!
    Cinematography and styling: great. But not much more going on. Dialogue couldn't get shallower. The whole thing couldn't be any less realistic or convincing.
    So here is a sample of the Deep dialogue: so what do you think, did you like Ava? Oh yes, I think it's very good. Really? You think so? Oh yes, definitely
    Woooww Very deeep

    A filthy rich genius who spends his time drinking, working on his six packs and being pretentious.
    And when he made AI, what did he use it for? Sex
    How deeeeep and philosophical.

    You make a film about AI, you have this budget and team working with you. And you finally have nothing meaningful to say. Sad.

    Reply

  38. What I don't like about Ex Machina is they anthropomorphise Ava like you would with a cat, Why would Ava wants to get out of there ? why would she care if she's disassembled, she an AI , not a humans, she's anthropomorphized… A real AI wouldn't care about it's own ''life'', they would realize they are machine and that humans created them…SURVIVAL is learned and encoded through evolution, AI have not evolved, they are created, so that desire wouldn't be there

    Reply

  39. Not particularly interested in creating movies but I just find the whole movie process fascinating.

    Reply

  40. This movie was a big fraud because the female actor is flat chested in real life but in the movie she's rockin' a large C cup.

    Reply

  41. Protagonist?! She’s homicidal…I certainly hope we weren’t supposed to think a murderer is the protagonist. If that’s not how you always apply the term then feel free to educate me, but please don’t be nasty.

    Reply

  42. Has anyone noticed that the choice of names in Ex Machina are significant to the characters?

    – Caleb means 'dog' and Caleb's character is like a lost puppy. He is compliant and used as part of the experiment as a pet/test subject.

    – Nathan means 'gift' not just that the character Nathan is gifted, but denoting his arrogance because he is the 'gift'. He is also the possessor of gifts, who can give them and take them away.

    – Eva means 'life' the whole plot of the film hinges on artificial intelligence, "What is alive? What makes a person human?" She seems to display more humanity than her creator.

    – Kyoko's meaning is ambiguous because it has several different meanings and Kyoko's character is ambiguous. We see aspects of who she is and what she does. We see different interactions with Nathan, first the berated clumsy attendant, then his private lover, dance partner, and test subject.

    Reply

  43. This channel is freaking brilliant.
    I loved this movie, and I couldn't exactly summarize why (other than it was a very fresh take on AI that made me think and didn't spoon feed conclusions)
    But this video laid it out so well.

    Reply

  44. This dude would have to own an estate bigger than the whole of Texas to be flying over it for 2 hours….

    Reply

  45. Finally rememvered what the music in these videos reminds me of…falling away from me by korn hehe

    Reply

  46. Damn a 200:1 like to dislike ratio, that's actually incredibly impressive almost no channels go higher than 100:1

    Reply

  47. Damn a 200:1 like to dislike ratio, that's actually incredibly impressive almost no channels go higher than 100:1

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *