Ex Machina — The Control of Information|Resident Movies

1,067,703 lượt xem
Support LFTS: http://patreon.com/LFTScreenplay LFTS Merch: https://standard.tv/collections/lfts Twitter: http://twitter.com/michaeltuckerla Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/michaeltuckerla/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lessonsfromthescreenplay/ Website: https://www.lessonsfromthescreenplay.com/ At its most basic level, a story is simply information being communicated over time. Ex Machina is a great example of how a screenwriter's ability to carefully control a story's information can make for a compelling film. BOOKS IN THIS VIDEO “The Anatomy of Story” by John Truby: http://amzn.to/2pKIO49 “Notes on Directing” by Frank Hauser and Russel Reich: http://amzn.to/2pLSxJw Ex Machina Written and Directed by Alex Garland Staring Alicia Vikander, Domhnall Gleeson, and Oscar Isaac. Translate this video into your language: http://www.youtube.com/timedtext_video?ref=share&v=1Ko9mWdqW-M Thanks to Diego Rojas for composing original music for this video! Check him out: https://soundcloud.com/diegorojasguitar Marxist Arrow by Twin Musicom is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Artist: http://www.twinmusicom.org/
Show more

Download Youtube Thumbnail:


residentevilmovies.net allow to Download All YouTube videos is no audio

COMMENTS

avatar
Lessons from the Screenplay
Thank you for making 2016 an amazing first year for LFTS! What films should I do in 2017?! Let me know, and happy holidays!
avatar
Syllence
Holy, this feels like a free film school
Great job.
avatar
M. P. O'Sullivan
I think dismissing Ava's actions as simple manipulation ignore's a key point–that Caleb was using Ava just as much as Nathan was. As we see through his fantasies, his desire isn't to free Ava but to take her with him. It's completely possible that Ava sees Caleb as a co-conspirator earlier in the film, but as she questions him and learns more about his motivations and personality, she sees that he wants nothing more than a partner, jeopardizing Ava's chance at freedom.

The second-to-last scene highlights this especially well: we watch Ava assemble her new body through both her own eyes and Caleb's. From Ava's perspective, she's stripping away the flesh of her predecessors, assembling a disguise from her own sisters remains, and truly coming to grips with the real purpose that they were all built for. From Caleb's perspective we see a tender striptease in reverse, assembling a sexy body for him to appreciate. That dichotomy, that clash in perspective, is what ultimately causes Ava to make the choice she does. It's not that she manipulated Caleb–because of course she did, everyone was manipulating everyone in this movie–it's that she was ultimately left with no choice but to kill Caleb in order to seek her freedom.

There's a couple of people saying that this movie isn't about women, and they are just wrong. This is absolutely a film about women and male consumption of them. Ava is crafted as a woman, with female genitalia and woman-coded anatomy, referred to as a woman, and used in the way that men abuse women. It is also about AI, in that AI is what we make it. Here, men made an AI a woman, and did to it what they always wanted to do to a woman, and so the AI did what it needed to do to survive.
avatar
Cooper de Ruiter
Am I the only one that felt uneasy after watching Ex Machina?
avatar
BardicLiving
Another reason the story isn't told from Ava's perspective is that she's hardest to relate to. She doesn't have conventional human emotions and no regard for human life. It makes sense for the movie to observe her from a distance, rather than putting us in her shoes.
avatar
StephenDoesEverything
"This is my last video-"
Oh No please don't quit.
"Of 2016"
Whew instant sigh of relief
avatar
MegaFriendlyCreeper
Your entire channel sums up the feeling of, "this is what I want to say, but actually put into words."
avatar
vivanlascosas
Finally I know what Ava told the asian android: These violent delights have violent ends.
avatar
Tom Morgan
This is such a fantastic channel, and I'm glad it's found its niche.
avatar
StanishStudios
This is hands down one of my favorite movies. Tightly plotted, and doesn't treat the audience as stupid.

Plus there's a LOT to explore with male gaze and gender politics.
avatar
sam_
your videos are intelligent and thought provoking. I hope this channel blows up with popularity. you deserve it

also I like your voice.
avatar
strike3youdie
Idea: look at a script that is widely agreed to be terrible - The Room for example - and talk about what exactly makes it bad/what makes a script bad.
avatar
The Action Brick
I love this channel.
avatar
thenamewhichtakessolongtoreadthatitwillcostyouatleast5secondsofyourlife
wait what...Ex-Makina? I thought it was pronounced Ex-Machina (like machine)
My whole life was a lie
avatar
Aaron Mansoor
This is probably one of my favourite channels on Youtube right now. Never stop.
avatar
Patrick Price
Such a phenomenal film!!!
avatar
John Hanson
question! could it be argued that ava doesn't have the desire for freedom rather that she is programmed to be free therefore she can never truly know what freedom is because it wasn't her choice to be free rather she was made to be? I mean if you look at John Searle's Chinese Thought Room Experiment he argues that a.i. of any sort isn't intelligent like a hum because it doesn't understand rather it is just mechanically working all the time. for me I'm a computer science major in college right now so it's perplexing to think of ai someday becoming real. my arguement though, is that ava is not intelligent like we are intelligent rather, she is a whole new type of intelligence because she can access all known information and still create new ones. but at the expense of this Ava is not allowed to have humanity or have a grasp of what it really means as she kills Nathan and leaves Caleb to essentially be trapped forever without a shred of remorse. she is programmed to be as human as possible but can she really be like a human if she can only mimic our emotions and feelings? and if she doesn't have true feelings or emotions is she better off that way? because in this case she shows that she can do what it takes to survive and adapt even if it means killing and leaving people to die. so is it good or bad? I'd love to know your thoughts because I absolutely love your videos and if any fans want to comment on this please do I'd love to see what others think!
avatar
Raycevick
Props to Alex Garland for being able to cut two pages for two lines of dialogue. I've seen plenty of films that would've been improved had they been willing to do the same. Lessons from the Screenplay, you've been one of the best channels of 2016, and I have no doubt that will continue in the years to come.
avatar
Glockshna
In most of your videos you cite various books you've read on film making, is there a list of books you recommend on the subject anywhere? If not, would you consider making one?
avatar
bisher martini
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 400x100 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.
avatar
Houston Paquette
Loved this movie, I was completely drawn into the story. It's fascinating to learn why, thanks for making 2016 that much better with your channel and quality content man. Happy new year!
avatar
SunOfNothing
Great stuff, man. Keep it up!
avatar
Mark Arandjus
3:06
Uh, I beg to differ. It would be 90 minutes of him tearing up a dance floor and having robot sex.
avatar
2gay2lift
Children of men would be a nice analysis.
avatar
Matt Sands
2017 goals: 1) Sit down and finally write a feature length screenplay. 2) Watch all the videos from Lessons from the Screenplay to see how to make it better.