1. Introduction to Frequently Asked Questions
   1. Version History and Credits
2. Frequently Asked Questions
   1. "Are those aliens at the end?"
   2. "Was Monica real at the end?"
   3. "Who is the Narrator?"
   4. "What is the deal with the fish in the Third Act?" New!
   5. "Is the film a Fairy Tale?"
   6. "What was the poem quoted by Dr. Know and on Hobby's door?"
   7. "In David's 'Final Day', why are there 7 candles on the cake, instead of 11?" New!
   8. "Where can I find the 'Supertoys' short story?"
   9. "Where can I find Stanley Kubrick's original treatment?"
   10. "Is there anyway I can get the A.I. script?"
   11. "Will there be a sequel to A.I.?"
   12. "Is it true Stanley Kubrick asked Steven Spielberg to do A.I.?"
   13. "Is it true that the WTC Towers can be seen in the film? And will they be deleted or edited out?"
3. Bibliography/Further Reading Material

1.0 Document Introduction

welcome

Welcome to Frequently Asked Questions v2.1. This FAQ is dedicated to your many questions about A.I., and is a companion to Jewish Symbolism v1.7 and Film Analysis v1.0, which is coming shortly. We strongly urge you to read both of those sections, though if you don't have the time, or want the quick explanation, this is what this section is for.

 

If you have a question about A.I., don't hesitate to ask. Email me at info@mysteriesofai.com and I will do my very best to answer it. I will also put the question up here, if I think it needs to be.

 

If you have found this FAQ helpful, and would like to share it with a friend, please link directly to this site, The Mysteries of A.I. - http://www.mysteriesofai.com/ . Please do not "borrow" any content from this page without written consent of the authors of this site, which can be obtained by emailing email. We very much appreciate it!

1.1 Version History and Credits

Version 2.1 Updates

• Added Question #2.13.
• Fixed some general stuff.
• Updated January 1, 2002 10:34PM PST
• Version 2.1 written and copyrighted by Jedi Kindergartner.

Version 2.0 Updates

• Added Questions #2.4 and #2.7. (Renumbered some of the questions...)
• Fixed some general stuff.
• Updated November 23, 10:34PM PST
• Version 2.0 written and copyrighted by Jedi Kindergartner.

Version 1.4 Updates

• Added Questions #2.5 and #2.10.
• Updated August 10, 7:43PM PST
• Version 1.4 written and copyrighted by Jedi Kindergartner.

Version 1.0 Updates

• Updated July 25, 8:25PM PST
• Version 1.0 written and copyrighted by Jedi Kindergartner.

2.0 Frequently Asked Questions

Without further ado, here is your FAQ....

2.1 "Are those aliens at the end?"

This is, perhaps, the most asked question about this film. To give you a simple answer, no, they are not aliens. They are supermechas/AI's/androids/robots or whatever else you want to call them, but not aliens - Though they bare a resemblance to the aliens in Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

 

While various foreshadowing (And a lot of Gigolo Joe's dialog) alludes to this -- which we will expand on later -- the main reasons to believe this are, simply, the words of the cast and crew.

 

Stanley Kubrick said they were supermechas in his treatment; Stan Winston has been quoted as saying they are supermechas; Dennis Muren was quoted by Entertainment Weekly as saying they are supermechas ("Despite similarities to the extraterrestrials in Steven Spielperg's 'Close Encounters Of The Third Kind,' they're androids. 'I could see where people would get mixed up,' says F/X supervisor Dennis Muren."); and Jan Harlan, one of the producers, and Stanley Kubrick's brother-in-law, has said they are supermechas.

 

That pretty much says it.

2.2 "Was Monica real at the end?"

Most people tend to think that Steven Spielberg ruined the "Kubrick"-ness of this film by throwing in a happy ending. However, if you consider this, you'll realize that this is definitely one of the darkest endings yet. You want the clear cut answer? There is none. Read on and decide for yourself. However, if you want my belief, I'd say no, she wasn't real.

 

Supporting the "Real" side of the argument, there are several points -

• The supermechas needed some sort of physical sample.
• The supermechas view David as very special and unique. Would they deceive him into thinking they had brought back his mother for a day?
• The supermechas bothered to explain to David the limitations and the 24-hour limit - And only after he understood and acknowledged this did they do it.
• The supermechas warned David against frightening her by explaining the 2000 years.
• Monica seemed genuinely confused as to what day it was or what was going on.
• "If we could have one day..." A question we ask ourselves. He actually got that day.

Supporting the "Not Real" side of the argument, note that -

• The home was a construct of his memory. How could a real mother enter that?
• Monica is formed instantly - The supermechas are able to instantly "create" her.
• The whole space/time theory as to why they could only bring her back for a day seems a bit hokey and made-up. I find it hard to believe that this explanation is simply bad writing on Spielberg's behalf.
• The scenes were filmed with a very grainy and overly saturated look, alluding to the fact that the whole day was a construct. (Some note that the quality eventually becomes better, and the grain and saturation soon become practically non-existant: You can attribute that to the supermechas perhaps "fine-tuning" their display, as we adjust our television sets...)
• In Stanley Kubrick's original treatment, the supermechas created an illusion of Monica.
• In Collodi's "Pinocchio," of which A.I. is based heavily on Pinocchio dreams of his Blue Fairy.
• And, most importantly, Monica did not act her "normal self", as in the rest of the movie - She was almost inhuman. She was very sympathetic toward David, and did not even bother to inquire about Martin or Henry.

And, to continue with the "Not Real" side, here is an analysis of the scene, written by Thade.

 

David awakes from the under-water-heli-copter to find that he is in the presence of the mechas of the future. They read his mind. Next, he awakes to find himself in his home. We can note here that this scene is filmed with a grainy texture, implying that the house is a construct. We get a bigger clue of this in a moment when the camera pulls back to reveal all the advanced mechas looking in on David.

So David runs around calling "Mommy!" but she is nowhere to be found. Next he hears a spooky voice calling, "Daaaaaviiiiiid...," and he finds that it is the "Blue Fairy." Now we know this "Blue Fairy" is just a computer construct, being controlled by the advanced AI.

Then David asks, can you make me a real boy, and the fairy says no. Next, David wants her to bring back his mommy, and the fairy can't do that either (what a lousy fairy). You know why the fairy said this? The mechas didn't want to have to bother with bringing her back, so they make the excuse that they need some DNA sample of her, knowing that David would not have that. But, surprisingly, Teddy produces the hair. David takes it, holds it in front of the fairy, and says, "Now you can bring her back." Next, we see the mechas looking in on David. They look at each other, sigh, and (here's the kicker) say, "GIVE HIM WHAT HE WANTS." They have to give in, have to stick to what the said about the DNA. What were they going to do, have the fairy say, "Just kidding..."?

So, they decide to construct her to appease David, but before they do, they make up something else. The main mecha sits down with David and tells him a tall tale about the space time continuum and say if they do bring her back, it can only be for one day. They are hoping this will get to David, and then he would say no. But he says yes.

As soon as this happens, the sun just happens to rise. Compliments of the mecha controlling the construct? I think so. So the mecha says, "Go to her. She's just waking up this instant." No, they just programmed her in that instant. So, David has the perfect day with a too perfect Monica. She pays attention to him all day, and was NOT the character we had seen all through the movie. And at the end of the day, she hugs him and says, "I love you David. I have always loved you."

A little too perfect, huh? That's how the mechas programmed her, to cater to David, and finally give him those three little words he would never get from the real Monica: "I love you." The story ends.

MONICA WAS NOT REAL. She was only a construct made for the sole purpose of putting David's 2000 year journey to an end. The glass is, and forever will be, half empty.

 

While that presents a very dry and pessimistic ending if you agree that Monica was not real, it could also be looked at as the supermechas finally completing David's quest, fulfilling his need to be loved. They did the wrong thing, but for the right intentions. Now that David's quest is fulfilled, they have given David the ability to grow. It was not just to appease David, but to give him a new beginning. (This is the way I look at it, for the most part.)

 

But what do you believe? Is Monica real? Or is she a construct? We'll leave it up to you to decide.

2.3 "Who was the Narrator?"

This ties in deeply with FAQ #2.5, "Is the film a fairy tale?". Well, I believe that the Narrator is the head supermecha dude. Ben Kingsley officially does the voice of the Narrator, and, if you pay attention, the Narrator and the Head Supermecha sound almost exactly the same.

 

This supports the idea that the whole film is being told by the Head Supermecha from David's memory - Ultimately a fairy tale. Many have questioned why the Narrator even exists -- He is not needed especially -- yet this is why. Because it is a fairy tale.

2.4 "What is the deal with the fish in the Third Act?"

The watchful movie viewer will be quick to note that in Act Three, something quite odd (to put it simply) occurs -- After David pushes himself off the building, he plunges into the ocean and starts to immediately sink. However, it does not take long before a school of fish come and practically "lift" him to safety... The scene contains the film's only moment that contains a bit of "divine" or "magical" influence. While the film takes good care not to seem unrealistic for the majority of the film, it is this scene that breaks the mold. One can only wonder - WHY? And just how the heck did Spielberg think up this?

 

Rest assured, the answers can be found... And in an expected place, as well: Carlo Collodi's "Pinocchio"...

 

"Tell me, impudent little rogue, does your story end here?"

"One more word," answered the Marionette, "and I am through. After buying me, you brought me here to kill me. But feeling sorry for me, you tied a stone to my neck and threw me to the bottom of the sea. That was very good and kind of you to want me to suffer as little as possible and I shall remember you always. And now my Fairy will take care of me, even if you--"

"Your Fairy? Who is she?"

"She is my mother, and, like all other mothers who love their children, she never loses sight of me, even though I do not deserve it. And today this good Fairy of mine, as soon as she saw me in danger of drowning, sent a thousand fishes to the spot where I lay."

 

Towards the end of Collodi's fairy tale - in the scene highlighted above - Pinocchio has just been transformed from a jack-ass back into a puppet. After screwing around, he awoke one day to find that he had turned into a donkey. He was sold to a circus, and then to a merchant who planned to kill him and use his hide for a drum-head.

The merchant takes Pinocchio-donkey to a cliff, and plans to kill him, but cannot bring himself to be so savage. Instead, he ties a stone to the donkey and ties another rope to the donkey's leg, and throws the donkey off the cliff, into the sea.

 

When the merchant pulls the rope to recover the drowned body of the donkey, he instead finds an overjoyed Pinocchio. His Blue Fairy (whom he calls "Mother") has sent a throng of fishes to help him. They eat away the husk of the donkey, leaving the Puppet underneath. Its a Baptism motif...

 

In A.I., David -- who has just behaved horribly -- jumps off a cliff. He is met by a throng of fish, who surround him, and take him to his surrogate mother figure...the Blue Fairy.

 

(Kudos to Ernest Rister for finding out the truth behind this!)

 

If you happen to accept the notion that the entire film is told by the advanced supermechas (Read: Question #2.5), this adds a bit of weight to your belief. An explanation for the fish could very well be that in David's moment of despair, David's memory ceases to take in every detail; He ceases to care. The supermechas, when reconstructing David's story, must instead fill in the blanks, in place of David's memory -- And they rely on a noted piece of literature to do so... "Pinocchio."

 

Continuing on, you may ask, "Well, how come we see the scenes with Hobby, in the beginning? How about those scenes where David is not present?" Well you could also look at those non-David scenes and apply the same belief held for the Fish scene -- The supermechas don't know all of what happened in actuality, so they make them up; they conjure them, using logic and intelligence to decide just how they supposedly happened.

2.5 "Is the film a fairy tale?"

After not much thought, one deduction you might reach is that this film is ultimately a fairy tale for this modern age - following in the steps of "Pinocchio," "Snow White," and others. What separates a fairy tale from a regular story? Fairy tales are able to be bent and formed by their teller. Combining fantasy with imagination, fairy tales fulfill a great human need.

 

And, I've come to realize, A.I. is ultimately a fairy tale. If you choose to look at it this way, the whole film is being recreated from David's memory and told by the Narrator, who is obviously the Head Supermecha.

 

Steven Spielberg yet again teases the audience, testing their knowledge and ability to comprehend a film - Something he hasn't done this much since his 1987 film Empire of the Sun, which most consider a flop. (Ernest Rister, a contributor to this site, has written a very thought-provoking commentary on Empire, which you can read here - I highly recommend that you do!)

 

As you may well have noticed, it is my belief that the entire film - especially the last half hour - is somehow "tainted." Like previously mentioned, I believe the events and details of the film are simply being gleaned from David's memories by the advanced supermechas. The stories pass from old (David) to new (advanced supermechas), much the same way they do today... Stories passing from paternal and grandfatherly figures to the youth.

 

Finally of note, you may also have seen an interesting title being read by the "other" David, in the library of Dr. Hobby's offices. The title of the book is "What Fish?" I'll leave you to determine the significance.

2.6 "What was the poem quoted by Dr. Know and on Hobby's door?"

The poem is entitled "The Stolen Child", and was written by W.B. Yeats in 1889. Here is the full text of it -

 

THE STOLEN CHILD

Where dips the rocky highland
Of Sleuth Wood in the Lake,
There lies a leafy island
Where flapping herons wake
The drowsy water-rats
There we've hid our faery vats,
Full of berries
And of reddest stolen cherries.
Come away, O human child!
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand,
For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand

Where the wave of moonlight glosses
The dim grey sands with light
Far off by furthest rosses
We foot it all the night,
Weaving olden dances,
Mingling hands and mingling glances
Till the moon has taken flight,
To and fro we leap
And chase the frothy bubbles,
While the world is full of troubles
And is anxious in its sleep
Come away, O human child!
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand,
For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand

Where the wandering water gushes
From the hills above Glen-Car,
In pools among the rushes
That scarce could bathe a star,
We seek for slumbering trout
And whispering in their ears
Give them unquiet dreams,
Leaning softly out
From ferns that drop their tears
Over the young streams
Come away, O human child!
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand,
For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand

Away with us he's going,
The solemn-eyed
He'll hear no more the lowing
Of the calves on the warm hillside
Or the kettle on the hob
Sing peace into his breast
Or see the brown mice bob
Round and round the oatmeal chest
For he comes, the human child
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand,
From a world more full of weeping then he can understand

--W.B. Yeats, 1889

 

A very suitable poem for this film indeed. However, all the more suitable when you consider Yeats' life. Special thank you to ktrevena, over at the DreamWorks Fansite Talkbacks for writing this biography -

 

The poem is W.B Yeats's "The Stolen Child," one the the Nobel-prize winning Irish poet's most famous, published in the 1889 collection "Crossways." The fact that this poem is quoted in "A.I." is remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least of which, whether or not Steven Spielberg knew this one or intuited it, is that Yeats forever felt unloved by his mother, Susan Pollexfen Yeats, although it was his mother and her family who set him on his life-long quest after "metaphor for poetry," and from whom he inherited his poetic voice. As his father, John Butler Yeats, a portrait painter of no small regard said of his remarkable son: "By marriage with a Pollexfen I have given a tongue to the seacliffs."

Yeats not only created Irish theatre--which has given us not only his under-appreciated but incalculatibly influential plays (see Samuel Beckett: "Waiting for Godot,", etc., and trace its genesis, for example), he single-handedly lit the still-flaming torch of the Irish Renaissance, which has burned steadily since his own "Wind Among the Reeds", the plays of Synge, the Easter Rising, James Joyce, Sean O'Casey, Joyce Carey, Sinead O'Connor, U2, the Cranberries, and the films of James Sheridan.

 

DeeKelly, also a member of the DreamWorks Fansite Talkbacks, expounds on the poem -

 

The inclusion of Poem on the Door, having been paraphrased from the Yeats poem "The Stolen Child", brings with it some especially strong symbolism when juxtaposed with the themes present in many Fairy Myths.



A woman who lived near Breage Church [Isle of Man] had a fine girl baby, and she thought the piskies came and took it and put a withered child in its place. The withered child lived to be twenty years old, and was no larger when it died than when the piskies brought it. It was fretful and peevish and frightfully shriveled. The parents believed that the piskies often used to come and look over a certain wall by the house to see the child. And I heard my grandmother say that the family once put the child out of doors at night to see if the piskies would take it back again.

(OR)

Those who believe in the darker side of fairies believe that they abducted humans and are given to or sacrificed to the devil or used to strengthen fairy stock. Others believe that the captive humans were merely fancied by the fairies and taken for their company (being treated quite well, but never being allowed to return to their human domain). In many such cases, a log of wood would be left in the place of the abducted human -- with a bewitching spell upon it that left all around it believing it was indeed the original person, laying still, sick and dying.

 

No mere coincidence that Spielberg included this in A.I., indeed. Yet another dark theme that 'A.I.' seems to explore. This is not just some half-witted, "B"-rated film. This is a carefully thought out masterpiece, and I commend Spielberg for it.

2.7 "In David's 'Final Day', why are there 7 candles on the cake instead of 11?"

Coming shortly! In the meantime, check out this thread at the DreamWorks Fansite TalkBacks.

2.8 "Where can I find the 'Supertoys' short story?"

Brian Aldiss' original short story, "Supertoys Last All Summer Long", can be found in two places - At Wired.com and in Brian Aldiss' book, "Supertoys Last All Summer Long: And Other Stories of Future Time," available at Amazon.com.

 

Brian Aldiss also wrote two additions to the "Supertoys" legacy back in '99, "Supertoys When When Winter Comes" and "Supertoys in Other Seasons." You can find these in his book, mentioned above.

2.9 "Where can I find Stanley Kubrick's original treatment?"

While the actual text of Kubrick's treatment is not available online, or in any other published manner (To my knowledge), you can read bits and pieces of it scattered around the net - Links coming shortly.

 

But we just *might* have some exclusive material for you in the upcoming months.

2.10 "Is there anyway I can get a script?"

So far the A.I. script has not made it's way onto the web yet. If you have any friends at Warner Bros. or Dreamworks, I'm sure you could probably get one (Email us if you do!), but other than that, I don't see a way. It is a common practice for studios to publish screenplays and sell them, but we have not seen the A.I. screenplay available yet - When we do, though, you bet we'll clue you in.

 

But, you might be pleased to note, several diligent movie watchers have been carefully reconstructing the script. While the actions and descriptions won't be exact (The dialog will be), it will be pretty much the same. Once they're done, you will be able to find their reconstruction of the script at this site, The Mysteries of A.I..

 

In the meantime, you may check out just the dialogue, courtesy of the Barflies of the Shangri La --

 

The A.I. Dialogue

2.11 "Will there be a sequel to A.I.?"

No, no, no!!! A thousand times no!! This "possibility" was started by an Inside.com article with Brian Aldiss, where he mentions that Spielberg bought the rights to Aldiss' sequel short story that he wrote in '99. According to Aldiss, Spielberg even went so far as to offer to buy a single sentence, which focused on a third idea for the saga. As the article states, "According to the terms of the original contract, Spielberg didn't need to pay. Any sequels to 'Supertoys' would be owned by whoever owned the original story. Says Aldiss: 'He was just being a gentleman -- mind you he had just been knighted.'"

 

If Inside.com had bothered to do their research, they would have realized that "Supertoys Last All Summer Long"'s sequels, "Supertoys When Winter comes" and "Supertoys in Other Seasons" are already available for purchase (Er, in the book form - not talking about film rights). They also would have realized that this "single sentence" Spielberg was interested in buying was, in fact, a moment on "Supertoys in Other Seasons" where David comes face to face with a large assembly line of identical Davids. Too much to comprehend, David goes haywire and malfunctions. Well, as you well know, this part is already in A.I.!!!!! Scratch that for a sequel.

 

In fact, scratch any part of the short stories as part of a sequel. If you read the forward by Aldiss in his book, he details his relationship with the late Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg - Explaining a lot of this.

 

And finally, there has never been a sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey or Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan. (Okay, with the exception of 2010, which is considered a sequel to 2001, though not directed by Kubrick - But I still say that doesn't count.) A.I. is in the same realm as these epic films, so what makes you think that it will be an exception? You just don't make sequels out of movies like these.

 

(As you can tell, this is a touchy issue for me.)

2.12 "Is it true Stanley Kubrick asked Steven Spielberg to do A.I.?"

Yes, that is quite true. (So for those of you who say Steven Spielberg screwed up this otherwise good Kubrick film, think again.) It was about 1990 when Kubrick brought Spielberg onto the project. Kubrick himself acknowledged that he would not be able to fulfill the audience's need to be emotionally attached to David - something essential to making the film succeed. His own films were far too pessimistic, and, while he was a master director, his characters went far undeveloped emotionally, placing them at distance from the audience. Who better to fulfill that need than Steven Spielberg, master of emotions, with films like E.T. The Extra Terrestrial, Empire of the Sun, and Close Encounters on his slate?

 

Kubrick offered the Director's Chair over to Steven Spielberg, though he did not accept right away. Kubrick proposed that Spielberg direct and he would produce, and finally Steven Spielberg accepted the offer.

 

In addition to Spielberg's ability to draw emotions from the audience, Kubrick also could have selected Spielberg in the account that he was Jewish - And A.I. would be a film very close to Judaism. However you can read more about the Judaistic aspects of this film, and why Spielberg was the perfect choice to direct it, considering those aspects, in our section devoted to Jewish Symbolism.

2.13 "Is it true that the WTC Towers can be seen in the film? And will they be deleted or edited out?"

Actually it is quite true that the Towers appear in the film, more specifically in the segment where David and Joe fly in the amphibicopter and approach a submerged New York City.

 

There you have it! Now to answer the second part of the question, no, the towers will not be edited out of the film (either for a re-release or the DVD release) in response to the September 11th attacks on America. Reel.com scored with the following:

"Spielberg spokesperson Marvin Levy and DreamWorks DVD publicist Missy Davy both said there are no plans to erase the towers. Levy said that the issue came up just after the September 11 attacks on the buildings, and that a decision to keep them was made quickly after this. Besides, says Levy, "They're seen 2,000 years into the future. Who knows what will be built in the future?...At the time A.I. opened, that involved a world where the WTC meant something different than it does now. Let's leave it like that."

I find this quite pleasing, but odd that so many "cinema purists" who complain about Spielberg's edited re-release of E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial don't notice that he hasn't edited A.I., proving that he does have some ethic and cares about his films - not prone to editing his masterpieces on a whim.

3.0 Bibliography/Further Reading Material