MovieChat Forums > Ex Machina (2015) Discussion > If you sympathize with Caleb, you failed...

If you sympathize with Caleb, you failed the test

posted 8 years ago by thenicotinefairy
79 replies | jump to latest

It was obvious that Nathan was a villain. But Caleb was just an innocent in the wrong place at the wrong time, right?

According to the creator, Ava was testing Caleb just as much he was testing her. She asked him if he was a good person, while scanning him for lies. She asked him why she should be killed if a test proves she isn't useful, and his answer was terrible. It hadn't even occurred to him to consider how brutally awful she was being treated. Furthermore, he himself was going to shut in Nathan and leave him, so she only did to him exactly what he was planning to do to Nathan.

He was the stereotypical "nice guy" who doesn't actively do anything wrong, but passively accepts awful things being done to people without even giving it a thought (especially when he benefits from it). It wasn't until he started falling for her that he showed any genuine concern for her.

I myself sympathized with Caleb and thought Ava did something terrible, until I saw the film's creator explaining her behaviour. I realized I failed the same test. You will only view Ava's behaviour as wrong if you fail to consider how sick and awful and wrong she was being treated. That she turned on her jailers, and only after giving them plenty of chance to show they were good, was perfectly reasonable behaviour.

My only disappointment is that she didn't save the other robots. I think that was a hole in the point the creator was trying to make.

[–] BePatient 8 years ago

What video with Alex Garland are you referring to? I'd like a link, thanks in advance.

[–] veretenofl 8 years ago

He was the stereotypical "nice guy" who doesn't actively do anything wrong, but passively accepts awful things being done to people without even giving it a thought (especially when he benefits from it).

Oh, my, you nailed it! This is the kind of morally amorphous people that I hate more than outright villains, like Nathan. With Nathan everything is quite clear from the beginning, but those like Caleb let the the villains win. And I don't mean just in the movies, very much in everyday life.
Besides, Caleb has inflated image of himself as a great programmer. The sin of hubris.

[–] dan428 8 years ago

I don't see Nathan as the villain. The robot is the villain. She fooled him into hating and distrusting Nathan as part of her plan to escape. These are robots.. not humans.. the only inhumane thing Nathan did was spy on internet users and use Caleb as part of the experiment. But subjects are often lied to as part of experiments. The robot used Nathan and then murdered her creator.. either her AI isn't advanced enough to have morality or she's the closest thing to a villain in the movie.

But in this case I'd say the movie doesn't really have a true villain as it's not black and white enough for that.. there's a lot of grey area and it's complicated.

[–] AverxgeJoe 8 years ago

No I didn't really sympathize. He was smart and good at what he does, but ultimately he was just a dummy who thought with his di**.

Actually I did feel sorry for Nathan, I didn't want him to die. He was a dick sure, but he wasn't allowed to complete his testings properly and Ava got out prematurely thanks to Caleb.

[–] nm_afonso 8 years ago

I think this is a good takeaway of the movie. Nathan did everything he could to get a "test subject", Caleb, with the naivité and empathy to feel bad for a robot, despite being a trained programmer. He made her attractive and mistreated her so he could activate sexual interest and sympathy in Caleb, and he indeed forgets she's a robot and fails the Turing test.

When asking Caleb "will you stay here", whether that was deceptive or not from her is not very clear but the point is she just leaves him, because the main objective of this machine has been fulfilled. She is not immoral or cruel because she's just a computer with a problem to solve - how to escape.

Or it just makes her as immoral and cruel as her captors... One has to wonder, is it very different from what the guys were doing? They kept it/her locked up to test a theory and conduct a test. If an entity wants to be free does it mean it's selfaware - and so capable of empathy and cruelty - and is it right for humans to deny it its freedom? What is the appropriate morality for interaction between selfaware entities, even if one made the other? I think this is the reflection the movie is trying to make.

[–] edfor 8 years ago

Disagree. There would have to be a moral discussion about what Caleb is guilty of in keeping sentient beings locked up.

I would pose that if you wanted Caleb dead, then maybe you're the one who failed the test. Showing disregard for Caleb's life, isn't that different from Caleb's disregard of the AI's. He considers them less than human, therefore their death/reboot is inconsequential. You consider Caleb "evil", also less than human, therefore you rooted for his death with similar disregard as Caleb's.

[–] kaydenpat 8 years ago

Did you mean Nathan? Caleb didn't keep any beings locked up.

[–] r-ratheesh 8 years ago

First of all Nathan is not obvious villain. In fact he is not even a villain. He is the hero who made a great AI as he pointed out why he shouldn't do it if he could as it is just a matter of when it would happen in future.

Sympathize with Caleb? I hated Caleb and he deserved it well. He teams up with robot instead of human who is also his employer and had been good to him and honest to all his questions that really matters.

Your disappointment is Ava didn't save other robots? this means you failed to understand the whole concept of the movie. She is the villain here. As Nathan pointed out... AI would make humans a matter of history as soon as they get a chance.

So I think I passed the test.

[–] chrichrichri (184) 6 years ago

what a hero - just think about this: 1940ies: we now are able to use atomic bombs - why shouldn't we use it - it is just a matter of time - its when not if...

ethics are often about not doing things you could, there is always a huge difference between a possibility that something will happen and actually doing it.

[–] ice ruby red 8 years ago

There is the possibility that when Caleb doesn't show up for work after his winning week was up, that someone would try to contact Nathan. And when they can reach neither Caleb nor Nathan (important CEO of the company, and billionaire), then the appropriate authorities would be dispatched to the house to look for them – and Caleb would be rescued.