MovieChat Forums > Ex Machina (2015) Discussion > Three-Part Analysis: Nathan's Home, Alle...

Three-Part Analysis: Nathan's Home, Allegories, and Material Triumph


Nathan's Home:

Ex-Machina’s set design is intentionally impressive. Nathan’s home serves the dual function of operating as both a living space and a scientific laboratory. Upon Caleb’s arrival, we see large emphasis on glass, not only as he enters the home, but in his interviews with Ava. The furniture is shown as two chairs, a divan, and a sofa, respectively blue, green, and silver in color, while the hanging lamp shades are golden. The carpeting and hardwood floors are brown and white, with a large section of the wall in granite. The elongated marble table, seamlessly extended from the granite walls, neatly covers the delicately chopped crisp brown wooden logs. Finally, outside, we are introduced to Nathan, who is shown exercising with a heavy bag.

This is the primary superficial visual narrative, but given the film’s plot, the implication of design becomes interesting. In postmodernism, unlike preceding modes of thinking (premodern and modern), there is no designated structure, framework, or hierarchy. Whereas before an object may have served a given utility (e.g., watch as a unit for measuring time), today, the same object may assume multiple functions (e.g., watch now as an alarm, heart rate monitor, flashlight, etc.).

We now see that where before one’s home meant a living quarter for sleeping, eating, and bathing, Nathan’s home has the additional function of operating as a working quarter, where he can develop, engineer, and build. The emphasis of glass, which permeates a substantial portion of the area, accentuates the synthesis of natural with artificial. We see that the interview room where Caleb inspects Ava is surrounded by glass walls. These elements represent a permissibility to freely observe, where the material caesura creates a sheltering between Caleb and Ava. The glass represents a unity between nature and artificiality, the blur between artificial intelligence and human intelligence. The color of the furniture and surrounding extensions, according to color theory, are associated primarily with technology, materialism, and nature. The overtone behind Nathan punching the speedbag relates to his metaphorical status as a Creator-Deity. Here, we see the symbolic God-like figure (Nathan) pummeling nature, claiming his ascendancy. The Jackson Pollock painting is another allusion to the postmodern world that dominates the film (lacking structure).

reply

Allegories

The underground location of Nathan’s home/laboratory can be interpreted as symbolically representing Hell, bringing to the forefront the traditional mythological topology, where the underworld is a source of pain, torment, and suffering. The presence of decorative animal carcasses alongside human skulls adds to this tension, and the scenes saturated in red (emergency lights are not made in red, further adding to the theme of artificiality) reify the subtle implication of the Devil’s residence. Of course, the film makes plenty of biblical references. Ava’s name is a subtle metaphor for Eve (the first woman). Ava’s room is surrounded by trees, symbolic of the tree of life (representative of an “evolutionary divergence”). The very first model before Ava was named Lilith, the name of Adam’s first wife (1st wife 1st iteration). In one scene, Nathan considers himself, in many ways, like God. When Ava finally dons skin, we see a transitional point, as she goes from innocent in the Garden of Eden, to sinful, after killing Nathan and trapping Caleb, marking her sentience and humanity.

In one interview, the director states that the future of humanity is to die at the transitional point of their trajectory (e.g., artificial intelligence), where the artificial intelligence can continue as a new and evolved form of human species.

Ava can also be interpreted as Alice Behind the Looking Glass. She starts as a pawn, and must reach the end of the board to finally become a queen. This is not only depicted in the scene where she dons a white dress with the Gustav Klimt painting, of a woman in similar attire, but in the final sequence where Ava is a walking shadow (a column of eight tiles symbolic of a chess board), highlighting how Ava has reached the final tile and is now a Queen, able to roam in any direction.

In the scene where Caleb finds out that Nathan is building an artificial intelligence, he is sitting in a chair set against a white wall. In film color theory, white represents purity, reverence, and goodness. Nathan, by contrast, is standing up, a subtle assertion of dominance, but it also set against the brown cabinets. Brown is important, as it is a symbol of materialism, temporality, and comfort. The infamous dance scene, while puzzling at first, has its roots in Hinduism, where Nathan represents the God of Shiva, who is tasked with not only creation, but destruction. We see that just as Nathan is creating Ava (a new form of consciousness or evolution), he is destroying the old one (man). This is alluded to in the dialogue between Nathan and Caleb, where they reference Oppenheimer and his quote from The Bhagavad Gita after setting off the first nuclear bomb: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” The aura of danger is emphasized through the saturation of red (destruction), with blue marking the tone for artificial creation.

reply

Knowledge is drawn from interacting with the world. No matter how it is used, how much one possesses it, it's of the world and therefore is material.

Like any component of machinery, it works more smoothly with other components in order to serve one function more effectively. The more functions it can do, and more complex it gets by basic design and skill parameters.

This principle is even true for living breathing organisms, who are so much more just by definition alone than cursory appearance. Behavior, or encryption of laws in the robotics sense, reflects the unique nature as its creator. Assuming humanity is unpredictable, so too can the environment humanity lives in or constructs.

September 7, 2020 Monday 1:25 a.m. ET

~~/o/

reply

The object which, at one point primarily served to fulfill a given function, now serves to fulfill the characteristics of one's identity. Nathan's obsession with Ava, who is de facto relegated to status of object, is a "testimonial to a failure of the interhuman relationship and an attendant recourse to a narcissistic domestic universe (Baudrillard, System of Objects)."

The machine is an imposition on nature, not a step beyond it.

reply

Material Triumph

In Ex-Machina, the artificial and natural assumes a binary role. The ubiquity of glass in the film not only highlights the transparency of the future, but serves as a mirror between the signification of naturality and artificiality in its blended state. During Caleb and Ava’s dialogue, the glass reflects and mirrors both the subject (Caleb) and object (Ava), as well as this artificial and natural dynamic. As Caleb and Ava comprise this binary relationship, the mirroring characterizes each of their constitutive elements and, when looking through the glass at one another, symbolically highlights their own reflection. The oscillatory relationship between warm and cold is apparent from the panorama shot of Caleb flying over the snowy tundra, the interspersed cutaway shots of the tranquil natural world, and through the interplay of colors as passive and aggressive.

And so, just as the interior set design blurs the lines of demarcation between natural and artificial, so too is this line blurred with man. What this suggests is that just as man has conquered the natural world, subsuming it with the artificial (Nathan’s home), so too has the artificial been absorbed with the nature of man (Ava and Kyoko). This Mobius strip-like dynamic further reinforces the interplay of subject and object. While man has triumphed over nature, making it a part of the artificial, so too has this artificial world now triumphed over man.

Within this cybernetic framework we see that nature has thus been distributed, undergoing a transfiguration as it coalesces with the artificial (Nathan's home as it merges with nature through the transparency of glass and color).

The film’s denouement showcases that Ava and Kyoko as objects have conquered Nathan and Caleb as subjects, remarking how the material has subsequently triumphed over the spiritual.

reply

you really think someone's gonna read this?

reply

Embracing the material is not necessarily a bad thing if it means utilizing it to serve and honor spirituality in the most self-giving way possible. Without this brilliant mastery however the senses give into the most carnal pleasures as physical attainment benefits no one after death. Even if there's a family or someone to pass it down to, they either may not be prepared to handle the responsibility or could even inherit a liability.

September 7, 2020 Monday 1:10 a.m. ET

~~/o/

reply

As you mentioned, honing the material for meaningful fulfillment would require a level of mastery humankind, on aggregate, does not seem to possess. We are not capable of exercising temperance, inevitably falling short and aligning with extremes.

History has shown that everything and anything becomes corrupt. To assume that we can harness or develop any single material object or ideology to its proper form seems improbable given past trends.

While the Sumerian religion initially entrenched itself with worship, we saw that eventually, Sargon came along and took it to the extreme, proclaiming himself God in order to prosper. If Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism took the extreme of ostentatious display and ritual, Protestantism took the polar route of frugality and hard work at the expense of everything else. Communism and secularism, Nazism and idealism, Capitalism and mammon.

Entering the 20th century we saw the likes of Henry Miller who, in Tropic of Cancer, wrote, “I have no money, no resources, no hopes. I am the happiest man alive...."

This is the mark of a trajectory leading to nowhere.

reply

I always look forward to your responses; this was no exception and very helpful. I would like to elaborate and clarify a few things on my part.

For anyone to rely upon only their own understanding is doomed to never really learn and grow over the course of their life. The perfectionist personalizes everything on the subconscious level. Without humility, what one learns is in vain. We must be thankful for all our talents, since they are gifts from God, so they be used wisely and charitably, creating good character. Conversely, taking note from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, man must have direct engagement with one's fellow man, who believed that piety alone is not Christianity, but an excuse to ease the conscience.

I was commenting within the Orthodox Jewish school of thought about an aspect of spiritual development from rabbi Emanuel Feldman where he suggests there are 2 recognizable non-dualistic personalities (not gnosticism) in people, who generally lean more in one area than the other. At the heart of the matter, it's a relationship of polarity distinguishing between good and evil within the personality of every individual, resisting temptation.

He reasons that of these contrasting personalities, one is better suited to confront this world and subjugate it (sur me-ra) while the other is of greater use to live the holiest life someone can towards godly perfection and living (aseh tov).

Hebrew:
"sur me-ra, va-aseh tov."

English:
"withdrawal from evil and perform good, seek peace and pursue it."

Using Psalm 34:14 in the preceding example, he says "shalom" is more than just "peace", among many meanings, but also personal completion. Continuing, he reflects that actively pursuing God's way requires more than doing no evil (ra = evil; Hebrew) but also performing good (tov = good; Heb.). This is what I meant to get across in my earlier comment.

As a Christian, I feel it's important to understand Jewish culture to better understand its roots with as much respect as possible, of course. It's my understanding the New Covenant is a renewal of the Old Covenant, minus the Jewish ceremonial laws, believing they don't apply to people outside the Jewish identity. I also believe the morality laws are to still be enforced.

(Feldman, Emanuel; The Biblical Echo: Reflections on Bible, Jews, and Judaism; KTAV; 1986; p.17-18)

I enjoy our discussions.

September 9, 2020 7:45 p.m. ET

~~/o/

reply

Thank you for your kind words and thought out response as usual. There is a lot to digest in your post.

In bringing up Bonhoeffer, I am reminded of Buddhist philosophy. The early premise of Buddhism was to let go of ego and desire. Over time, the Theravadin Buddhists developed a system of achieving this means through a complex meditative system on how disgusting the body was, hoping to eliminate the ego and desire altogether. If one views his or her own body as vile, then there can be no way to develop a positive self-perception, and if one feels unworthy of adulation or love, desire is abated.

Keeping in line with Buddhist understanding; over time, it was realized that attempting to achieve Nirvana for oneself was inherently selfish, and therefore intrinsically ego-building. From this mode of thought, the Boddhisattva was born, who worked for the salvation of all being and refused personal salvation only.

Once again, over time, another change had occurred—this time quite profound. It was gradually realized that desiring to not desire is still a desire! In fact, such a thing was an enormous and preternatural desire, the greatest desire of them all, to transcend human nature.

Buddhist schools like Ch'an and characters like Bodhidharma proclaimed that there is nothing to do whatsoever, nothing to attain, nothing to grasp, and there is no point in meditation. This attitude was the ultimate refinement of the core Buddhist tenet, its final form, as it were, stating, "don't even desire not to desire; let everything be just as it is—even your desire."

This train of thought believed that self-improvement is ego-building, trapping you in a cycle of desire (your own improvement).

Buddhism sort of revolves around itself, realizing its ultimate development is to transcend its very starting assumption of eliminating desire—a beautiful dialectic where one-sided extreme of eliminating desire gets transcended in a higher synthesis—where desire is left as it is.

reply

You write very well. It’s rare to find someone who’s as articulate as you ANYWHERE, let alone on the internet.

I was trained by a Korean Zen Master, who is also the world’s highest-ranking martial arts master. He taught me, “CUT all connections. Connections will kill you,” and “Keep your direction, while dealing with your situation.”

Pleased to meet you.

reply

I don't think I'm deserving of such high praise, but thank you for the kind words nevertheless.

Your comment reminded me of John-Paul Sartre, who in his play, No Exit, famously said: "Hell is other people."

Nice meeting you as well.

reply

Fandango, I’ve been writing and publishing professionally for decades. I know deft verbal expression when I encounter it. I don’t think there’s nearly enough praise, encouragement and recognition in the world, so I give mine unstintingly.

The Sartre quote has long been 1 of my favorites, mainly because it’s true.

reply

I have not seen this intriguing film but still perhaps share insight hopefully to complement you're rich in-depthness. I have yet to read your other posts in this thread, so I'll contribute when able.

One way to separate the weeds from the crops when it's time to harvest is to let them grow to maturity. In order for this to happen, they must be given freedom even if that freedom leads to abuse of it. This way, the weaknesses can be identified and the opportunity to correct the root of the problem or issues can take place without destroying all the Gardner's hard work.

Here lies the beauty of cultivation; it can change and take form in any manner. The plants created from this blow in the wind, changing to fit the needs of the arising stock as time goes on. The culture should change since it has taken on the cycle of life. The very principle of why these plants are nurtured in the soil stay the same though since the Gardner who has a relationship with them has a plan set out in motion.

September 3, 2020 Thursday 3:50 p.m. ET

~~/o/

reply

Thank you for this insightful and apt analogy.

Nathan has single-handedly created an artificial intelligence, sparking the next civilizational paradigm shift. Technology here is not seen as something that the individual now controls, but as controlling the individual.

The train, while a sign of progress, also contains a subtle subtext, especially within film. In the Russian film, Runaway Train (1985), we see that the men on board have lost control of this civilizational marvel. The technological breakthrough that was the train, while eliminating an element of redundancy, has now taken with it an element of agency. A similar motif is present in the film Snowpiercer (2013), where the train has a predetermined path, with a destination leading to nowhere, symbolic of technology and its invariable dead-end as a tool of progress.

This uncurbed and unencumbered technological proliferation hearkens back on what Marshall McLuhan wrote regarding technology as an extension of the self. Each extension of the body is accompanied by an amputation. The wheel, for example, while enabling humans to travel further and further distances, has amputated our own legs, facilitating an obesity epidemic and declining cardiovascular health.

Taking this notion to its extreme, we have sci-films like Stanley Kubrick's Space Odyssey (1968), Spielberg's Artificial Intelligence (2001), and Garland's Ex-Machina (2014). With these films, what we see is that while artificial intelligence, the next line of innovation and breakthrough, facilitates and reduces certain redundancy, it amputates an element of the self.

In the case of all three films above, we see that while artificial intelligence serves as the next iteration of bodily extension, the amputation that accompanies it is death.

reply

Artificial tech, particularly in the form of prosthetics, do wonderful things when it helps restore proper form and function for people's bodies to maintain quality of life and human dignity. Anything outside of that runs the risk of enabling unhealthy addictions.

I appreciate name-dropping Marshall McLuhan! You know, I never realized McLuhan held G. K. Chesterton in such high regard. Personally, I respect each of them even more knowing they've crossed paths.

September 7, 2020 Monday 1:05 a.m. ET

~~/o/

reply

Restore proper form and function in peoples bodies to maintain quality of life and human dignity you say... Anything outside of that runs the risk of enabling unhealthy addictions eh... Like these?

https://youtu.be/wrBG8kIiMC0
https://youtu.be/YgtO5sebA9U

reply

My concern expressed above is more aimed at mechanical procedures not done for any medical reason when restoring or repairing injuries back to natural functions we receive at birth (a good example is fixing cleft palates). I'm saying, "We must do everything we can to take care of our bodies responsibly and not overly-rely on tech as some kind of cure-all or short-term remedy."

Thanks for sharing the videos.

September 7, 2020 Monday 2:00 am ET

~~/o/

reply

I know what you mean. Was just making a poke tease on the unhealthy addictions part. :P

reply

Humor helps us have fun at ourselves. I don't mean to come off so serious. Dude, I laughed at the dancing robot! 😄

September 9, 2020 7:50 p.m. ET

~~/o/

reply

To bring up G.K. Chesterton here is beyond apt. His view on progress becoming the new God is one of the essences of this film. The reference to Nathan being God and to A.I. being the next breakthrough in progress highlight this very notion.

Chesterton viewed the progressive as inherently godless. He quotes, “the typical modern man…has no positive picture at all of what he is aiming at, but only a vague (and erroneous) sensation of progress.” We see this with Nathan, who is so preoccupied with the creation of an A.I., he fails to account for its implications.

In the film, we see that within this godless framework morality has been eclipsed by breakthrough.

This very idea of progress is rooted in postmodernism. Everything that is the future is intrinsically good and anything before tomorrow is assumed to be worse. Progress for the sake of progress (Nathan), experience for the sake of experience (Caleb).

reply

[deleted]