groundhog day project

entries
on
ex machina
by
robert e g black
youre freaked out
To counter yesterdays Katniss Everdeen, we have Ava (Alicia Vikander)
in Ex Machina. Literally programmed to be who she is, Ava demonstrates
more agency in one film than Katniss does in three...
Maybe.
There is a point where the programming inherent in cinematic
characters by the writer and the director and the actor (lets call this LEVEL
2) conflict with the programming of the character within the story by her
creator, Nathan (Oscar Isaac) (which well call LEVEL 1, since were talking
about the film here), and where both of those levels of programming
conflict with the real-life programming that a woman receives from the
society around her (LEVEL 3).
Well come back to the issue of programming.
Firstand this entry will be full of SPOILERS big and smallNathans
introduction is entirely manipulative of both Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) and
the audience. Reclusive tech-genius living in (my personal take) an awesome
house in the middle of a lush green landscape in Norway. (The minimalist
design coupled with deliberate intrusions by the nature around it is the kind of
house I love.) His home is isolated from the world so much that the
helicopter that flies you there (and theres a nice Quigley Down
Under moment in which Caleb learns theyve already been flying over

Nathans estate for two hours) cannot even drop you off within sight of the
house itself. Follow the river, the pilot tells Caleb. This positions the story
to come outside of not only the modern world (ironically) but outside of the
real world entirely (deliberately) for the audience. And really, this is some
LEVEL 2 programming in terms of the moviegoing experience. The film
quickly separates us from the larger world and isolates us just as it isolates
Caleb. Then comes Nathan himself. Hes working out, punching a heavy bag.
Big masculine display for the audience and for Caleb. However reality works
Ive never been in the situationin movies we know that in such an
isolated, natural location, the sound of the helicopter anywhere in the vicinity
would be audible; i.e. Nathan knows Caleb is close. That stop at the door for
Caleb to get his photo and key card, plus walking through a few rooms offer
more prep time for Nathan. In cinematic terms, it also orients us to the house a
bit. The high-tech setup, the minimalist design, all the glass that visually
separates us from the natural world outside like an aquariumwere inside
this aquarium along with Caleb.

In fact, I paused the movie to write that last paragraph and, knowing
where this film is going because I saw it in the theater right when it came out,
I rather like this particular visual. We are inside the house with Caleb. He is
by the floor-to-ceiling windows (technically, by the time Nathan is in the shot,
Caleb is outside those windows, but the visual echoes a moment earlier so
well that he might as well still be inside) looking at Nathan (at the right edge
of the frame) working out, a river in the left of the frame, and a whole lot of
green everywhere else. Later, glass will be the thing that physically (and
symbolically) separates Caleb from Ava, the man from the machine (man
from woman, as well, but at the rate this entry is going, that might have to
wait until tomorrow). Juxtaposing this shot with so many later ones, this
would suggest that Nathan is a machine. Plotwise, its safer to compare Caleb

to a machine, manipulated by Nathan into his relationship with Ava,

manipulated by Nathan into helping Ava, by Ava into betraying Nathan, and...
well, its complicated, but suffice it to say, Nathanour protagonist, mind you
has very little agency in this story. So, by introducing Nathan on the outside
of the house, Caleb inside, the film is foreshadowing manipulation to come.
The philosophical question, then, is this: while Nathan clearly represents
the advance of technology on a literal level, he seems to represent some dark
side of nature on a metaphorical level. Here, visually, he is the natural, while
Caleb has just positioned himself inside the unnatural (though with those
awesome intrusions by the natural rock). This is Calebs programming on all
three levelshe has just become part of the machine. A white, patriarchal,
misogynist machine, to be sure, but that particular angle may just have to wait
until tomorrow. Nathan approaches Caleban intimidating figure physically,
muscular but not too muscular, bearded, and unwrapping the tape from his
hands as he approaches.
(And, I need some visuals for you. Picture me opening up Amazon
Video on my phone so I can get a few screencaps. Including one I will
insert above. Yet, I will leave this parenthetical here. Why do you suppose
that is? Am I manipulating the way you read this entry? Am I trying to
make it more like a personal interaction, a conversation, so you dont back
away from some of the big ideas to come? I mean, I intended to get
directly into the way this film deals with female agency and feminism
but it is so much bigger than just that. And, it will take more than just one
viewing, more than just one entry. Already nearly 900 words inwhen
my usual goal for an entry is 1000and Im wondering how much further
I need to go to just deal in the way the LEVEL 2 programming is
happening here, let alone LEVEL 1, and relegating LEVEL 3 to another
day. A movie like any of yesterdays Hunger Games trilogy filmsits got
nice visuals, but mostly they are just serviceable, the most basic form
necessary to advance to the next shot and the next shot and get the plot
moving. Alex Garland is a better director than... whoever directed any of
those three Hunger Games films; the direction in those films mattered so
little, I am not even inclined to go look up the directors names to share
them. I just dont think they matter very much. And this, in Hollywood
where the opening titles generally refer to the film as belonging to the
directorA Stephen Spielberg Film, A Spike Lee Joint, etcetera.
The Hunger Games franchise is not about the directors. Its partly about
the stars but more about servicing a popular series with a built-in
audience. Ex Machina doesnt have that built-in audience. Even among
some nerdy filmgoers who should have loved the premise of this film, this
thing was a slow burn, building word-of-mouth slowly.

What does that say about what we want from a film, though? A
popular film, like pop music, does not need great (READ: interesting)
direction, it does not need a nuanced, thoughtful story, and it certainly
does not need to (deliberately) comment on the world around it. But,
something like Ex Machinasure it was made by a proven director, but
not a blockbuster director, and we do not expect pop sensibilities. We
expect something more... interesting.)

Interesting sidenote on the visual: while Nathan is clearly the intimidating

figure, Caleb looms larger in the frame. However, since Caleb is wearing a
dark suit, he might as well be part of the house, balancing out the dark wall
interior at the right edge of the frame here.
Nathan counters this intimidating visual with an immediate friendliness
that is almost too intimate, telling him about his hangover as if they are the
best of friends already. On first blush, Nathan is friendly, and we (and Caleb)
welcome that. Watching the film again, though, it is clear that Nathan is
already manipulating Caleb (LEVEL 1) just as Garland is manipulating us
(LEVEL 2) by juxtaposing one expectation with anotherLEVEL 3
programming would suggest that Nathan be either hypermasculine or
friendly, not both. To echo the masculine side, we have a bull skull (though
blackened, suggesting that a) it is fake or b) it is not meant to stand out from
its surroundings or c) both) on the wall. And, in a location with little
decoration to it, any decoration must (presumably) be important.

Then Nathan (and Garland) take it to a new level. Nathan says,

Caleb, Im just gonna throw this out there, so its said, okay? Youre
freaked out... Youre freaked out by the helicopter and the mountains and
the house, because its all so super-cool. And, youre freaked out by me, to
be meeting me, having this conversation in this room at this moment,
right?
And, I get that. I get the moment youre having but, dude, can we just
get past that? Can we just be two guys? Nathan and Caleb. Not the whole
employer-employee thing.
Nathan is manipulating Caleb.

The scenes ends after Caleb agrees, nervously, to these terms, and we go
further into the house, to where it no longer resembles a house at all. In the

bedroom where Nathan will be sleeping, Nathan points out the amenities and,
asks, Cozy, right?

Caleb, either because he is still adjusting or because, yeah, something is

missing from this room, as Nathan is about to point out, replies (clearly lying),
Yeah, this is great.

Theres something wrong, Nathan says. Whats wrong?

Theres nothing wrong.
Its the windows, Nathan replies. Youre thinking, theres no windows.
Its subterranean. Its not cozy.. Its claustrophobic... Caleb, theres a reason
there are no windows in this room... This building isnt a house. Its a research
facility. Buried in these walls is enough fiber optic cable to reach the moon
and lasso it. Then Nathan makes it personal again. He has just established

that his house is a lab but he moves closer to Caleb as he gives him the
basic gist of what he wants from him.

And I want to talk to you about what Im researching. I want to share it

with you. Share. Thats the manipulation at work, but Caleb doesnt get it.
Hes too excited, and too flustered to really disagree with anything. So much,
its eating me up inside, Nathan adds. Hes got him. Hes got us.
Then things take an immediate turn when he brings up a non-disclosure
agreement that Caleb needs to sign before he can even know the subject of the
work going on in Nathans house. But, hes already got Caleb on the hook
(LEVEL 1). His line a moment later
You dont have to sign it. You know we can spend the next few days just
shooting pool, getting drunk together. Bonding. And when you discover
what youve missed out on, in about a year, youre gonna regret it for the
rest of your life.
is overkill.
Plus, we in the audience have the advantage of having seen the trailer or
heard something about the movie. We just want Caleb to sign that agreement
already so we can get on to some sexy robot time.
LEVEL 2.

feel bad for yourself, man

Yesterday, a few minutes of this movie boiled down to more words than I
usually go for in this blog. And, I am tempted to do things like that again, see
the trees instead of the forest, as it were. Like, for example, a single shot
Kyoko sitting in the hallway with her shoes off. Or Ava presenting her
drawing to Caleb like a child showing off to a parent.

And, maybe I will get to another breakdown like that, with this film or
another. But, today, I want to deal with something less cinematic, more...
philosophical, political.
Natalie Wilson at Ms. Magazine says that Ex Machina explore[s]
sexuality and gender in intriguing ways, but fails to explicitly condemn how
the sex/gender paradigm is used as a tool of domination in profoundly
deleterious ways. But, I disagree. I think the film is all about condemning
that paradigm, condemning the ways men manipulate the world, men
manipulate other men, men manipulate women, and only to a lesser extent,
the ways women manipulate men. This argument will be in two partstoday
gender, tomorrow sex, or rather sexuality.

Let us begin with Ava. She is a literal construct, created by Nathan

(LEVEL 1) in line with what he gets from the world as far as how women
should be (LEVEL 3).
(Quick recap, in case you did not read yesterdays entrythese LEVELs
are programming. LEVEL 1 is within the reality of the film. LEVEL 2 is
what the film is doing to us watching it. LEVEL 3 is larger societal
programming.)
He mentions early on that he hacked the cell phones of the world to figure out
how to teach his robot brain about facial expressions but a) he either doesnt
consider the possibility that his AIs took in far more than just facial
expressions and the subservience he clearly wants would never really be
possible long-term, or b) he never offered up anything extra like this as
influence of the AIs brains. That is, the programming of personality is
entirely a projection of what Nathan thinks a woman is and should be.
Additionally, every impression that Caleb is allowed to have of Ava is also
manufactured by Nathan, at least indirectly. The house is a controlled
laboratory, recorded and manipulated... Eventually, Nathan even sees what

happens when the power goes out. Nathan even intends for Caleb to want to
help Ava escape. Not sure he wants the escape to happenor for it to cost him
his life, of coursebut why else did he leave the glass panel cracked by Jade
(Gana Bayarsaikhan) in place for Caleb to see it.
(Katherine Cross at Feministing describes the scene in which we see Jade:
Jade, an Asian woman, asking over and over again why she couldnt
be let out, insistence building up with each passing day until she
finally began beating on the glass that separated her from Nathan.
She literally destroyed herself against that irrational, nameless
barrier; with a shot that lasted all of a few seconds, the filmmakers
furnish us with a metaphor for centuries of sexism.
Why wont you let me out?! she screamed until her last.
When Caleb sees that crack, he does not know all of this, sure. But, what
else do you think when you find a glass enclosure and that glass is
cracked? Whatever is kept insideand Caleb does know there is an AI
somewhere in the househad (or has) reason to want out.)
Even before Caleb sees Ava, he sees that cracked glass, he knows that
something inside this enclosure has tried to escape before. He might even
assume that it is Ava. That she wants to escape, or will turn to violence, is not
supposed to be a surprise, exactly. For us (LEVEL 2) or for Caleb (LEVEL 1).
Nor, watching it again, should it be any surprise that Nathan fully expects
Avas manipulation of Caleb. That is the testCaleb is supposed to be
manipulated into helping. But, to what end? As Cross points out,
Nathan had already been presented with AI of his own creation that longed
for freedom, that fought to free themselves from him. He already knew, or
shouldve known, that they were meaningfully sapient. What he seemed to
be trying to build was a woman who would not fight back, and was
continually frustrated by the insistent humanity of his AIs.
Nathan is actually too successful with his AIs if what he wants is
subservience. Considering the deconstructed AIs we see in his closets, perhaps
he was not seeking subservience, but was expecting it. Steve Rose at The
Guardian points out that (in film), Invariably, inventors ideas of the perfect
woman translate to one who is unquestioningly subservient and/or sexually
obliging. A Stepford wife, to cite the best-known example. It is not
necessarily that Nathan wants a subservient female; the two things are, as far
as the world has been telling him his whole life, one and the same. That same
society favors a man like Nathan. While he is not strictly white, hes close
enough. He is rich and smart and can basically do whatever he wants. And, on
his estate, in his house, he is God. He seeks humanity and then regrets finding
it because humanity doesnt want to just be his plaything while he puts off the
inevitable IPO of his AIs. That he drinks, that he is abusive and manipulative
this is part and parcel of who he is as a successful man in the modern

world. Unfortunately. And, I do not mean to suggest that every successful man
is prone to violence or even mistreatment of women (or of lesser men), but a
system that lifts some men so far above others (and above women) is
inherently violent.
The interesting thing is that Caleb is part of that same world. However
subservient he is to Nathan, in the larger world, he has a position above Ava
(as a woman, first, then as an AI). Regarding Caleb, Cross says, detesting
Nathan is easy; the way the movie makes you hate Caleb is much more
interesting, however. She explains:
He does, after all, come off as the good guy in the film at first;
sympathizing with Ava, seeing that she is indeed human, growing
increasingly contemptuous of Nathans abusiveness, and so on. He seems
like someone who wants to help her. But as the film progresses you start
to see that Calebs willingness to become Avas confederate is contingent
on the fact that she appears to have a crush on him, and wants to run
away with him specifically.
Keep in mind, Caleb never seems like he will include Kyoko (Sonoya
Mizuno) in his escape plan. Even though, as J.A. Micheline at Women Write
About Comics argues, Kyoko has suffered a great deal more than Ava has, at
least as far as we have seen. It is all about Ava, all about the helpless woman
he can set free. But, does he even want to set her free? Micheline argues that,
to Ava, Caleb becomes another bad guy like Nathan once she learns of
Kyokos existence. Nathan has another AI as his prisoner and Caleb has not
seen fit to mention this. So then, consider what Ava knows of men. She knows
Nathan and Caleb and that is all. Nathan has kept her prisoner, Caleb has kept
her in the dark about details of that prison. And now, he wants to escape with
her. But, to what end? Shall she escape this prison for the larger societal one?
She has a couple options if she escapes with Caleb; she can a) live with Caleb
and never reveal what she is to anybody, which doesnt sound that appealing,
or b) she can be revealed as the advanced AI she is and likely end up being
picked apart by many more men (and women) who want to study her. Plus,
imagine the official story when it gets out; everyone will think that Caleb
saved her because a) she is a woman and b) she is a robot. As Micheline puts
it,
In order to be completely free, she must overcome the obvious oppressor
and remain vigilant against his more insidious brotherand she must be
ruthless in doing so, lest she find herself trapped again.
Steve Hall at Screen Crush expands on that notion of Caleb as the more
insidious brother. He writes:
Because we see this movie from his perspective, we miss that his falling in
love with Avahis instant, desperate affection and desire to spring her
from captivityis almost as shallow and dangerous as Nathans more

overt misogyny. To Caleb, Ava is still an object; a symbol of sex that

needs to be saved, not a sentient being who deserves to make her own
choices. Nathan created women so he could own them and control them.
Caleb is just seeking permission to do the exact same thing.
Society has consistently put men on top, women beneath them. Religions tend
to reify this division. Formalize it so that, yeah, some men seek permission
to control women. This LEVEL 3 programming, unsurprisingly, directs
Nathans LEVEL 1 programming of his AIs, of Ava. It also positions Caleb to
want to save her. But, Ava does not need to be saved. She needs to save
herself. The only way Ava can have any agency in the end is to remove Caleb
from the equation.
Then again, the film was made by a manand this blog entry was written
by oneso how does the LEVEL 2 programming work in regards to what we
are supposed to think about the film, or what you are supposed to think about
all that I have put together here? I mean, I criticized the way Katniss Everdeen
acts on ideas from the male characters around her. Why should the men have
any say here? Why should you even listen to me?

programmed to be heterosexual
Let us interrupt the argument regarding gender and sexuality for a forinstance:
Two for-instances, I guess. A comparisonAva putting on clothes, Ava
putting on skin. With a brief follow-up to both.
WARNING: there will be some naked female flesh in the skin scene. I
considered making those images only visible if you click to see them, but I
felt that would actually undermine what I am trying to say about that
particular scene, especially when compared with the clothing scene earlier in
the film.
On to the first scene. For context, Ava tells Caleb to close his eyes and
then she leaves to a closet, where she selects a dress.

She picks out a dress.

She models it in the mirrorbut we do not see that mirror; we remain close
on Ava.

There is a very tactile and sensual thing going on here as Ava slides the dress
up one arm

before bringing it down over her body.

And, we follow it down her body.

Then, it is time for the stockings, and I am reminded of that bit in The
Private Eyes when Inspector Winship (Don Knotts) gets excited at Phyllis
taking off her stockings.

Wig selection. And, it is one of the interesting things about this sequence that
she chooses the wig that she does. Neither of these longer wigs will do. She
goes with short hair. This is a) an indication (LEVEL 1) that she is just as
privy to Calebs pornography profile as Nathan is or b) the movie is already
angling in a (supposedly) feminist direction with the shorter hair (LEVEL 2).

Close-ups. Lots of close-ups.

Here is where Ava got the idea for her hair choice, I suppose. Did Nathan give
these images to her? (Sidenote: note the crowd scenes. She indicates to Caleb
that she wants to go where there are lots of people to observe and, in the end,
that is where she ends up.) That image by the way:

Found that image at salonmoxi.com, in a piece about New Styles & how to
Grow Out Short Hair.

She is coy.

Nervous.

She presents herself

and twirls

before kneeling.
Now, before we move on, consider, if you have a moment, this
video: 1950s Educational Film How to Undress in Front Of Your Husband
mp4. (Note: its copyright seems to actually be 1937.) First, note the peculiar
fact that this video is sponsored by a beer. And, among other things, in its
opening text crawl, it asks, But how about our women? Do they satisfy?
And, theres this: With all these modern disadvantages, science has done
nothing to make marriage safe for husbands. That is already some serious
misogynist (or, recently, Meninist) bullshit. But, then it goes on:
The old marriage institution has limped along for centuries, burdened by
boredommen have submitted, suffered and supported long enough.
Therefore:
We have decided to do our bit toward the relief of marital boredom.
LESSON ONE.
-TO THE LADIESHOW TO
UNDRESS
IN FRONT OF
YOUR HUSBAND
Then theres a sequence about peeping toms for some reason. Ah, because we
are the peeping tom as far as this footage is going to go. And, then we
(pretend to) spy on a couple women undressing, no husbands to be seenI
think someone forget to connect the content of the video to its intent. And
theres this from the narrator:
So, lets settle, here and now the question of how and how not to honor
your husband. Down through the ages, women have paid meticulous
attention to the matter of dressing. They have consumed hours and hours
in getting just the precise affect desired. Each dainty garment has been
donned with the utmost care and thought. No amount of time or effort has
been considered wasted and the final result was alluring glamour.

But ladies when it came to undressing, that was something else

again. Technique was thrown to the wind. Angles were disregarded.
Charm and allure were entirely forgotten.
It is so sad that women had not been concentrating on technique when it
came to undressing. So sad, indeed. Fairly sexist as well. But really, who is
surprised?
Still, the point is this: this videoor the imagery that went into it, is
exactly the sort of thing we see in commercials, TV shows, films recall that
scene I wrote about last year from Moonstruck, Loretta (Cher) completing her
transformation for her date by settling in by the fireplace with a glass of wine
to slowly get dressed. Getting dressed makes the woman in cinematic terms.
Getting undressed, on the other hand, is something elseit is sexual. And,
while Caleb does try to see what Ava is doing when she leaves to dress, he
cannot see her from that angle. But, he does watch her undress on the monitor
in his room.

And, from other clues throughout the film, and how she specifically
moves more into the light of the window here, she knows he can see her.

The dressing and undressing play as sexual. She is dressing the part of
human female to entice Caleb. Now, I do not think that Ava is
simply using him the entire time, though that would clearly be Nathans
cynical take on the situation. Still, she is clearly manipulating Calebs
attraction to her if only to learn more about him as he is learning about her.
But then there is the second dressing scene. It is framed between two
shots with a painting on the walla woman in white, something like a
wedding dress.

In fact, I just looked it up and it is a Gustav Klimt painting of Margaret

Stonborough-Wittgenstein, daughter to Karl Wittgenstein (who is referenced
in the film), a portrait commissioned on the occasion of her wedding.

But, as it turns out, Ava is not marrying anyone. The placement here, as
well as Avas later choice of a white dress plays as irony.

Note the use of reflections throughout this sequence, and not as many closeups. All of Nathans broken women are coalescing visually into just one
complete individual who will get to venture out into the world.

Notable close-ups in this scene come when Ava replaces her damaged arm.

And when she interacts using her new skin. Though she touches the other AIs
face here, and it is explicitly sensual, it is not sexual.

The pace, I think, sets these frames as something different from the previous
dressing scene. Or maybe it is just that the previous embodiment was a puton, a faade. Here, Ava is literally completing herself as a woman

with borrowed skin.

More mirrors, not to mention the reflection of Ava in the other visible AIs.

Now, the film could have spent more time with the dressing, show all the
pieces of skin, give us numerous (bordering-on-exploitative) close-ups.
Instead, after a cutawayCaleb is watching this entire sequenceAva has all
of her skin and new hair. No longer the short hair which maybe was not
invoking a feminist do, as it were, but rather something like a slaves hair,
shorn to dehumanize. Though Ava could put on a dress, she (LEVEL 1) could
not complete the look with proper hair before, or the film (LEVEL 2) could
not, so this final version of Ava would be even more dramatic.

More mirrors, but this time used to visually divide Ava, and to take us from a
potentially voyeuristic position to something more closely approximating her
POV as she looks in the mirror.

One last look at the AI whose skin she has taken. The interesting detail here:
that the head that was positioned facing forward is now positioned as looking
at Ava. There is no indication that this AI is operationalin fact, Nathans
description of how he recycles the brains suggests that she cannot bebut in
this shot, the two of them seem to be looking at one another.

Finally, Ava closes the closet and there is only her.

Now, this is the part about which some have complained. On IMDb and in
comment threads elsewhere. I think the complaint stems from an inaccurate (I
think) equation of nudity and sexuality, that being unclothed is inherently
sexual and this lingering is exploitative and gratuitous. But, Ava needs this
moment. She needs to see her self and recognize it. She needs to be complete.

Then, of course, she must again dress up, because the world requires it. She
finds this white dress on one of the AIs.

And, you can see she is multiplied in the mirrors again before she leaves. And
Caleb looks on.

She passes the Klimt painting again, this time matching it visually.
You may disagree, but I think the remarkable thing about these two
sequences is that the one with no skin, only clothing, is the sexualized one,
filmed in such a way as to accentuate Avas feminine curves. She is readying
herself for a date of a sort, and the sequence is filmed that way. But, the
sequence with all the skin, on the other hand, has little that could be called
sexy or sexual in it. It is more matter-of-fact. This is a necessary evil rather
than a chosen one. And, Ava, complete, leaves the house.

sexuality as a diversion tactic

Caleb, whats your type?
Of girl?
No, salad dressing. Yeah, of girl. Whats your type? You know what, dont
even answer that. Lets say its black chicks. Okay, thats your thing. For
the sake of argument, thats your thing, okay? Why is that your thing?
Because you did a detailed analysis of all racial types and you crossreferenced that analysis with a points-based system? No. Youre just
attracted to black chicks. A consequence of accumulated external stimuli
that you probably didnt even register as they registered with you.
Did you program her to like me, or not?

I programmed her to be heterosexual, just like you were programmed to

be heterosexual.
Nobody programmed me to be straight.
You decided to be straight? Please! Of course, you were programmed. By
nature or nurture or both. And, to be honest, Caleb, youre starting to
annoy me now because this is your insecurity talking. This is not your
intellect.
One could assume that Nathan is projecting a little, that his insecurity
forces him to look at sexuality and attraction as programmed (LEVEL 3). I
mean, Nathan has an AI (Kyoko) who he has made unable to speak, who he
can force to dance by turning on (presumably) the right song, with whom he
can have sex whenever he wants. On some level, maybe its just loneliness
while he perfects his primary AI, he keeps a secondary one around as a
companion. But, he chooses to make her mute. He chooses to make her
available on cue for dancing and for sex, and to wait on him and take his
verbal abuse when she spills somethingnevermind that her spill is evidence
of either a) his brilliance or b) his inadequacy as a robot designer and
programmer. Actually, maybe we can assume that he thinks that it is B. He
seems insecure enough that he would take the fault as his own fault... but also
arrogant enough to think he had somehow perfected the female form by
making her capable of human clumsiness.
(It is interesting that we assume (and the film wants (LEVEL 2) us to
assume) that a) Nathan made Kyoko silent rather than some other
alternativeshe has nothing to say, for example, or his programming with
her was flawed and she simply cannot speakas part of her subservience;
and that b) if she dances with him or has sex with him, it must be because
he has forced it. I think the film offers implicit evidence of these things
but it never says them outright, so at least on some level, there is a
presumption of a gender differential here that exists more in our heads as
we watch the film than in the film itself.
Maybe the juxtaposition just now of Kyoko and Nathan kissing to the
black and white imagining by Caleb of he and Ava kissing was a signal
that the former was as genuine as we should suspect the latter is at this
point in the film. Or maybe it is a visual echo to mark Kyoko as an AI in
case we have not caught on just yet. Or maybe it is a marker of Caleb as
an AI because he is imagining in black and white after telling Ava
the Mary in the Black and White Room story... but that last option is a
topic for another day. It would indicate that, perhaps, the kiss between
Kyoko and Nathan is more genuine than that between Caleb and Ava. Not
because the latter is imaginary but because the former at least includes one
human.

But then, in regard to this film, the question of what is genuine is a

variation on a few of the primary philosophical questions it asksabout
free will, about love, about manipulation and agency.
It bothers me lately when I see (on IMDb boards or, just today,
on io9sFacebook page) people speaking of this film as if it is simplistic,
just a thriller. I liked this movie the first time I saw it, when it was in
theaters, but these past few days I think I have become more attached to it.
Like Caleb becoming attached to Ava, as it were.
Its apparent simplicity, I guess, obfuscates deeper issues.)
Nathans interpretation of reality is, arguably, more important than reality in
this film. What he thinks of women and why they act the way that they act
(LEVEL 3) dictates how he programs them (LEVEL 1). (The one detail he
offers to describe Ghostbusters, just now, was that a ghost performs oral sex
on Dan Aykroyd. Not sure if that is a telling detail, but I just noticed it.) What
he thinks of men and why they act the way that they act dictates how he may
attempt to a) manipulate Caleb and b) allow Ava to manipulate Caleb. CapitalT Truth does not matter here in the reality of the film because Nathan controls
the environment and the individuals who are present.
Nathan believes that consciousness and sexuality go hand in hand, plus, as
he says, sexuality is fun, so why not have it in his AIs?
Steve Rose at The Guardian points out,
Looking back over movie history, it is difficult to find a female
robot/android/cyborg who hasnt been created (by men, of course) in the
form of an attractive young womanand therefore played by one. This
often enables the movie to raise pertinent points about consciousness and
technology while also giving male viewers an eyeful of female flesh. The
non-scientific term for this is having your cake and eating it.
To be fair, Ava doesnt have much female flesh throughout most of the film.
Still, she is sexualized almost immediately, if by no other means than the
inherently male gaze of the camera. Which might not quite gel with my
argument yesterday, of course. But, even the silhouette of the naked form is
sexy, right? I mean, why else does that tire flap on so many big rigs exist? So,
the actual presence of flesh is not the point so much as the presence of
shape. Natalie Wilson at Ms. Magazine asks:
[D]id Avas body have to be so sexualized and so transparent, forcing us to
gaze inside of her along with Caleb, as if her body has no boundary? Or
perhaps this is just the pointwe can finally see inside a womans body,
and she is not that musty, smelly, hairy thing of so many nightmares
(Freuds included), not the vagina dentata or a giver/taker of lifeno, she
is built like a car of all things, and under her roof her parts sing and hum
like a well-oiled engine.

The machinery/anatomy metaphor serves another purpose, of coursesetting

aside the social implication of wanting a woman who will obey, for the
moment. As Kyle Buchanan at Vulture says of the men in Ex Machina, the
movie links their desire to create with the more primal desire to procreate.
The movie also allows forbut does not, necessarily, suggestnudity
equals sexuality. Notablyas referenced in yesterdays entrythe nudity in
this film is not sexual. Naked AIs hang in closets without clothes (and without
some of their skin). Kyoko lies on a couch naked, and peels some of her skin
away to reveal to Caleb what she is. She does not then come on to him; that
was earlier, when she was dressed. Bitch Medias Kjerstin Johnson is one of
those who calls the nudity in that last dressing scenewhich I broke down
yesterdaygratuitous. She also says it was male gaze-y and it made her
uncomfortable. While I disagree with that sentiment, I like the idea that
follows it. In a parenthetical, she writes:
By the way, I think there should be another rule a la Bechdel test about
naked women in filmhow long are they naked? For whose pleasure are the
shots? Is she a corpse, yes/no?
(Maybe call it the Mathilda May Test.)
I think, the more male gaze-y shots happen when Ava is without her
skin.

Standing before the mirror, no sensual pose, just standingand with the
camera looking on from afarthis doesnt scream male gaze to me. Johnson
points out the deeper issue in that scene, though. She writes:
But more to the point, the scene was shot with warm light and soaring,
swelling, hopeful music. We are supposed to be happy for her, to see this
as her moment of liberation. But, I couldnt help but think of the

psychological trauma these female bots had experienced. In order to be

free, Ava had to literally skin her AI sisters and leave them behind. Is Ava
aware of the mental and sexual torture they had all been through? Is she as
sickened by the sight of these mangled, naked female bodies as I was? Im
not sure these questions of consciousness or embodiment are ones that
crossed the minds of Caleb or Nathan [LEVEL 1 and LEVEL 3]or
director/writer Alex Garland [LEVEL 2], for that matter.
Now, consider what I said above about Nathans sense of reality, or that
parenthetical above about what we presume about Nathan and his treatment of
his AIs. We see flesh and we assume a sexual angle when there is no practical
reason to dress these AIs. (Plus, if Caleb is also an AI, an entire new angle
opens up.) Johnson assumes sexual torture when the film offers no actual
evidence of anything of the sort. She assumes psychological trauma but
psychological trauma implies a success in the AI (like Jade, who damages
herself in trying to break the glass of her enclosure) that would not indicate
destruction by Nathan to make a new model. In fact, if Nathan is as good at
what he does as it seemshis personality issues notwithstandingJades
apparent discomfort would suggest fixing her body, not her mind. We could
just as easily assume mechanical or programming error as psychological
trauma. Additionally, taking the skin off her AI sistersnevermind the
loaded terminology of calling them sistersmight be as simple as her
previous scene getting dressed for Caleb. That is, if she can stab
Nathan and leave Caleb behind to die, why should we assume that she has any
conscience at all? She just wants to go people-watching.
And, I think these questions of consciousness and embodiment were
exactly what Garland had in mind when writing and directing this film. That
is kind of the point.

youre wasting your time talking to her

Despite some of the wiggle room I might have created (or tried to
create) yesterday regarding Nathans motives, I think we can safely assume
that the character of Nathan is misogynist. The big problem in the film, in
terms of the men, is how much worse than Caleb is Nathan, or how much
better than Nathan is Caleb? I already wrote about how Caleb makes no effort
to include Kyoko in his escape plans, how he simply tries to save the girl who
is willing to put out. (So to speak; there is no actual indication toward the
sexual between Caleb and Ava, except explicitly by Nathan. But, that
informationthat Ava is capable of sexual intercourseis offered why?
Because Nathan wants Caleb to fall for Ava. Modern sexist parlance requires
that sex be on the table or Caleb will not care about Ava at all. And, Nathan
clearly subscribes to such parlance.)

Now, there are two paths we can take at this point with this discussion. 1)
That Caleb has no (apparent) interest in also saving Kyoko, nor had he
suspected that the mute maid was an AI plays on racial and gendered
stereotypes (LEVEL 3) to distract both Caleb (LEVEL 1) and us (LEVEL 2).
2) That Caleb could conceivably also be an AI alters the levels of
programming within the story and raises philosophical questions about free
will and sociocultural programming (LEVEL 3).
I may get to both today.
Probably not.
Unlike Ava, Kjerstin Johnson at Bitch Media writes, we dont really get
a full understanding of how much consciousness Kyoko has. Occasionally,
and pointedly, the camera lingers on her face, indicating to the viewer that she
knows more than she lets on. In cinematic terms, yes, lingering on her face
suggests that something is going on in her head. I wonder, for example, why
Kyoko spills wine on Caleb. Is it simply an accident, or is she trying to draw
Calebs attention since he is not offering it? See, the thing is, Caleb pays very
little attention to Kyoko until he cannot find Nathan and finds Kyoko in
Nathans room. She is a potential source of information. She might as well be
Blue Book (Nathans search engine) or a sign on the wall. She is not a person,
even though Caleb thinks she is. Unlike Ava, who Caleb does not think a
person, though she is. If you get my meaning. Basically, Kyoko might as well
be furniture, as Caleb dismisses her, incidentally, as much as Nathan does
deliberately.
Johnson subscribes to the obvious take on Kyoko, that she compulsorily
perform[s] as the sexual object she was programmed to beliterally at the
flick of a switch. To be fair, the only time Kyoko reacts as if to the flick of a
switch is when Nathan turns on Oliver Cheathams Get Down Saturday
Night. It certainly seems like Kyoko is acting on specific programming in
that momentan oddly specific bit of programming, to be surebut the
scene in which she and Nathan start to have sex... there is no programming
cue there. We see one cue and assume the other. We see a submissive woman
and we assume domination. Whether this is the reality of Kyokos
programming (LEVEL 1) or the film manipulating us to see Nathan as a
horrible person (LEVEL 2) or us simply seeing the same thing that Caleb sees
a submissive Asian woman (LEVEL 3). As Johnson puts it, Kyokos
character embodies problematic and long-standing stereotypes of Asian
womensexy, servile, and self sacrificing. Johnson then gets into the
LEVELs I keep using, though not in such terms. We can blame scumbag
Nathan for building her this way [LEVEL 1], Johnson writes, but it doesnt
explain how she was utilized in the film itself [LEVEL 2]a foil to the white
female lead.

Cultural stereotypes explain that side of it... explain both sides of it,
actually. Kyoko, in fitting with stereotypes about submissive Asian women,
can be used by Nathan as a distraction for Caleb (or, yes, as an explicitly
sexual object for Nathan himself) just as she can be used by Garland as a
distraction for us. (Distraction from what, though? That will come tomorrow.
The basic preview: if Caleb is an AI also, then the discovery of Kyoko as AI
(by him or by us) serves as a distraction from the discovery that cannot be
made except outside the text of the film. But, more on that tomorrow.)
Cara Rose DeFabio at Huffington Post argues, Gender is a crucial
component of the Turing Test. Before we move further into why she says
this, I would add that putting a racial component or cultural component on top
of gender would certainly make it easier for an AI to pass the Turing Test. We
do not expect to communicate clearly with someone who is of a different
culture, a different nationality, a different race, a different gender. Men are
from Mars, Women are from Venus and all that. If Caleb found waiting to be
tested a male AI who acted just as he did, who also liked computer
programming and Depeche Mode, that would affect how the test goes.
DeFabio cites the computer program that actually passed a Turing Test last
year. His name was Ernest Goostman.
Add different age to that list above, because Ernest Goostman appeared in
his online conversations as a 13-year-old Ukrainian boy. The differential
between how he would communicate and how an adult interviewerwhose
first language was Englishmakes passing easier. He tricked 33% of a
panel of judges after a 5-minute conversation online. The key to his trick was,
as Per Liljas explains in Time, June 9, 2014, Ernests age makes it perfectly

reasonable that he doesnt know anything. His foreignness also makes any
awkwardness in his questions more acceptable as well. Also writing for Time,
Doug Aamoth talked to Ernest, and explained that Ernests answers are at
times enthusiastic and unintelligible like those from any normal 13-year-old
would be; add in a shaky grasp of English, and there you go. For example,
Ernest asks Aamoth, Could you tell me about the place where you live?
And, it is easy to imagine an actual 13-year-old Ukrainian boy using that
phrasing. But, the best part of Aamoths conversation with Ernest is when
Aamoth calls one of Ernests answers a little shaky. Ernest fakes distraction
(and suggests a larger world around him as context), saying, Damn! Ive just
recalled that I didnt feed my guinea pig this morning. Poor animal!
Different issue, but the same idea: that Ava is an attractive female who
(may) match Calebs porn profile makes it much easier for Caleb to involve
himself with her beyond the notion that she is a machine. I have written
before about parasocial relationships. Thing about it like this: if we can have
relationships with fictional characters or celebrities we know only through
social media or reality shows, then we can certainly form relationships with
machines that can readily approximate real people. Especially if they are
attractive.
To be continued...

instead of seeing this as a deception

(Before we get into this sixth and final day with Ex Machina, a note on
something I will not be talking about:
Theres a line of music that plays as Caleb first enters the house, and
again as Ava is leaving it, that reminds me of the theme to Jurassic Park.
My son, who knows music better than I do, listened to it and said
something along the lines of, if they wanted to reference Jurassic Park,
they would not have put the line in a different key. MeI still think it
sounds like it. Plus, both films involve locations accessed by helicopter...
Seriously, the structure is the same in that regard. Brief intro (Ex
Machinas being far briefer than Jurassic Parks), then helicopter ride to
the location, a location where a scientist has perhaps taken things a bit too
far, eventually endangering lives (note: in the novel of Jurassic
Park Hammond dies in the end just as Nathan dies here), then the
survivor(s) leave(s) on a helicopter. As a movie blogger, I gotta say, I think
the musical allusion is not only there but deliberate.
But, I could be wrong.)
Now, to let Caleb off the hook a little, particularly in regards to Kyoko,
todays argument is simple: Caleb is a robot, too.
Let us start from the beginning, the briefest of introductory scenes before
Caleb is off to Nathans home/lab. We know nothing of Caleb here. He is a
cypher, this scene perhaps just as much a ruse (LEVEL 2) as the contest was

(LEVEL 1) within the film. Caleb is supposed to believe that he is an

employee of Nathans who has won a contest. Sure, hell figure out the
contest was a lie eventually, but what matters is that there is some reason for
him to be there. But, this scene serves no particular purpose as far as the film
goes. Sure, maybe you could make an argument about how the opening scene
and the closing scene relate to one another
the opening scene has Caleb at a computer, indoors, isolated from the
world as a programmer would be while the closing scene has Ava
outdoors, near crowds of people
but neither one serves much purpose in relation to the plot, and they barely
matter to the story. Now, arguably, the final scene is important for its
philosophical references; that is, as Nathan has told Ava about Mary in the
Black and White Room which is a pasted over version of Platos Allegory
of the Cave. The latter involves shadows as ones reference to reality...
Simplified version, in case you dont know it: guy lives in a cave, tied so that
he cannot move, he faces shadows on a wall projected by light (and figures)
behind him. His impression of the world is formed from these shadows, and
he has no sense of the actual world. In that final sequence, we get a notable
shot

shadows on the ground, the world inverted. Ava was a shadow of a person,
but now she has become something more. Caleb, in a different sort of way
assuming he is human, for the momentis also just a shadow of a person. He
is awkward in his social interactions, he is a computer programmer, and I
think we can easily imagine that he has few to no friends. He is not outgoing,
not a particularly social animal.
See, unless that is what he is supposed to be. Consider: designing an AI
that moves graceful and is attractivethat is the obvious choice. The
challenge: make an AI that is deliberately awkward so he seems more human.

It is an extension of what I was saying yesterday regarding the racial angle

with Kyoko or the real-life example of Ernest Goostman.
(And, Im nearly 700 words in already and I have not even pressed play
on the movie. Too much to say, I suppose.)
So, let us look at the evidence as it comes...
Imagine, if you will, that the moment this film begins, Caleb has only just
been activated. Or maybe he was embedded at the company a while back to
help solidify his own programmed (LEVEL 1) impression that he is human.
Now, the film just as easily could have begun with, say, the helicopter
landing, orfor a little mysteryCaleb coming upon the house while
walking through the woods, inexplicably in a suit.
For that matter, why is he wearing a suit? Did no one tell him at all where
he was going? He thinks he won a contest, not that he is going for a job
interview.
(Sidenote: just googled to be sure and found two other people who have
compared this film to Jurassic Park. jamiembrown even does a good beatfor-beat thing.)
(Sidesidenote: I should never google during the film on my last day with
it. I dont need new sources at this point. Ive already used and abused
numerous sources this week. Today, it is supposed to be just me.)
Awkwardness: Caleb seems lost because no one is in the first room of the
house. I guess he expected a greeting party. Oh, and he bumps into a chair.
Caleb turns down food and drink.
Awkwardness: Was it a good party? I am fairly sure Caleb would not
know a good party if the partygoers tied him to a chair and danced around
him.
Nathans dialogue is simple, except when he finds a tangent, something
philosophical perhaps. Initially, we can chalk up his dialogic awkwardness to,
as Nathan puts it, him being freaked out. And, maybe Caleb does actually
find his room cozy. But, Nathan wants him to find it claustrophobic.
Caleb gets defensive when Nathan assumes his discomfort. He also gets
defensive when Caleb misquotes him about Nathan being a god.
I am reminded of Blade Runner of course, Rachael (Sean Young). She is a
replicant but does not know it. So, depending on how you view the film, is
Deckard (Harrison Ford). Easy way to setup your AI to pass a Turing Test
might just be to not let the AI know a) that there is a test or b) that he/she is
the subject of it, and certainly not c) that he/she is an AI.
Awkwardness: Caleb is actually stiffer than Ava when they first meet. He
also sits straighter than Nathan.
As for the Turing Testif Caleb is an AI then he is the subject. Thus, the
test is a proper one, with the robot hidden from the examiner. Except, Ava
claims to be able to tell when he is lying. This is not a problem, however, if

she is lying to manipulate the conversation. (Same with her claims about
noticing Calebs microexpressions. She may see them only as much as
anybody does.)
Caleb has trouble sleeping. We see him awake late at night several times.
But, we only see him actually (seemingly) asleep oncewhen Kyoko comes
to wake him.
Ava knows when she is being watched. When Caleb first watches her on
the monitor in his room, she triggers a power cut and turns toward the camera
just as it goes dark. Later, she looks at the camera a few other times as well,
when she is being watched. Now, maybe she turns and looks at the cameras all
the time just to be creepy in those moments that Caleb might be looking, but
the movie implies (LEVEL 2) something more deliberate. Caleb assumes
correctly when Nathan is watching, though he does guess prematurely that
Nathan is watching during the cuts.
Does Caleb know the movie Ghostbusters? Nathan does not give him
enough time to respond, but maybe that film just is not in his programmed
memories.
The best evidence for Caleb being human (or Nathans programming of
Caleb being rather amazing) is perhaps all of Calebs filler words, his
many ums and ahs.
Arguably, Kyokos clumsiness is a sign thatbodily, at leastshe is more
advanced than Ava. Her dancing, too. Caleb bumping into that chair before
advanced programming. If you want your AI to pass for human, you do not
make it perfect. You give it flaws.
Plus, whether or not Caleb is literally a robot matters less than the
implication that maybe it does not matter at all. I mean, a proper AI, if it can
pass for human (and especially if it does not know that it is not human)is it
not then human? If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
And, we get to the LEVEL 3 programming conversation (the one I quoted
a couple days ago):
Whats your type? You know what, dont even answer that. Lets say its
black chicks. Okay, thats your thing. For the sake of argument, thats your
thing, okay? Why is that your thing? Because you did a detailed analysis
of all racial types and you cross-referenced that analysis with a pointsbased system? No. Youre just attracted to black chicks. A consequence of
accumulated external stimuli that you probably didnt even register as they
registered with you.
Nathans point stands, of course. If Caleb walks like an AI and talks like an
AI...
He still may have, yes, done a detailed analysis of all racial types and...
cross-referenced that analysis with a points-based system. It has just taken
him 26 years to do so. Nathan offers this phrasing as a flippant counter to

sociocultural programming when it actually explains the sociocultural

programming. Nature and Nurture get together and twist you one way or
another and you do that analysis over time and figure out what it is that you
like. To mix metaphors with the next scene, you learn to see the color of
attraction rather than the black and white of objective observation.
Speaking of which, the black and white imagining is Calebs. The editing
clearly juxtaposes the black and white scene of he and Ava kissing with him in
the shower. He is imagining it. He is seeing in black and white.
Nathan seems intelligent enough to notice that Caleb is a) not drinking as
much as he is or b) not getting as drunk as he is. B is easy to explain if Caleb
is an AI and maybe cannot get drunk. A only makes sense if, also, Caleb is an
AI. Or maybe Nathan just drinks himself to sleep every day. Being a god may
be stressful and exhausting.
Caleb does not seem to find it that strange that Kyoko is lying around
naked.
Consider: if Caleb is a more advanced model than Avathat next model
that Nathan mentionsthen maybe he has blood, and the transparent mesh
that surrounds Avas arm is not in his arm. If he does not cut down to the
bone, he may not find any machinery. Or, maybe he found machinery. The
interesting thing is that the rest of the film could still happen just as it does
regardless of what Caleb found or did not find. Caleb cannot tell Avasince
he assumes Nathan is watchingthat he has discovered what he is. And, the
one room where he might expect to have privacy away from the CCTV is in
his bathroom.
(Nothing to do with todays topic, but I just realized I have not had the
opportunity to mention itthere is a mistake of timing on the last day in
this film. Caleb arranges for Ava to trigger a power cut at 10:00pm. But,
that power cut happens in the scene that follows directly after he and
Nathan talking in the kitchen when it is daytime and Avas escape that
follows does not take until morning.... Ah, I realize this may not be a
mistake at all but an indication that it is summer and they are quite far
north in Norway. Could be white nights. I am sure there is something
romantic and poetic about setting this film during white nights
but then I bother to doublecheck and see that at least once we see an
establishing shot of the exterior of the house in darkness, so maybe the
mistake is specifying 10 oclock at night. See:

but then it also gets me to thinking about the movie White Nights and I
imagine Avas rejection of her place in Nathans home as a political
defection. When you get to the feminist angle, it is a political defection.
She and Kyoko both decide not to be beholden to Nathan and his locked
doors.)
The good news, if Caleb is also an AIhe probably will not starve to
death. Although I am not sure how he is powered. Probably not the induction
plates, or he would have been clued into his AI-edness earlier. Unless he just
does not notice when he recharges... Those keycardsI have seen more than
one person complain on IMDb about those not being as advanced as the rest
of the house. But, maybe those cards exist specifically so that AI Caleb will
put his hand up to those panels by the doors a few times a day. He might be
getting charged without knowing it.
But ultimately, it does not matter if Caleb is or is not a robot created by
Nathan. The alternative is that he is a robot created by nature (and nurture).
He can still only escape his programming (and the walls imposed around him)
only inasmuch as that programming allows for it. And, that is what Ex
Machina is really about. Not whether or not we might make an AI that can
pass for human but that humans are so set in our programmed ways that we
might far too easily pass for AI. Nathan does not choose to be a misogynist
jerk. Not completely, anyway. The world has lifted him up onto that god
pedestal because of his programming genius. The world has decided that men
are better than women. The world has decided that rich men are better than
poor men. Such programming is deep in the LEVEL 3 code of each of us.
And, it takes a lot of time and a whole lot of effort to change it. Caleb may be
entirely human, but he is still programmed to respond to a pretty face that
deigns to talk to (let alone flirt with) him.

This movie is both horribly cynical about such programming and

pleasantly optimistic. Caleb tries to get past some of his programming to help
Ava, and Ava (presumably) gets past her own programming to get out into the
world... except that Nathan specifically set up the situation for her to be his
rat in a maze and Caleb is her way out. Perhaps, in context of the reality of
the film, Ava never goes beyond her programming at all. She just succeeds at
doing what Nathan wants her to do. In that regard, maybe the films ending is
not so feminist, after all. It is just a confirmation that even the struggles we
have are part of our programming.
0

references
Aamoth, D. (2014, June 9). Interview with Eugene Goostman, the fake kid who passed the
Turing Test. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/2847900/eugene-goostman-turing-test/
Buchanan, K. (2015, April 22). Does Ex Machina have a woman problem, or is its take on
gender truly futuristic? Vulture. http://www.vulture.com/2015/04/why-ex-machina-takeon-gender-is-so-advanced.html
Cross, K. (2015, May 28). Goddess from the machine: A look at Ex Machinas gender
politics. Feministing. Retrieved from http://feministing.com/2015/05/28/goddess-fromthe-machine-a-look-at-ex-machinas-gender-politics/
DeFabio, C.R. (2015, May 8). Ex Machina review: Gorgeous futurism, but flawed gender
depictions. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7052284
Hall, J. (2015, May 19). The bitter pill of feminism in Mad Max: Fury Road and Ex
Machina. Screen Crush. Retrieved from http://screencrush.com/mad-max-ex-machinafeminism/
Johnson, K. (2015, May 8). How Ex Machina toys with its female characters. Bitch Media.
Retrieved from https://bitchmedia.org/post/ex-machina-film-review-gender-and-aifeminism
Liljas, P. (2014, June 9). Computer posing as teenager achieves artificial-intelligence
milestone. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/2846824/computer-posing-as-teenagerachieves-artificial-intelligence-milestone/
Micheline, J.A. (2015, May 21). Ex Machina: A (white) feminist parable for our time. Women
Write About Comics. Retrieved fromhttp://womenwriteaboutcomics.com/2015/05/21/exmachina-a-white-feminist-parable-for-our-time/
Rose, S. (2015, January 15). Ex Machina and sci-fis obsession with sexy female robots. The
Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jan/15/ex-machinasexy-female-robots-scifi-film-obsession
Wilson, N. (2015, April 29). How Ex Machina fails to be radical. Ms. Magazine. Retrieved
from http://msmagazine.com/blog/2015/04/29/how-ex-machina-fails-to-be-radical/