Goddess, the Machine

February 15, 2017 § 3 Comments

deus-ex-machina1.jpg

ἀπὸ μηχανῆς θεός (apò mēkhanês theós). This simple Greek phrase has pervaded theatre, literature, and art across centuries. It represents a device used in ancient Athenian theatre, a device taken by the Romans, becoming the well-known deus ex machina (god from the machine). To understand the decision to entitle Ex Machina without the established deus, one must first understand the origin, uses, and criticism of deus ex machina.

Deus ex machina is “an unexpected power or event saving a seemingly hopeless situation, especially as a contrived plot device in a play or novel” (OED). Originating in ancient Athenian theatre, Deus Ex Machina was marked typically by actors playing gods suspended above the stage, the denouement of the play brought about by their intervention (OED).   Aristotle was the first to use the term “god from the machine” to describe the resolution of tragedy by this strategy, later criticizing the very technique in his Poetics. Yet, it was Euripides who took this technique and ran with it, his influence making it an actual stage machine. Some critics even claim that Euripides, not Aeschylus, invented the deus ex machina.

Deus ex machina has been met with criticism from ancient and modern scholars alike. One of the first critics being Aristophanes who deemed the device a cop out, if you will, by a playwright who could not handle his own plot. Aristophanes even makes fun of Euripides in his play Thesmophoriazusae, in which Euripides the character comes on stage by way of the machine. Still, one of the more critical assessments comes in the late 19th century from the author Friedrich Nietzshce. Nietzsche criticizes the use of the deus ex machina and Euripides’ flattening “out the metaphysical dimensions of tragedy” (Bushnell 80). Nietzsche writes, “Metaphysical consolation had been ousted by the deus ex machina”(Nietzsche 70). Thus, Nietzsche believed that the deus ex machina created a false sense of consolation.

Why look to the deus ex machina when contemplating the complexities and commentaries of Alex Garland’s Ex Machina? Well, primarily because of his choice to leave out the deus. One begins to question, does this demonstrate a reversal in the role of man and machine as shown in the final scenes of “Ex Machina?” For, there is no great savior by a God figure, instead, the God is annihilated. Or, is this showing that the machine was God all along? Or, is this a commentary on the “God-complex” of creators and their unimportance when machines are finally able to pass the Turing Test?   In one moment in the film, Caleb comments on the incredible feat of creating AI. He remarks on the possible creation of a conscious machine saying, “it’s not the history of man it’s the history of Gods.” Yet, Nathan takes this and twists it saying that Caleb looked up at him and said, “You’re not a man you’re a God.” This movie masterfully toys with the ideas of creator and created. One sees a genius killed by his very own creation.

Still, one of the more compelling dynamics of the film comes with its exploration of gender and sexualization. With the exclusion of deus, the masculine form of the Latin word meaning “God,” Gardner steers clear of its gendered implications in its title yet the film is still riddled with gendering and sexualizing. When Caleb and Nathan first meet, Nathan asks, “Can we just be two guys?” By the simple fact that creators are men and created are women, Gardner plays with gender roles. There is the masculine norm that Nathan portrays, something he imposes on Caleb in their first encounter. In this way, the deus, or “god,” would once again be masculine. However, the exclusion of the deus opens interpretation to who and what gender the god really is.

In an interview with Alex Garland, the interviewer asked about his choice of gendering. He responded, “And just to be clear, of the questions that are posed by the film, some of them don’t have answers — but that doesn’t mean that posing the question is wrong. Sometimes it’s actually good to pose questions that you know don’t have answers” (check out the interview at http://io9.gizmodo.com/director-alex-garland-explains-why-ex-machina-is-so-dis-1696309078). By excluding the deus and toying with gender roles, Garland poses questions about the machine that he leaves to the audience to answer, if an answer is even possible at all.

-Alison Maas

Work Cited

 

Bushnell, Rebecca W. A Companion to Tragedy. Malden: Blackwell Pub., 2009. Print.

 

Chondros, Thomas G.; Milidonis, Kypros; Vitzilaios, George; Vaitsis, John (September

2013). “”Deus-Ex-Machina” reconstruction in the Athens theater of Dionysus”. Mechanism and Machine Theory. 67: 172–191.

 

Handley, Miriam. “Shaw’s response to the deus ex machina: From The Quintessence

of Ibsenism to Heartbreak House”. January Conference 1999 THEATRE : ANCIENT & MODERN.

 

Ex Machina. Dir. Alex Garland. N.d.

 

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, Oscar Levy, and Richard Wagner. The Birth of Tragedy, Or, Hellenism and Pessimism. Place of Publication Not Identified: Publisher

Not Identified, 2008. Print.

 

Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford dictionaries. n.d.Web. 13 Feb 2017.

 

Advertisements

§ 3 Responses to Goddess, the Machine

  • tiffjku says:

    I also wonder if maybe the “deus” was left out in order to get away from the gendering of it. I believe “dea” means “goddess,” so there is a definite way Garland could have pointed to a female “God.” However, maybe the focus wasn’t on whether the God was female or male or even about who the God was (not to say that this theme did not arise). Instead, I found my main focus to be on the machines, the “machina.” I had conflicting feelings about the ending of the movie. *Spoiler Alert* The Turing Test is designed to test whether a machine or AI is able to pass for a human. Ava seemed to succeed in doing this, but the ending made me feel a bit differently. She, in my opinion, lacked an important emotional component: compassion. She could manipulate, be imaginative, be creative, and feel pleasure or pain. But did she really feel anything towards Nathan or Caleb? Did she resent Nathan? Did she feel a little love towards Caleb? I will never know the answers to these, but the way Ava slid the knife into Nathan at the end was without feeling. There was no raising of the knife in a swift motion, no aggression, and no words. It was simply an act she had to perform in order to escape just as how she had to fake her affections for Caleb. I felt that Ava was closer to being slightly more sociopathic, i.e. lacking a conscious. But is this the type of “human” robot we are striving for?

    Like

  • bkcallander says:

    I’m curious as to what Caleb’s roll would then be in unleashing the goddess so to speak. Ava only gains true power when she is aided by Caleb in her escape. She manipulates him through sexuality, a quality the Nathan gives her because he believes it makes her more sentient. Does this mean that sexual desire is the ultimate downfall of humans? The AI’s in Ex Machina use their sexuality to ultimately enthrall their human makers. However, it does appear that Eva cares about her visual appearance. In the final scene, Eva is shown examining herself with her new skin, admiring her new look. In exploring sexuality, it’s possible that Alex Garland points out that our very basal instincts could be what causes our ultimate downfall.

    Like

  • kbyron94 says:

    Your points about the absence of “deus” in the title are really interesting, and I did not realize that this is where the title came from. However, I wonder if Alex Garland doesn’t include “deus” in order to place all of the importance on the machine. In the end of the movie, it doesn’t matter who or what created Ava, as she leaves them all behind and becomes an independent being. Could this movie be a warning to humans for the development of AI? It reminds me of the classic fear of robots taking over the world and overpowering the human creators. It seems that Garland is showing that the creation of AI does not make humans more powerful, but it gives all of the life, power, and control to the machines.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Goddess, the Machine at Science/Fiction.

meta

%d bloggers like this: