The Creator

Science-fiction is an expansive genre, yet people tend to have a narrow view of what it encompasses (at least in the US). This seems to be largely informed by the types of stories which were popular during your youth, as well as the classic literature of the genre (Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, Le Guin, Bova, etc). It’s also in part due to sci-fi lending itself well to blending with other genres, and melting into the background in the process. For example, few people would call Groundhog Day a sci-fi movie, but it features a time loop, a classic sci-fi mechanism. Same for Get Out: while it involves sci-fi happenings, calling it a sci-fi movie feels awkward, as it’s merely a plot device. Or take Guardians of the Galaxy: it’s absolutely, 100% a traditional sci-fi, but it feels different (at least to me) simply by nature of also being a superhero movie.

All of which makes assessing the claim of the dearth of original sci-fi movies difficult. Certainly, the most popular and talked about ones tend to be adaptations of major properties. But this year, we’ve had Infinity Pool, 65, They Cloned Tyrone, Jules, Crater, JUNG_E, and The Pod Generation, to name a few. While that’s not all that many movies, and online stats imply few were widely seen, horror is often cited as a thriving genre, and the vast majority of its big releases this year have been sequels or adaptations.

I mention this because I’ve seen a lot of rejoicing over this film’s existence simply due to it being an original sci-fi story, regardless of their thoughts on the movie itself or even whether they’ve seen it, and I’m unsure how warranted it is. I don’t have the data or the background to say definitively, but it’s worth questioning. I will say, I’m always fond of an original story in any genre that’s given a notable budget, as it shows at least someone continues to have faith in Hollywood storytellers to ply their trade.

The Creator follows Joshua (John David Washington), a retired American special ops infantryman. After the AI built to protect the US detonated a nuke over Los Angeles, the government banned AI and set out to destroy all who continue to support it. These robots and simulants (robots made to look like humans, with a few distinctions) found protection and support amongst the people of New Asia (a country vaguely in southeast Asia), inviting America’s wrath. When the US government learns about a superweapon capable of winning the war for the AI, they reactivate Joshua to retrieve and destroy it. There’s just one problem: the “weapon” is a little girl simulant named Alfie (Madeleine Yuna Voyles).

…Alright, fine, there are more problems. For one, Joshua is chosen because he once was undercover in New Asia, even starting a life with a woman named Maya (Gemma Chan), while trying to learn the location of Nirmata, the chief architect behind New Asia’s AI developments. She’s killed in an assault which also blows his cover. To tempt him into this job, Colonel Howell (Allison Janney) shows him a video taken a few days ago seemingly showing Maya alive and well. So even if Joshua can pull off his mission, there’s the risk he’ll develop alternative goals.

One of the most interesting things about this movie is how it’s been framed by the public. People were getting hyped for “the John David Washington AI movie”. It shows that Washington has apparently gained some amount of movie stardom, despite not really having any defining performances. He’s been in some good or even great films (most notably BlacKkKlansman, and also Tenet), and even got some minor acting nominations, but I think he’s more riding his father’s coattails than anything else. Washington has been reliably solid, but he’s not going to elevate your movie.

More curious is it’s being referred to as the AI movie. I guess that makes sense. Last year saw a bunch of excitement and trepidation surrounding DALL-E and Midjourney, before ChatGPT and its imitators came along, and have dominated the conversation ever since. We’re living in a post-ChatGPT world, things will never be the same, and many people fear the worst. In all these conversations, AI is a threat. To jobs, to truth, to society, to humanity’s long-term survival. I have to imagine that translated to people wanting to see a future where this danger has been realized, and now humanity must fight back.

But watching the trailer, isn’t it clear that’s not this film? I’ve definitely seen enough movies and trailers that my experience will differ from that of the average theatergoer. But the moment the weapon was revealed to be in the form of a child (something the movie reveals fairly early on, too), I knew that at minimum, it was going to be more complicated than that.

Sure enough, at no point in the movie are the robots or simulants the bad guys. They’re the underdogs, the oppressed masses, the target of an American military gone so mad with technological supremacy that they feel comfortable imposing their will around the world. The Americans deny the humanity of their targets, justifying their slaughter with “They’re no conscious: it’s just programming”. They push into foreign lands, hunting for the secretive leader of the insurgents, who they think is tucked away in the hills. All the while, they’re brutalizing the inhabitants, unconcerned with the deaths of civilians, as long as they can creep closer to exterminating AI.

Any of this seeming familiar?

This is not an AI movie, not really. Sure, that’s the aesthetic within which Edwards chose to tell his story, but it’s not the focus. Instead, it’s an anti-imperialist, optimistic, and humanist tale. It’s a story about how zealotry and nationalism drains people of their ability to step back and see how ridiculous and unfounded their prejudices are. It’s a warning about how those prejudices lead people to do terrible, destructive things. It’s a demonstration of how people band together in the most dire of circumstances. And it’s an accusation that those who dehumanize others are the ones who lack humanity, while the subjects of their abuse are frequently capable of great acts of love and peace.

The films biggest issue is that it fairly early on unspools these sentiments, then continues to hit them over and over again with little further development. There’s not much nuance to them or subtlety to their presentation, so the repetition is more exhausting than anything else. It’s not helped by being wrapped in a fundamentally recognizable, trope heavy story. Sure, the world is fresh (we’ll get to that in a moment), but the plot is not. Joshua can’t bring himself to kill a child. He is convinced she can tell him Maya’s location, so they go on the run. They’re chased by Howell and a lackey, who perform some incredible brutality and violations of the bodily autonomy of simulants. Our protagonist has his worldview challenged by personal experience with those he hated. A bunch more things which come to fruition late in the film, but you’ll likely pick up on as you watch. So none of it feels particularly interesting. They even pass up a few easy chances to swerve off the beaten path, much to my chagrin.

Which is a shame, because this is a visually stunning film on a few levels. The landscapes are absolutely gorgeous, owing in large part to being filmed on location. The robot characters all move incredibly naturalistically, probably helped by none of them being purely VFX creations: all seem to have been animated over a human performance (no mo-cap suit), not just the simulants. The city and building and vehicle design all feels very real, with few buildings that simply look cool without being practical. Even something like NOMAD, which looks super slick, is entirely functional. And they do a great job overall fleshing out this world. Most of the tech feels advanced but within reach, which is reasonable given that this takes place in 2070 or so. Like any good sci-fi, there are a few things which are downright unsettling in their implications, such as capturing something akin to a soul on a flash drive. It’s incredible what they accomplished on an $80 million budget, blowing most blockbusters clear out of the water with less than half the money.

The performances are all pretty good. For once, I actually felt like Washington’s character had some fullness imparted by his performance, rather than a bland reading off the page. He allowed himself some of the deeper, more organic emotional reactions which hint that maybe he does have within him the dynamism which turned his father into a movie star. Voyles manages to avoid the pitfalls which beset some child actors. Everyone else is pretty good, but nothing special.

So overall, I’m left feeling ambivalent. On the one hand, gorgeous, original sci-fi. On the other, bland, unengaging story. In another era, it would become a rental classic, with its presence on the video store TV spurring customers to ask what it is so they can bring it home. But in the current era, I’m not certain what its place is. It will certainly be the subject of many a desktop wallpaper. But does it have the presence to get thrown on as background while viewers have friends over or do chores once it hits streaming? I guess we’ll soon find out.