Take the 2-minute tour ×
Movies & TV Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for movie and tv enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I remember (99% sure) an interview with Spielberg (in a documentary of Kubrick's lifework), where he states that many critics falsely supposed that Spielberg was responsible for the first part (showing the life of the artificial child within its "family") of the movie, while the second part and end of the movie would rather match Kubrick's typical movie style. But, in fact it was the other way around, Spielberg said.

I'm aware the whole movie was based on Kubrick's script and concepts initally, but I would really like to know as a Kubrick fan, what parts of the final movie were elaborated by Kubrick's/Spielberg's views/style and why so many critics were wrong. Is the first part kind of untypical for Kubrick movie style?

share|improve this question
3  
Odd, I always thought it was pretty obvious that Spielberg was more responsible for the second half –  Chris Rasys Dec 12 '11 at 18:32
    
Spielberg rewrote the screenplay when it got handed to him. He have said that he only removed some sexscennes and other smaller stuff from the main screenplay that Kubrick had approved. –  WizardOz Dec 12 '11 at 20:13
    
@WizardOz As far as I remember it was more the final movie design/style, transformation of the screenplay, not the pure plot, where the misconception of the critics arose. Kubrick didn't produce the movie as the technical possibilities for a realistic transformation of the plot were not given at the time. The middle part and esp. end are pretty sci-fi imho and remind me somehow on Spielberg's E.T., while the beginning part covers the question of human nature/artificial child and how we would emotionally relate to it in a very serious realistic way (that's imho clearly Kubricks handwriting) –  Hauser Dec 12 '11 at 22:30
    
@ChrisRasys Can you explain in what way or do you agree with my comment. Some more keywords would be good. What do you mean by pretty obvious? –  Hauser Dec 12 '11 at 22:38
    
@Hauser Basically the same stuff that WizardOz talked about. The mid/end of the movie just kind of felt like a Spielberg movie (very ETish), whereas the beginning had a more sophisticated feel like it was trying to cover important topics (human nature, ethics, etc). –  Chris Rasys Dec 15 '11 at 18:52
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 5 down vote accepted

Best reference to this is essentially the interview you talked about:

"People pretend to think they know Stanley Kubrick, and think they know me, when most of them don't know either of us," Spielberg told film critic Joe Leydon in 2002. "And what's really funny about that is, all the parts of A.I. that people assume were Stanley's were mine. And all the parts of A.I. that people accuse me of sweetening and softening and sentimentalizing were all Stanley's. The teddy bear was Stanley's. The whole last 20 minutes of the movie was completely Stanley's. The whole first 35, 40 minutes of the film – all the stuff in the house – was word for word, from Stanley's screenplay. This was Stanley's vision."

Essentially saying that the first part of the movie, where David is with his family up until around the part where he is cast aside when their son returns, is all made by Stanley Kubrick and not by Spielberg.

share|improve this answer
    
thanks, great answer! I remember this interview now, do you have a link? –  Hauser Jan 20 '12 at 16:04
1  
You can find it here It is close to the bottom of the page. –  TylerShads Jan 20 '12 at 16:06
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.