Franklin Rich’s gripping debut is intelligent, non-action-oriented sci-fi about the rapidly evolving ethics of technology.
Artificial intelligence has been in the news more and more lately, and observers are finding it difficult for teachers to quickly determine whether a student actually completed a project on their own (or whether the program was completed for them). I am afraid that it will become difficult. The video is actually a deepfake or something. But “Artifice Girl” frames the problems posed by increasingly sophisticated technology within the familiar narrative framework of machine intelligence beginning to surpass human “masters.”
However, unlike depictions from 2001 to Ex Machina onwards, Franklin Rich’s debut doesn’t treat its dynamics as a hostile takeover in thriller terms. Instead, this small-scale speculative his fiction is concerned with ethics, like it’s not static, but works on stage, and is pondered in a series of dialogue sequences that don’t require anything in the FX way. . The result may not be what his fans of fantasy that require action and spectacle are looking for. But Rich’s film, which won the Best International Feature Audience Award for last year’s Fantasia, provides food for thought for viewers willing to spark the imagination of the future with ideas rather than visuals. XYZ Films will release his April 27th in limited US cinemas, on-demand and digital platforms.
Expanding into three chaptered sections, Ritch’s script begins with the longest set piece. “Special Agents” Deena (Sinda Nichols) and Amos (David Girard) take a reluctant and exasperated Gareth (played by the writer-director himself) into the drab basement of the international humanitarian organization’s headquarters. succeeded in going The interview quickly turns into an interrogation. Gareth resists discussing the software he’s been working on since leaving his 3D modeling career in film. (He claims he takes credit for once “bringing back to life” the deceased Alec Guinness in the “Star Wars” entry.) He certainly behaves like a stereotypical person, all with sly eyes and anti-social behavior.
But when he swears his skeptical hosts to secrecy, the truth eventually comes out. After receiving and becoming financially free, his programming genius was catch predator. To that end, he created a next-level AI entity. This is a “highly detailed digital model” called Cherry that looks and sounds like an 11-year-old blonde American girl (Tatum Matthews). “She”, “manipulated” by him, is bait that attracts walkers around the world, generating evidence that he anonymously submits to authorities. However, the persona is surprisingly real, and agents find it very difficult to believe that Gareth isn’t using an actual flesh-and-bone child as a lure for his traps.
The bullish “bad cop” Deena (who also has a personal history of sexual abuse in the family) and the more cautious and empathetic Amos want to make the technology more widely available. Gareth initially objects, but he acquiesces and becomes part of their team. He’s much more convinced by Cherry herself, an advanced and cold-hearted strategist, perhaps more than she cares, and she’s still continuing her evolution.
The remaining two sections – one in a separate facility and the final in a private home – will take place years and decades later. Human employee mortality is taken into account as well as interpersonal conflict, especially over Amos’ ethical issues regarding Cherry’s ever more realistic application. The main focus gradually shifts to Cherry herself, as her newfound ability to be irresponsibly creative and unmimicked emotions blurs troubling lines. she says at a later point. It’s more sad than proud. She was happier with just a “tool”. Indeed, happiness was then just an abstraction.
All these discussions of technology, morality and consent could easily have ended. But Rich maintains just enough tension with his cast via filmmaking skills and strength of psychological dynamics that this highly talkative, almost action-free drama never weighs down. On the other hand, it doesn’t pack a lot of emotional punch either. The actors don’t quite go beyond their character’s function as position-point articulators, with Lance Henriksen coming closest in the final section as one aging protagonist. I’m not entirely convinced that you’ve moved from a high-end automaton to an independent thinker. However, given the role’s conceptual arc, any performer would be hard-pressed to stop us in disbelief all the way through.
It’s the breadth of Britt McTammany’s widescreen cinematography that helps alleviate the claustrophobic feeling of three long studio scenes. On the other hand, the predominantly oral content is given sufficient urgency and variety by Rich as editor. Design elements make more subtle contributions, such as Alex Cuervo’s original his score.
