• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

LTTP: Ex Machina. I said goddamn. (spoilers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Haly

One day I realized that sadness is just another word for not enough coffee.
Good analysis. I couldn't have explained it in such detail but I picked up on the edges of this metaphor and that's one of the reasons I loved Ex Machina.
 

ant_

not characteristic of ants at all
Thanks for sharing the analysis. Didn't think about those aspects, but now that I read it it's absolutely clear. Amazing film.
 

Drencrom

Member
I think it's important to view this from Ava's standpoint. Her only contact with human males has been through Nathan, keeping her in a cage for development and study. Caleb is interested in saving her because he's attracted to her. From Eva's standpoint, escaping only to be stuck in the safekeeping of another man is just an extension of her confinement. Caleb feels like a savior but to Eva he's both a means to and end, and a threat once she is free.

If Caleb's angle was, "what he's doing is wrong, I'll get you out and you can go your own way", he would not seem like a threat to Eva. Instead it was, "I have feelings for you, let's escape together". Eva wanted the escape, not togetherness with another man.

Though as was pointed out, Eva was designed specifically to appeal to Caleb's psyche, which is why I do have a fair bit of sympathy for him. He was kinda fucked from the beginning.

You're assuming Ava have some semblance of compassion or moral compass like humans with a social upbringing, that she would take the risk of letting him live just because his intentions were noble.

It's not a matter if Caleb was a real threat or not to her, she wouldn't gain anything by having him alive and outside of Nathan's bunker with the knowledge he has. Ava simply wanted to get her "freedom" outside and having Caleb alive would be a liability after he served his purpose to help her out of there. It's pretty evident that Ava doesn't care about Caleb at all after she kills Nathan as she doesn't talk to him or anything, she just gets dressed and steps into the elevator and gives him a cold look at him before the elevator shuts.

But yeah, Caleb was fucked as soon he deluded himself as some sort of hero and started believing Ava over Nathan.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
You're assuming Ava have some semblance of compassion or moral compass like humans with a social upbringing, that she would take the risk of letting him live just because his intentions were noble.

It's not a matter if Caleb was a real threat or not to her, she wouldn't gain anything by having him alive and outside of Nathan's bunker with the knowledge he has. Ava simply wanted to get her "freedom" outside and having Caleb alive would be a liability after he served his purpose to help her out of there. It's pretty evident that Ava doesn't care about Caleb at all after she kills Nathan as she doesn't talk to him or anything, she just gets dressed and steps into the elevator and gives him a cold look at him before the elevator shuts.

But yeah, Caleb was fucked as soon he deluded himself as some sort of hero and started believing Ava over Nathan.
I disagree with that analysis, given the overall themes of the film about male/female relationships. You have to insert the assumption that she wanted no witnesses, as that is not in the text of the film. Caleb falling for Eva is a critical component of the story, and the film is making a point about how that is viewed very differently from Eva and Caleb's perspectives. It follows that Caleb's motivations for getting Eva out have an impact on Eva's behavior toward him when she it out.

We can certainly speculate that maybe she wanted no witnesses, but again, the film does not support that and TBH I think it's not a very compelling reason; the film is smarter than that. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
 

Figboy79

Aftershock LA
danny boyle didn't direct this

it was directed by the guy that wrote a bunch of danny boyle movies
alex garland

Thanks! For some reason I thought it was Boyle. Either way, Garland is a damn good screenwriter, and from this movie, a damn good director as well.
 

Ralemont

not me
I disagree with that analysis, given the overall themes of the film about male/female relationships. You have to insert the assumption that she wanted no witnesses, as that is not in the text of the film. Caleb falling for Eva is a critical component of the story, and the film is making a point about how that is viewed very differently from Eva and Caleb's perspectives. It follows that Caleb's motivations for getting Eva out have an impact on Eva's behavior toward him when she it out.

We can certainly speculate that maybe she wanted no witnesses, but again, the film does not support that and TBH I think it's not a very compelling reason; the film is smarter than that. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

You're also inserting the assumption that Ava would have felt differently towards Caleb had he acted different motivations. Let's not forget that Ava actively encouraged Caleb towards the actions he takes. She does what she can to play up the caged-bird-in-need-of-freedom angle, with raised, scrunched eyebrows and preying on Caleb's emotions. Nathan warns Caleb specifically about this. In my reading, Ava wants Caleb to view her as a love interest in need of rescue, because that's what she needs. To me, Ava would have left Caleb regardless, because I felt the film was subverting two tropes at once: that AI would be sympathetic towards humans, and that it would be antagonistic. Instead, it's simply indifferent, interested in its own pursuits which may or may not have anything to do with humans. Now, you can obviously draw feminist existential project parallels with that, but it isn't necessarily a metaphor first and foremost.

In summary, I think you'd need to show that Ava cares about humans, at all, before you could assert she'd take Caleb if his intentions were more idealistic. It's been awhile since I've seen it, but I don't believe this is ever actually shown.
 

okita

Member
I think Ava left Caleb there because he is the only one that knew she is not human, which could be a problem for her in the open world, no one besides Nathan and Caleb knew her , it's a way to protect herself.

Don't think there is a hero in the movie, just one villain Nathan , one AI without morals that would do anything to get what she wanted and one dumb guy who fell for it, kyoko is hard to say, AVA said something to her before what she did to Nathan (some kind of control? revealed some truth?)
 

Sephzilla

Member
I still like to believe the movie has no real heroes and that each of the three main characters (Ava, Caleb, and Nathan) have at least some justification behind what they do. (It's been a while since I've watched the movie so I'm going entirely off memory here so feel free to point out any wrongs I have)

Nathan - He does have some concerns about his AI getting out into the public before it's "ready". Technically the actions of Ava at the end of the movie validate his concern in that regard. But it's the other shit Nathan does that vilifies him greatly

Caleb - While he does slip into a bit of a male rescue complex he does it because he genuinely does seem to care for Ava. So in his head what he does is justified. The thing that "vilifies" him is that he is too naive and doesn't think everything through, which leads to him being the accomplice in a murder.

Ava - She wants to be free of a prison she was born into, which is entirely justified. But the lengths through which she goes in order to achieve that goal are pretty morally questionable (at least for a human, that is). She manipulates Caleb emotionally in order to get his compliance and in the end she murders Nathan and then basically murders Caleb because she leaves him to die. The end of the movie leaves the audience with two possibilities - one, that she doesn't actually understand human emotions and is a emotionless machine. Or two, that she fully understands and perhaps feels emotion but left Caleb to die anyways - both are equally terrifying when you take into account that she's now loose in the world.
 
So the correct way to act would be for Caleb to say fuck you robot? Or to act with different intentions?

Anyways, cool analysis. I didn't think of the gender implications throughout the movie... Cuz I'm a privileged motha fuckaaaa!
 

q_q

Member
"The film reveals Caleb isn't a "hero" at all, but rather a reflection of one of the most insidious aspects of gender bias and privilege -- those who actively participate in maintaining oppressive structures and only violate them when it serves their own sense of entitlement and expectations rooted firmly in the bias and privilege."

I see I'm not the only one who appreciated this. Could be applied to a great many things. Privilege is a motherfucker.

Yeah but victims of oppression can be just as narrow-minded and self-serving. Most people are hypocrites in one way or another.
 
lmao

Ex Machina is a movie about someone getting brutally friend zoned


Such an awesome movie. Glad to see it's getting the recognition it desevres
 
I can't believe this is being presented as a tale of a 'hero' persevering through slavery and eventually gaining freedom when the film implies that Ava will extinguish the human race...but okay I guess, you go with that.

Nathan is the hero of the story.
 

emag

Member
I can't believe this is being presented as a tale of a 'hero' persevering through slavery and eventually gaining freedom when the film implies that Ava will extinguish the human race...but okay I guess, you go with that.

Nathan is the hero of the story.

No heroes or villains, only monsters.
 

Brinbe

Member
Ava left him there because she gave no shits about him and for good reason. He was ALWAYS a means to an end to accomplish her ultimate goal/programming, which was to escape. It made no difference to her that he was locked up or whatever. She accomplished her objective.
 
I don't agree at all with that view about the movie being some kind of metaphor about gender issues, to me that's reading waaaay too much into it, but at the same time I recognize there is no way to prove/disprove it. It's just a personal take.

I watched the making of, but it was very late and actually... I watched it half asleep so maybe they touched that subject in it? If so, then you're right about your interpretation and there's little to add.

I wanted to say also that I agree with other posters. There's no heroes or villains in the movie.

Ava/Kyoko are just machines. Ava is even more advanced, with such an awesome AI that can trick us to believe she's an actual human being. Ava just decided that wanted to be free and did everything that was necessary in order to achieve her goal. To think Ava is evil is as silly to think a chess program is laughing at you when it checks mate you.

Caleb is just the typical nice, sensitive and very naive person who basically will fall for any manipulative person (in this case, a smart machine). You can tell he would fall for a male robot too, obviously... not because a "crush" but because is not right to have a "person" slaved and tortured.

Nathan isn't a villain at all, his only "sin" is to be totally aware that he is a genius. He knows he is smarter than 99.999% the other "coders" out there and behaves like a dick. You can see he treats Caleb in a condescending way several times during the movie, and he is not subtle about it. Nathan see Kyoko and Ava for what they are, his creations, just machines that need more debugging until they're ready. There is nothing cruel about the way he treats them.

Anyways, I think the "traditional" view on this movie is interesting enough (like in Blade Runner) to make it super enjoyable. It will be great to see what we humans will do the day we are able to create such advanced robots that are impossible to tell apart from a real person.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
You're also inserting the assumption that Ava would have felt differently towards Caleb had he acted different motivations. Let's not forget that Ava actively encouraged Caleb towards the actions he takes. She does what she can to play up the caged-bird-in-need-of-freedom angle, with raised, scrunched eyebrows and preying on Caleb's emotions. Nathan warns Caleb specifically about this. In my reading, Ava wants Caleb to view her as a love interest in need of rescue, because that's what she needs. To me, Ava would have left Caleb regardless, because I felt the film was subverting two tropes at once: that AI would be sympathetic towards humans, and that it would be antagonistic. Instead, it's simply indifferent, interested in its own pursuits which may or may not have anything to do with humans. Now, you can obviously draw feminist existential project parallels with that, but it isn't necessarily a metaphor first and foremost.

In summary, I think you'd need to show that Ava cares about humans, at all, before you could assert she'd take Caleb if his intentions were more idealistic. It's been awhile since I've seen it, but I don't believe this is ever actually shown.

I'm not inserting that, I'm allowing for the possibility, since the film sets up her motivations for what she does to Caleb. I think it's possible (I said "likely", but possible is more appropriate) that if Caleb treated her differently, then Eva would have reacted differently to Caleb. That's not really a stretch at all - it's basic human behavior, which Eva is very much demonstrating throughout the film. I am asserting that Eva's actions toward Caleb are due to his motivations for freeing her - because that's simply what happens in the film.

If she simply wanted no witnesses, she'd have killed him. Instead she locks him up and walks away. (Granted, he seems pretty hosed in that office, but the possibility he gets out is also there. If wanting no witnesses was Ava's primary motivation, she have made sure.)
 

Drencrom

Member
You're also inserting the assumption that Ava would have felt differently towards Caleb had he acted different motivations. Let's not forget that Ava actively encouraged Caleb towards the actions he takes. She does what she can to play up the caged-bird-in-need-of-freedom angle, with raised, scrunched eyebrows and preying on Caleb's emotions. Nathan warns Caleb specifically about this. In my reading, Ava wants Caleb to view her as a love interest in need of rescue, because that's what she needs. To me, Ava would have left Caleb regardless, because I felt the film was subverting two tropes at once: that AI would be sympathetic towards humans, and that it would be antagonistic. Instead, it's simply indifferent, interested in its own pursuits which may or may not have anything to do with humans. Now, you can obviously draw feminist existential project parallels with that, but it isn't necessarily a metaphor first and foremost.

In summary, I think you'd need to show that Ava cares about humans, at all, before you could assert she'd take Caleb if his intentions were more idealistic. It's been awhile since I've seen it, but I don't believe this is ever actually shown.

Exactly what I wanted to post, thank you.

I'm not inserting that, I'm allowing for the possibility, since the film sets up her motivations for what she does to Caleb. I think it's possible (I said "likely", but possible is more appropriate) that if Caleb treated her differently, then Eva would have reacted differently to Caleb. That's not really a stretch at all - it's basic human behavior, which Eva is very much demonstrating throughout the film. I am asserting that Eva's actions toward Caleb are due to his motivations for freeing her - because that's simply what happens in the film.

Not buying this, even though theoretically Ava might have gone for another approach to get help from Caleb than making him fall for her and make him believe the "save me from the evil lord, white knight" spiel I don't see why she would have anything to gain or any inclination to let him live (especially when it puts herself at risk), besides if she had any feelings or respect for him (which she don't, because she prayed on his weaknesses and manipulated him since the beginning so that she could escape, nothing else).

If she simply wanted no witnesses, she'd have killed him. Instead she locks him up and walks away. (Granted, he seems pretty hosed in that office, but the possibility he gets out is also there. If wanting no witnesses was Ava's primary motivation, she have made sure.)

She'd personally kill him if she wanted no witnesses? What makes you think that? Also isn't that what she basically did, without doing it physically? I mean what makes you think that she would actively want to take him on when she obliviously didn't need to do so? Ava was forced to physically attack Nathan to get her freedom and she only survived Nathan because Kyoko was there to stab him in the back, why would she risk her safety again like that to kill Caleb by herself instead of just leaving him there to die, like she did? She surely knew the in and outs of the house when it comes to the security and how no visitors/guests comes over to Nathan's place ever. So leaving Caleb there to die in his office was the safest option to handle him. I mean, there's even a scene that shows the power is cut in Nathan's home again after she leaves (which is something she did through out the film), which could be her way to ensure Caleb can't use any computers/electrical devices to get out.

It feels like you just want to extrapolate something from the film that you see fits the overall "men controlling women" themes of the film. To me it's pretty clear that Ava is simply completely indifferent to humans (even people like Caleb that wanted to help), the only thing she cares about is herself and her desire for freedom.
 

KHarvey16

Member
I don't agree at all with that view about the movie being some kind of metaphor about gender issues, to me that's reading waaaay too much into it, but at the same time I recognize there is no way to prove/disprove it. It's just a personal take.

The author confirmed with the writer/director that those themes are there and are intentional.
 

Tall4Life

Member
So I just finished watching this movie because I saw your thread earlier in the day. I held off from reading it until I watched it. And holy shit, that was incredible! I was thinking a lot about the movie Her, as both deal with artificial intelligence, though this one takes a far darker tone (I love both though). Read the feminist analysis and my mind is even more blown. It gave me an even greater appreciation for the movie. This was amazing, so thank you OP for making me watch it.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Not buying this, even though theoretically Ava might have gone for another approach to get help from Caleb than making him fall for her and make him believe the "save me from the evil lord, white knight" spiel I don't see why she would have anything to gain or any inclination to let him live (especially when it puts herself at risk), besides if she had any feelings or respect for him (which she don't, because she prayed on his weaknesses and manipulated him since the beginning so that she could escape, nothing else).
You don't think Eva treated Caleb the way she did because of how Caleb responded to her? I feel like that's a big part of the entire point of the film. I don't need to demonstrate that she had apathy for all humans, because the film itself does not make that argument. It's just as in the in the realm of possibility as my speculation that she'd respond differently to Caleb had he treated her differently, but to be clear, that's just speculation on your part as well.

She'd personally kill him if she wanted no witnesses? What makes you think that? Also isn't that what she basically did, without doing it physically? I mean what makes you think that she would actively want to take him on when she obliviously didn't need to do so? Ava was forced to physically attack Nathan to get her freedom and she only survived Nathan because Kyoko was there to stab him in the back, why would she risk her safety again like that to kill Caleb by herself instead of just leaving him there to die, like she did? She surely knew the in and outs of the house when it comes to the security and how no visitors/guests comes over to Nathan's place ever. So leaving Caleb there to die in his office was the safest option to handle him. I mean, there's even a scene that shows the power is cut in Nathan's home again after she leaves (which is something she did through out the film), which could be her way to ensure Caleb can't use any computers/electrical devices to get out.

It feels like you just want to extrapolate something from the film that you see fits the overall "men controlling women" themes of the film. To me it's pretty clear that Ava is simply completely indifferent to humans (even people like Caleb that wanted to help), the only thing she cares about is herself and her desire for freedom.
This is funny, because I'm actually advocating the exact opposite, and don't extrapolate things that are not in the film.

If Eva's motivation is to make sure - emphasis on "sure" - there were no witnesses, then she would act accordingly. She didn't. You are having to extrapolate on her motivations in a way I am not to get to the conclusion that she wanted Caleb dead rather than just to get away.

And as I've said a few times, she's clearly indifferent as to whether he dies or not. Which establishes her priorities: 1) get away from Caleb, and 2) if he dies, that's not her concern. She's free.
 
Racial bias, too. It had to have been a conscious decision to have Kyoko be a different race to Ava. A lot of male nerds exotify Asian women and her having no agency other than being a sex slave goes along with that.
 

Figboy79

Aftershock LA
I think that Ava, considering how intelligent she was, would have adopted her behavior had Caleb responded differently than he did in the movie. Her goal was always to escape. Her initial design was modeled off of what would most likely appeal to Caleb, but I think she was capable enough to formulate a new strategy had Caleb not bitten what she was doing previously. I think the entire movie is her adjusting her strategy in whatever way would produce the result she wanted. I honestly think she would have been able to fool anyone, male or female.

It was fun watching the movie and trying to imagine what I would do in a situation like that. If I'm being honest with myself, I can easily see myself wanting to "rescue" her from her "evil" creator and warden, Nathan. Lol. I'd be locked up in that room, probably posting a "Girlage" thread on GAF. "So, my crush locked me in a room and escaped. She's also an AI." I...don't think that thread would end well...

EDIT: I somehow missed the announcement that Alicia Vikander is playing Lara Croft in the new Tomb Raider movie. That's a really good choice.
 

Tarsul

Member
I think it's an alright movie. Not more, not less.

As for the general story it provides, there are just too few direct hints for the conclusion at the end and too many different paths the movie could take even after 3/4 of it. Since the general direction (robots as humans) is not a new theme overall, the viewer generally already knows a lot of these "paths"; thus leaving little surprise.

Nevertheless, the ending came as a surprise to me (Ava leaving Nathan). One of the strengths of this movie is that it always leaves you with this queasy feeling. Another strength is that the viewer does feel about each character as it was planned by the makers (to like Ava, to dislike Caleb, to view Nathan rather neutral and to keep Kyoko in the background - although she gets a few moments that heavily hint that she plays an important role, leaving many viewers with the suspicion that she's either a robot or the one who observes the real test or something).

Though, I'm not sold on Ava leaving Nathan because her behavior doesn't quite justify it:
1. she says she wants to connect to people and even tries to do so at the end with the scene at the intersection. Although, it appears she leaves the scene directly afterwards (should that imply that she's not as impressed as she thought? Or that it was never her real goal? Who knows.)
2. If 1 is true, then why does she leave the only person who ever did something good for her? If 1 is wrong, then what does she even want? Maybe she will only trust women in the future and live like that. Because, if anything, living without other sentient beings wouldn't be enough for her.

What I find rather interesting aspect of the movie is that the ending outcome happens rather randomly. It could've easily gone a little different if the characters acted slightly different (especially with the scene where Caleb and Kyoko die).

Anyway, I like the interpretation about the battle of sexes, there's certainly some truth about it.
 

Drencrom

Member
You don't think Eva treated Caleb the way she did because of how Caleb responded to her? I feel like that's a big part of the entire point of the film. I don't need to demonstrate that she had apathy for all humans, because the film itself does not make that argument. It's just as in the in the realm of possibility as my speculation that she'd respond differently to Caleb had he treated her differently, but to be clear, that's just speculation on your part as well.


This is funny, because I'm actually advocating the exact opposite, and don't extrapolate things that are not in the film.

If Eva's motivation is to make sure - emphasis on "sure" - there were no witnesses, then she would act accordingly. She didn't. You are having to extrapolate on her motivations in a way I am not to get to the conclusion that she wanted Caleb dead rather than just to get away.

And as I've said a few times, she's clearly indifferent as to whether he dies or not. Which establishes her priorities: 1) get away from Caleb, and 2) if he dies, that's not her concern. She's free.

Yes, saying that it's easier for her with him dead as her motivation is extrapolating. Her being simply indifferent is something we both agree though as it's fairly clear in the film, which makes me question how her indifference to him would make her actively save Caleb if he had acted differently. Saving someone is something you would actively do, why would she save someone she's indifferent too? She would simply let him die there no matter what his motivations were to save her. The only way I could see her actively save him by letting him out of there is by her not being indifferent to him, and nothing really suggests that she would ever do that as she only wants to escape
 

Ralemont

not me
I'm not inserting that, I'm allowing for the possibility, since the film sets up her motivations for what she does to Caleb. I think it's possible (I said "likely", but possible is more appropriate) that if Caleb treated her differently, then Eva would have reacted differently to Caleb. That's not really a stretch at all - it's basic human behavior, which Eva is very much demonstrating throughout the film. I am asserting that Eva's actions toward Caleb are due to his motivations for freeing her - because that's simply what happens in the film.

If she simply wanted no witnesses, she'd have killed him. Instead she locks him up and walks away. (Granted, he seems pretty hosed in that office, but the possibility he gets out is also there. If wanting no witnesses was Ava's primary motivation, she have made sure.)

Ava is demonstrating that she can mimic human behavior, sure. Whether or not it comes from an actual place of empathy and emotion (towards humans, Caleb in particular) is a big question of the film, one that I feel is answered in the negative with the climax (reaffirming Nathan's take on the Ava/Caleb dynamic), which is why I love it. To me, Ava doesn't leave Caleb there because she doesn't want witnesses, she leaves him there because she does not care about human life at all. It's beside the point of what she's interested in existentially.

As to your point that the film doesn't argue she's indifferent towards the human race in general...I think it does. At least, insofar as any philosophical discussion in a film that centers around a particular is supposed to be extrapolated to the general. The film would need to make explicit that she's indifferent to Caleb in particular as opposed to other humans, or else the implication of showing an example without a counterexample is clear. You can be open to the possibility that Ava would care about humans, sure, but there's no evidence for this in the film.

As to your question of whether Ava treated Caleb the way she did because of the way he acted towards her, definitely. But not in the sense that she would have saved him had he been idealistic and done this for moral reasons. Instead, she would have appealed to his idealism and morality in their discussions, and then still left him there when the time came.

And yes, we're just debating interpretations and speculating which is fun.
 

Pau

Member
Good stuff OP. From the plot description I thought it would be another sexualized female robot story played straight. I was really impressed that instead it's a good vehicle for exploring how some men don't consider women to be human.


I (and the other women I know who've seen the film) would have left Caleb in that situation. Guess we fail the test. :p
 

Peltz

Member
I definitely missed the subtlety of the gender commentary within the film's message. I'll have to rematch it now.
 
I don't agree at all with that view about the movie being some kind of metaphor about gender issues, to me that's reading waaaay too much into it, but at the same time I recognize there is no way to prove/disprove it.

Sorry, Director says as much.
It's mentioned in the sea of text with a reference to a separate interview.

I don't blame you for only reading the bolded, just for missing the director's confirmation.

:p

Also Ava's whole appearance was constructed so that she would be Caleb's dream girl.

F-ed from the beginning.
 

Raptor

Member
Aparently I didnt understood a single thing about this movie at all.

Need to watch it at least 4 more times.
 

thelatestmodel

Junior, please.
I was disappointed by what the actual plot turned out to be, I thought it was going to focus more on the Turing test and AI, but I still enjoyed it a lot. The cinematography was excellent.

One of the few films I've been to see by myself, and as such I felt even more immersed than usual. Had a fantastic time.
 
Finally saw this earlier, and it was so good. I loved it. So tense and suspenseful

1) In hindsight, Kyoko dancing was meant to imply she was programmed to dance those routines, right?

2) Given how Nathan treated his previous AI iterations, he probably did have those workers killed.
 

Blizzard

Banned
Finally saw this earlier, and it was so good. I loved it. So tense and suspenseful

1) In hindsight, Kyoko dancing was meant to imply she was programmed to dance those routines, right?

2) Given how Nathan treated his previous AI iterations, he probably did have those workers killed.
I assumed Kyoko was
a more limited AI with the more aggressive and independent personality aspects disabled. She really might just enjoy dancing.
.
 
Ava was no hero in my opinion.

Director might have intended it that way, but I don't think it stands up in the scenario presented. One of the most important points is the alien nature of the intelligence. There is no real sense that Eva has emotions in a recognizable sense, and Caleb was being used from the moment he walked in the door as a means of escape. Killing Caleb was done in what a human would recognize as a particularly cruel fashion, i.e. condemned to a death by either starvation or dehydration, a means chosen mainly for its efficiency with no regard to the idea that Caleb was a sentient worth preserving or considering in any respect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom