“The Creator” (2023) embeds with Sergeant Joshua Taylor (John David Washington) in 2065 who is an US undercover soldier in New Asia to find Nimrata, an AI creator, which the US has deemed a terrorist for continuing to create AI. Instead he finds love with Maya (Gemma Chan), who loves AI, but when his cover is blown, she is horrified, and they get separated. Five years later, the military incentivizes Joshua to return to the field in the hopes of reuniting with Maya. In exchange for retrieving a weapon that threatens NOMAD, the US’ most fearsome global weapon against AI, he can get Maya’s location.
According to IMDb, seeing Washington as Dennis in “Monsters and Men” (2018) inspired British director and cowriter Gareth Edwards to make “The Creator” after his most recent success. Big mistake! Dennis was the weakest part of that film. Modeling the protagonist after a Black, flawless cop, who felt like a fictional composite character to appeal to both sides of the aisle, instead of creating a three-dimensional character, was the first mistake. Within the fictional world of cinema, if women see Washington coming, ladies, assume that he is an undercover government agent that you disagree with but he lied to you so you would like him. He played a similar character in “BlackKkKlansman” (2018). In the real world, these situations happen, specifically in the UK, where undercover cops had long-term relationships with women from protest groups and had kids without disclosing their identity. That is called rape by deception, not a love story.
If these movies did influence Edwards in creating his protagonist, he missed a huge red flag. Just because a character is black, does not automatically mean that the character is a good guy, especially if he is attracted to problematic spaces. These two characters were able to navigate and thrive in those spaces, yet in their own communities, held less prominence and were distrusted because they too are problematic. Joshua is a similar character. There is nothing inherently interesting about a protagonist who finds himself at a crossroads when he is on the wrong side of an issue and committing war crimes, but only changes, not for moral reasons, but because of some warped idea of love. Yes, the film takes the character on an emotional journey where he *gasp* realizes that he may be wrong. Moral ambiguity is interesting. Stupidity is not. There were so many potentially more interesting characters who would have made better protagonists, and even a bad guy as an anti-hero can hold some charm such as the ruthless, hypocritical, hard as nails Colonel Howell (Alison Janney). Joshua is an inert, boring character who is not interesting to watch. Watching a man learn to care for a child, even a synthetic one, may be inherently appealing to most audiences, but considering that the only reason he did not kill the child immediately is that he wants to see his wife instead of innately and immediately being appalled at the prospect may make you want to punch the air. It is like saying, “Oh look, Ted Bundy is protecting, your little girl, not killing her. Awwwwwww.” To be fair, in the denouement, as he has to reckon with the idea of killing the little synth versus strangers torturing her until she dies, the sound reveals that he is disassociating and broken at the thought of hurting her, which worked.
Edwards may believe that he is creating a “both sides” world with “The Creator,” and it is supposed to be a plot twist that the Americans are *gasp* actually the bad guys in a foreign conflict, and the AI, i.e., machines, are actually the underdog good guys, but it seemed obvious. The US is depicted as an industrial wasteland whereas New Asia, the only location which treats AI and human beings as equals, is a lush, verdant, and tranquil paradise where people live some semblance of a full human life. Edwards’ location picks and directing are the high point of the film. Americans are solely depicted as their profession and *ding, ding, ding* are mean to dogs, which usually denotes that a character is evil—think Stephen King’s “The Dead Zone” (1983). Also animals tactically side with the synths.
“The Creator” is going for the dissonance that Americans behave less human than the AI, and it works except when Edwards decides to treat the AI like unfeeling machines early in the film, which unfortunately dilutes the impact of his message and may leave viewers confused. Viewers are primed to buy the idea of a machine sparked judgment day, Edwards makes a “Terminator” reference with Omni (British-Indian Amar Chadha-Patel), a model of law enforcement synths doggedly tracking down Joshua to retrieve the weapon. He is the most robotic of the synths. Also synths without faces in groups as global police are used for laughs and easy kills with one grenade scene. As Joshua softens, the synths are depicted as more thoughtful and protective of human life than human beings. Because of the strikes and current fear of AI, this message is not being received well for the wrong reasons. This story is just a rehash of “The Matrix” franchise so if AI makes you uncomfortable, just say machines. It is a gimmick.
Edwards and co-writer Chris Weitz, one of three co-writers from “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” (2016), seemed to be more invested in making a movie condemning American foreign policy and the ethics of remote warfare, specifically droning, which is depicted a space station weapon called NOMAD, which emits 9/11 World Trade Center memorial lighting, and is associated some of the most luminescent scenes in “The Creator.” Droning is a part of the never-ending war on terror, which predominantly occurs in the Middle East and Southern and Central Asian and evokes images of attacking brown-skinned people. Nothing is wrong with this impulse, but it is telling that they want to critique this form of warfare, leapfrog over multiple armed conflicts and evoke the imagery of the Vietnam War now that it is safer to critique that theater of war. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with this impulse, and it is savvier than fighting an uphill battle-convincing people that brown-skinned people are not terrorists, and droning is bad. Filmmakers are not obligated to argue every point.
Does the world need another movie that evokes the imagery of the Vietnam War with an American protagonist with the locals barely getting any lines or screen time except to depict their fear and pain? These movies were revolutionary in the seventies and eighties, but damn, how long will it be before a Western filmmaker who wants to critique war not centralize a Western character—and yes, Joshua’s blackness and disability does not cancel out his Westernness—and focus on a protagonist whose home is the war zone. “The Creator” is disappointing for trafficking in the images of others’ pain to enhance Joshua’s storyline or a political point instead of making the same point with a character like Harun (Ken Watanabe) or the synth who is his partner (someone help me, that voice actor was the best) and is disgusted at the idea that a child synth will be used as a weapon. In what universe does anyone write a film with Watanabe and Washington in mind, and not want Watanabe to be the protagonist. Also there is a lot of Buddhist imagery. Some faceless synths are monks and appear in wooden carvings. These details evoke so much potential to imagine how in a relatively short period of time, synths’ impact on a community with an ancient tradition was so textured that it got elevated in a short amount of time. This story could have resonated and accomplished the same person, but instead the filmmakers valorize a road trip between a human soldier who kills robots and a kid robot.
The weapon is a kid robot and a girl, which elicits expressions of awe from characters because a synth cannot be a kid. Why? Baby dolls have existed forever. Just ask “Barbie” (2023). It can’t! OK, “Blade Runner 2049” (2017) called and wants its plot back. Joshua, who hates robots and does not believe that they are real living beings, is concerned that this robot does not see him as a monster. Let’s say that he is trying to keep the weapon on his side so he can find Maya. Fine. Why was it so important for the robot to have a gender and be a girl?
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
Because Joshua is supposed to be a girl dad. Retch. I hate “The Creator.” If you watched the first five minutes and did not figure out that Maya is the titular character and the weapon is actually their kid, then congratulations, you had a better viewing experience except it does not make sense. How can Maya be in a coma from the explosion and use the miscarried fetus to make the little synthetic? This is some “Star Wars” prequel Padme bullshit. Also I will never buy that Maya, the same woman who held a gun to Joshua’s head, would be happy to see him after waking up in a bastardization of her creation. Their happy reunion is a male fantasy to romanticize this death so it still feels like a happy ending.
“The Creator” committed the biggest trope sin: fridging the most interesting character and reducing her existence to other people’s memories. Instead of a genius, philanthropic, revolutionary woman, Maya gets reduced to some boring dude’s love interest and a robot’s mom, not her own three-dimensional person with flaws (falling for the worse men). Intellectual creation gets erased and conflated with biological creation. She is not a person. She exists to make others but not be herself.
I do buy that the little synthetic would have an irrational desire to be with her dad because kids are connected to their parents even if they are pieces of shit. It is all about biology and survival, but it strains disbelief that it would be a two-way street even with Joshua mooning about the lost love of his wife even though he was trying to kill her daddy. TF. Edwards is old enough to be from the generation when their parents treated them like a remote control to turn the channel on the television or turn things on and off. Alphie, aka Lil Sinth (Madeline Yuna Voyles), who is supposed to be around 6 years old, is a remote control. She turns things on and off. Otherwise, sorry, not sorry, she is just an adorable machine.
There is a weird scene early in the father daughter road trip where it was either a radio or television broadcast quoting Genesis 2:23, “She shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man.” Nothing is an accident in a movie if it gets kept in the final cut. This story likes Buddhist aesthetics, but the entire story reeks of this passage. Everyone exists for Joshua’s story arc, but it is also why people who come from predominantly Christian cultures should hesitate before making a film like “The Creator.” Joshua and Alphie talk about heaven and how to get there. Within seconds of meeting her dad, she already believes that she cannot go to heaven, and Joshua only reassures her that he can go! That is not a happy ending. That is called damnation and a nightmare. Why is Alphie a blank slate with no beliefs before meeting this man? She was brought up in a Buddhist culture albeit watching a lot of television. She should have different beliefs about the afterlife. Because Joshua has a sad, he gets to inflict religious trauma on a kid. Edwards and Weitz, go seek therapy. Everything that you were taught about love is damaging and stop passing it down to others as heartwarming and poignant. You were fed poison and taught that it was nourishing.
