There are films that transcend the imagined scope of human imagination. And there are others that dress the conventional and comfortable with original writing, acting, and emotion. "Her" falls squarely in the former category. I term it "imaginative", but who knows in a few decades from now, it may very well be our reality? God, I hope that's not true though.
Normally, I would comment on the directorial technique, acting, and writing of a film. And, if these are the vague criteria I address when whipping up scathing or gushing critiques, then "Her" checks all the right boxes. The direction is futuristic with a tinge of nostalgia. The acting with Joaquin Phoneix at the helm as Theodore is impeccable--- he embodies the typical sensitive, weird, and deeply touching man. Even his dress sense-- a combination of futuristic, pastel, and bright yellow, pink or red is an indication that he's a man who feels things within himself acutely. His OS love interest Samantha is voiced by Scarlett Johannson in a brilliantly complex way that is hard to describe. She sounds like a real person and yet, there is a sort of naivety or novelty that Johannson introduces in the intonation that reminds the viewer that she's a computer. The conversations she and Theodore have are impressionistic--in fact, the entire film has an impressionistic feel to it--- and the dialogue is beautiful and intimate. So why, if every aspect of the film is incredibly done, did I feel an overwhelming sense of sadness after watching it?
"Her" is no doubt an example of great filmmaking, great cinema. But, the subject matter was disturbing and alien and familiar all at once. I found an innate resistance within me to the very idea that AI and human beings are so alike that they can fall in love with each other. Just the very concept of it shook my entire belief system and I couldn't wrap my head around it. The film suggests that AI can learn and grow and evolve just like humans. And it certainly makes the idea feel believable and plausible. Samantha had real feelings, real impulses or at least the appearance of them. She had subtleties and nuances--she was like a new child--enthralled by every new feeling, every new possibility. Her character was endearing and likable. She wrote original music and spoke beautiful, authentic dialogue. But the natural resistance I felt to the idea--the instinctive certainty that it was wrong to have a relationship with her, that she just emulated the idea of a human, that she was just a product of different permutations reacting to different situations was impossible to shake off. And if she was just a permutation with the ability to react and change, how did that make her different from a human? That was a line of thought I didn't want to follow. If being a human was just that, and nothing more--something imitable or dispensable-- then were our lives even worth anything? Did Theodore just like the idea of Samantha because she could always listen and interact with him? Was he so selfish or so self-involved or so weak that he preferred someone who reflected his interests rather than a real person? I found it difficult to answer that question. I just clung and still cling to the idea that we humans have something special- something forged by nature. It's a physical presence. The feel of someone's touch, a hug. No matter how simple or how irrational, the physicality of it's important. That makes me sound primitive. And indeed, in the film when Paul (Theodore's easygoing work friend) comments on Theodore being a lot more evolved than him because he's not in love with Samantha's bodily features given she doesn't have any, while he Paul is infatuated by his human girlfriend's toes---it really clicked for me. Samantha could feel sexual desire and needed simulation of physical closeness--but it wasn't actually there. The primal aspects of our nature are essential to our makeup as humans. The idea of monogamy for example is something Samantha couldn't understand because she fell in love with several human beings. But, the primitive need to own all of a person and keep them to yourself is human. Or so I tell myself because the film made me confused and disturbed. I want to believe there's more to being a human, but the film has made me unsure. Maybe, Samantha is just more evolved. And maybe computers will be the next big thing.
But I hope not. I hope not. I hope not. I felt sad, I felt melancholy while watching the film. It was like watching a dystopia disguised as a utopia. All the humans in it were living lives in a simulated world. Even Theodore wrote letters for other people to send to their loved ones. Which was heartbreaking---the specificity of experience one feels could be written by someone else? Don't get me wrong. The film is a great film. It made me think. But I wish I didn't have to think about such questions. I don't want to think. The film made me miss the good old days when cinema, and by extension the world, was simple--you'd go for the popcorn or the humor, or the lover's quarrels romanticized or the rags to riches story to motivate you, or the tragedy to move you to tears---it was all so simple. The hero and villain. When did life become so complex? So nuanced? Ahh, the simple, evanescent beauty of films and stories before!
Watch "Her". It will make you contemplative. It will leave you pensive or angry or conflicted. It will be hard to define---perhaps we need to truly step out of the black and white.
Comments