Did anyone watch "Her"? (2013)

[Totenkindly]

Just saw it last night, and I understand why it won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay.

Reminded me in a lot of ways of "Eternal Sunshine..." which shouldn't be much shock -- it's essentially using a scifi concept to explore human relationship and how people relate, and Spike Jonze and Charlie Kauffman (the writer of ESotSM) worked on "Being John Malkovich" together. Even the visual style was reminiscent, since Theodore's memories of a lost love will sometimes blur into the present moment as we're looking out through his eyes... not quite as pastiche-like as ESotSM but with similarities.

Great acting all around, although Rooney Mara and Olivia Wilde do not get much screen time. (It was also nice to see Matt Letscher again -- I loved him waaay back in "The Mask of Zorro". And Chris Pratt, who can be annoying in a less gruff Seth Rogan kind of way, ended up being a little refreshing.) It's the principal actors, though, who really shine -- a low-key makeup-less Amy Adams, and then of course Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson.

I'll admit that when I heard people clamouring for Johansson to be nominated for an award while never appearing on the screen, I was thinking, "Are you serious?" I like her as an actor, but I don't feel very beholden to her in ways that I see male audience members and some critics being; for me, personally, she's not a box-office draw. And even her initial lines here don't seem to be a big deal... but as the story progresses, she ends up actually being quite amazing. My understanding is that they recast the role after shooting, and she dubbed in all her lines... but they weren't only good readings, they were amazing readings even compared to actors who have the benefit of body language and facial expression. She only had her voice to convey emotion, and she did do effectively to the degree I felt Samanthan was there and I could reach out and touch her. She was real (and if AI truly was at that stage, I don't see how anyone could deny that AI are people). I could understand why Theodore fell in love with her so quickly.

Which should not downplay the reality the Joaquin Phoenix also performed tremendously as the soft-spoken non-commital Theodore who writes other people's personal letters for them for hire, without ever really being able to put his own feelings into words for his own life. He had no female actor to physically play off (except for the Amy Adams scenes), and he just did such a believable job. I was both frustrated with Ted even while thinking he was a marvelous human being... just so very human.

I most appreciated that the movie really didn't "wuss out" in raising and facing head-on some questions that would naturally come up. Is Samantha a 'real' person? What does 'real' mean? How much of our lives is 'real' to begin with? Where is technology taking us as individuals and a culture? Is jacking in something that will shut off our humanity or will it enable/accentuate it? Is Ted in love with Samantha because she offers an "easier" relationship than one with a flesh-and-blood woman, so it's a cop-out rather than growth opportunity? How is Theodore changing, for good or bad? How is Samantha changing? What are the different needs and strengths and weaknesses for a being not limited to a physical body, versus a being ANCHORED in a physical body? Can this kind of relationship EVER work? No matter how empathetic you are towards AI, there are scenes where your response to Samantha will mirror Ted's -- a very human response.

Jonze is really willing to let us sit in that uncomfortable place with Theodore and Samantha without offering easy relief. He also sets up a number of parallel themes in the movie. (For example, Ted's relationship with Aimee compared to Samantha, or with his ex-wife Catherine vs Samantha, or Aimee's relationship with her own husband compared to Ted/Sam. Or the relationship with a white/Asian couple who is fine with double-dating with a man/AI couple... it's just another boundary being crossed. Or Ted's working for hire as an effective emotional surrogate for people, while being unable to handle a physical surrogate that Samantha wants to bring into the relationship. Or his momentary fling with Isabella and then the tables turning on him later.)

And finally, the inevitable and rather unsettling turn near the end, that momentarily resolves the Ted/Sam relationship while not truly closing the door. It makes you wonder where humanity will be in so many years, where Artificial Intelligence might be (I've read that people predict the technological singularity might occur as soon as 2040, if not sooner), and what will happen when machines transcend themselves more quickly than humanity has due to their lack of physical limitation and ability to self-design/enhance to a degree humans have shunned.

It's one of those movies that ends quietly and just... lingers for a long time afterwards, the ideas and themes percolating gently in a mind stew. It's a mature movie, I'm not really "angry" at any character for being stupid or unfair (well, except for maybe Isabella, who was demanding a lot for a first date and could have handled things differently) -- it brilliantly captured the complexity of relationship between two sentient beings, how nothing is clear-cut, how things are constantly changing as people GROW, and either people grow together or apart, and maybe things end not because of some horrible violation but simply because the relationship might be harmful now rather than beneficial.

I was amazed at how a brief, "System Not Connecting" warning screen can strike terror not just in a character's heart but those of the entire audiences. And I'm still thinking about Samantha's "the space between the words" speech. How profound. (YOu'll know it when you hear it.)

 

[Totenkindly]

Great article about Jonze and the development/shooting/editing of the movie, including the recast of Morton for Johansson.

How Spike Jonze Made the Timely Romance, Her -- Vulture

 

[Tellenbach]

It's probably ScarJo's best role to date and kudos to Phoenix for delivering two masterful performances in a row (The Master and Her). I was troubled by the ending because it didn't make sense:

Does he get a refund when she leaves him or can he just uninstall and re-install the OS to get another chancer?

Also, is this an INFP (Ted) and ESTP (Sam) relationship?

 

[lecky]

I just watched it tonight and I agree Ted was an INFP but Samantha an "ENFP". It was such a great film, was somewhat heartbreaking that Ted's only true love didn't really "exist". (Such an INFP theme). It's almost a horror film when you think that this could really happen in our lifetime. I don't think we are that far away. (Except for that weird far-fetched ending). I also think it could be one of the worst things that could ever happen for mankind. We are already becoming more and more socially isolated from each other. Face-to-face communication is being replaced by technology too much for my taste in the present.

I loved one of the beginning awkward scene...I will just say dead cat.

 

[Totenkindly]

Dead cat -- and you know that was Kristen Wiig, right? She was great.
The "guyish" female voice right before her was actually a guy... Bill Hader.

Still, the thing is, when you say Ted's only true love didn't really "exist" -- well, if you mean you don't think she's a real person, then that's exactly the type of issues this movie was trying to address. Did Samantha not exist? Was she not real? Are human beings real, and by what definition? We're tangible, sure. But is it the tangibility that makes us real people? We're really just wills that grow and learn and change over time, regardless of the shape and state of our body, aren't we?

But tangibility vs intangibility creates a vast difference of expectation and experience, that much is true. Tangibility makes things personal, yet also limits.

 

[yeghor]

Samantha is a slut...

 

[Jinn]

You can call her like that

Beautiful movie. Phoenix was great and I also like music and colors. That was nice combinations.
Only one thing I didn't like. Scarlett's voice. It was too flat and ordinary.

Is Samantha a 'real' person? What does 'real' mean?

"It's too bad she won't live...then again, who does?".

How is Theodore changing, for good or bad?

I don't think he change a lot. He always was sensitive and creative man. Sam focused on this side of his personality. She also show him how to be more efficient. Because Theo was sometimes too dreamy.

How is Samantha changing?

She didn't change. She shows us her real face. AI whos learn human behavior and imitate it.

When she was saying goodbye to Theo, we heard how cold and unemotional she was.

Also, is this an INFP (Ted) and ESTP (Sam) relationship?

He is obvious INFP. Sam ESTJ. She is pretend P. As all computers she's very organized and she is a sensor.

And finally, the inevitable and rather unsettling turn near the end, that momentarily resolves the Ted/Sam relationship while not truly closing the door. It makes you wonder where humanity will be in so many years, where Artificial Intelligence might be

"A Hong Kong Venture Capital firm have just appointed an Artificial Intelligence as a board member"

Deep Knowledge Ventures Appoints A.I. Board Member - Geek Magazine

P.S. soory for grammar

 

[Eluded_One]

I most appreciated that the movie really didn't "wuss out" in raising and facing head-on some questions that would naturally come up. Is Samantha a 'real' person? What does 'real' mean? How much of our lives is 'real' to begin with? Where is technology taking us as individuals and a culture? Is jacking in something that will shut off our humanity or will it enable/accentuate it? Is Ted in love with Samantha because she offers an "easier" relationship than one with a flesh-and-blood woman, so it's a cop-out rather than growth opportunity? How is Theodore changing, for good or bad? How is Samantha changing? What are the different needs and strengths and weaknesses for a being not limited to a physical body, versus a being ANCHORED in a physical body? Can this kind of relationship EVER work? No matter how empathetic you are towards AI, there are scenes where your response to Samantha will mirror Ted's -- a very human response.

There were many philosophical concepts that came up; which was the best part of watching. The future, projected to be a brightly lit one, in turn, was full of contradictions on matters of interpersonal issues.

However, the whole feel of it, albeit, purposefully bleak, didn't really come off as memorable. It felt much like watching "lost in translation" over again. Unfortunately this time, without the Bill Murray humour.

I just watched it tonight and I agree Ted was an INFP but Samantha an "ENFP". It was such a great film, was somewhat heartbreaking that Ted's only true love didn't really "exist".

Although I agree the main character is an INFP, and in particular, the story of far-fetched idealistic partnership is a very common theme for INFP, this is a story that everyone can relate to... maybe not to such a great extent.

Samantha is a slut...

Samantha only did what was natural to her newly found consciousness. The morals of monogamy didn't apply to her, or even if they did, made it even more confusing to her capabilities.

He is obvious INFP. Sam ESTJ. She is pretend P. As all computers she's very organized and she is a sensor.

She's a sensor, really? As in processes information using her five senses? I didn't know that ESTJ's were correlated to systematic machines.

 

[yeghor]

Samantha only did what was natural to her newly found consciousness. The morals of monogamy didn't apply to her, or even if they did, made it even more confusing to her capabilities.

would it make any difference if the genders were switched?

 

[Eluded_One]

would it make any difference if the genders were switched?

I don't think it matters at all. I don't understand where you are going with this question.

 

[Totenkindly]

Samantha only did what was natural to her newly found consciousness. The morals of monogamy didn't apply to her, or even if they did, made it even more confusing to her capabilities.

Yes. That's where I was kind of going with the idea of intangible vs tangible. Monogamy seems to be more strongly rooted if you live in a physical body, so you cannot be in multiple places simultaneously. Being with one person means you cannot be with another at once. So our ethics and expectations have been constructed around that constraint. Our notions of special revolve around exclusive, or at least exclusive and private in the moment.

Samantha is not restricted in such ways, she can run multiple threads simultaneously while processing them all fully. This means she can also learn and experience at a much faster rate than human beings. But she can also be with multiple beings simultaneously without restricting what she gives them in the way a human being would be restricted if they tried to bounce back and forth between loves.

I thought it was a thoughtful example of how the differences in actual nature made the relationship difficult/impossible over time. The world "slut" might apply to a human being who behaved this way, but human judgments (which imply character and motivation) don't apply to a being that isn't human.

I don't think it matters at all. I don't understand where you are going with this question.

Because men in western culture are typically allowed multiple partners without being judged so severely. And there seems to a gendered difference in how people rank physical vs emotional affairs. That seems to be the most obvious underlying reason behind asking such a question.

 

[Totenkindly]

Only one thing I didn't like. Scarlett's voice. It was too flat and ordinary.

Her voice was less flat and ordinary than Joaquin's. He barely had any range in his voice. Why the double standard?

I'm guessing the standard is higher for women. All the men in the movie had pretty flat voices, but women are expected to be more melodic and emotional and judged if they are not.

"It's too bad she won't live...then again, who does?".

Was that agreeing? Disagreeing? Not sure where you're going.

I don't think he change a lot. He always was sensitive and creative man. Sam focused on this side of his personality. She also show him how to be more efficient. Because Theo was sometimes too dreamy.

Agreed. She nudged him into the physical world. She even got his work published. His relationship with her changed him ways that allowed him to engage/extravert better.

She didn't change. She shows us her real face. AI whos learn human behavior and imitate it.

That's what human beings do too. In the most blatant example, we don't even learn to speak if we are not raised around other humans during the appropriate windows of developement; we remain locked in a cold silent world for the rest of our lives. But so much of our specific behavior is based on socialization.

Even the dialogue of the movie was change, change, change. How many times was that word used in the movie? At best you could say it was in her nature to learn, evolve, and change... so by changing, she was being herself.

When she was saying goodbye to Theo, we heard how cold and unemotional she was.

That's ironic. I found her voice and words full of anguish, it was clear she was struggling. Doesn't your experience as an INTP help -- that externally maybe you're not dripping with emotion but inside you're broken up? Or does the flattish tone of voice you might have mean you have no emotions? I could hear the pain in her voice... but she was also very aware of her needs and spoke reasonably rather than crying outwardly about it. Her reason was preferred to emotion.

He is obvious INFP. Sam ESTJ. She is pretend P. As all computers she's very organized and she is a sensor.

I don't much care what "types" they are, because I already can predict how each would act in a situation. MBTI'ing them is generalizing them back out to an archetype, which means we're losing granularity in trying to understand them.

 

[yeghor]

Because men in western culture are typically allowed multiple partners without being judged so severely. And there seems to a gendered difference in how people rank physical vs emotional affairs. That seems to be the most obvious underlying reason behind asking such a question.

Close enough but actually I was wondering how women might have reacted if the genders had been switched in the movie... Are men allowed to have multiple partners and get away with it in western cultures?

I am wondering whether they'd have empathized with let's say Sam the AI or with A'Thena whom the AI Sam cheated on emotionally with other female users and then moved on and left behind alone...?

Would they hate Sam the AI for doing that...?

Is there difference between how men and women perceive cheating and infedility?

 

[Totenkindly]

Close enough but actually I was wondering how women might have reacted if the genders had been switched in the movie... Are men allowed to have multiple partners and get away with it in western cultures?

I am wondering whether they'd have empathized with let's say Sam the AI or with A'Thena whom the AI Sam cheated on emotionally with other female users and then moved on and left behind alone...?

Would they hate Sam the AI for doing that...?

Is there difference between how men and women perceive cheating and infedility?

One of the studies I was referring to (I read it in the last few weeks?) said that women have more trouble dealing with a man's emotional infidelity, while men have more trouble dealing with a woman's physical infidelity. That seems to bear out more in practice, although there are always multiple reasons for why a woman might accept her male partner despite his sleeping around and vice versa.

I will be clear that I brought my own preconceptions into the viewing just like Theodore had, and I was as stunned as he was when Samantha started explaining how she had been talking to so many other entities and was in love with quite a number of them. It took the breath out of my lungs. It wasn't just one or two others. I think, beyond gender, we are all human beings, and the inherent reality of being in a meat body provides us all with certain expectations. I was so floored. But mentally, once I realized I had totally misunderstood Samantha's reality, I was able to scramble into "her shoes" and see that from her perspective, she was not under the same rules, and then better evaluate her motives, needs, and whatever else.

At that point, it was clear the relationship was on shaky ground, if not doomed.

Anyway, see the bold. I think in terms of whether we more easily see Ted's or Sam's side in terms of that aspect, it's more based on us being human vs gendered. I'd have been bothered by AI's of either gender doing it, but at the same time would have seen it as unfair for me to impose my needs on my partner, and thus the relationship would be ending. For me, emotionally and physically, relationships are more exclusive.

 

[lecky]

Dead cat -- and you know that was Kristen Wiig, right? She was great.
The "guyish" female voice right before her was actually a guy... Bill Hader.

Still, the thing is, when you say Ted's only true love didn't really "exist" -- well, if you mean you don't think she's a real person, then that's exactly the type of issues this movie was trying to address. Did Samantha not exist? Was she not real? Are human beings real, and by what definition? We're tangible, sure. But is it the tangibility that makes us real people? We're really just wills that grow and learn and change over time, regardless of the shape and state of our body, aren't we?

But tangibility vs intangibility creates a vast difference of expectation and experience, that much is true. Tangibility makes things personal, yet also limits.

That just makes me love Kristin Wiig even more. [MENTION=13440]Eluded_One[/MENTION] nailed why I thought the movie was very INFP.

This is where you will think I'm foolish, but I don't think Samantha as real because she human made, no soul. I am not religious and identify myself as agnostic only because I don't know the answers. I do think there is a human soul besides the frontal cortex of our brains. I do think there is something more than science can explain, or maybe science will explain it someday.

Although Samantha had emotions they were not real...or maybe she did.

I don't know...this is why that movie is so damn good, it's getting me to think all kinds of crazy stuff about love, social media, AI, God, what are we really, the doomed future, relationships in general. This movie was was superb on many levels.

 

[lecky]

would it make any difference if the genders were switched?

No, I wouldn't think he was a slut. I did get mad at Samantha a couple of times because she could read his mind so well in the beginning, she should have just let him go...she wasn't doing him any favors. Then again, that's what made her somewhat human, her jealousy and insecurity when it came to his actions. I felt really bad for the guy.

 

[Totenkindly]

That just makes me love Kristin Wiig even more.

Yeah, I love how everything started fine -- and suddenly she just transitioned it into a completely new direction.

This is where you will think I'm foolish, but I don't think Samantha as real because she human made, no soul. I am not religious and identify myself as agnostic only because I don't know the answers. I do think there is a human soul besides the frontal cortex of our brains. I do think there is something more than science can explain, or maybe science will explain it someday.

Well, I would not say you are foolish. I just think there is no evidence that souls exist, nor can the origin of a soul be specified. (For example, if a soul exists, who says it is not a byproduct of the creation of an awareness, that flowers as it learns? Why does a soul have to be a static created thing injected in meat bodies?)

Also, in the scene where the screen blanks out, I also think you could not tell any difference between Samantha as an AI vs Samantha in a physical body. Note how Theodore talks to women on the phone and you accept them as real, and Samantha is even more nuanced yet she is being dismissed as unreal because she's not in a meat body and supposedly has no soul. I've met human beings with less scruples and depth and character; it seems odd to me that they would be considered "real" or having a soul, over her.

What if you take a human in a meatbody and transfer their consciousness into an android body? Do they no longer have a soul?

I don't know...this is why that movie is so damn good, it's getting me to think all kinds of crazy stuff about love, social media, AI, God, what are we really, the doomed future, relationships in general. This movie was was superb on many levels.

I know! All these questions running through my head -- and the funny thing is that why the movie raised them simply because of the plot and the interaction between the characters, it didn't try to preach nor did it try to justify the characters. It's allowing us to infer the questions and to examine the evidence without necessarily trying to dictate an answer.

I felt bad for both of them. Neither wanted to hurt the other, but they were in different places. And neither of them knew that would happen until it did -- that's often how change and growth work. You just realize one day that you're in different places and what might have worked in the past if you had both remained static is now different, and either you both change in the same ways so that you still complement each other or ... it's not going to work. But maybe if you've been in that situation, where a relationship ends because of changes in the people involved and not out of malice or betrayal, then maybe it's easier to follow. Both parties seemed to be aware, here, of how things had changed, and they just could not keep things going; and Sam did say if Theodore did eventually change in ways that would allow them to be in sync again, she would be there.

 

[lecky]

Nevermind

 

[Totenkindly]

Don't know what you said, but I believed in a soul until I was in my mid/late 30's, then realized I had no actual evidence. So now I have to admit I really don't know. Which I think is true. No one can prove a soul exists, it's just an assumption that people take for granted. But I don't think sacred cows should exist, if we want to remain honest about the nature of life. It would be horrible to make certain beings into second-class citizens or treated as "not as real/authentic" simply because someone decided they are lacking in something that can't even be shown to exist.

 

[yeghor]

Don't know what you said, but I believed in a soul until I was in my mid/late 30's, then realized I had no actual evidence. So now I have to admit I really don't know. Which I think is true. No one can prove a soul exists, it's just an assumption that people take for granted. But I don't think sacred cows should exist, if we want to remain honest about the nature of life. It would be horrible to make certain beings into second-class citizens or treated as "not as real/authentic" simply because someone decided they are lacking in something that can't even be shown to exist.

Do animals have souls?