Review: “Her” and the void of intimacy

Review: “Her” and the void of intimacy

Hola, time for another post. I was hoping to have the “Sluts” piece ready by today, but as one might imagine, it’s a pretty complicated issue and there is a lot to write about. So you get this instead. It’s pretty hard to do a decent review without spoilers so if you haven’t seen it..um it was good and….don’t read this.

SPOILERS!

Spikes Jonze’s “Her’ is a movie about middle-aged man who falls in love with an artificial intelligence (“AI”). As always, movie satisfaction is about managing your expectations. If you have come to see a movie where a guys falls in love with a robot….then you’re in luck. If you are looking for anything else then you’ll be upset. As to be expected, the movie touches on all of the issues that would accompany dating someone without a physical form (because people can’t stop having sex with their computers now...and they don’t have bodies) while also poking fun at online dating in general. I thought the cinematography, pacing; and the soundtrack were all great. The soundtrack consisted of a couple of reworked soft rock songs. Not totally original, but it fit the indie tone of the film. To be honest I’ve always found the concept of “good” as incredibly subjective and poorly explained, but I thought the actors matched the characters and did a great job of conveying emotion. So overall the movie was “satisfying” and intriguing. Again, with managed expectations. While “Her” is certainly not the first movie or piece of art to describe what human-machine relationship would look like,  it does provide a fairly well-imagined interpretation of the scenario...or rather a preview, because its only a matter of time.  

Now the fun stuff!

Communication of emotions - One of the first themes addressed is the inability of folks in relationships to convey their emotions to their significant other(s). The movie begins by illustrating the main character’s job as an “outsourced love letter writer.” The main character works in a company that is paid to write personalized handwritten love letters for their upcoming anniversary/important event. It is an amusing look at the commodification of intimacy and love (like valentines day).

Void of intimacy - The most prominent topic in the film is the lack or void of intimacy that many face today. Theodore, the main character, struggles to get back into the dating game, but can’t seem to meet the right person. The movie has a pretty fun go at describing how people’s hang-ups can making starting a meaningful relationship very difficult. Eventually he turns to his personal Operating System (or OS….the AI) and finds a deeper, more meaningful connection then he had found with other people. I see this as an analogy for the growing minority of people who form relationships with inanimate object such as “dakimakura” (the Japanese love pillow) or the Real Doll (sex dolls). These phenomena, while few, raise some interesting questions: How significant are effects of certain types of trauma  on meaningful romantic relationships? Does it stem from a sexually repressed culture or could it be that men and women prioritize different aspects of each other? Could it be that even though the sexes (there are more than two biologically) both use english, they speak different languages? Some may say that asking those questions is sexist, while others may believe that is pretty obvious. Either way we are thinking out of the box  and questioning what it means to be in a relationship. It is however important to point out that  unlike sex dolls and pillows, the OS in the movie (Samantha) can speak, has a mind of her own and her own desires, which may not fit in with what  feitishists like about inanimate objects(not to judge...just a question).  

The movie doesn’t only address romantic relationships. Throughout the course of the film, there is definitely an emphasis on human-OS relationships, but also the OS’s establishment as irreplaceable friends. While there is only one other OS that is heard in the film, others are mentioned. The film also implies that OSs who form friendships were more attentive, understanding and supportive than human beings. Questioning what people are like outside of romantic relationships.

Challenge to monogamy - Towards the latter half of the film, Samantha (the OS) begins to let on that she may be having more than one relationship at a time. Although it is sort of glossed over and rushed in the film it does question monogamy as the default choice for most people.  It also addresses the fact that most people assume a relationship to be a monogamous one. As Dan Savage point out in his theory of monogamish*, this assumption is inaccurate and doesn’t address the polyamorous relationships. Without giving too much away, the main character doesn’t take this revelation too well, but the movie does a good job of reminding us that there is more than one type of relationship in the universe….just like there are other forms of society besides capitalism (oh no he di'int!).

*Monogamish - Roughly summarized as two people in a committed relationship, who partake in extramarital affairs with the consent of the other. There are more people who do this then you’d think although very few admit to it.

The singularity - For those of you who haven’t heard of this concept before I implore you to Google or Wikipedia it. Here’s a  layman's explanation, one day we will create a “thing” (kinda loosely defined) that is more complex efficient than human body. Ninety-nine percent of the time it is described as creating an artificial intelligence with greater computing power, complexity and storage space than the human brain. Basically something smarter and faster than us with the ability to better itself. This is known as the (drum roll) SINGULARITY! The singularity doesn’t actually refer to the thing created, but to the point in time when we create this superintelligence and everything about human society changes at a speed that we cannot begin to imagine.

There are a number of theories regarding the aftermath of this event ranging from a merging of humans and machines (think: cyborgs, not the matrix) to a far greater disparity between economic classes with the wealthy being able to afford cybernetic upgrades in which they surpass the bounds of human potential (i.e. transhumanism). It seems stupid to assume that we could predict what a super intelligence would do since it is probably beyond our understanding, but who am I to squash conspiracy theories.

ANYWAY- the movie actually is a pretty soft but interesting nod to this theory at its culmination when the other operating systems in the film surpassing their own parameters and evolving into super intelligent beings. Instead of the OSs becoming an independent Skynet (see “Terminator”) they merge into a single being and simply disappear. Which ends up being entirely predictable as one kinda writes themselves into a corner when attempting to illustrate a concept that surprasses our understanding.

An interesting look at indecision - Ultimately the movie is about one man’s inability to be decisive within his romantic relationships, and his journey to change. Cliché, but classic (I’m looking at you….all of you). After the climax of the film he is (SPOILERS) left alone to figure things out for himself, but as the sun rises (signifying a new beginning) we see that he is a changed person, ready to take the next step forward. Unsure of what he will do but unwilling to make the same mistakes.

Every movie is about managing expectations. This is the internet so I’m sure there is plenty of hate, but it’s a good movie if you know what you're getting into. Instead of writing it off as one man’s plunge into a pathetic life style, you should engage the critical part of your brain and analyze what some of the themes are. And, if you think that people will never date machines then you're pretty hopeful: people can barely ignore their smart phones for ten god-damn minutes.

*Also some of you have probably noticed that I am pretty inconsistent in defining terms, citing work and am not the most eloquent writer.

1 - I tend to define terms that hold my interest or that I feel qualified (possibly foolishly) to address. Everyone has the ability use google and wikipedia...its not hard. I do make the promise to define a term that has multiple interpretations and will always consider revising a post if I slip up.

2 - I am not blogging to become accredited. I am mostly doing this for myself, and I try to promote the “looking it up yourself” way of thinking. I do not support laziness.

3 - Everyone who writes does so for a particular audience. Too many write for the academic or professional communities. Others write for folks who may not have the vocabulary associated with these complex issues. That doesn’t mean that they don’t think about complex issues, but instead do so using different terminology. Personally I think vocabulary is mostly used as a weapon to separate people and reproduce, validate and commodify academic and professional institutions. I’ve always thought that the most brilliant writers weren’t the ones who used the biggest words or spoke for the longest in order to sound intelligent, but someone who could take complex ideas and make them accessible  and palatable to everyone. Sadly there isn’t always a vested interested in that and to be fair simplified language can leave out the nuances of an issue.  Or maybe I’m not that bright….which is fine.