Her (Spike Jonze, 2013)

[Shrew]

I think Theodore's letter writing serves as proof that he has feelings and can put them into words, but has difficulty acting on or communicating his feelings when he has to commit himself to something/someone. I don't think they're proof that anything he says is insincere. In another scene, Theodore claims that he enjoys reading people and seems to be quite good at it, and while you may not be able to take everything he says at face value, there's not much reason to doubt him on that. His inability to commit to Wilde's date or his ex-wife, or even Amy, seems to be driven by fear of rejection. That if he exposes his worries and anxieties and depth of emotion, these people will reject it (and in wife's case, did reject it, causing him to grow inward). Theodore, like many actors, is a shy person who only feels comfortable expressing his emotions when he can don some disguise, or do it without having to worry the repercussions.

Thus, in the end when he's able to write a letter to Catherine (and goes to talk with Amy), I think that's clear sign of growth in that he is now able to communicate his own feelings without a disguise. Also what the hell reason would he have to write an insincere letter of apology to his ex-wife at that point?

[matrixschmatrix]

My view of his character is that he's someone who doesn't have genuine empathy for other people- a pathological narcissist- but does have real emotions and enjoys feeling like he does, enjoys faking empathy and feeling like he's in love and so forth. It's part of what makes him attractive to other people, and good at his job- he's very skilled at displaying whatever he feels is appropriate (not an unusual thing for a narcissistic person.) By my reading, writing the letter is part of the same playacting he's always doing.

I mean, he claims that his issue is that he can't open up, but he endlessly talks about his feelings- and occasionally, Samantha's feelings as they relate to him. When she talks about anything else- the philosopher whom she and her friends have brought to life (!), her feelings about having or not having a body, her continually expanding sense of the universe, her other friends and lovers- he half-heartedly feigns interest before running away or getting upset. He's a really, really bad boyfriend, and I don't see a single thing he does in the movie in his relationship with Samantha that demonstrates otherwise.

[Red Screamer]

I could see how you could read that, but what about his scenes with Amy?

[matrixschmatrix]

He does seem like a better friend than boyfriend, but I wasn't watching the movie with a specific eye towards whether he was displaying any real interest in her inner life, beyond expected social gestures. From my recollection, he seems to- he seems more genuinely interested in her documentary project than her partner does, and the elided scenes when they're hanging out after her breakup seem to imply that he has a real interest in helping her feel better, but I'm not sure his issues would display as strongly with a friend as with a potential partner. I also don't recall him ever contacting her for any reason other than to fulfill a clear emotional need- their interactions move beyond that, but there's a clear implication that he's been ignoring her for quite a while before the movie starts, and all the contacts I recall are specifically when he wants her to listen to him talk about his feelings. It's something I'd have to watch the movie again to put my finger on, though.

I think that if the movie is not meant at least in large part as a biting critique of Phoenix's character, and his interpretation of love, than it seems terribly problematic- because insofar as I was impressed, I was impressed by a really incisive depiction of a man drunk in love with the idea of love, with no real interest in the other person (which is surely a very real phenomenon and one worth examining.)

(I avoided posting about this for a while after seeing it because I don't really want to shit on people who enjoyed it for whatever reason, and it feels like a movie that's either something I really don't like or subtly doing something I like in the guise of being something I don't like- neither of which are likely to be helpful in discussing it with someone who enjoyed it for what it seems to be. I'm not good at having these conversations without getting needlessly combative or unintentionally condescending, neither of which I enjoy.)

[Red Screamer]

I think that if the movie is not meant at least in large part as a biting critique of Phoenix's character, and his interpretation of love, than it seems terribly problematic- because insofar as I was impressed, I was impressed by a really incisive depiction of a man drunk in love with the idea of love, with no real interest in the other person (which is surely a very real phenomenon and one worth examining.)

(I avoided posting about this for a while after seeing it because I don't really want to shit on people who enjoyed it for whatever reason, and it feels like a movie that's either something I really don't like or subtly doing something I like in the guise of being something I don't like- neither of which are likely to be helpful in discussing it with someone who enjoyed it for what it seems to be. I'm not good at having these conversations without getting needlessly combative or unintentionally condescending, neither of which I enjoy.)

I do think that the film is partly a critique of the character, but I also think it celebrates his growth beyond that character flaw.

Im glad you brought this up, your harsher view of the character makes me want to reevaluate the film.

[Roger Ryan]

I can only point to Theo's angry dismissal of Paul's praise for his letter-writing and the apathetic way Theo flips through his published book as ways the film tells us that its protagonist is conflicted over his ability/non-ability to communicate. The character may very well be a narcissist, but that doesn't make him proudly so nor does it make him one dimensional.

[adavis53]

I think the reason Theodore apathetically flips through his manuscript is more because of the memories it contains related to the recently departed Samantha than his non-ability to communicate. He was very excited and surprised for her to have submitted the manuscript without his permission, and his receipt of it comes right after she breaks up with him.

[Roger Ryan]

I think the reason Theodore apathetically flips through his manuscript is more because of the memories it contains related to the recently departed Samantha than his non-ability to communicate. He was very excited and surprised for her to have submitted the manuscript without his permission, and his receipt of it comes right after she breaks up with him.

You're right that you can't exclude the break-up as contributing to Theo's response to the book's publication, but I believe his relationship with "Samantha" does affect how he perceives the authenticity (or lack thereof) in his work and in his relations to other humans. This change in perception occurs between the discovery that "Samantha" submitted Theo's writings to a publisher and the actual publication of the book itself. This is why Theo's "authentic" or sincere letter to Catherine at the film's end is treated as a minor triumph for him (or, at least, that's how I interpreted it).

[rohming]

Yeah, I'm not really sure why I should view Theo's letter at the end as insincere or not indicative of real growth but if that's how it reads to you, then I can understand your problem with the film's tone in its conclusion and attitude toward Theo's character. It just doesn't strike me that way at all and I do think the things he says in that letter do show real growth as a person.

[Roger Ryan]

Yeah, I'm not really sure why I should view Theo's letter at the end as insincere or not indicative of real growth but if that's how it reads to you, then I can understand your problem with the film's tone in its conclusion and attitude toward Theo's character. It just doesn't strike me that way at all and I do think the things he says in that letter do show real growth as a person.

I'm not sure who you are addressing here, "rohming"; I agree that the letter to Catherine demonstrates Theo's growth as a person and true sincerity on his part.

[rohming]

I was responding to matrix's remark about Theodore's writing of the letter to his ex-wife being part of the same "playacting" that he's always doing.

[warren oates]

Inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil reviews Her.

[domino harvey]

Extras for the Blu-ray/DVD combo pack

- The Untitled Rick Howard Project
- How do you Share Your Life with Somebody
- HER: Love in The Modern Age

I was hoping the excised Chris Cooper subplot would make an appearance

[Steven H]

I really appreciated and enjoyed the discussion of this film these last few pages. One thing that I'd like to emphasize is just how surprising it was to me how pitch perfect a lot of the emotions were sold in the love/relationship world. I felt genuinely uncomfortable and touched during a lot of the film, and a number of moments felt very real to me and connected to things I've personally experienced in relationships. This was emphatically NOT what I expected from a sci-fi Jonze flick about, essentially, jerking off to disembodied voices.

One thing that really stood out to me was the difference between the A.I. negative relationships (Doubleday / Mara / Wilde) and the A.I. positive ones (ScarJo / Adams / Pratt). It seemed pretty balanced to me, especially considering the ending. In other words, I can imagine people reading a cautionary tale out of this while simultaneously making futurists like Kurzweil happy. I felt like that was a fine line to walk.

[swo17]

Very nicely done, though I wonder if this was perhaps a bit too cynical about the possibility of long-term fulfillment from a relationship.

Spoiler

I feel like every relationship in this film was presented as a commodity that eventually wears out its use. Or is that the point--that if what we seek from our relationships is only of the nature that it could equally well be provided by a computer program (e.g. personal affirmation, not feeling lonely), then we are doomed to repeat these same cycles over and over again? And that that is the direction in which we as a society are headed, whether through isolationist technologies or, more crucially, continued feeding of our worst, most selfish impulses? I get that it's a nice coping mechanism to be able to say that all of these relationships somehow stay with us and that we're forever changed by having been close to someone for however long it was able to last, but I'm not sure that any relationship is worth entering into for the mere prospect of feeling like a slightly more complete person after a few months of fun that ends with a wrecking ball to the heart. Rather, I think the thing that makes them worth pursuing--the thing that keeps driving people right back to them even when their success rate is abysmally low--is the possibility that they will turn out to be much more long-lasting than that, even if that inevitably can't always be the case.

Also, I like how in the future, everybody dresses like a grandpa.

[colinr0380]

Sorry for the following confused ramblings on this film. I'm still working out my feelings about it. Which are mostly positive, although that scene on the subway station steps late on in the film that involves the main character finally asking questions that really should have been implicit when first booting up the OS, or at least the first ones to be asked when falling in love with it, grated on me a little despite being movingly acted! One aspect that I'm not sure that the film tackles is the online community environment - instead here everyone seems withdrawn into and willingly isolated by their introspective relationship with their personal piece of technology (as in Wim Wenders's Until The End of the World, and this aspect perhaps explains why Theodore is suddenly so naive regarding an interconnected world of computerised polygamy!), when really technology can be a great, albeit amoral, facilitator rather than a burden that needs to be finally removed to allow human contact again. However considering that films that previously tackled the online world usually ended up with silly virtual reality cyberspace environments, perhaps that is a blessing!:

I wonder if this could be classed as the first 'post-commitment' film, albeit without the negative connotations that such a phrase might suggest. How about 'techno-romanticism'?

I particularly liked the idea from the film that a key aspect of a relationship is that the other person can often inspire you to be a better person and give you that push to explore your boundaries, take that leap or do the thing that you didn't think that you could, should, or would allow yourself to do otherwise. Even when a relationship hits a bumpy patch or ends, the introspection that it can provoke can be inspiring in its own way, even if just for defining yourself as having certain boundaries or things that you just do not feel comfortable doing.

However there is always that danger in a relationship that eventually either you or the other party aren't getting what they need from it anymore. In a commitment culture (especially when children are involved, and really this is the main issue that this OS love story elides - the idea of procreation. Indeed, if we are being particularly uncharitable, this could be seen as a technological vampire film as one party drains the other of all their identity, knowledge and soul before moving on to new pastures) that is just something to be dealt with. In a post-commitment culture the biggest sin is controlling and limiting the other party rather than inspiring them. And never apologise for not being what someone else wants, or assumes, you to be, whilst trying to understand other people's needs (which gets tackled amusingly in the early cyber sex scene!) I often roll my eyes at this phrase, but the idea of 'self-actualisation' seems key here. Having the courage to let someone else go on their way and not bear a grudge at being left behind.

This all seems rather selfish, but I get the impression that 'post-commitment' doesn't mean not thinking about others, more about thinking of everyone in your life beyond just one. Of every relationship beyond the current one. Instead it is recognising that the bond of one relationship is powerful and defines periods of time in indiviudal's lives, but also that relationships can be wider than a pure one-to-one commitment. That you have a relationship with everybody you communicate with, relationships that layer over a lifetime (beautifully illustrated by the flashes of memories, fluidly moving from happy to sad moments with a train of thought), periods of life marked by significant people and places (and this is a film that constantly links people with heavily built-up architecture or wide open, albeit heavily populated, spaces), and that in a deeply interconnected world even the end of a relationship doesn't mean a complete break between two parties but a shift in focus of communication. From the specific to the communal with shared responsibilities.

I think Her has a lot in common with Being John Malkovich in the sense of the use of proxies to aid an experience, the critique of the need for control in a relationship (obviously expressed in the puppetry motif in BJM, but in Her less through using an OS and more through human emotions such as jealousy at knowing that your partner has a life of their own with aspects that might not particularly involve you, or that they don't think to involve you in) and in the way that the central relationship breaks down leading to the female partner getting inspired to start exploring all of the new possibilities in her life. The difference is, and this is where I think Her has solved a few of the problems I had with Being John Malkovich, the male partner isn't portrayed as the pathetic loser ending up bitterly and yearningly isolated from human contact. In a sense all the OS users, not just Theodore, have been passed over and that suggests another kind of shared experience that both Theodore and Amy at the very least have had their own versions of.

(I think Amy is the character that I like the most in the whole film! Why did nobody bring up Andy Warhol's Sleep to validate her approach when she shows them her documentary-in-progress?)

[mfunk9786]

Amazon gets us much closer to Samantha

[swo17]

Wrong link?

[domino harvey]

Man, of all the accidental wrong things to post, we should all be so lucky if our potentially embarrassing link was just about an Iowan winning Jeopardy

[mfunk9786]

Fixed. I apparently copied a link from the next tweet down in my timeline because I am pretty dopey.

[domino harvey]

"Alexa, when will Amazon actually carry Surge?"

[Magic Hate Ball]

[Murdoch]

Brilliant.