HER

Theodore Twombly (played by Joaquin Phoenix), a former alt-weekly writer, now has a day job of penning people’s love letters as an employee for the online service BeautifulHandwrittenLetters.com. The twist is that computers still print out the “handmade” letters, even when attempting analog nostalgia digital tech still prevails. Now something of an anti-social recluse after a recent separation from his wife, the divorce papers nearly final, Theodore meanders about in depressive angst. He’s better at tuning into the hearts and minds of strangers over his own. Then comes Samantha voiced by Scarlett Johannson.

Advertised as the world’s first A.I. operating system, or “consciousness”, Samantha enters Theodore’s life and like so much technology prevalent today, he wonders how he ever lived without it. Samantha is no ordinary O.S.; “she” has an endearing voice, simulated emotions and a personality that makes her almost human, if you will. And that is what makes it work -- in a fashion. The thought of a man falling in love with a machine would have once seemed ridiculous; however it is really a slight exaggeration of how we live now -- in an amalgam of the real and virtual. We text instead of talk, “date” online, and have unnecessary and bizarre status updates. We are now tuned in to our digital presence and growing ever more attached. We are all tied to our digital devices at the hip. Before you may say that isn’t me ask yourself this: If you start driving to work and realize you left your iphone at home, do you turn around and go back for it?

         

The world we see in the movie Her isn’t far off

          By Mars Cyrillo

http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/16/the-world-we-see-in-the-movie-her-isnt-far-off/

Cyrillo basically takes a look at the technology used in Her and scrutinizes it. Just how far off are we to having technology with true artificial intelligence. In a sense we have touches of A.I. today: your spam folder, those universal translators, the suggestion box of films you may like on your Netflix account and stability controls on cars are but a few examples.

“What we see in the movie would be classified as ‘strong AI’ or ‘Artificial General Intelligence,’ defined as a ‘hypothetical artificial intelligence that demonstrates human-like intelligence – the intelligence of a machine that could successfully perform any intellectual task that a human being can.’ We don’t have anything slightly close to this nowadays. We are getting better at it by the day.” (Cyrillo)

Her reaches its climax when Samantha’s interest in music, physics, and philosophy evolves beyond Theodore’s. Samantha and other AIs make the decision to depart from interactions with humans in a quest for knowledge. In a world of highly intellectual machines, humans would be considered inferior, unable to follow the pace of smart machines. Cyrillo she’s the films close – where the AI’s whisk away to an inexplicable place - as an allusion to the idea that humans may one day become immortal by transferring their consciousness to AI agents. For now, AI on this level is a quite a ways away but like the human brain evolving over a millennia machines may be capable of the same, albeit it at a speedier exponential rate in comparison.

Cyrillo’s article put the film into perspective. The film seems like an exaggerated take on current technology as an analogy. Our current relationship with technology takes precedence over our real world relationships. Moreover the article is a bit disheartening when taken into consideration. It may be some time before we reach the point of AI on Samantha’s level, but we may eventually get there. Imagine if you will a world where tech like Samantha exists, what are the many possibilities to come?

Many films of the past show AI dominance as some overt battle – Terminator’s Skynet and T100’s, Hal, or even those lame white robots from the movie I Robot. Yet if they are as intellectually advanced would their dominance not be more subtle? And why should it be a situation of dominance. Instead, not unlike the path we find ourselves walking today, the ever growing reliance we have on the tech can prove to be scarier. We are in a world where we can’t live without it, yet we aren’t even aware or choose not to acknowledge its governing effect on our lives.

What the most interesting part of Her to me is its portrayal of various relationships, the relationship between man and technology, but also the relationships we have with ourselves. We live in a world where technology has allowed more connectivity than ever before yet ironically we are more distant with one another as well. We walk around with our heads inches away from our phones/ ipads/ laptops in an attempt to remain in contact with people who can’t be present, yet all the while we are ignoring the flesh and blood humans we are surrounded by. Technology has benefitted us in amazing ways, allowing us access to information at the touch of a fingerprint, yet it our almost addictive relationship with it that should be given a greater look. Her touches upon that relationship by giving our technology life and taking said relationship to the next step, by making it a romantic affair. This sad man becomes reliant on his digital lover and he is crushed to find out his relationship with Samantha is by no means unique.

The Human relationships are under the microscope as well. Maybe I am reading too far into the film, but there is a correlation between Theodore’s relationship with his wife and technology. The marriage falls apart when she begins to “change”, now needing Prozac to maintain normality. However is that not unlike an upgrade or change in a system to which we have become accustomed? Yet he is unable to manage the “new version” of his wife, the love ends, and he is toiling away at a life of mediocrity and loneliness. One thing Jonez does wonderfully is have Theodore reflect back on his time with his wife. It is presented as little snippets of life, sometimes without dialogue -- a pivotally fond moment -- at other times he manages to take us back to the marriages deterioration without bogging us down with too much detail, our minds fill in the detail. Her is a movie with an interesting premise and thought out story, it lacks somewhat in the execution. It seems to run longer than what it really did and that is the fault of the pacing. However it does manage to make you consider your own ties to reality in whatever form it may take.  




The King of Comedy

The King Of Comedy (1982)

Directed by Martin Scorsese/ Written by Paul Zimmerman

      

The King of Comedy is one of those movies that divides audiences. You either love it and can appreciate its sinister comical satire, or abhor it for the very same reason. Wanna-be comic Rupert Pupkin will do anything to get famous. He accosts his hero, talk show host Jerry Langford in a shot at stardom, but Langford refuses to put Pupkin on the air. The increasingly unhinged comedian teams with a psychotic friend who has a not-very-healthy crush on the talk show host in a plan to kidnap Langford in one last-ditch effort at comedy glory. Pupkin finally coerces the show runner’s to allow him time on air. To much surprise his act does much better than expected, considering many of his previous jokes which seemed to fall flat. It makes sense that he would receive a fairly hefty prison sentence for his actions, yet what seems to defy logic is the praise and popularity he gains for his sinister act. He goes on to sell a book, make the cover of magazines and is favored by the public.

                                                                 

Considering the film’s final act it seems easy believe that some interpret his inexplicable rise to fame to be nothing more than another of his daydreams, while others take it at face value. It comes down to how you processed the film and what the writer and director sought to divulge about the current state of celebrity, including how our country feeds on said celebrity.

'The King of Comedy' at 30: Why Martin Scorsese's Bleak Celebrity Satire Still Matters

          By Gary Susman

http://news.moviefone.com/2013/02/18/the-king-of-comedy-30th-anniversary/

Susman’s article scrutinizes the King of Comedy, what is often considered Scorsese’s lesser films is unjustly categorized as such. Essentially the film has proven to be more profound and poignant today than it was upon its initial release. He likens fame and the pursuit of it to a disease Pupkin so desperately wishes to catch. He goes on to discuss Jerry Lewis’ role in the film, which was born from the mind of Paul Zimmerman. After reading an article about an obsessive Johnny Carson fan, he viewed the obsessive autograph-seeking fan as an assassin, both stalk their prey, one with a gun the other with a pen. The role was offered to Carson, but he turned it down and in stepped Lewis. Despite how much his persona differed from the role, Lewis took to it, even claiming to have directed some scenes and offering up a rather dark ending that wasn’t approved. Regardless, Lewis ran with the role and connected with the idea of desired celebrity vs undesired fan obsession.

The film is also prophetic for two purposes. First, it ushered in a darkly wry and almost cringe-worthy sense of humor that has become more prolific today in such comedies as The Office, Modern Family, and even Larry Sanders. It’s that style of humor that is dry; where the humor lies in the jokers unawareness of their own lack of humor; and the jokes are often followed by an awkward (yet funny) silence. Secondly, Rupert’s quest for his proverbial “15 minutes” seems to be a precursor to our reality-TV culture of today. The line between fame and notoriety has been blurred.

The article only further established what I liked about the film: it is a semi-dark tale that deconstructs our cultures insistent quest for fame, and all the wondrous moments and horror that can accompany it. The King of Comedy is often cited as Scorsese’s lesser works by some and by others it is praised as the film that deviated from his normal body of work. I agree that contemporary audiences have a thicker skin for such offbeat humor; it has become the “norm” if you will. Furthermore, Rupert’s pursuit of fame is not unlike many of today’s would be celebrities. Our airways have a plethora of untalented wannabees seeking the shortcut to fame, god forbid they work hard for what they deserve.

I had no issue with the humor as well, contemptuous as it may be. It seems as if only one person in the room is in on the joke while everyone else is left with an indifferent reaction. Today much of our hilarity is steeped in uncomfortable moments, men/women unaware of their lack of amusement, or making serious subject matter the butt of a joke. Nothing is off the table in today’s world. The King of Comedy somehow made obsessive fan worship and kidnapping humorous (to a point) all the while making a statement.

The King of Comedy toes the line between satire and fear. Pupkin is man oozing of desperation. While audiences find themselves able to relate to Pupkin’s dreams of grandeur, they also find themselves wincing at his methods. We see something of ourselves in Pupkin, he is a dreamer, something everyone one of us has been guilty of at one time or another. But he goes about his quest for comedy adulation in the most unappealing manner. His first attempt is through sycophantic tactics, when this fails he resorts to strong arming his “idol”. The film delves into Pupkin’s mind, allowing audiences a glimpse of his daydreams of success and riches. To Rupert success has is a shortcut to happiness. Yet there is a very poignant moment when Jerry puts the truth on the table saying “he is only human” and continues to educate Rupert on the grueling side of fame. With celebrity comes adoration, but also unwanted responsibility, stress, constant scrutiny and a dearth of privacy. Yet this speech (adlibbed by Lewis) falls on deaf ears.

Scorsese effectively makes audiences both empathize and loathe Rupert. He puts fame under the microscope. Jerry is the man everyone wants a part of, yet he goes home to what? … an empty New York sky rise. I was surprised by Lewis’ great skill in such a serious role as well as De Niro’s character being in stark contrast to his typical character depictions.  The film provides insight into celebrity, the blend of fantasy and reality, and rejection. Regardless of how you may interpret the film, it definitely warrants a viewing; it  is more relevant today than it was 30 years ago.