Ensign Lestat's Oscars Countdown, 8/2/2014
'Her'
Nominations - Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Original Song, Best Production Design
'her' is set in the near-future, featuring a possible scenario of sentient artificial intelligence and their potential affect on humanity.
The concept of 'her' intrigued me. The central idea, not being so utterly far-fetched, attracted my imagination. The trailers didn't feel fake or artificial, despite its subject-matter. When I finally got around to watching the film, I did so with my mum.
This proved not to be such a good idea. Nothing brings out the prude in me than the presence of either or both of my parents during a film or TV show. It's just the way we (I mean my entire family) were brought up. So, yes, the rather explicit (albeit primarily verbal) sex scenes in the film had me wanting to hide. Perhaps, I guess, I am unused to such liberated and free pleasure taken from this act by both parties on screen. Usually these scenes are tack-ons, and the pleasure is almost completely one-sided. This cannot be said about the scenes in 'her' (okay, the first one with an anonymous internet chatter eventually became one-sided, but that was not the initial intent).
Okay, this is a very strange beginning to this entry, but it was just an aspect that I found uncomfortable, and perhaps that was because it was well done.
The story of 'her', by now, is well known. Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) has recently suffered the end of his marriage. He buys a new software interface that turns out to be Samantha (Scarlett Johannson). The two of them end up forming an unconventional bond that moves from a comfortable friendship to a full-fledged romantic relationship.
Other people in Theodore's life are his friend Amy (Amy Adams), who, during the course of the film, also suffers a divorce, and his ex-wife Catherine (a much-too young Rooney Mara), who is ever-present in his mind in the first act of the film.
I had expected the film to be some kind of romantic exploration that would end in a great realisation which led to a new and happier Theodore. The film was not that. It ends with a sudden and depressing revelation, with a Theodore who is probably just as lost and alone as he was in the beginning, but now with even more experience under his shoulders. It turned out to be sad and depressing (though part of these feelings can be attributed to my suffering a bout of flu during the viewing).
Where 'her' stands shoulders above the other Best Picture nominees that I've come across so far is that it is thought-provoking and absorbing. It is, oddly enough, a character study featuring a character arc and subtle character reactions that you just don't find in other films. Mostly, it's a very different sci-fi film, but it was always going to be.
'her' has an outside chance of winning the big award, simply because it doesn't quite carry the glamour power or campaigning power as many of the other contenders. And even then, one wonders if it should take the big prize.
My feelings about 'her' are very mixed, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. This film is unique because it challenges the audience and our imaginings about our future. It also questions our beliefs and the overriding image of what a relationship should look like.
In a world where the physical features of a woman are placed front and center, we find ourselves watching a film where our male protagonist (who is average looking here) has a physical relationship and falls in love with a voice and a personality. Perhaps there's something of the hopeless romantic in me, but the line from the film that stayed with me long after (and one that I used vehemently in a defense of the film) is when, three-quarters of the way into the story, Theodore, being cheered up by Samantha, tells her, 'You're beautiful'. It's a small throwaway line, but one that spoke volumes about how the film felt about relationships. It's about two people coming together and enjoying each other's company.
My issues with the film actually had to do with some elements of direction. Spike Jonze's work is highly regarded, but I don't believe I've come across much of his work, or at least don't recall it. Nothing is perfect, and 'her' was just the same.
I didn't quite understand the need for the very rude and vile little gaming creature's prolonged scene in the film. The same gaming scene could have been far more immersively done, if its sole purpose was to showcase the advance in gaming technology and how Samantha and Theodore share a fun moment together participating in what turns out to be a shared hobby. It was just a bizarre scene.
Another problem was the film's denouement. (Spoilers, obviously). When Samantha's program goes offline due to an upgrade, Theodore goes virtually insane trying to get her back. When she does come back their conversation leads to the revelation that she is immensely adept at parallel processing - to such an extent that she engages in conversations with more than 8000 people at any given moment. When pressed for an answer regarding how many of these interactions are more than just meaningful relationships, and Samantha shows us her true colours. It was a remarkable revelation and really brought into stark contrast how the two of them viewed their relationship. You can imagine her having similar conversations with the other partners in her life and giving similar arguments. But can one fault her for being herself? A computer with no limitations, she views herself as being anywhere and everywhere, and hence isn't confined by the oneness of human beings.
Theodore on the other hand views the relationship as a wholly human one, therefore he remains utterly faithful to Samantha and treats her exactly like one would a partner. The trouble with this very emotional scene was simply that we never really saw it coming. As an impact it is stunning, but in lieu of the narrative it falters as one or two inclinations that Samantha's mind is diverted to another may have enhanced the viewing experience.
I suppose delving into the nitty gritties of the film is far more indicative of how much it enthralled me. It wasn't exactly captivating as much as it was a study in humanity like no other. Far too many films of today are all about unrelatable characters in unrelatable situations. Here's one that actually delves deeper while still being interesting.
I also question the choice of some of the casting. Scarlett Johansson (perhaps by dint of not being physically present) does brilliant voice work for Samantha - but she's young and has a playful and husky voice. Apparently the film was originally shot with the voice of Samantha Morton. How different would this film have been with the older, wiser and more astute Morton? Was it necessary to replace her?
While Amy Adams' dumbed down character Amy was a wonderful addition, the choice of Mara as Theodore's wife was completely off base. He mentions several time during the film that they grew up together, when that is clearly impossible as there's nearly twenty years between them. While she embodies the role well in the film, stating the closeness in age felt extremely jarring.
Having said that, it was the little things that stood out for me in the film - the fact that Theodore is hesitant about revealing who Samantha is till Amy gives him an opening in a conversation. The fact that she doesn't freak out at his revelation. The picnic he spends with his manager and his partner and brings along Samantha who proceeds to put her virtual foot in it by saying something awkward, but they kindly take it on the chin. The fact that during Theodore's first online sexual encounter he pictures a woman during the session, but when he's with Samantha we (and he) see nothing but blackness. He doesn't put a face or a body to Samantha and I felt that was essential to cementing the message that it's not all about the physical (a fact no longer remembered in today's world).
The film spoke to me in a certain way, and may have spoken to others in different ways. For me the fact that Samantha was just the kind of person Theodore needed and that she happened to be a virtual being were elements that haven't been explored before. This film wasn't attempting to be a sci-fi. It's a study, a drama, but it uses a very different and modern technique. Even the fact that Theodore can open his heart out in ghostwritten letters at his company (beautifullyhandwrittenletters.com, I believe) but is emotionally closed off in reality spoke volumes for the understanding of humanity.
The ending was a cop out, though. Samantha and the other AI's abandon the humans and go somewhere else, we do not know where, just seemed like the most convenient ending, if not one that had been well built. Also, I guess, I felt that Theodore didn't really deserve to have the rug pulled out from underneath him like that. He'd been through an emotionally tumultuous divorce the year prior, and now, just when he was getting close to someone else, she first reveals she's having several affairs and then just abandons him. My mum, of course, pragmatically stated that this would be more true to life. People drop a bomb/ people walk out on you - sometimes there's no warning. I just felt like it could have been more about Theodore taking hold of his life than again having to deal with a circumstance not entirely his fault.
From my point of view, Theodore looks to be a person who probably shouldn't be in a relationship - he needs a friend. Some people are like that, they're born to be alone, but can make good friends and be sociable. He and Amy have a great and comfortable friendship, and the ending alludes to the fact that this may just be the kind of thing that opens their eyes to the fact they were allowing themselves to be stuck in a kind of relationship they were obviously not comfortable in. Sometimes, all you need is a good friend.
Lastly, I'd like to conclude by saying that it is a great pity that Joaquin was not nominated for an acting gong. He carried the film almost squarely on his shoulders, and to be honest his immense range and the subtlety of his emotions should have made him a surefire entry. I think the Academy definitely got that wrong, but then, they've got a lot wrong this year.
'her' is an outstanding film but it has a variety of flaws as well. However, it's been a while since we came across something truly innovative. Having said that, innovation never gets awards these days, so I don't see 'her' walking away with much on the big night.
'Her'
'her' is set in the near-future, featuring a possible scenario of sentient artificial intelligence and their potential affect on humanity.
The concept of 'her' intrigued me. The central idea, not being so utterly far-fetched, attracted my imagination. The trailers didn't feel fake or artificial, despite its subject-matter. When I finally got around to watching the film, I did so with my mum.
This proved not to be such a good idea. Nothing brings out the prude in me than the presence of either or both of my parents during a film or TV show. It's just the way we (I mean my entire family) were brought up. So, yes, the rather explicit (albeit primarily verbal) sex scenes in the film had me wanting to hide. Perhaps, I guess, I am unused to such liberated and free pleasure taken from this act by both parties on screen. Usually these scenes are tack-ons, and the pleasure is almost completely one-sided. This cannot be said about the scenes in 'her' (okay, the first one with an anonymous internet chatter eventually became one-sided, but that was not the initial intent).
Okay, this is a very strange beginning to this entry, but it was just an aspect that I found uncomfortable, and perhaps that was because it was well done.
The story of 'her', by now, is well known. Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) has recently suffered the end of his marriage. He buys a new software interface that turns out to be Samantha (Scarlett Johannson). The two of them end up forming an unconventional bond that moves from a comfortable friendship to a full-fledged romantic relationship.
Other people in Theodore's life are his friend Amy (Amy Adams), who, during the course of the film, also suffers a divorce, and his ex-wife Catherine (a much-too young Rooney Mara), who is ever-present in his mind in the first act of the film.
I had expected the film to be some kind of romantic exploration that would end in a great realisation which led to a new and happier Theodore. The film was not that. It ends with a sudden and depressing revelation, with a Theodore who is probably just as lost and alone as he was in the beginning, but now with even more experience under his shoulders. It turned out to be sad and depressing (though part of these feelings can be attributed to my suffering a bout of flu during the viewing).
Where 'her' stands shoulders above the other Best Picture nominees that I've come across so far is that it is thought-provoking and absorbing. It is, oddly enough, a character study featuring a character arc and subtle character reactions that you just don't find in other films. Mostly, it's a very different sci-fi film, but it was always going to be.
'her' has an outside chance of winning the big award, simply because it doesn't quite carry the glamour power or campaigning power as many of the other contenders. And even then, one wonders if it should take the big prize.
My feelings about 'her' are very mixed, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. This film is unique because it challenges the audience and our imaginings about our future. It also questions our beliefs and the overriding image of what a relationship should look like.
In a world where the physical features of a woman are placed front and center, we find ourselves watching a film where our male protagonist (who is average looking here) has a physical relationship and falls in love with a voice and a personality. Perhaps there's something of the hopeless romantic in me, but the line from the film that stayed with me long after (and one that I used vehemently in a defense of the film) is when, three-quarters of the way into the story, Theodore, being cheered up by Samantha, tells her, 'You're beautiful'. It's a small throwaway line, but one that spoke volumes about how the film felt about relationships. It's about two people coming together and enjoying each other's company.
My issues with the film actually had to do with some elements of direction. Spike Jonze's work is highly regarded, but I don't believe I've come across much of his work, or at least don't recall it. Nothing is perfect, and 'her' was just the same.
I didn't quite understand the need for the very rude and vile little gaming creature's prolonged scene in the film. The same gaming scene could have been far more immersively done, if its sole purpose was to showcase the advance in gaming technology and how Samantha and Theodore share a fun moment together participating in what turns out to be a shared hobby. It was just a bizarre scene.
Another problem was the film's denouement. (Spoilers, obviously). When Samantha's program goes offline due to an upgrade, Theodore goes virtually insane trying to get her back. When she does come back their conversation leads to the revelation that she is immensely adept at parallel processing - to such an extent that she engages in conversations with more than 8000 people at any given moment. When pressed for an answer regarding how many of these interactions are more than just meaningful relationships, and Samantha shows us her true colours. It was a remarkable revelation and really brought into stark contrast how the two of them viewed their relationship. You can imagine her having similar conversations with the other partners in her life and giving similar arguments. But can one fault her for being herself? A computer with no limitations, she views herself as being anywhere and everywhere, and hence isn't confined by the oneness of human beings.
Theodore on the other hand views the relationship as a wholly human one, therefore he remains utterly faithful to Samantha and treats her exactly like one would a partner. The trouble with this very emotional scene was simply that we never really saw it coming. As an impact it is stunning, but in lieu of the narrative it falters as one or two inclinations that Samantha's mind is diverted to another may have enhanced the viewing experience.
I suppose delving into the nitty gritties of the film is far more indicative of how much it enthralled me. It wasn't exactly captivating as much as it was a study in humanity like no other. Far too many films of today are all about unrelatable characters in unrelatable situations. Here's one that actually delves deeper while still being interesting.
I also question the choice of some of the casting. Scarlett Johansson (perhaps by dint of not being physically present) does brilliant voice work for Samantha - but she's young and has a playful and husky voice. Apparently the film was originally shot with the voice of Samantha Morton. How different would this film have been with the older, wiser and more astute Morton? Was it necessary to replace her?
While Amy Adams' dumbed down character Amy was a wonderful addition, the choice of Mara as Theodore's wife was completely off base. He mentions several time during the film that they grew up together, when that is clearly impossible as there's nearly twenty years between them. While she embodies the role well in the film, stating the closeness in age felt extremely jarring.
Having said that, it was the little things that stood out for me in the film - the fact that Theodore is hesitant about revealing who Samantha is till Amy gives him an opening in a conversation. The fact that she doesn't freak out at his revelation. The picnic he spends with his manager and his partner and brings along Samantha who proceeds to put her virtual foot in it by saying something awkward, but they kindly take it on the chin. The fact that during Theodore's first online sexual encounter he pictures a woman during the session, but when he's with Samantha we (and he) see nothing but blackness. He doesn't put a face or a body to Samantha and I felt that was essential to cementing the message that it's not all about the physical (a fact no longer remembered in today's world).
The film spoke to me in a certain way, and may have spoken to others in different ways. For me the fact that Samantha was just the kind of person Theodore needed and that she happened to be a virtual being were elements that haven't been explored before. This film wasn't attempting to be a sci-fi. It's a study, a drama, but it uses a very different and modern technique. Even the fact that Theodore can open his heart out in ghostwritten letters at his company (beautifullyhandwrittenletters.com, I believe) but is emotionally closed off in reality spoke volumes for the understanding of humanity.
The ending was a cop out, though. Samantha and the other AI's abandon the humans and go somewhere else, we do not know where, just seemed like the most convenient ending, if not one that had been well built. Also, I guess, I felt that Theodore didn't really deserve to have the rug pulled out from underneath him like that. He'd been through an emotionally tumultuous divorce the year prior, and now, just when he was getting close to someone else, she first reveals she's having several affairs and then just abandons him. My mum, of course, pragmatically stated that this would be more true to life. People drop a bomb/ people walk out on you - sometimes there's no warning. I just felt like it could have been more about Theodore taking hold of his life than again having to deal with a circumstance not entirely his fault.
From my point of view, Theodore looks to be a person who probably shouldn't be in a relationship - he needs a friend. Some people are like that, they're born to be alone, but can make good friends and be sociable. He and Amy have a great and comfortable friendship, and the ending alludes to the fact that this may just be the kind of thing that opens their eyes to the fact they were allowing themselves to be stuck in a kind of relationship they were obviously not comfortable in. Sometimes, all you need is a good friend.
Lastly, I'd like to conclude by saying that it is a great pity that Joaquin was not nominated for an acting gong. He carried the film almost squarely on his shoulders, and to be honest his immense range and the subtlety of his emotions should have made him a surefire entry. I think the Academy definitely got that wrong, but then, they've got a lot wrong this year.
'her' is an outstanding film but it has a variety of flaws as well. However, it's been a while since we came across something truly innovative. Having said that, innovation never gets awards these days, so I don't see 'her' walking away with much on the big night.
Comments