Spike Jonze's "Her"

[Karel]

Watched the trailer and was stunned, and a little appalled. Hopeful and fearful at the same time. ScarJo sold it so well that I objected out loud (in an empty room). I thought Spike Jonze was setting up a scenario here far beyond anything that can realistically be expected in the near future. "I'm Here" was a very sympathetic portrait, and emotional investment in the robot characters in that short was entirely appropriate; watching this latest trailer, I felt that a similar level of propriety was being established by the verisimilitude of Johansson's performance, one that realistically would justify the behaviour of Joaquin Phoenix's character (or any one of us, placed in the same position). But I also strongly suspect that Phoenix's character will come across as delusional in the end. That seemed to be to be a very unsympathetic (and unfair) scenario to set up.

Rewatching the trailer, though, while playing close attention, gave me a different perception:

1) "She" initiates almost every exchange;
2) "Her" more "personal" statements either materialize out of thin air, without any prompting by Phoenix, or are near-non sequiters;
3) "Her" responses to Phoenix's queries either a) answer a question with a question (like a fancy version of ELIZA) or b) mirror what he just said (or both, again like ELIZA).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1798709/

Watch the trailer again. Am I wrong?

I'm certain the writers here did their homework: the remarkably lifelike qualities of "Samantha," as portrayed by ScarJo, are a stunning illusion that wears off with repeated exposure. This thing wouldn't pass a real Turing test, but then it is never subjected to one: Phoenix's character is delusional.

Or am I mistaken? Thoughts? It's going to be an interesting film regardless.

[Svengli]

Hollywood AI has never before had any relation to real world possible AI or oppositely, any coherent discussion of what isn't realistically possible.

If this movie involves something as subtle as you're suggesting, it would be very, very usual. Hollywood writers do do a lot of homework. But only for very surfacey things. All the scenes will look like their purported locations. etc. For plot and character, the need to pull out all the emotional stops trumps any call for realism. The audience has to instantly sympathize with the character, then fear for the character, then share the character's hopes and dreams, scream the character to grow - be emotionally engaged full throttle for two gut wrenching hours. That's the standard. Details that require thought and consideration - no, not unless it's a puzzle about where the villain has hidden that's OK you can't solve.

My guess. I will be a love story based on the absurd idea of computers suddenly becoming exactly like humans with all the strengths and weaknesses involved. All the contradictions and gaping hole will the filled by plot devices including further deus ex machina events.

Like all the ones.

My hope, would be, that they'd include giving her a very attractive body with one of the plot twists.

[Karel]

Spike Jonze is hardly your typical "Hollywood" director, Svengli, and he's writing this movie himself, as he did "I'm Still Here." He's an artist in complete command of his craft who invariably knows exactly what he's doing with the aesthetic choices that he makes. The question then is what he intends to do in this film: depict a tender and genuine love story? Or turn those tropes against us, to tell the tragic story of a helpless and desperate man manipulated by a technology against which he has no defence?

Hollywood writers do do a tremendous amount of homework these days: the trouble is when most of it gets discarded by the studios who assume that Joe and Jane Public won't understand it. That's when films start to become exclusively about superficial surface images that have nothing beneath them to sustain them. The surface sights and sounds I see and hear in this trailer seem laid out as a trap for the audience, arranged to make us identify with the main character's feelings for "her" against any "commonsense" objection that "she" isn't real. But at the same time Jonze seem to be exercising a spare and steely resolve, cleverly restricting "her" personality (despite ScarJo's vivaciousness) to something that is very likely within reach of the next generation or two of "intelligent" software programs. This is not what he did in "I'm Still Here," whose robotic characters really were almost exactly like humans.

I don't think that this movie is really going to be about "her," because I think that the plan is for Jonze and Johansson to pull of an amazing joint performance by convincing us to feel for a character that is not definitively established as a character, that may be nothing more than a cipher after all. Which will a much more interesting and ambivalent experience than, as you said, yet another movie in which computers are suddenly, inexplicably exactly like humans. And no, there will be no "plot twist."

[Svengli]

Interesting... Maybe there's hope then.

[Corey Fantoccini]

Spike Jonze is hardly your typical "Hollywood" director, Svengli, and he's writing this movie himself, as he did "I'm Still Here."

I initially got confused, thinking that you were talking about the faux documentary with SHE star Joaquin Phoenix, but reading a little further I realized you are talking about Spike's 2010 short "I'm Here." I'll have to go check that out.

[Karel]

Had to bump this post, as I finally got around to seeing "Her." As I said in my other post, whether you think that the subject matter of this film would be on point for you or not, I have to say that I think "Her" is probably the best science fiction film in a decade. It was astonishingly good, far exceeding my already high expectations, and I cannot recommend it highly enough. If you can, go see it.

[33cl33]

Agreed - I think it's a great film. Hits on some emotional areas that most films miss entirely.

I do think they simply made her a person in a box (she's emotionally human in basically every way. I still don't know why we assume AI would act as such. Sure, we can program a sub-AI machine to pretend very well, but I just don't think we should assume that a truly intelligent and self-aware machine will automatically evolve to act as we do.)

But I'm also not sure a film that explores AI in the most currently scientifically-correct way possible would be at all interesting as entertainment... Jonze gets an A+ for this one.

[tdlsn]

Maybe a "great" film for many a reason but for anything to do with fembots.