Friday, January 10th, 2014

"Her": This Movie Makes No Sense

"When we were in pre-production we started thinking about how we were going to create future L.A., and was I was excited by the idea of collaging two cities together and so we ended up going to Shanghai and using very specific, curated areas of Shanghai with very specific curated areas of Los Angeles and I think… it was this idea that we were trying to make this very warm, tactile world, with the materials and fabrics and the woods, and create this world that felt like this utopic world that everything's nice and everything's comfortable and even in this world where you're getting everything you need and having this nice life, there's still loneliness and longing and disconnection." —Spike Jonze in a recent interview discussing Her.

There is a lot to love about the new Spike Jonze movie, Her, which goes into wide release today, but there is still more to become hair-tearingly exasperated about. If it weren't for the gushing torrents of praise this movie is getting I guess I wouldn't care so much about the exasperating parts, because I freely admit that it is a very seductive movie, visually; it looks like soft old bleached-out polaroids in the colors of fruit and candy and clear water and the most perfect reddest red everywhere, plus Scarlett Johansson is talking all the time, and Joaquin Phoenix acting all human, so human and lovable, and I guarantee you every sensitive male in Western Civ. is going to be wearing those high-waisted clumsy thick woolen trousers for years and years to come and I love those trousers already. As a visual tastemaker Spike Jonze, for all his reedy, goofy voice and his geeky demeanor, is a freak of nature, a genius, a god.

But as a writer, Jonze is unbelievably terrible. Horrifying. Surely I can't be the only one to have noticed this?

The movie's hero, Theodore Twombly, presumably takes his name from the artist Cy Twombly, whose esoteric works were often based in matters to do with text, writing, literature, palimpsest and so on. (Plus forbidden passion: Twombly was gay, and lived during a period when pretty much every gay person in America was imprisoned in the closet.) Maybe Jonze means us to think of Theodore Twombly as a taster of the forbidden fruit, but in the form of an "operating system," played in the film by the luscious, disembodied voice of Scarlett Johansson. In any case, the movie is intimately concerned with writing. How personal and intimate writing looks or should look, what it is for, and it's also concerned with imitations of the personal and intimate.

We're meant to believe that Twombly is a sensitive, gifted writer of "touching," faux-intimate sentiments; it is frankly incredible that so many critics, professional writers themselves, people who watch movies and write for a living were willing to buy this proposition. In fact, at bottom the hackneyed, infantile writing of Twombly underscores a terrible solipsism, a real, modern solipsism that is romanticized in a way that embodies the toxicity of modern life, and there's nothing soft or clean or pleasurable about it at all. The central conceit of the movie, the "relationship" between a human whose job it is to be a fake human and a machine whose job it also is to be a fake human, is entirely superficial, paper-thin, sold to the viewer with beautiful closeup photographs of a guy whose job it also is to be a fake human.

Okay, fine. Let's begin with Twombly's job as a professional empath who writes intimate letters for pay for a company called Would you like to receive a very intimate letter, about the most intimate things in your life, ostensibly from someone who "loves" you—but it is a letter in fact written by some beautifully-dressed rando emoting in a cubicle?!

Wouldn't this be about five zillion times worse than receiving no letter at all?

At some point Twombly writes a love letter (and this is his apparently well-paying job, in this strange future!—the cynicism of this is really breathtaking), mentioning the beloved's "crooked little tooth." Let it be clear that Twombly himself noticed the tooth in question; he wasn't asked to write about it by the person paying for the service.

Rachel I miss you so much it hurts my whole body. The world is being unfair to us. The world is on my shit list. And is this couple that is making out across from me in this restaurant I think I'm going to have to go on a mission of revenge and I must beat up the world's face with my bare knuckles, making it a bloody, pulpy mess. And I'll stomp on this couple's teeth reminding me of your little sweet little cute crooked tooth that I love.

From a literary point of view: bleah. So ghastly. But still worse, if I ever received such a letter, with such a false intimacy bought and paid for by someone who couldn't be bothered to notice my "crooked little tooth" but preferred to pay for someone else to do so, I swear to god I would crown the responsible party with a frying pan. Divorce! would be the only response to a betrayal like that. I am so seriously not kidding, it is so toxic and upsetting, such a travesty of what connection between two people really is… I don't even know, what is it with all these awards?! For this movie?!? I am so upset!

In a world where machines can talk like Scarlett Johansson, we're asked to believe that someone would pay another person to write love letters for him. At this point I am gathering that algorithms have gotten pretty good at imitating human speech, but for some reason you don't buy software to help you write a private love letter, you give all your family photos to these clowns so they can invent utterly cloying pretend-emotions for you to put your name to.

Also, this letter-writing gig pays so much that letter writers can live in an enormous apartment in huge comfort.

Here is another Twombly!

To my Chris I've been thinking how I could possibly tell you how much you mean to me. I remember when I first started to fall in love with you like it was last night. Lying naked beside you in that tiny apartment it suddenly hit me that I was part of this whole larger thing, just like our parents our parents' parents before that I was just living my life like I knew everything; but suddenly this bright light hit me and woke me up. That light was you. I can't believe it's already been fifty years since you married me and still to this day, every day, you make me feel like the girl I was when you first turned on the lights and woke me up and we started this adventure together. Happy anniversary my love, my friend till the end.

Then, this professional writer Twombly permits a piece of software to judge his emails and get rid of "thousands" of them, leaving him only 86. Emails approved of by a piece of software—emails that the software deems funny and worth keeping. This is absolutely non-possible, not even the worst writer on earth would submit to having his work pruned by a machine, not even a machine that sounds like Scarlett Johansson. But Twombly just laughs and is all, okay! I really do not think that Spike Jonze has much respect for writers. Or writing.

One gathers that Jonze is not super conversant with computers, either, because his choice of the term "operating system" to describe the "personalized" AI portrayed by Johansson points straight to the film's central paradox, one we can see coming from miles away: an operating system is necessarily a one-size-fits-all proposition, parsing files for everyone's sharing and consumption. Twombly's infatuation with the machine-generated Samantha is not quite credible for the very reason that an operating system is a lingua franca, inevitably. You can't really have it both ways, having an imperceptibly perfect human simulacrum that can pass all the Voight-Kampff tests in the world with flying colors, and not have considered the "operating system" problem. So why not call a personalized computer personality—one designed to learn to speak to just one person—a User Interface instead? Make it unique to the user… that shouldn't be difficult, granting this kind of technological sophistication? Maybe that is a quibble.

When, as you know, Twombly begins to date his computer voice, there is not much in the way of hubbub. Lots of people are doing it, apparently, though we're never given a glimpse of the world beyond Twombly's shoulder (not even a whiff of social media). Now imagine your best pal casually mentioning to you, “I am dating a personal assistant program with a sexy voice.” "Dating"! What a fun talk that would be!

One friend who saw the movie told me he found it touching, this general “tolerance” of “dating” a telephone, thoughtfully propped up on a picnic blanket so that “she” can participate. I just found it perplexing. Reminds me of those lyrics from Patience, “an attachment a la Plato to a bashful young potato/Or a not-too-French french bean.” The sexlessness of the late-nineteenth-century aesthetic pose is alive and well, it appears.

But let's not shortchange her. The machine-Johansson, Samantha, also composes music. Music supervised by the Arcade Fire! What a wheeze. The humanest thing, the thing no computer an imitate, a person playing the piano. Hesitations, pauses, hands, you can almost feel the blood circulating under the skin, all translated into sound. To pretend that this music could have been written by a computer! It is clever, so clever and false.

There's this guy at work who admires Twombly's empty words so much. (A dull receptionist who begins dating a beautiful lawyer, no less—the future is beyond egalitarian.) I guess he is meant to represent "the little people" who would actually buy the products of He eavesdrops on Twombly writing yet another godawful, sticky-sweet Hallmark card of a letter and is all awestruck and he goes, "That's beautiful… I wish somebody would love me like that. I would be really stoked to get a letter like that. Like if it was from a chick [any chick!!!!! what the hell!] but written by a dude, but still from a chick, that would still be sick. But it would have to be a sensitive dude. It would have to be, like, a dude like you; You are part man and part woman; like there's an inner part that's a woman."

That is the center of the solipsism of this movie. Part man and part woman, Theodore Twombly is a sealed-off, hermaphroditic whole. Other people (and The Machines) may be permitted to take part in the touching love affair between Theodore Twombly and himself, but this professional empath is ultimately performing for himself alone. My innards are still writhing like a nest of snakes just thinking about it.

Maria Bustillos is a journalist and critic in Los Angeles.

55 Comments / Post A Comment

joshc (#442)

I'd like to talk more about this movie, but first we have to get past this point: do you really think the recipients of Theodore's letters are meant to know that they're getting a and not a beautiful handwritten letter from their loved one?

barnhouse (#1,326)

@joshc I KNOW they don't tell you?@!?! It's incredible. What do you think, I can't even imagine not knowing?!

joshc (#442)

@barnhouse I mean, I think that the recipients aren't supposed to know. Which is, I guess, a cute set-up to this Vision of Our Future Selves being willing to accept the Exciting New Product of a simulated human as an operating system.

I really liked the movie, though I didn't read it as being particularly coddling to the Theodore character. Like, I appreciated how a lot of it was really creepy (Samantha bordered on HAL9000 with better speech emulation software at times) without being judgmental (I would not, for instance, have been surprised if the last scene ended with them jumping off the roof). It might even work better if you imagine that the story is actually about Samantha becoming sentient as a window into Theodore's romantic/interpersonal problems. I'd guess that their relationship pretty directly mirrored the one that he had with his wife, which was also a pretty neat trick.

@joshc : If the concept wasn't stolen whole-cloth from George Saunders, it might as well have been.

Alternate take : Particularly when written as Beautiful Handwritten Letters, amirite?

Titania (#8,471)

@joshc Anyone who thinks this service doesn't already exist in our current world should probably be introduced to the concept of a computer, and also Goolge, because there are a LOT of them.

Quartz (#257,868)

@joshc I think the recipients must have known. Or that least in some cases. TT mentioned to Samantha that he had be writing letters for a couple for years. Years is a long time for people in a relationship not to know where their mail is coming from. Surely it must have come up. Maybe the letter company is a big thing in the `future` and everybody does it.

LaurenBethG (#257,476)

Whether you buy the whole Handwritten Letters thing or not, I think the point is that humans are becoming increasingly disconnected. Whether we've got a computer screen in between us, a video game, or even another human writing our freaking love letters– we're drifting further and further away from each other as living, breathing, feeling humans. I suppose you could pick it apart as much as you'd like, but the handwritten letters aspect just plays into the whole theme of disconnected-ness. That was my take on it, anyway.

Though… I DID give the screen a little side-eye when his letters were published…

joshc (#442)


LaurenBethG (#257,476)

@joshc Wait what?

joshc (#442)

@LaurenBethG if his job was to secretly write letters for other people, then recipients would find out that their precious treasured love note was actually a BeautifulHandwrittenLetter.

LaurenBethG (#257,476)

@joshc oh, right. I'm a dummy– I didn't even think of that. I just meant, I didnt think his letters were particularly touching enough to be published.

davidwatts (#72)

I respectfully disagree! One thing I've found interesting is how much of a blank slate this movie is. I read a tech columnist who wrote it was basically about our relationship to technology. I thought it was about romantic relationships. You say it is ultimately about writing. Not that it can't be all of this at once! But I think a good sign of what a complex and really fantastic movie it is is that we can all see a different, thought-provoking film in it.

also, this, re: the clothes:

thegardenhead (#257,478)

Respectfully, this review really bothers me. You focused on such a small, minute, almost unimportant detail of the movie. TT's job in the film is part of the set up; both for the times he lives in and for his personality. And I don't think it needs much more thought or dissection. Instead of picking apart the writing in the letters or the mere idea that someone would pay another person to write a letter, much less that the other person would permit such a cold, impersonal gesture, you could have accepted this business as a part of the current culture–people are too busy with their jobs and phones and whatevertheydo to sit down and hand write anything–and looked at how TT only struggles with expression when it's directed at another human. It's like people that can't say to their s/o what they're feeling, but can write a ten page letter explaining it all. Since you don't really address anything beyond your preoccupation with this particular aspect, I won't assume that you didn't at least put some thought into the rest of the movie, but I feel like you may have missed out. I think you have to treat it like a Spike Jonze movie; just sit back and absorb the environment that he's created, enjoy the scenery and imagination, and focus on the story. The movie made sense; I'm just not sure you could see the forest for the trees.

barnhouse (#1,326)

@thegardenhead hmm. Thank you for this thoughtful note. I liked your reading and wish I could have entered into it, but I can't. If it's part of "the current culture" of the film that people have completely lost the basic ability to connect, and are reduced instead to "cold, impersonal gestures"–more to the point, ersatz, false ones–then the movie is premised on an idea of what human beings are about that I can't buy, not even in the context of 'the fantastic' or however it is we should be characterizing near-term speculative fiction now.

Compare this movie to Jonze's masterpiece, Adaptation–which, not coincidentally, was written by a committed and passionate writer. Here, too, we have a persuasive hero/anti-hero: a flawed man, an Everyman, and like Twombly, also a writer. By the end the Kaufman of the film is living on a fuller, richer plane than the one we first found him on. But all his flaws are intact.

It appears that Twombly was meant to have been cut from the same cloth. He too is meant to represent a talented writer who achieves through pain an amplification of awareness. The argument that Twombly's ineptitude as a writer is meant to convey irony holds no water, because remember, he was the husband of another, now-famous writer whose career he helped bring about. His work is showered with praise, and a volume of his collected letters is eagerly accepted for publication. So. It seems to me that if you "focus on the story"–like I tried to do, seriously–it really falls apart. In fact, you can't focus on the story in order for it to work: you have to agree to stay on the superficial plane of its sentimentality, and ask no questions of it at all.

Will look forward to hearing more from you.

@barnhouse the movie is premised on an idea of what human beings are about that I can't buy

Wait, like human beings who fall in love with a computer? Isn't that the central point of the film? (Granted, the last two movies I saw were Frozen and Frozen, so it will probably take me 2 years to see this…)

jfruh (#713)

I haven't seen this movie, but I think writing within movies (and to a lesser extent, in-narrative writing in books and other prose) is generally pretty dire! I'm not sure why that is, since it is as a rule created by writers. Maybe grappling with meta-writing is a tricky business, maybe the writers are trying to create writing that isn't in their own style and it comes out all clunky, maybe you make it more "writer-y" (generally, more overwrought and self-counscious) to mark it out as a creation of one of your characters according to his/her own personality and talents. Conveying the written word in an audio-visual medium probably has its own problems too, of course.

r&rkd (#1,719)

T.C. Boyle includes a character's newspaper columns in Tortilla Curtain. That's the only time I've seen it done well.

NA (#235,216)

Just as in life, if you focus too intently on the small details, you fail to acknowledge the big picture. The big picture here being the statement "Her" makes on human emotion, and how nuanced and sad and wonderful it can be. I found it to be deeply powerful, and many of the people around me in the theater were moved to tears by it.

I'm of the opinion that Maria felt she could only differentiate herself from the scores of reviews out there by taking an aggressively contrarian view.

Kevin Knox (#4,475)

@NA But life is long and a movie is 90-120 minutes, unless it's one of those Hobbit things. The small details actually matter a great deal, and if you can't buy into those, then you will not be able to buy into whatever the movie is selling you as a whole.

shostakobitch (#1,692)

I thought he was named after William Twombly from Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, the landmark US Supreme Court case that, aside from altering the threshold for notice pleading in federal cases, was about the anti-trust violations of telephone companies. See because the movie Twombly dates his phone, or something.

You are correct, Maria!!!

… so we ended up going to Shanghai and using very specific, curated areas of Shanghai with very specific curated areas of Los Angeles …



As much as I enjoy Spike Jonze, that right there … well, I would happily pay good money to see a location scout and/or an English professor slap the shit out of him for that, is all I'm saying.

KarenUhOh (#19)

I'm an anachronistic old fart, but I wish Woody Allen had made this film in 1973. Which I'm not sure he didn't.

Yes, his letters were terrible, but I took that to be because he was just a nebbishy sadsack. He is not a Hero. He's just a guy. (Who makes a fuckton of dollars pumping that shit out.) If it could happen to him, it Could Happen To You.

I think you're giving short shrift to her essential aliveness which to me was the main question of the movie. Is she real? She isn't just a machine. She can feel and want and ache and cheat and leave.

She's fucking alive dude.

barnhouse (#1,326)

@Rebecca Schoenkopf ha gee was he really meant to be a nebbishy sadsack?! That reading seems available but I couldn't persuade myself that it was intended, when there is this general aura of admiration around Twombly's work (published book, the praise of Samantha, colleagues, success of job, comfort at home etc.) I mean obviously, nearly everyone else is seeing something I couldn't! Just as thegardenhead suggests above (hi there! that was a nice note, thank you.)

Regarding 'aliveness'–I don't think it would have worked at all if you weren't picturing the real Johansson (????)

scrooge (#2,697)

I am deeply skeptical that software can have an orgasm through phone sex. At least, assuming the designers of the software didn't program in a pleasure center.

224693943@twitter (#257,537)

Are you actually criticizing the scientific accuracy of a film based around a hypothetical future? You also seem to have this idea that Theordore is portrayed as a hero of any kind, which makes me question if you understand movies or even watched this one in the first place. This is an embarrassment.

I saw all of two or three emotional states demonstrated by Samantha in this film, Cheery (infuriatingly, relentlessly so) and Confused or Frustrated, and whatever was trying to be portrayed in the end. If this was meant to be a romance between this sad man and this upbeat OS it failed on so many levels and conveyed none of the intricacies of a true relationship.
So much of this script–from the canned dialogue between TT and Samantha, the faux distress of Amy Adams' character (how is someone so laissez faire immediately following the end of an eight year long relationship?), to Twombly's utter garbage letters–seems like it was written by a man who has never been in a romantic relationship.
It was comical how much I hated this film. Worst…Terminator…Ever.

This doesn't mean we all have to go back and watch s1m0ne, does it?

This OS was solely composed of this Theodore's output. You're like that video game character screaming "Fuck you!" back at the screen because it doesn't make any sense. How can you make a personality out of 86 emails and a handful of basic questions? "Her" is weird and wonderful and bent wrong. It's movie magic.

greg556 (#261,410)

@Luap Namgreb@twitter haha yes you have it exactly right. This reviewer has forgotten (or doesn't understand) that this is a Spike Jonze movie. Everything in it is weird by definition. The brilliance is that Truth that comes out of the bizarre unreality and shallowness of it. That is Spike Jonze. The movie is very similar to Being John Malkovich in that way.

OF COURSE he writes emotional letters for other people. John Cusack was a puppeteer. Whoever heard of a puppeteer? But he HAD TO BE in BJM. Same with Twombly here. If you can't adjust yourself to Jonze's brain, you shouldn't enter his portal. (I understand that Jonze might have gotten a bit of an assist from Charlie Kaufman.)

Pixie Pie@facebook (#257,631)

Here's my problem with the concept of this movie. The OS is designed, manufactured, contrived. Anything she says or does is his own perception of "perfect love". He does not allow for her to actually BE an individual. She is what he wants her to be. Is it not enough that we as women are constantly made to nip and tuck and try to measure up to some man's unachievable concept of physical perfection? Is it now that we are to compete with a "being" completely created and contrived with the ideals of what this man considers to be worth loving? Think about it. How would this make anyone feel to know that you'll never be as good a girlfriend as an A.I.? What will become of our species of all of us only accepted love from a programmed being that mirrored our own desires for companionship? I'll take my man's imperfections, his occasional rudeness, his confusing logic, his zits, his body odor, along his his sweetness, his tender touch, the smell of his hair when it has been kissed by the summer sun.
At least then we know that we are alive and imperfect together. At least then we can understand each other, struggle together, win together, lose together. I like that he's different from me. I like that he watches hours of boring football, or randomly decides to tackle me in a tickle fight. I like when he chases me around the house with a booger on his finger. I like that he eats my leftovers and fights with the cat. We are two happy primates, living out life in glorious imperfection.

Pixie Pie@facebook (#257,631)

People please. Don't forget what we ARE. Earth creatures, animals. We live, breed and die. Don't get so over obsessed with our own concepts of self that we forget our primal nature. I am a beast with instincts, fears, insecurities. We become so removed from earth energy that we think we understand the mysteries of love enough that we can program it into a computer? Fools. LOVE IS THE UNIVERSE. LOVE IS ETERNAL. LOVE CAN NEVER BE FULLY UNDERSTOOD, THEREFORE CAN NOT BE RECREATED AND SIMULATED.

51325587@twitter (#257,714)

@Pixie Pie@facebook But would you in the first place want to date a guy who would be satisfied by a digital, customized relationship rather than a human being? Perhaps such a thing would actually be valuable in filtering such types out of the dating pool.

@Pixie Pie@facebook Speak for yourself. I will never die and I never poop and I get money for nothing. Just like most people these days.

stacytg (#240,454)

@Pixie Pie@facebook Aaaaaand that is the point of the movie.

Quartz (#257,868)

@Pixie Pie@facebook even if love involved dead cats?

beepingalive (#257,711)

Great review. This movie is a very sad and dark view of what that type of guy even wants. Those flashbacks seem so self-involved, and his general moping dickery goes unnoticed by the director. Does everyone want a hot virgin with no cellphone, friends or female sexual response? Does no one want a friend who says "stop jerking off to your phone." ? I found his treatment of Olivia Munn simply cruel. The more I think about it, the more this movie is making me crazy. I hope your moping is never sanctified and mine isn't either and we all laugh very hard.

51325587@twitter (#257,714)

This piece (and probably the film, although I haven't seen it) reminds me of the early days of online dating — before dating websites even, when people met over services like AOL and Prodigy and had flirtations and romantic relationships without ever meeting face to face. At the time, among your IRL friends this would be met with the same level of incredulous disdain as the idea of "dating a telephone."

smartastic (#2,437)

Yeah, I don't think we're supposed to believe his writing is good. And their relationship is supposed to cause us to question their relationship. It's also not meant to be believable or real, although it is at points and that is meant to make us question our judgement and the judgement of love. The movie's an allegory about love and relationships and communication and solipsism, not a love story.

GailPink (#9,712)

I didn't like it much either

130375729@twitter (#257,737)

At first glance I thought this movie was an update of the 80s film "Electric Dreams" now learning that the AI also writes music like the computer does in that film it confirms my guess.

Kat Kim@facebook (#257,793)

There is a lot to love about the new Spike Jonze movie, Her, which goes into wide release today, but there is still more to become hair-tearingly exasperated about….. bam80 com

96580639@twitter (#257,808)

Words can not describe how thankful I am for this review (if there were I might run the risk of using over-the-top wimpy prose, made to flow like Mumford and Sons lyrics…and here begins my criticism.)

This is not a terrible movie. Although now I feel like I have been forced to point out it's silliness because, as the author of this review points out, no one else is doing so. Maybe folks have been blinded by the wonderful soundtrack and casting. That's understandable. My fear though, is that Americans have such little contact with actual independent films, with actual subtle lessons, that they have mistaken this as one, and have latched on as a fan; to say they did.

I should have understood all of this before dragging my boyfriend away from American Hustle. I was hoping to pay for something that would resonate and leave me with something important to think about. Technology is becoming such a staple that we as humans are losing touch with the real world, love is evolving, romance can be hurtful, mustaches are hot, there are risks to living in a digital age… yawn. Why else isn't anyone thinking, "well, duh?". If I'm giving away 2 hours of my life I want to learn something, to expand my understanding of the world, past or high-pant'ed future.

This movie is undoubtedly beautiful. Visually it awes, lyrically it's uncomfortable. The majority of reviews I am reading about this make me very concerned that I am living in a water-downed time, a place where most are easily impressed (Think: Cloud Atlas – ick)

This movie could have been written by Nicholas Sparks.

delovely (#235,685)

two things:
1. movie was bleh.
2. WHERE IS THE EDITOR FOR THIS! lots of missing letters in the text!

SmackYou (#257,954)

After watching this, in fact halfway through it I wanted Joaquin Phoenix to go somewhere and cut it off. Its the most pathetically patheic excuse for a love story I've ever watched in my entire life. Basically **Spoilers**… a guy wants to have sex with the voice from his apple mac, which then 'leaves' him after he finds out its screwing around with over 600 other "men"(I use the term very loosley) and then tells him that its "going off to the space between spaces". I mean at least the remake of the movie Solaris starring George Clooney had a real element of heartache to it and illustrated the dangers of not letting go but God in heaven, Windows 3.1 would have left this moron.

ele (#258,038)

Yes, the title say it (all).

Just a quickie: the horrible card writing was intentional (as evidenced by other, character delivered lines, not sounding as ham fisted). He was attempting to adopt the voice of his subject.

jmacjmac (#259,305)

Wow. To Maria Bustillos and her gnarl, Spike Jones writing is "unbelievably terrible" and computers writing music (is) "false"… How much time do you spend on your iPhone? Tweeting? Computer? I think your review was well crafted and sharply written. However, I think you missed the point of the film. I personally am haunted by it. What was the point of the film? Check your iPhone, it might have the answer ; )

greg556 (#261,410)

In a world where someone like you can get a job writing, it is ironic to say the least that you would be complaining about a future of shallow writing.


I am honestly, "unbelievably terribly" (to quote you) horrified that this has to be pointed out to you.

Why the eff would you TELL someone the hand-written letter they just received had not been written by you?

Seriously, man, find another line of work–this one isn't working out for you.

greg556 (#261,410)

By the way, I think you missed the actual plot hole in the movie. There is no way Twombly would own those letters that he wrote while working at his job. The website owns them. THAT was annoying–that he published a book of letters he did not own.

Maria Bustillos I pity you, you missed the whole point of the movie, the point was to "know love"

"Now we know how."

was the whole point. Now we know how to love. That was it. Nothing more nothing less. And i think when your emotional system has evolved you will get this movie. In an emotionel more evolved society, there is a big difference between empathic written letters, and computer written letters. Nuances we may not "feel" yet. The secret subtext in this whole movie, was that this future LA was less cynical, less judgemental. (no one was really freaked out by falling in love with OS1)

Your cynicism and criticism stand in the way of feeling al this subtext.

well, I do not envy you.

Her (#271,730)

I never comment on anything but I must say that the thing who wrote this critic has less intelligence then Her.

This movie is ment for us to have a sneak peak in the future into the unknown. People who have seen the movie may say, I wouldnt have someone write a letter for me, but its what spike feels the future is like and that's the beauty of this film. This movie is about saying fuck it and experiencing the unknown. Trying something new. After all curiosity makes evolution. Just like Samantha.

Post a Comment