Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Her … and Us
Late in the holiday season, I had the chance to view Her, the new film written and directed by Spike Jonze (whose previous directorial credits include Being John Malkovich and Adaptation). The movie stars Joaquin Phoenix as a down-on-his-luck writer in the Los Angeles of a not-too-distant future. He’s in the midst of a divorce he’s yet to make peace with and has moved from working as a journalist to creating “hand-written” letters (actually just computer-generated facsimiles of written correspondence) for hire.
In the film’s intentionally jarring opening scenes, we get a sense for the jaundiced view the script has of technology’s effect on relationships. Phoenix’s character, Theodore, doesn’t just occasionally string words together for an inarticulate suitor; In some instances, he’s penned both sides of years-long correspondences. This is a world in which it’s possible to outsource the entirety of human intimacy. The fact that Theodore works in an office swarming with other writers engaged in precisely the same craft subtly informs us that this is something more than a niche market.
This bit of background is important for those of you who haven’t seen the film, because it’s easy to infer from the marketing (and even from some reviewers, who should know better) that Phoenix’s character is a socially maladroit loner. If you know anything about the movie, it’s probably the one-sentence takeaway that it’s the story of a man who falls in love with his digital assistant (think of it as a hyper-advanced Siri voiced by an effervescent Scarlett Johansson). If Theodore’s a shut-in, that’s equal parts creepy and simplistic.
That’s not the character, however. Theodore is an affable co-worker. He’s a thoughtful friend. We see him be not only functional, but actually somewhat charming on a date. And the prose he constructs on the job shows us that he has a lyrical grasp of the beauty of human connection. He’s simply a man made gun-shy by the sting of love lost. He is singed perhaps; but not burned.
Theodore’s digital paramour, Samantha, is the product of the world’s first artificial intelligence-based operating system (and it’s a testimony to the film’s craftsmanship that you buy it). She’s charming, witty, solicitous about his feelings—apart from that little wrinkle about the lack of a corporeal presence, she’s the ideal girlfriend. And the film wisely chooses not to make Theodore some kind of freakish aberration. We learn later on that romantic relationships and intense friendships with this quasi-human OS are a widespread phenomenon. Indeed, it’s difficult to imagine that realistic entities created for the purpose of molding to the contours of your personality wouldn’t inspire that kind of devotion.
Upon learning that Theodore’s new love interest resides in his smartphone, his soon-to-be-ex-wife (played by Rooney Mara) utters one of the film’s key lines: “You always wanted to have a wife without actually dealing with anything real.” That seems to be the nub of what the films wants us to ponder: is technology expanding our capacity for meaningful relationships or undermining it?
I’ll put the perfunctory spoiler warning here, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise that a film that takes the subject matter seriously doesn’t deliver a happy ending for Theodore and the virtual object of his affection. No technology, after all, could meaningfully simulate the depths of human interaction without also replicating its liabilities—and that’s precisely what happens in Her.
We talk a lot here at Ricochet about relationships—specifically about the factors influencing the seemingly decreased societal reverence for marriage. We’ve heard a lot of culprits identified: the welfare state’s marginalization of the nuclear family; the unrealistic standards that the “you can have it all” mindset imparts to women; the notion that men no longer have the proper incentives to get married. Yet, while watching Her, it occurred to me that there’s something else we may be missing.
My generation especially (“millennials,” if you prefer a term that makes the group sound as if its existence will end in a cyanide-induced suicide) is utterly conditioned to personalization. Every young person’s iPhone menu is a personality index—an atlas of the self. With every one of our digital interactions calibrated to produce maximum satisfaction, we define adversity down. Who hasn’t reacted to an unwanted pop-up ad as if someone just drove a sedan into the living room? Who hasn’t attempted to fast-forward through commercials only to realize they’re watching live television and had their teeth set slightly on edge? The more our demands are met, the pettier our grievances become.
While this trend has been an economic and technological boon, it’s also lowered our threshold for pain. And pain is the tax that’s applied to love, no matter how deep or how true.
It’s not far-fetched to imagine, as Her does, someone so conditioned to perpetually having the world arranged to flatter his every idiosyncracy that he is willing to entertain the notion of a romance that is fake but effortless over one that is sincere but strenous. That’s where Her terrifies you: when you realize “my God, people would do this.”
I see this trend in my contemporaries all the time. They’ll disqualify potential mates on the basis of Seinfeldian marginalia. If someone doesn’t tick every box—if they’re not the Match.com wish list made flesh—they may as well be the Elephant Man.
For this segment of the population anyway, we may be over-thinking the hangups with marriage. It’s not necessarily an outgrowth of economics, public policy, sociology, or religious belief. It might just be that love is hard. And, increasingly, ‘hard’ is something we’re not willing to do.
Published in General
Now thatis a great line. Our “ambassador” arranges the date, but ultimately it has to be us that shows up, and the elevated expectations ultimately doom the experience. Almost like when you take a drink from a glass that is filled with something other than what you anticipate. (sprite vs water). Its borderline traumatic. You may have had sprite 100 times before but you can’t process the difference.
Good analogy. I once poured myself a cup of what I though was iced tea from a thermos. It was coffee.
As Aaron said , since online communication is a controlled environment the pristine image of our ambassador (my phrase for being on your best behavior) isn’t blunted by certain behavioral cues that would be noticed in person. If the first contact had been on a blind date then the standard wouldn’t be set so high.
For example, two different people are meeting someone else for the first time. One is expecting to meet their soul mate. The other is just hoping the person they’re meeting has all their teeth.
Who has the better chance of having a pleasant evening?
Love Plus ·
Oh boy.
(Linked because Ricochet only does images for ants.)
……………………
For this segment of the population anyway, we may be over-thinking the hangups with marriage. It’s not necessarily an outgrowth of economics, public policy, sociology, or religious belief. It might just be that love is hard. And, increasingly, ‘hard’ is something we’re not willing to do. ·· January 7, 2014 at 4:57pm
I expect to hear any minute now that Troy has seen the error of his ways and gotten married.
Look around you, Troy.
I know unmarrieds who have done that . . . surveyed the alarming statistics, the carnage left in the wake of failed marriages.
Perhaps it isn’t the fact that “love is hard” – that steers the young away from marriage. Perhaps it’s the increasing probability that one may have to survive the debris field of heartbreak and broken families when love shatters on the rocks of modern life. ·45 minutes ago
That might be part of it. Interestingly, though, I find that a lot of children of divorce (of which I’m one) end up having an elevated respect for marriage as a result. That may also explain some of the reticence — they’re afraid of screwing it up (and the quest for perfection may be an overcorrection for the perception that their parents regarded the institution too casually). ·22 hours ago
I wonder if that (highlighted) isn’t more a rationale for the decision to avoid the work of real commitment than the reason.
In the ’70’s, people got married, they didn’t live together; elimination now of the sexual morality stigma has eliminated the basic reason people married- see Murray, Charles.
The culture of infidelity is so pervasive that even youngsters who see happy, lasting marriages in their families feel “I can never find someone like Mom & Dad/aunt & uncle did”.
Troy: “It might just be that love is hard.”
Yes. It means being unselfish in an unselfish way (lot’s of unselfishness is really self-centered). Not coincidentally, all the great religions have as a major pointer to the path to happiness: “Stop thinking about yourself all the time.”
Do you consider yourself a millennial? I don’t think you are that young. There is another generation between the Gen-Xer’s and the millennials. Sometimes they are called the Generation-Y, but most of the time they are forgotten. (I am a member of this group.) ·14 hours ago
Most of the definitions I’ve seen start the Millennial Generation with those born in 1980. I qualify under that definition, though not by much.
Truth be told, I don’t really consider myself anything. These generational classifications are imperfect at best, but there are certain trends that do seem to break pretty cleanly by era, so I’m just comfortable enough to use the classification for shorthand in a piece like this one. ·January 8, 2014 at 9:33ago
Chart of Generations:
Troy, your review of this film is excellent, the best I have read — and what a disturbing (though important) film it is.
Jonze presents the OS-Theodore “love” in all of its insidious ease, in an age that doesn’t recoil — by instinct — at the creepiness of “loving” an inanimate object. The “tolerance” for their “dating” (I refuse to abandon the scare quotes!) was also unsettling– going on a double-date to Catalina with your friend and his Siri girlfriend ought to have been judged and shunned. But it was accurate to portray a future where anything private or intimate is accepted as just another personal preference.
I also thought Jonze did not challenge enough the shallowness of the computer “love” — it felt like he was justifying Theodore’s lifelessness, urging the audience to dislike that crabby-ex-wife figure who, in fact, was the only person really alive in the entire film.
What a fantastic commentary. I must see this film now. Already a Jonze fan in any case but wasn’t quite sure about this character.
Do you consider yourself a millennial? I don’t think you are that young. There is another generation between the Gen-Xer’s and the millennials. Sometimes they are called the Generation-Y, but most of the time they are forgotten. (I am a member of this group.) ·January 7, 2014 at 6:35pm
Generations Dated
2000/2001-Present – New Silent Generation or Generation Z
1980-2000 – Millennials or Generation Y
1965-1979 – Generation X
1946-1964 – Baby Boom
1925-1945 – Silent Generation
1900-1924 – G.I. Generation
It’s not far-fetched to imagine, as Her does, someone so conditioned to perpetually having the world arranged to flatter his every idiosyncracy that he is willing to entertain the notion of a romance that is fake but effortless over one that is sincere but strenous. That’s where Her terrifies you: when you realize “my God, people would do this.”
Well said, and that was among the best films of ’13.