MYST #5: Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

One of the most anticipated movies on my list recently has been Alejandro Gonzalez Inaritu's Birdman, a movie starring Michael Keaton which is, more or less, about Michael Keaton. Alongside Keaton in this film are Emma Stone, Zach Galifianakis, and Edward Norton--a personal favorite. So, needless to say, I was pretty much sold on this movie before even walking into the theater. But what I actually got out of that movie was so far beyond what I expected, and I think in a way beyond what anyone expected.

This plot line follows the story of a washed out movie star, Riggin Thomson (Michael Keaton), who is far beyond his glory days and has resorted to starring in and directing an adapted Broadway play. He was famous for the role of the legendary "Birdman" ("Batman"--thanks for the subtle hint, Inaritu), but after turning down the offer to make Birdman 4, which he would later repeatedly regret, Thomson is worn out and all but forgotten in the business, hoping this play will put him back on the map. Emma Stone plays his wasetoid daughter, recently out of rehab, with whom he has a pretty broken relationship. Zach Galifianakis plays his struggling manager, Naomi Watts the female lead of the play, and Edward Norton the spoiled and borderline crazy male lead of the play, as well as Naomi Watt's boyfriend. The story goes through the messy week before the opening of the play, as Riggan's character begins to unfold under the stress, a psychological crash feeling closer and closer as the opening night approaches.

Michael Keaton's performance in this was pretty much exactly ironic and reflective of his character in the movie, as it is likely to put him back on the map himself. I had honestly forgotten about Michael Keaton, as have we all, and this film basically punched me in the face with the message of "he deserves not to be forgotten." His acting was impeccable--he got so much into the character, really understood him, and captured the weirdness of his psyche perfectly. Emma Stone was also superb, as usual, playing out the self-corrupting daughter who was ruined by the movie career the dad held so dear. Edward Norton was incredible in this movie, too, playing out the jerk we all are supposed to hate while keeping the witty, sarcastic humor that we love. Norton really proved himself to be flexible with this role, putting his own definition to the word "crazy" with this abusive, screwed up, manipulative but hilarious dramatic borderline alcoholic personality. I absolutely loved him. Another very memorable performance I must mention is that of Zach Galifianakis. All I can describe of him in this film is that I really didn't expect him to be capable of such good acting, and that he is truly funny in more ways than one. He added not only tasteful comic relief but also an insight on how one is supposed to handle the unbelievable mental instability of his client and best fri
end Riggan.

One of the major factors of this film that wowed me was the cinematography. Inaritu chose to attempt to shoot majority of the film in one take, one continuous camera shot that pans from room to room following the characters fluidly. And I must sat it really worked, especially since the entire shot took place within one building/city block surrounding it. The cinematography also worked in a lot of interesting shots using light, filming light rays and focusing on the specks of dust floating within them--perhaps touching on the theme of insignificance represented by Riggan's character. Another really cool stylistic element that the director chose to include which I thought was worth mentioning was the inner dialogue that goes on within Riggin's head, a manifestation of his imagination that speaks to him his own thoughts, sometimes even going so far as to yell and swear at him. We later realize that this is Birdman himself--the character which Riggin's internal psyche identifies with as his conscience or mind. The soundtrack was also very interesting. It included tracks entirely composed of drumbeats, drum solos and rhythms set to fit the scene. It matched up with the film perfectly the way they employed them, and built suspense as well as creating a way for the audience to relate to and feel what the character is feeling in that moment.

Overall, this movie was absolutely incredible, impressive far beyond what I expected and a definite oscar contender, as well as one of my favorites of 2014.

I'd give Birdman a solid 8.8/10

MYST #4: Interstellar

Being a pretty big fan of Christopher Nolan and his past works, I must say I had decently high expectations for this movie. A cast of Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, and Michael Kane, among others, sounded promising. But all I got out of this movie was disappointment and confusion.

The plot of the movie is long and complicated, and to avoid spoilers I'm going to shorten

it down.

The film takes place in the distant future, in which the Earth is quickly running out of natural resources and the leading profession is farmer. The main character, Cooper, (played by McConaughey), is one such farmer who used to be a star NASA pilot, before it was supposedly shut down by the government. After his daughter begins experiencing what she believes to be ghostly occurrences in her room, he decided to check it out to find that whatever was the source was sending him a message: the coordinates to a top secret NASA base (after all not shut down), where Anne Hathaway and Michael Cane's characters tell him their plans to save the human race. They have found 3 planets, reachable only through a wormhole, that may be able to sustain life and must be visited immediately to find out. Of course, they ask Cooper to lead the mission and so he leaves his family and leaves Earth to do so. The next 2 and a half hours of the film progress through his journey and his findings on these 3 planets.

While the plot is quite interesting, it has many elements which simply don't fit or make sense. I can live with an unrealistic plot though, it is a movie after all. But the other aspects of the movie are what let me down. 

I'll start with the most obvious problem: the sound editing. Everyone who has seen the movie can tell you this--it's not even a matter of opinion anymore. There were multiple scenes, some of them vital to the plotline, in which you couldn't at all hear what the characters were trying to say because of how loud the music or background noise was. I would look around the theater during these scenes and literally everyone was turning their heads asking eachother what was going on. For a movie of a budget of $165 million, I'd expect at least the decency of an audible dialogue. 

Next on my list was the acting, and directing concerning the acting. Matthew McConaughey was great as always, I'll give him that, although he didn't seem to make the character really stand

Matthew McConaughey (above) pictured
with the bright lights reflecting
off of his visor--very reminiscent, perhaps
an homage to, Kubrick's
use of this detail in
2001: A Space Odyssey
(below)

out from his usual roles--it just felt like Matthew McConaughey. Michael Kane was also superb in this role, as usual, and Matt Damon's random unadvertised role was also a pleasantly interesting surprise. But this movie will always be remembered in my mind as the movie that made me hate Anne Hathaway. Her acting was two dimensional and cliché, exactly what you'd expect from a sappy, dramatic female character. Then someone pointed out to me something very true about Hathaway's acting--every role she does is the same. She doesn't make the character unique, she just plays herself. Which is why Catwoman can feel so much like Fontaine from Les Mis. 

The character of Murph, Cooper's daughter, was played by two different actors because some amount of time passes throughout the movie. The old Murph was played by Jessica Chastain, and I must admit she won me over as an actress with this. The young actress who played Murph as a child, however, (Mackenzie Foy), was just awful. I couldn't handle watching her. Her acting was so plain and cliché, playing out just the strange little girl who's distressed over her father leaving--completely predictable and boring. These flaws in acting may also be partly the director's fault for organizing the actors this way. I don't think the script is to blame, as the dialogue was decent enough to be brought to life much better than it was. Honestly the most enjoyed performance here for me was Topher Grace's tiny ten-minute-screentime cameo. 

As for the directing, it felt like this movie was just trying so hard to be a big blockbuster hit that everyone felt super amazed and moved by, coming out conveniently in oscar season. It was overdramatic and threw in too many mind-blowing twists. It was simply overdone, too much of the Hollywood formula that so many of us are so sick of (although the crazy physics included were pretty interesting).

Overall, this movie was a big disappointment. I will give it one major applaud--the cinematography, done by Dutch Hoyte Von Hoytema, who did the beautiful cinematography of the 2014 film "Her" as well, was absolutely incredible. He really took advantage of the film taking place in space and created some amazing extreme long shots juxtaposing how very small the spaceship was, representative of humanity, in comparison to the rest of the vast universe. 

The score was also beautiful, done by one of my favorites Hans Zimmer. It was perfectly simple and moving, and worked very well with the movie. 

I'd give this movie a depressing 6/10

MYST #3: Gone Girl

When I heard that David Fincher was coming out with a new movie, needless to say I got excited. And when I saw the trailer, that feeling only moved up to ecstatic. I got the first chance I could to see the new Gone Girl, and to say the least, I was not disappointed.

Gone Girl, 2014
Director: David Fincher
Starring Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike
Click here to watch official trailer

David Fincher has made his fame with such psychological, dark and twisting films as Fight Club and Se7en, and after seeing this, his fans can proudly add Gone Girl to this very successful list. As stated in the trailer, the movie starts out following the story of Nick Dunne, played by Ben Affleck, whose wife goes missing at the beginning of the film; and he soon enough becomes the prime suspect in the case. What the trailer doesn't show is the other side of the story, what ends up happening to the wife Amy, played by British Rosamund Pike--and that is where the story becomes really Fincher-worthy.

Because the movie takes so many crazy twists and turns I'm going to avoid the rest of the plot line so I don't spoil anything, but let me just say it is an absolutely amazing story in itself, keeping you on the edge of your seat the entire viewing.

Rosamund Pike, playing Amy Dunne

As for acting, Ben Affleck was as usual great as Nick Dunne, pulling off the two sides of him that seem to come out at the beginning, when we don't know whether to trust him or not. It's a very honest performance, playing the part of a man conflicted in his marriage, life, and relationships with those around him. As for Rosamund Pike, it was a phenomenal role played exactly right. During the first half of the movie, I hated her acting, finding it cold and one-dimensional, but once you really get to know Amy the character, you see how amazing of a job she's done. She finds just the right angles of Amy's personality to exploit and bring out, and, once again I'll hold back from plot as not to spoil anything, but she she plays the character you remember to hate with the acting you can't forget. I'd definitely be expecting to here her name again at this year's upcoming Academy Awards.

 The one acting job in this movie that I actually didn't like was that of Neil Patrick Harris. Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of his. I loved him in How I Met Your Mother for nine seasons straight, and he was hilarious the entire time through. But it seems that, coming out of that iconic role, that's the only thing he knows how to play anymore. His acting is shallow and his romantic or dramatic lines are almost insincere. Quite frankly, it felt like he was playing his HIMYM character of Barney but in an awkward, sarcastic serious kind of way. I was disappointed, and I hope he can make a comeback in his career and really improve with it.

Notice the ironic resemblance to the famous
Rolling Stone cover of John Lennon
wrapped around Yoko Ono 

To avoid ruining any plot line, I'm not going to choose a specific scene to mention but instead a certain cinematic technique. The movie is set up in a back-and-forth kind of way, changing scenes from two different perspectives of the story: between the present and future. The scenes switch from telling the story of Amy's disappearance and the days that follow, in the present, and the story of Amy and Nick, from falling in love to getting married to falling apart, all told through her diary entries, in the past. I absolutely loved this technique of juxtaposition. It begins the current conflict while setting up the backstory at the same time; as we follow the story of Amy disappearing and how Nick is dealing with it, we also get insight into what kind of a couple they were, formulating our ideas of the two as well as our interpretations of what is going on and our guesses of what will happen. It certainly keeps the audience thinking and interested in where the movie will go.

Overall, I'd say I definitely loved this movie and STRONGLY advise anyone who is interested to go see it. I'd say it is, hands down, the best movie I've seen of 2014. Fincher's directing is amazing as ever, and I'd definitely expect a few Oscar nominations.

Overall, I'd give this a solid 8.7/10.

MYST# 2: Drinking Buddies

I came upon this movie completely by accident, browsing on Netflix and realizing that it had an actor I liked in it (Jake M. Johnson, from New Girl,) as well as the recently famous Ana Kendrick in a supporting role. Although I don’t particularly like her as an actress I was interested after noticing the surprising 83% on Rotten Tomatoes from critics, because I had personally had never even heard of it. What I was expecting from this was a somewhat original but still overused formulated Hollywood love story, but it took a refreshing, very untraditional route that is definitely worth noting and watching.

The movie follows the friendships of the main two characters, Luke and Kate, played by Jake Johnson and Olivia Wilde, and how, despite both of them being in happy relationships, have an unspoken but surely, awkwardly there chemistry towards each other. Typical, you’d think. But what was so amazing was not the story itself but the way it was presented.

            Young director Joe Swanberg put an untraditional spin on this time-old story, by making it so utterly and painfully real. The writing, acting, cinematography, editing—it's all put together in a way that makes you feel less like you’re watching a movie and more like you’re experiencing this awkward sequence of events for yourself. The actors are very relaxed with one another, acting only in response to each other and probably adding a lot of improvisation. The dialogue is not faked or Hollywood-esque in the way that you’d expect a romance to be. The actors will pause, seem unsure of themselves, hesitate, and look painfully uncomfortable in appropriate situations. Sometimes there’s no important dialogue at all, just the minor chit chat that bring people closer together. The camerawork is not significantly flashy or glamorous, just natural shots conveying the subjects at hand. With all of these components put together, the film achieves a certain realistic quality that makes it so relatable and lovable.

There was one specific scene that stood out to me, in which they juxtapose the relationship of the main two best friends, Luke and Kate, to the new friendship of Luke's girlfriend and Kate's boyfriend, who decide to go on a hike together when Luke and Kate both decline. The camera cuts between scenes of the hike and Luke and Kate sitting around playing cards. I doubt any script was written for this scene--the two are just sitting around, joking and laughing and just being natural with each other, which is all the scene is trying to convey, as well as their chemistry. Meanwhile, the two on the hike find many more sophisticated similar interests. They don't talk much but when they do it's something meaningful, and a chemistry builds between them as well. By going back between the two couples, the camera is pointing out the differences in the relationships, letting us put together the pieces of the conflict of the story: that Luke and Kate, and their respective partner, are more meant for each other than the person they're currently with.

This movie overall was much better than I expected, although it did still have some flaws, one of which being that it sometimes felt as though there were something missing, a big scene that explained it all or a scene that felt normal-hollywood, scripted with lots of acting to wake us up from the strangeness of the movie and bring us back to plot line. But overall, I did like it, and I'll give it a rating of 7 out of 10.

FFS: Noir Films Over Time

For my Formal Film Studies project, I thought it might be cool to watch the development of a specific genre over time--and what better genre than noir to do this, considering its style is applied in so many places we don't even realize. Little did I know that, about two weeks after I chose my (what I thought was unique) are of study concerning the films The Maltese Falcon, Blade Runner, and Brick, that we would be doing a very similar unit on noir films that included watching two of these movies in class. Nevertheless, I stuck to my assignment and even used some of what we did in class to help out with this.

The Maltese Falcon (1941)
Director: John Huston
Starring Humphrey Bogart
Mary Astor, Peter Lorre
Watch trailer here

The first movie I decided to watch was the supposed basis of all American noir, John Huston's 1941 The Maltese Falcon starring Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor. This movie follows the story of private investigator Sam Spade (Bogart) solving the mystery of who killed his partner Miles Archer and tracking down the fabled, priceless "Maltese Falcon." It has all the suspense and twists of any mystery movie, but with a special style innovative to the early '40s: the beginnings of noir.

The noir components are very strongly evident in this movie, and are the basis to which I compare the next two movies I watched. A major component of this is the protagonist of the movie: the "anti-hero"--the main character, in this case being Bogart's Spade, who although is the hero of the plot, in reality doesn't possess traditional hero-like qualities and is often morally questionable and shady. Spade shows this quality perfectly. He's a lone wolf, he doesn't play by the rules or the law, going against the police the whole movie in order to solve the mystery himself, and only at the end abiding with them to put the criminal in their place.

*SPOILERS*:

Femme Fatale Brigid O'Shaughnessy, played by Mary Astor

Another huge part of the noir experience is the "femme fatale," the beautiful seductress female lead who in the end proves not to be trusted: in this case, it was Brigid O'Shaughnessy, who Spade inevitably falls in love with although she ends up being the true villain and murderer of his partner (as well as Floyd Thirsby). And as for the stylistic aspects of noir film, this movie was filled with them. The black and white, the shadowy set design, the portrayal of Bogart as mysterious, shady, smokey--it was all very chic and noir. As well as the acting, the way people talked fast and hard, with lots of slang and witty comments, very unrealistic but exciting and suspenseful. I personally loved this movie, and everything about it showed perfectly why it is the father of all noir, and why I decided to base all other noir judgements after it, using it as my golden standards for comparisons.

Blade Runner (1982)
Director: Ridley Scott
Starring Harrison Ford
Watch trailer here

The next movie I decided to watch was one of my all-time favorites, Blade Runner, a 1982 futuristic film directed by Ridley Scott. Scott did a daring thing with this movie: He decided to put a spin on the futuristic, science fiction genre by doing it in a noir style
.
This movie takes place in the year 2019 (so futuristic, right?) and deals with the popular, and quite terrifying may I add, themes of artificial intelligence and the dispute against it. At this time on Earth, expert androids called "replicants" have been created but have been made illegal on Earth, due to the fact that they are so much like humans, sometimes they can't even tell. Replicants who escape and return to Earth are hunted down and killed, or "retired" by detectives called "Blade Runners"--one of which is the protagonist of the film, detective Richard Deckard played by the great Harrison Ford. And this lonesome, tired old cynic becomes--you guessed it--our noir antihero.

It is very easy to pick out how this film is noir. Just from the color scheme and cinematography of the entire thing, although not in black and white, is obviously noir. The entire movie is dark, using a lot of noir-iconic low-key lighting, taking place in run down, depressing future Los Angeles. The set is usually dark, drab, and shadowy, although there are distinctive pops of neon-ish color, adding to the futuristic feel of the movie. As comparing it to The Maltese Falcon, it is very obvious the relationship. Just looking at the detective-a trend I found to be surprisingly common in noir. The main character is always trying to uncover something, solve a mystery that connects to him/her personally (also evident in the neo-noir movies Memento, Silence of the Lambs, and Se7en). Aside from that, they are both hard, realistic men who are all too familiar with what kind of a place the world is, acting out of reason instead of love and are darkly cynical.
antihero, Deckard resembles Spade in many ways. First off, he is a

Femme Fatale Rachel (replicant)
Played by Sean Young

*SPOILERS* The female lead character of Rachel could be considered the femme fatale, because although she is one of the replicants Deckard is supposed to "retire," she doesn't know she is a replicant. This provides the question of whether to trust her or not: does he treat her like a human or a replicant? (Which also brings up the questions of AI and whether or not she can truly be considered human.) Although not a classic noir film, Blade Runner can definitely be considered neo-noir, and is probably my personal favorite noir.

Brick (2005)
Director: Rian Johnson
Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Watch trailer here

Lastly I chose to fast forward 30 years and watch the 2005 Rian Johnson film Brick, debuting Joseph Gordon-Levitt in his breakthrough role. In the same way that Blade Runner mixed the two genres of science fiction and noir, Brick mixes the unsuspecting genre of a teen drama movie with the darkness of noir, which brings about a new kind of film that really is one of the most unique things I've ever watched. Our antihero here is high school student Brendan Frye, who goes through the movie attempting to find his lost ex-girlfriend (whom he still loves), and after he does find her, attempting to find whoever killed her. Much like the classic noir protagonist, Frye is a sad, sort of quiet loner who refuses to make complete alliance with anyone but "The Brain," who in reality is less of a friend and more of a simple informant. Frye refuses to cooperate with the would-be "police" of a classic noir film, in this case the assistance principle, but also refuses to cooperate fully with those on the opposing side, in this case the big-time drug dealer The Pin.

The dark shadowy telephone booth and the trench coat
are all very reminiscent of classic noir. 

In terms of cinematography, a common trend to the film work of noir films is a certain"claustrophobic" feel created by tight angles usually angled upward, from the ground or significantly lower than the character. Brick contains many of these, achieving this along with wide shots. One thing surprisingly different from the classic noir is the color pallet of this movie--apart from the other two films I watched, this movie is not shot in black and white, like The Maltese Falcon, or extremely dark and shadowy, like Blade Runner. Instead, they use the average high school color scheme of lightness, with mostly day time shots, but incorporated a softer, toned down version of the dark color pallet, using dull pastels like light browns and grays in order to achieve a perfect blend of the two genres, represented throughout he set and costume design.

Femme Fatale Laura Dannon, played by Nora Zehetner

The obvious femme fatale here is the mysteriously delicate but in reality vicious Laura Dannon, who continuously tests Brendan's patience by going back and forth between trust and distrust. The director Rian Johnson, who apparently drew inspiration for this film from The Maltese Falcon, wanted to mirror the relationship between Sam Spade and Brigid O'Shaughnessy through his main characters of Brendan and Laura. There is even a specific scene through which he pays homage to the classic noir film, which I noticed but had to look up to make sure I was right. In the first film, Sam tells Brigid he'll send a signal by a long-short-long-short patterned ring of the doorbell, and in a similar scene in Brick, Brendan tells Laura to signal him through a long-short-long-short honk of her car horn.

Mr. D said in class that some critics have been cited to claim that modern film is most influenced by noir film, and after this project that makes sense. There is so much of noir in so many films I've never noticed and appreciated, and it's come to be one of my favorite genres.


Sources:
http://www.noiroftheweek.com/2013/07/brick-2005.html
http://screensense.wordpress.com/blade-runner/genre/genre/

1930's Movie Project: "Little Miss Broadway"

For the in-class 1935 movie project, we decided to put the movie in context of the period and, considering the Great Depression occurring at the time, made the decision to make our film one geared to the general populous, an escapist, feel good melodrama and musical directed by none other than the (rather unknown, at this time) Frank Capra.

In this all-ages feel good Christmas movie, Shirley Temple plays young Ruthie, a bright eyed curly-haired optimist who has a love of singing and dancing. The movie begins in 1935, during the Great Depression and right after Ruthie's father Floyd,played by Tracey, has been laid off from his job. A hint is dropped that implies that Ruthie's mother had died over a year ago, and they are forced to move to New York to stay with their late mother's sister. While walking in the street one day, Ruthie attempts to cheer her father up by singing and dancing for him--which is when a local Broadway Producer, Mr. Anderson, played by Fox's Joel McCrea, notices her and decides to make her a big star, bringing her to be the star of his show. While performing in the show, Ruthie meets a fellow dancer, Sherri (played by Vivien Leigh) who she takes a liking to. Floyd soon meets Sherri and falls in love with her. At the end of the movie, Ruthie is a huge hit in New York and the family is brought out of their financial and emotional depression. Floyd and Sherri are married, and it all ends very happily.

We chose Fox as our production company, mainly because the real star we were after here was Shirley Temple. Although at this time Frank Capra was directing with Colombia pictures, we took initiative to make a trade off with Colombia, and gave them John Ford fora short time to direct a Western they were interested in, while we took Capra for our feel good family special. We also got Fox's very own Spencer Tracy to play Shirley's father, and the spunky new face of Vivien Leigh, who was visiting the US and decided to take the role in this movie during her short visit.

This is a big scale and expensive Blockbuster movie, with all the stars that will appeal to people of this time, mainly the explosive Shirley Temple. Fox makes sense for this because they were, at this time, they were signed with Shirley Temple and produced all of her big movies at this time--and knew how expensive she was. We chose to make this film in black and white, although color was coming out at this time, simply because it was more popular at the time and the focus of Fox for the film was to please audiences and, in all honesty, make money. For our technological focus, we decided to really make it about the sound and sound editing, as it is a musical. For this,we used Fox's very own sound editor W.D. flick, who worked with Temple before on her movie "Our Little Girl" and did a number of movie for Fox and other production companies during the 30s and beyond.

As this movie does take place in 1935, the Hays code made big influences on the storyline and direction this movie was able to take. For example, we were unable to show the death of the mother, and so all we were able to do was imply that she had died, and begin the movie a year after this occurred. As well, the kiss shared by Floyd and Sherri was limited to only 3 seconds, following directly the Hays Code, and we were unable to show Sherri in a sexy or seductive light. Connecting to this, we unfortunately had to make the costumes of the Broadway dancers excessively modest instead of true to fact or even glamorous and fun as we had wished, in order not to violate the Hays code's rules of on-screen sexuality or promiscuity.

Were I alone in doing this project, I would probably have attempted to do a more political, Oscar-winning type film, or a more low-key artsy kind of movie, which would taken a lot more thinking and planning out in order to make it work. However, considering this particular movie we chose, I probably would have kept the mother alive and gone deeper into the relationship between her and the father; perhaps, that they fall apart through the depression and his being laid off and as Ruthie rises to fame and raises the spirits of the family, they rekindle their love and ends happily still, remaining a perfect escapist movie for the people affected by the Great Depression at this time.

MYST Post #1: Her

"Her" Official Trailer--click here

This past weekend, I sat down and finally made the effort to watch the movie that blew up last year, Her. While I knew what it was about, it still surely shocked me. The general idea of this movie is that it takes place in a near-future society where technology has alienated people so much that they don't even know how to feel or communicate real emotions. The main character in this movie, Theodore, is a writer; He writes letters of love and affection for different couples that don't know how to express their love themselves. In the beginning of the movie, Theodore is going through a divorce, and is excessively lonely and depressed. Then he sees this new product on the market--an Operating System, or "OS" that can talk to you, listen to you, and understand you, and Theodore being lonely as he is decides to try this system. This is how he meets his artificial love interest, Samantha. The movie goes on to tackle the themes of love, what makes it real or not, how technology is separating humanity and impacting us in a negative way, and whether or not technology will ever be able to develop genuinely real emotions.






The director of this movie, Spike Jonze, uses a number of cinematic elements that really catch the eye and better relate his social criticisms. In terms of the color pallet, it is made obvious to the reader that in every scene, Theodore is shown in a red shirt of some kind, and his OS device and ear piece are also red. I wasn't sure if the choosing of the color red was supposed to relate some message, but it makes Theodore stand out in an otherwise bit dull world--no one else is seen wearing red around him. Jonze also used an interesting choice in the way he depicted the city Theodore lived in. He used repeated long shots and sweeping views of a huge city with diverse architecture and so many highrises it quite literally looks like a forest of sky scrapers. I took this to be him trying to relate his messages of the advancement of technology and what it is doing to our society. This may be in a positive light, showing our advancements and how impressive cities have become through vast architectural successes in the future. He also does something I found extremely impressive and fitting for the movie: In every scene in which Theodore is shown in public, whether before or after he has begun talking to Samantha, he points out the extreme social alienation through depicting the people around him as spread out, not bumping into one another, ironically not crowded in a city so dense, and each one is always shown alone, walking with head down and ear piece in, sometimes talking to the ear piece but never with others (with the exception of a dinner scene). I loved how Jonze did this, just to leave in the backdrop another message of the dangers of our current society and the ways in which technology is not good for us.


When it came to love, Jonze took a very fresh view on the subject. He tended to show human relationships as always failing, unsuccessful or unfulfilling. Theodore's relationship ended in an unhappy divorce, his friend Amy and her husband had also split up by the end of the film, and every seemingly successful relationship still needs a writer like Theodore to communicate how they feel; because, as the director is trying to convey, and as I have believed for years, technology is accomplishing in our society the exact opposite of what it is meant to do. It is meant to bring us closer, make an easier way for us to communicate and relate to one another. But instead, it is eliminating the need for close connections. Text messaging is now preffered over phone calls, because it is more impersonal than hearing someone's voice and letting them hear inflection and true meaning. Letters are obsolete. The entire idea of greeting cards--that we can't tell someone how we feel and need a prewritten card to do so--shows Jonze' point so well. Our society is already on the way to the one depicted in Her, and that is what makes it so good and effective.



*SPOILERS:*
At the end of the movie, Samantha and Theodore, too, have their big break up. Theodore finds out that Samantha is talking to over 8,000 other people, and is in love with over 600 others beside him. Although, she claims, "it doesn't make me love you any less, in fact it makes me love you more," Theodore is still immensely hurt and broken as he was at the beginning of the movie. This again shows the director's point of the inevitable failure of love in modern day society, even with an artificial operating system built specifically to love. This of course, brings up the controversey of, can Samantha really love at all? In contemplating this, I was brought to the philosophy of the Chinese Box, which proves the idea that no, computers cannot develop individual thoughts, and whatever they do think they were programmed to. I think Joneze leaves the audience to make up their own minds about this, as Theodore and Samantha do have this conversation and come to the conclusion that these feelings are real, but Samantha still struggles with never really knowing and in the end, she loved 600 others, which, while it seems would be definitely inhuman, she still includes the line "This doesn't make me love you any less," which is so human and relateable, we've all heard it before.

The screen and embodiment of "Samantha," red to match Theodore himself.

There is one great scene I found both impressive and fascinating as well as expertly executed. During Samantha and Theodore's break up, she tells him that she is "in the spaces," in between words on a page. The whole movie, Samantha and Theodore have struggled to relate to what it's like to be eachother, to have a body or have no body. And this scene captures their final understanding perfectly. Theodore is laying on his bed, staring out into what we think is nothingness, assuming he is just depressed and losing himself. But then the camera turns to show the nothingness he is looking at: dust floating through light in the air, which slowly transitions into snow falling through the air, light illuminating it just like in the room. It turns into Theodore standing there, in the snow, looking into the distance, at a dark shadow, not there when we see it but surely there in Theodore's eyes. The camera then pans to Theodore's face, another cheek up against his, his arms embracing her: and that, is what we see of Samantha. In that moment, Theodore found her in the spaces, to say goodbye, something he couldn't do the whole rest of the film. The way that the camera transitions from the real world--in the "spaces"--to into Theodore's mind was really moving and made the point very clear, solidifying the truth and substance behind their unorthodox relationship.

This movie overall was very well executed and well done, a golden social criticism that I think every modern film watcher or anyone really should be aware of and warch. Although it was a good movie, it wasn't exactly one I enjoyed watching, in the way that it does get a bit uncomfortable at times, particularly the surrogate sex scene and some other that were just hard to watch. They were necessary and important, even maybe intentionally uncomfortable to get the point across--shown in the way it shows us what our world is turning into, an almost scary affect that makes the movie very convincing. (There were enjoyable moments too, like the comedic relief provided by the obscene little video game character swearing at Theodore and Samantha, pictured below with clip) 

Comic Relief Video Game Scene--click here

I found Joaquin Pheonix's acting in this movie was superb. His portrayal of Theodore as loving and romantic, tortured and lonely and even a bit desperate was very fitting, and I applaud him for giving a particularly hard type of person to play alot of depth and making him interesting. As for Scarlett Johansson, I am really not a fan of hers, but this is the only movie I've seen with her where I didn't comepltely hate her acting--possinly because we never saw her face (harsh but like I said, not a fan.) She made Samantha interesting by making her feel like a normal human woman, where I was almsot expecting a 2001-like robot who wouldn't be able to communicate any actual love or intimacy. She was, however, unoriginal in her character, and I feel she was not the right actress for the job, as she just didn't bring anything unique or original to the character worth remembering. 

FINAL RATING: 8.5/10

I give Spike Jonze an 8.5 for an excellently accurate, if a little creepy, portrayal of where our society is going and how love is developing in the modern world. It is very well done, and I can't wait to see what he does next