Fuck this weather, I was wearing shorts yesterday. I have to get up at 5 AM, fuck that too. Fuck not being able to afford a car. I watched Her. Fuck that movie. But. I finally got a keyboard cover and an ergonomic mouse that glows and shit. We (we being I, because no one here gives a shit) might finally get some Persona 5 info. And I'm getting hot chocolate later today. Truly it's the little things. Good Wintery music - Complexity, didn't you mention it's supposed to be Spring? Seriously, fuck this weather, and this town. Oh, no P5 stuff yet, but I got this: The sister unit is going to be so hyped. Edit: Oh yeah kleinbl00 I edited this picture, perhaps it will be of use to you. I've been wanting to use it against you when the "not" was still included in "that's not how it works" but goddammit you always know how it fucking works.
the good news is…. you'll be in shorts again tomorrow. I went for a run last night (in shorts and a t-shirt) and I thought about how it felt like about 50 out and sure enough - this morning is CRAZY. I watched two car accidents on my way in to work. I'm kinda over winter… but it could be worse… we could be in Boston or Detroit this week. I'm curious about your reaction to Her - did you hate it that much?
Yes, yes, fuckiiiin YES. I'm actually working on an animatic about it for class, so you can get all my points, but the general gist of it was: 1. Interracial marriage was fully legalied in 1967 - only a few years before my mom was born - but apparently dating a not-person is totally a-o-fuckin-k. I don't care HOW chill of a dude Chris Pratt is, he is NOT that chill. Seriously though, I <3 Chris Pratt. 2. Artificial Intelligence gains sentience. Does it run the stock market? Does it cure world hunger? Nope, it fuckiiiiing dates Joaquin Phoenix with a porn-stache. 3. The belief that a hipster-letter-writing website is popular enough to get an uptown office in an LA/Shanghai skyscraper. 4. That movie takes place in fucking Los Angeles. WHERE THE FUCK ARE ALL THE BLACK AND HISPANIC PEOPLE? Spike Jonez or whatever the fuck his name is knows that in LA, White people are the MINORITY, right? 5. Her is dystopian because all it showed was a vision of 20 years from now when income equality creates a complete division between people that get to putz around and have phone-sex with their computers and the homeless people that live in Silicon Valley wondering why the fuck everything got so expensive. 6. And lastly, perhaps most ashamedly, it goes the easy, but stupidly long, two-hour, drawn out route of saying something people older than me have been saying forever now: People are too obsessed with technology, look up at the world in front of you, look at real people in front of you, why are you so obsessed with your screen? It's played out as fuck.
I think there is some confusion as to the role of film here, though this is not intended to sway you from your opinion about the underlying conceptual matter, but to share why I think this is a very good film. Your criticisms regarding race are absolutely apt, but I think you have to bear in mind that the "problems" addressed in Her are typically considered "white people problems" as most of us aren't still worrying about getting shot during a traffic stop, so we get to get to focus (culturally, socially) on frying the fish of " are we alienated from one another?". This does not mean that no one who is a minority can have the same concerns or be interested in the same topics, and I do not stand by what I said as a thorough analysis, merely to extrapolate the following: There's only so many dynamics to cover in one story, and while the complete absence of minorities in the story is absolutely an issue, a white, male director speaking on behalf of minorities about the racial implications of technological infiltration in our personal lives may be outside of his purview. Not to say that this shouldn't be discussed, but no one should accept Spike Jonze as the man for the job. 1) I was bothered by the fact that so few people saw this as an issue in the film's world, but maybe it was more a criticism of permissiveness and the occlusion of opinions within "technologically literate" and "progress uber alles" crowds. If you have someone who is included in this worldview dealing with the interior turmoil of emotionally handling a relationship with a technology-based entity and coming to a conclusion based on their experience rather than some verbose philosophical pandering, you come to a shared experience that can be shown through film. In opposition you just have someone nay-saying, and then end with an "I told you so". I think of this more as a narrative-driving tool than an actual accurate depiction. 2) The AI comes to grips with it's own conclusions about what drives meaning in it's own life, and plays as more of a metaphor for the separate metaphysical basis of reality through the lens of an emotional tale. If he generates an AI for this story, and the AI goes, immediately: "I don't give a shit how pretty you are Jaoquin, I'm gonna go make a lot of money/feed the homeless," this doesn't serve to help drive home the implicit differences of underlying moral groundwork for which two different types of consciousness approach existence. Your premisealso assumes that our moral grounds would be imperative for a technologically-based AI. This is a story, not a sci-fied notumentary. 3) I appreciate more so the mise en scene this environment allows for, rather than the pragmatic considerations. He could easily work from home in his PJs. Why doesn't he? To show the subtle variations in a context which can be captured on film that the film's aesthetic mirrors the modern individual emotionally. 4) Yes. 5) agreed. completely. 6) Every story is a previous story re-told in a new lens (if it's done right) and Her does it right. HOWEVER, is not appropriate in this sense. Her is trying to discuss how this line could be blurred, and taking the notion of a sentient AI seriously without making it scary or an emotional black box, and what exactly makes a human human and how a separate conscious entity that does not mirror our own metaphysical understanding of the world around us can never fulfill this basic desire to be understood, nor can we for it. It deserves more consideration than you are allowing here. I believe this film has a far more mature take on this concept than you initially gathered, and I would consider re-watching it with a more charitable frame of mind.
You are a little too caught up in the pragmatic considerations the director has to make, this blocks you from seeing these choices as supporting the underlying thematic elements of the movie. Film is not about making a documentation of a fake world, it is about translating issues to a world in film. Ultraviolet wavelengths exist, but we cannot see them. To understand in a context that we can visual and process heuristically, here is the face of a person imaged using photography that can capture UV: We cannot see UV, ever, period, in the context in which it exists. We use an abstract concept (UV light, existential philosophy as applied to an AI), apply it to a familiar setting (a human face, a traditional emotional tale), and skew it into a context that we can understand, in this case, both using film as the medium for translating the un-seeable into a context that works for us. Does that makes sense?People are too obsessed with technology
Yeaaaah, fair enough. In all honesty it's not a terrible movie, and I'm sure this weather is helping to amplify my dislike for it. But it's also definitely not my kinda movie, haha. One thing I would add, though, is that you mention that the movie's "a story." Which I 100% agree with. I also agree that it's not "a sci-fied notumentary". I think one of my problems with the movie is that people sort of treat it like it is. We're discussing the film in my tech class, and considering how it relates in terms of real-life technological impact, and I feel like it's a waste of time viewing the movie in that lens, because I don't think you'll find anything realistic.
Give it a go again in a month or two, maybe, but it may just not be for you, which is totally fair. And bringing race into the equation is absolutely relevant, what tech means for oppressed peoples is a far cry from the techno-futurist utopia myth the most vocal are concerned with promulgating. Yeaaaah, that's not a good idea. At least in an extremely pragmatic sense. I feel like so much cultural discussion surrounding tech involves some odd sci-fi-ification that hardly resembles what could potentially happen. I'm still waiting on my hoverboard, for fuck's sake. edit: I think that a minority voice in tech is vastly overdue and would love to see any take at all, sorta like Sun ra's play on Jodorowsky-esque sci-fi. Have you ever read any James Baldwin? He's fucking brilliant, and has a book called The Devil Finds Work about film interpreted through his worldview that is very worth the read.We're discussing the film in my tech class, and considering how it relates in terms of real-life technological impact
I was writing roles for Chris Pratt back when he was older brother to that chick from Revenge before she was that chick from Revenge. Is it okay to say that Everwood was a fucking brilliantly-written show? That's where Greg Berlanti transitioned from "Dawson's Creek" to "Green Lantern."
watching that show was the second time in my life that I felt like a dirty pedophile. Amy Abbot was really cute. The first time was when a friend and I were watching Léon: The Professional and we both looked at each other and said something like "don't think I'm a weirdo perv - but she's going to be gorgeous when she grows up" Then we both shuddered and threw up a little for feeling gross. This might be the creepiest post I've ever made.