Love is an idea that opens the mind to many possibilities, and more often than not, fears. Taking such a leap of faith often leaves people singing the woes of unrequited love, convincing most to remain quiet on matters of the heart. The courage of those who speak out for love is the hope and fairy-tale the 11 year old inside all of us clings to. Seeing a couple fight for a long distance relationship, the thousands of midnight scenes in the rain screaming out names, even the simple pecks exchanged on the bus, all these things ignite our passion and creates a space for us to dream of love. The extra stress on the lasting relationship is the root for our interest, knowing there is a story and tribulations captures our attention. In the film, Her, ones interest could easily be gripped and strangled.
The movie is about a man who falls in love with an Artificial Intelligence. A simple plot, of course set in the future, takes on a life that does not suffocate itself with technology, but rather speaks to a human aspect found in a constructed consciousness. Having not seen the movie, and only hearing the reviews of my peers and family, I did not assume much of the film. Most of my friends said it lacked the element of reality, which seemed a nonsensical stance to take on a film with such a story line. When I inquired about why they subscribes to such ideas, the census seemed to be a lack of technology. No views of a brand new Time Square with flying people, no evaporating poop, nothing extraordinarily Futuristic about the film. This was off putting for me. I am not the biggest fan of films, and my least favorite is romantic films. My dislike, accompanied by my friends reviews, led me to write the film off as a “Never Watch” film, but then I read a great article that has me ready to buy a copy.
Assuming the film was strictly about a technologically determined society surely made an ass of me. After reading the article “Why Her Will Dominate UI Design Even More Than Minority Report”, authored by Kyle Vahemert, I began to understand why the film was not filled with floating boards and sexual robots. The article highlights the fact that the film is about humans and their interactions with technology. Vahemert writes, “It’s a world where the pendulum has swung back the other direction, where a new generation of designers and consumers have accepted that technology isn’t an end in itself–that it’s the real world we’re supposed to be connecting to.” The technologies within the society are more focused on interactions with actual things. So no huge screens, just brick walls, cold to the touch. No hover boards, most likely better built construction materials safer for the environment. If this is the track that scientist and architects deiced to travel, the world will be an amazing place to live and still be around to live on.
After reading the article, I understand the film is based in a socially determined future, making the plot more visible to those who expected a Back to the Future sequel. A story about how technology is so intertwined with life, that one could fall in love with the intangible. A love that people can get behind and support, a love that through opposition will survive, a love that exist even touching. Now when I watch the movie I will be able to view the story for love, and hopefully understand how a man can love a constructed consciousness over an actual women.
Link to Article: