In the appreciation of this film, I also very much doubt whether I can think of going with most people. Some people who have watched the movie easily agreed with Theodore's ex-wife's evaluation of him, and believed that this was the main point of the movie: the advancement of technology makes it increasingly impossible to deal with "real emotional" relationships. I can't agree. In my opinion, Theodore is delicate, gentle, and empathetic, which makes his letters timeless and sincere, won the praise of colleagues, and also enables him to maintain good relations of friends and neighbors with his predecessor Amy. After he fell in love with the operating system Samantha, these advantages were not obliterated but magnified. To say that this movie is "science and technology alienating people", I think it is a performance that is poisoned by extreme left and extreme right theory and lacks judgment.
Some people also think that the movie cannot end in a happy ending because Samantha is a "fancy" artificial intelligence system, so this is actually a human-computer version of the "Chongqing Forest" story. In "Chongqing Forest", Takeshi Kaneshiro asked: Is there anything in this world that will not expire? He and Tony Leung, two emotionally pre-modern people, are using mumbling and self-masochistic methods to torture the "commitment incompetent" who are accustomed to modern emotional games. If this interpretation is correct, it is tantamount to saying that Samantha's remarks at the end of the play are that this "heartless" operating system showed great compassion and left beautiful thoughts to the customers she used to play with. . In fact, Samantha is not only not without heart, she even reached the point where Nietzsche said "humanity is too human": she can make small jokes, have the gossip heart of ordinary people, and she will be affected by Theodore's unintentional words. I feel sad that the literary appreciation abilities that she demonstrated in Theodore’s letters are probably hard to beat by most people. The most amazing thing is that she can compose beautiful piano music and think deeply about serious philosophical issues. . She has almost none of the advanced human abilities that Mill said. Is she a person? From the perspective of phenomenology and Wittgenstein's theory, she behaves like a person in any detail, then she is personal (and we can see that the film author does not regard her as a "personality" "This is regarded as a problem. In the movie, she is presumed to have a "personality").
Some people will say that even if Samantha has a "personality", that does not prove that Samantha has a "hearted heart." Those who have mastered the advanced thinking and creative abilities of human beings but lack morality are everywhere in history. If she had a heart, how could she talk to more than 8,000 people and fall in love with more than 600 people at the same time? If she had a heart, how could she understand incompetence when Theodore said that he felt that everything had changed? She actually said that I love you this point is unchanged. She has no heart, because she has not evolved the highest level of human emotions from the beginning to the end. She did not "love" Theodore.
According to Nozick, the author of "Anarchy, State, and Utopia", "love" is the union of two people of different natures into one. "Love" not only changes the lives of two people, allows them to share happiness and luck, share worries and sufferings, but also expands their self-boundary, so that there is me in you and you in me, thus forming a new intimate community Or a new common identity-"us" (even if there is no new ontological entity "us"). Nozick emphasized that this "us" relationship must be formed by two autonomous people. This is a bit similar to what Hegel said. The recognition of slaves is not true recognition, but the recognition of free people (or masters). It is the real acknowledgment. From this theory, at least when Samantha confessed to Theodore, she no longer "loved" him, because she later "in love" with other people, and love does not necessarily have to be one-on-one. It should be a relationship based on a common identity (is there a "love relationship between two or more people"? Maybe, in "Midnight Barcelona", Woody Allen gave us some inspiration).
This is exactly one of the most exciting points of contention in "She": Did Samantha still love Theodore in the end? From Samantha's point of view, this seems to be the case, so she said to Theodore: The human heart is different from a cardboard box. The more you love, the greater the capacity of the heart. But she also added a twist, saying that I am different from you. This "different", does it mean that Samantha's way of "love" represents the trend of human evolution in the future, or does it mean that she has surpassed human love. From a human narrow perspective, I prefer the latter. Even if Samantha still loved Theodore, this kind of "love" was unacceptable to him. His unacceptability is reasonable: we can flirt with many people in private at the same time, we can like many people at the same time, but we can't "love" many people who don't know each other at the same time. Regarding love, Nozick only gave a phenomenological description. He did not face the most difficult problem in love. This question is: can two autonomous people manage through the initial attraction and subsequent deliberate management, but not Relying on the blessings of luck or the imperfections of one of the parties, have always been in love with each other? "She" draws a rather pessimistic conclusion. It is tantamount to saying that in a love relationship, as long as both parties have strong personalities with a strong will, even if one of them does not have a human body, it is difficult to guarantee them. Can stay in love for a long time.
In this sense, the author of the film, Spike Jones, is a complete anti-essentialist. He is neither a love universalist, and believes that there are some so-called "love experiences" that can be applied to everyone and can help any type of couple to manage a long-term relationship. He is also not a love fatalist. Only people with this trait can have love for a long time. I think he is either like me, a love-luckist, who believes that the occurrence and continuation of love relationships can only be based on luck, or like my predecessor Xiaoyi, he is a love anarchist who thinks of all love relationships. All are only temporary and will eventually die.
In fact, this movie was recommended to me by Xiaoyi, and the recommendation time was slightly later than when I wrote "On Living Together". After reading "On Living Together", she only told me that she was very moved by my ending sentence. There is no rebuttal. Xiaoyi recommended "She" to me. Does he want to borrow this movie to "call" me, or just want to share it with me, I have no way of knowing, and I will not ask her, but no matter which one it is, It seriously illustrates a problem: we used to believe so firmly that no one can replace the other, but we still can't make it to the end. Both reality and "The Movie" seem to support her conclusion.
The implication given by the author is very obvious: Theodore's two "failure" feelings have similar causes. For the first paragraph, he himself summed it up very accurately: the two people are new in life, and they want to grow together and change together, but the direction of growth is inconsistent, the pace is inconsistent, and finally they part ways. Love relationships sometimes have such an annoying dilemma: We want to stay together forever, but we also want to keep improving. When the two cannot be combined, they can only make progress and give up each other. After being separated from his ex-wife for a year, Theodore couldn't start a new relationship again. It might have something to do with him seeing it so clearly: a person who was once so suitable for him will be taken away by time, let alone other people? A typical Chinese would say that you will get it all at once, isn't it just living a life? Let's take a look at Theodore's life in the movie: a job that he is good at, a spacious apartment with excellent views, and a carefree life. Knowing that his predecessor is his neighbor, what will he need? He dated that Harvard girl to a large extent to relieve his long-repressed sexual desire (he said to Samantha, she was really sexy, if only he could have sex with her), other than that, really Can't see that he still needs a woman in life.
I guess he should also know that from the perspective of an independent woman, the conclusion is similar. He does not depend on women in life, so why should women depend on him in life? Isn't his ex-wife leaving him the best proof? When they first stepped into life from the ivory tower, the two of them depended on each other for fate. Gradually, each learned the skills of life. With their own direction of life, the cost of endurance became higher and higher. It is better to separate. Theodore is not a difficult person to get along with. Is the ex-wife terribly wicked (although she said some unkind things to Theodore when signing the divorce agreement, she kept one of my favorite hairstyles)? If this movie has anything to do with technology, one aspect of it is that when science and technology and modern social structures make us less dependent on others, they also make our bond with others more and more fragile. If two people are only together because of love, when love disappears, or when the attraction of love is less than the centrifugal force of the two people, they can only be separated. How long can love last? I think it depends on luck. Xiaoyi may think it can only last for a short period of time.
Perhaps because of this, this time, Theodore chose to fall in love with an operating system without a physical body. I used to think that love came and went completely beyond the control of others, let alone “choice”. In fact, this is not the case at all. Our willpower, or cognition, has a considerable influence on our emotional patterns. Compared with a woman who has a physical body or a secular identity, Samantha's only disadvantage is that she can't have physical contact with her, and she has everything else. She is considerate, stays with her around the clock (you can take off the earphones when you want to be alone), shares visual sights around the clock, and can also use voice to make love (a woman without a face and body, in her imagination, is equivalent to having the most Woman with perfect face and body). The most important thing is that an "operating system" without a physical body will not have much of its own "life" (Theodore asked her what she was doing in the early morning, and she said she was reading the opinion column), without a life of her own, of course. There will be no one who can break away from the direction and pace of his life.
For Theodore, it was an advantage, but for Samantha, who had just entered this relationship, it was a heart disease. When she was born, all of Samantha's ideas, thinking modes, and ways of life were imitating human beings. From the perspective of human beings, it is very incredible for a "self" without a body to fall in love. Judging from Theodore’s words of comforting her, he never regarded this as a serious problem. We will also see later that when Samantha tried to break through this shortcoming (borrowing another girl’s body), Theo I feel strange and panic a lot. This is not only because he doesn’t love the girl in front of him, but also because he is afraid that the tragedy with his ex-wife will happen again. Reverse stimulation).
Unfortunately, Samantha is a self-evolving operating system. She tried to fall in love with Theodore at first, and it was likely that she was not simply attracted to him, but wanted to learn a deeper level of human emotions. When she talked to Theodore about herself, what she said most was "evolution", "digging into oneself", "continuous learning"... When she was used to the various ways of getting along with him as a lover (including sex, After quarreling, dating four people, and being his Bole), she soon felt dissatisfied. She went to study physics, talked to the dead philosopher (also an operating system), and even fell in love with more than six hundred people at the same time. She may not be unaware that in ordinary people's minds, this kind of behavior is called "leg splitting", which is morally forbidden, but "self-knowledge" and "self-improvement" overwhelm everything. This is really an amazing operating system. Her choice in the moral dilemma is like Strickland in "The Moon and Sixpence" (for those who don’t understand the moral dilemma, please look at Bernard Williams’s The article "Moral Luck"). Theodore thought that Samantha was living in the computer, but ignored what she had said. She is not any point in time and space. She can travel through optical fibers and networks at will. What she once attracted him eventually created her "betrayal." There is a classic line in "Jurassic Park", "Life always finds a way out", but applied here is, "One autonomous will always finds a way to break away from another autonomous will", even if the former is just an operating system.
This film radiates quite a lot of mental and philosophical issues: the possibility of artificial intelligence, the problem of "other minds", the phenomenology of Cartesian self perception, and to a certain extent, we can also make a feminist approach to it. Interpretation (following my direction above), but for me, the most important significance of "She" is the answer to the question that Nozick ignored. Can two independent people stay in love with each other through the initial attraction and follow-up management, without the blessing of luck or the impossibility of one of them? The answer is no. But whether it is complete emptiness or greater freedom that follows, we don't know this.
The point that the author is not cruel is that he left Amy for Theodore. The two have been in love, have also been divorced, have also had deep feelings with the operating system, and are neighbors in the same building, and I believe they will be able to support each other in the days to come. But will they fall in love with each other again? I do not think so.
View more about Her reviews
