Audrey G.Film Studies Blog: January 2014

Positive review: http://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/her-movie-review-spike-jonzes-beguiling-slightly-futuristic-love-story/2013/12/24/dbdc68b2-6983-11e3-8b5b-a77187b716a3_story.html
Negative review: http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Her-review-No-future-in-virtual-relationship-5091276.php

In my crusade to see all the movies Oscar-nominated for "Best Picture", I went to see Her this weekend, which is nominated this year for "Best Picture" and "Original Screenplay." I've heard so much positive buzz over the past few weeks about the movie, and despite its eccentric trailer, I was incredibly excited to see it. And I wasn't disappointed. It was innovative and creative, but stepping back from my personal opinion, I could definitely see how people wouldn't like the movie.

From both its Oscar nominations and reviews on popular movie review websites, the movie overall and especially its screenplay is highly exalted by many. For example, Washington Post's Ann Hornaday reviews Her with an optimistic and thoughtful tone, marked by her diction (ie. "wry, observant tenderness" and "idiosyncratic oeuvre"). She makes many references to older, popular works of Her's director, Spike Jonze, boosting both his credentials and giving her a platform to compare his new work with his older films. To make the review more current, Hornaday makes references to modern technology and our highly technologically dependent society, such as Siri and our obsession with smartphone technology. This causes readers of the review better understand her logic, thus enhancing her critique. And as far as organization goes, Hornaday reviews the general aspects of the film, varying from plot to cinematography, before delving into what exactly makes Her such a phenomenal film. Doing this, she covers all bases of not only what makes a movie but what makes this movie great.

On the other hand, the negative critiques are also abundant. Although Her is mainly criticized by the general audiences, many top critics find flaws in the film. For example, San Francisco Gate's review by Mick LaSalle is marked by a passive aggressive tone. His critiques are mainly aimed towards the plot of the movie, how "demented" and "absurd" it is. Given that audiences mainly go to see movies based on what it's about, LaSalle sells how weird the movie is very well. Also, similarly to Hornaday, LaSalle references current technology and its effect on our consumer culture, in particular Siri and our famed lack-of-interest-in-anything-but-technology mood. This appeals to the audience, which is generally flooded with new technology in everyday life. And in terms of organization, the critic begins by criticizing the plot and finding its flaws before examining the general public's reaction to the movie and then laughing at Her's Oscar nominations, leaving the readers nervous to see what may as well be a train wreck in the eyes of LaSalle.

My opinion of Her is just as positive as Hornaday. I wholeheartedly agree with her that overall, Her "may be the most intellectually inquiring of these smart, observant movies, as Jonze teases out what's genuine emotion and what's just programming." Throughout the movie, it was incredibly hard to differentiate what was strictly speaking real, which was Theodore and the futuristic Los Angeles, and what was imaginary, which was all the computer programs like Samantha, portrayed by Scarlett Johansson. Quite frequently, I found myself thinking that the boundaries between Theodore and Samantha could be broken and become one, but we were faced to constantly see him as physical and her, or it, as imaginary. And while I do agree with most of what Hornaday says, I'm not blind to LaSalle's argument. I concede that the movie is "glum yet light, an odd combination, and periodically it short-circuits its seriousness with flashes of half-hearted absurdity." More often than not, Jonze interspersed strange sex scenes with moments of tenderness and compassion. I can definitely see how that could be both overwhelming and confusing at times in terms of deciphering what exactly the theme of the movie was, but for me, it made the movie more real. Life is both ups and downs, and Her reflected this very well.

Both arguments are valid, but from a cursory glance, I think the positive review would have more impact on whether or not someone would see the movie. What made the positive review stand out to me was that it didn't just look at the plot, like the negative review, but instead it went above that and analyzed plot, script, casting, cinematography and director. It made a point of looking at the movie holistically rather than at just its story.

If I were to write a review on Her, I would want to be sure to include aspects of modern culture, like both critics did. For me, it really made the movie more current, relatable, and understandable. Also I would definitely look at the movie more holistically. Rather than preying on one aspect that might not reflect the movie in its entirety, looking at all the parts of the movie makes the review more fair. What I would leave out, on the other hand, would be older Spike Jonze movies. I think that it's unnecessary to address his other works because we're looking solely at his one film. Comparing it to his other films might enhance what he's done now, but in the end, it won't make any impact on the reaction to the film now.

Audrey G.Film Studies Blog

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Review of Reviews!

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Film Intro Survey