Her (2013) ***½/5: The sentiment in this film is maudlin and a great bore. It does not work as a romantic comedy but as an examination of the commodity fetish.

Her is a good film but the sentiment is maudlin and a great bore. If the director and writer, Spike Jonze, was seeking to make a statement on the/ relationship between man and technology he would not have made the film in such a manner. I suppose I was bored because the issues do not reveal anything new in the world of romance, a leisure experienced by the petty bourgeois and dominant bourgeois classes. The struggle of the protagonist, Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix), was dreadful to witness and the process it takes him to discover something meaningful is via the commodity fetish when he falls in love with an operating system called Samantha (Scarlett Johannson). There is not much to hold this film together and once you get past the relationship between Theodore and the OS Samantha it reveals only a fetish and not necessarily true love. The commodity fetish is where individuals make commodities appear as a literal extension of themselves. They exalt an ordinary commodity into the religious sphere where it assumes a distinctive identity based on its use value for that particular individual. Her is not saying anything remarkable here as a result and when it is portrayed as a romance that label is not applicable here. There are some critics calling it a romantic comedy etc when it is a fetish. It is a good thing that Spike Jonze had an important scene where Theodore is criticized about his fetish. If that scene were not included the film would have been abominable and not just a bore. At least as a bore it can be tolerated but as an abomination it would not be worth writing about. 

The film is primarily about a divorcee (well at the start he is about to be divorced), Theodore, who  mopes around until he activates an operating system , Samantha, that he falls in love with because it reveals his mistakes and fears and has him confront them.

Positives

The best thing about this film is that one can view it as an examination of the commodity fetish that exists in the capitalist system. Theodore is a man whose life revolves around technology particularly after he and his wife separate. He plays videogames and surfs he net and the social networks that exist there. He is drawn to the OS service via a commercial. Many people under capital are drawn to products through advertisements. These advertisements tell you why a particular product has a use value  and why you should exchange your money for it. The advertisement in this case convinces him that he should make a purchase because it can offer some form of companionship. Theodore lives a pretty uneventful life where his primary occupation is writing sentimental letters on behalf of others. This uneventful life will explain why the world of technology opens up a great fantasy for him. It allows him to explore different worlds by just lifting a finger. Video games, movies and even music create massive worlds to explore for the gamers, filmgoers and music lovers. Why this love of fantasy does not seem crazy is that it has to be created or projected. It has to manifest in some way and it is through the computers, phones, tablets, televisions etc. You can engage your senses through these devices. That is the reality. Theodore basically engages in that life. The only problem is where he falls head over heels for the OS commodity and appears to be in love when he is in fact obsessing over a tech device. There is one scene where he believes that he has lost her and begins to tumble over in the street seeking new avenues to engage  it. The scene gave the film some momentum although it was absurd. He discovers some pretty devastating truths such as ‘It’s a commodity.’ The reply: ‘NOOOOOOO. Are you telling me that it was just a thing?’ ‘Yeah. Move on.’ It is the same response people have when their device is smashed. You lend out your car and it is smashed and your panic levels begin to rise. One of your expensive tech devices is smashed and you say ‘Oh no.’ as you try to piece together this lifeless thing. Oh the trials of the bourgeoisie and their petty bourgeois cronies while there are more serious social matters to deal with.

The tech atmosphere of the film is well designed. It does not seem too futuristic and yet is clearly more advanced than the present day.

The performances of the cast is good although none of them should be, justifiably, awarded anything. They seem to fit right in with the tech atmosphere and that is good enough for a film like this. The standout performance for me would be Theodore’s ex wife. That one scene where she confronts him for his insecurities and inadequacies particularly as she discovers that he has moved on with an OS was my favourite. The other supporting cast members seem to run with the program that this man is in love with an OS commodity. The ex wife offers a welcome contradiction.

Negatives

The film seems to place the commodity fetish on the same plane as actual love when it is in fact a fetish. Why I say this is the excessive time that the relationship between Theodore is allowed to develop. It develops like an ordinary relationship although the OS has all this knowledge. Her main issue is that she does not have an actual body and conducts absurd experiments to get through to  him. I am not getting into that. It is allowed to develop too long and I cringed because it was so absurd to witness the pitfalls of the commodity fetish particularly the scene where he goes into a panic when he believes she has disappeared from her network. He even gets jealous. Absolute rubbish.  Well that is what I was saying for most of the time because there seemed to be an attempt to have us sympathize with this travesty of a relationship. When the OS composes music we are supposed to drawn in and get into a romantic vibe. At least it all comes to an end and just like when you smash your phone or any other tech device you wake up. We don’t die when they are smashed.  I suppose people will admire the film for these very reasons because they too are apologists for a system that manipulates people to increase expenditure to drive profit accumulation.

I learn’t nothing new from this film or I was not emotionally involved. I learn’t from Blade Runner which had a lot to say about society and its various contradictions. I learn’t nothing here and I was not moved to be involved in this world. The way people were reacting to this film I thought it would be a contender for best film of the year. As the hype never materialized in my reality. This film will not necessarily be forgotten because it is a good examination of the commodity fetish not as a romantic comedy. If you see it that way it will merit some discussion down the road.   As a romantic comedy it does not work for me because I do not subscribe to the illusion created by the capitalist class and their lackeys.

The film has little or no momentum apart from a moping individual and his OS commodity. Only towards the end does the film begin to pick up a little and gets you involved. Just like he can observe other things while she is busy talking it’s the same thing while watching this film. You can afford to be distracted etc in some parts.

Where is the capitalist that created the commodity? There is hardly any mention of the forces of production behind the commodity and how it was reaching out. When it is mentioned it is represented as the cold reality of capitalist production. We are to feel sad and moved etc. If they came clean from the beginning then this emotional effect would not be there for the audience and so we had to be surprised by this action. That does not cut it for me. We are to be engaged with the reality from the onset and then we could see the film as an examination of man’s love with technology. When the director tries to build up some form of a relationship between man and thing and then lets it down is not really a surprise to those that understand capitalism. It won’t work for people out there like me that knew all along that his disappointment is absurd because the forces of production are behind the commodity not the commodity itself. When the forces of production are revealed then it cannot be a shock or it means that those moved by the film were also engaged in an illusion. The OS commodity was created by a company that wished to make a profit pure and simple. Please get over yourselves. For instance towards the end the OS commodity disappears. There is no reason for this; nothing in the business news section of media reports. There is something wrong with such a presentation. If Spike Jonze had done that then I guess the emotive impact would have been lost. It was lost for me the moment the absurdity began with Theodore falling in love with a commodity  which was not love but a mere fetish.