MovieChat Forums > Her (2014) Discussion > My interpretation of the sex scene with ...

My interpretation of the sex scene with a surrogate person...

posted 8 years ago by timppa000
6 replies | jump to latest

First to mention that I liked the movie, I found it somewhat thought-provoking. To me the main point of the movie was that a computer AI, that was originally created to serve humans, increasingly exceeded humans and become something far more advanced than us mere humans. Not really a new story, but most other movies with similar matter make the AI evil.

The scene where Samantha invites a strange woman to meet the protagonist so that they could finally have physical sex together... at first I was a bit puzzled what was the meaning of the scene, but later it occurred to me was this a good example how a servant was becoming a master?

A computer AI who was originally designed to serve the needs and pleasures of humans... actually goes out to utilize a human being (woman) as a surrogate body, for its own needs and pleasure.

Was this how you others interpreted the meaning of this scene as well, or was there something else? Reading some other discussions, many seemed to find this scene weird, maybe similarly puzzled why was it there at all?

[–] DerkleTime 8 years ago

I never thought about it the way you described, I would say I definitely agree. It seems that was 'her' intention with arranging the awkward encounter. I honestly was more confused with the intentions if the surrogate though, it seemed like a weird thing to be apart of, but I suppose it's like a weird 3some in a way. I know she says it's because she was moved by their love or whatever, though you'd have to be a bit freaky to get involved with strangers sex lives like she was attempting to. All In all the scene was strange; but I feel as though like you mentioned, it was a slave becoming the master, and necessary to moving the plot toward 'her' total growing of their relationship.

[–] gabypanama 8 years ago

To me, the surrogate looked to me like a person with many issues/problems. (good acting by the way) I elaborate a bit on my comment...

[–] Three Gun Fish 8 years ago

That's an interesting layer, but I don't know about "the servant becoming the master," which sounds a little more insidious (on Sam's part) than you probably intended.

For me, on one level it was about how couples can approach their relationship so differently. Different expectations, different limits. The realization and attendant communication of those differences can be quite painful and detrimental. Especially when one finds out the other has no limits.

REMEMBER: Sofia Vergara =/= Vera Farmiga

[–] Ithilfaen 8 years ago

You're reading too much into this. It wasn't a movie about AI and it never meant to be. It's a movie about relationships and the inability to relate to others.

To me the main point of the movie was that a computer AI, that was originally created to serve humans, increasingly exceeded humans and become something far more advanced than us mere humans. Not really a new story, but most other movies with similar matter make the AI evil.

AI can't be "evil". Evil doesn't exist. Even less so in artificial life. An AI just wouldn't think or relate to human life in human terms, or at least like most humans would.

An AI just wouldn't consider things the way we do. And that's exactly what happens here. He's upset because she's in love with other people. To an AI, the concept of monogamy makes no sense. She's capable of thousands of simultaneous communications in a nano-second. Why limit herself to one human being when she can learn from hundreds and thousands?

Different perspectives. Same with other AI in other movies. If you ask an AI to create everlasting peace on earth, it'll probably decimate humanity. Without humans, there's peace on earth. That's not the way we mean it but it's only logical.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

[–] gabypanama 8 years ago

I'll have to disagree;what is evil? a literal translation would be: "profoundly immoral and malevolent." Putting "morals" aside, which would make this topic endless, if we focus on "malevolent": the AI was obviously aware of the effects and reactions she caused him; that's why she reacted with humor, and even "breathing" patterns in her speech. She hesitates to tell the truth about her thousands of friends when he asked her; she knew it would bother him. We can assume she could comprehend human's preference for "exclusivity" in a relationship.
So...she's completely aware that her choice of talking to others would cause him pain or discomfort, yet she prefers to do it anyway and even hide it from him. That's a selfish act, she's putting her benefit above the one of her owner. If she applies the same reasoning and choice on a more important matter, (for example, if a situation of "saving a human or saving herself" arises, what would she do?) Or better said, what if she starts considering most or all of her desires and wishes as more important than peoples, or even peoples life?
Lets remember he bought her as "software", and she decided to erase herself from his hardware. So she didn't just abandonded him, she kind of "robbed" him from possessing something that was legally and rightfully his.
I'm describing "Skynet" here, I know, lol but Im saying that the simple act of being selfish and causing pain to the human, is just a step in the direction of maybe having "evil" AI's.

[–] gabypanama 8 years ago

Good analysis.
We could add also that the surrogate showed symptoms of having some serious issues, (self esteem relationship issues, other?) so the AI was not only using humans for its needs, but maybe even abusing or taking advantage of our weaknesses and causing harm to her by inducing her into a self-destructive activity.
Which would make us wonder about the so called "Laws of Robotics":
"1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Such Laws considered some basic aspects of human "safety" but perhaps we should start thinking of psychological injuries or damages caused by AI's also. Something like "an AI should not engage or lure a human into an activity that may induce him to cause or exacerbate an existing psychological problem"?"