I guess at the end of the day, what most affects me about this movie is that it's ultimately about what potential looks like when it isn't.
Johansson deserves all the praise she's received for her performance here.
Between this and her unnamed alien from Jonathan Glazer's , she's neatly carved out a space where she's allowed herself to comment on her odd position as an object of desire with intelligence and grace.
) at the helm, it possesses a remarkable level of intuition about what to look at.
For thirty seconds or so right in the middle, it doesn't look at anything.
The only analogue to the Samantha character I can think of is HAL (or KITT from "Knight Rider", I guess), and she likewise represents something haunted and true in that just as the best art points back to the self, our creations inevitably resemble our desires.
is about how we interact with the world, about the responsibility we have in shaping it for ourselves and its influence on others, about potential and what that looks like when it's squandered.
It’s in the bag for next time I see her, barring calamity.The first object of lust for Theodore is a pregnant television star (May Lidstrom) he fantasizes about while engaging in anonymous sex talk.Making a pregnant woman the object of fantasy is unusually loaded--it's impossible to see her as just an object, after all, because she's tactile, , in a way the usual model wouldn't be. In fantasizing about her, Theodore prefigures the creation of Samantha, just as his anonymous tryst prefigures his future non-tactile relationship with his computer's OS.A good portion of the picture's grace derives from the idea that this alien, obviously superior intelligence is benevolent and empathetic.is the essence of that particular dream of man--as well as, it must be acknowledged, an evocation of an archetypical betrayal by gods we erected to comfort us eventually finding no use for our entreaties and desires.