Throughout the entirety of the film there was one main concept that was analyzed thoroughly: the reality of things. This can be seen both in obvious ways within the plot like how "real" Ash II is. It can also be seen in the minute nuances of Ash I liking "How Deep is Your Love" didn't seem like him to Martha or how Sara (the friend that signs Martha up for the emails from Ash II) speaks on how nothing seemed real at her own husbands funeral, from the people to the event itself.
"Be Right Back" is intended to make us question what exactly equates our identity. Is it similar to the Ash II model, a compilation of everything that we've posted for the public to see? Is it the perception our loved ones have, like Martha believes that the only Ash that exists is the Ash she knows? If the latter is true, then how many perspectives from how many people would you need to genuinely comprise your identity? We all code switch. Talk to our parents, friends, best friends, grand parents different and according to the situation of the relationship.
The only reason for the uncanny valley is because humans believe they know and can identify their own species apart from others. For instance, the only reason Martha is upset with Ash II is because she believes that she knew Ash I so well that Ash II was too much like Ash I without actually being Ash I. What if we don't know all the things that comprise and define as human? If something like Ash II can so easily mimic our external appearance, speech, mannerisms, and customs; they are only short of consciousness to being indistinguishable from us. Ash II actually seems to display some signs of consciousness throughout the film by wanting to be constantly upgraded from public information
Ash I shared to all of the private videos that Martha had, then generating a voice to speak, a body to move. By the end of the film, Ash II has improved himself to the best of his abilities, and seems to be aware that he is a mock of someone who is no longer. Which means the only thing that Ash II really seemed to lack was autonomy, because Martha was still his "administrator". If they walk, talk, act, and have the same free will as us, why are we still claiming they aren't us?
1 comment:
In response to that last sentence:
There will always be minute differences between people, but the real question is what specifically makes something what it is? If we develop A.I. to the point that androids have human-level intellect, I still wouldn't call them human. They don't share human problems, after all. They have no need to sleep, eat, or drink; they can't bleed or heal on their own; they can't struggle with addiction or finding a purpose in life. They're just androids with human-level intellects, not humans.
Post a Comment