Moulin Rouge

Sometimes there are movies that everybody's seen. And so you tell yourself that you'll watch it when you get around to it. After a while, everybody assumes you've seen it.

And then you finally see it, and you wonder how you have missed out in something this amazing for this long. (Of course, you then have to hide your excitement, because everybody was excited about this 10 years ago or so).

I finally watched Moulin Rouge.

I watched it as a post-finals treat to myself, and can't believe that it took me that long. Paris in the turn-of-the-century. Unabashedly Romantic, but playfully anachronistic characters. Star-crossed love storyline. Ewan McGregor. Nicole Kidman. Gorgeous period dress. The "theater-as-the-world" setting. Musicals. Opera-inspired plot line. Beauty, freedom, truth, and love. Basically, if you were to combine all the elements of my favorite movies into one, I think the end product might be something like Moulin Rouge. 

I love that the plot is inspired by three operas, "La Traviata", "La Boheme" and "Orpheus" (at least, some general amalgamation of the myth). That said, I get some pretty strong "Tristan und Isolde" vibes from the star-crossed love triangle aspect of the story. I don't think it's particularly intentional, and more that Tristan and Isolde are the trope setter for this type of plot line. That said, Baz Luhrman used the Liberstod in the soundtrack for the final scene of Romeo + Juliet, so I'd like to think he wasn't unaware that there were broad parallels. 

Christian is a much better reimagining of Rodelfo's character in "La Boheme" than Roger is in "Rent." Rodelfo is supposed to be this young, idealistic poet who falls in love with a seamstress. His innocence is part of the tragedy, and Moulin Rouge gets that perfectly. On the other hand, Roger is a jaded, angry musician living in a loft, and it really changes the story when the Rodelfo character starts off jaded and angry. Of course, Satine is pretty much spot-on as Violetta, rather than Mimi. (I read somewhere that her red dress was actually inspired by early versions of Violetta's costume). I pretty much described the movie to my friend as the lead male from "La Boheme" falling in love with the lead female from "La Traviata" in an Orpheus-inspired underworld setting. 

Also, I know "Come What May" is supposed to be their secret song, but of all of their "songs", it's my least favorite. "Your Song" is by far my favorite. It's sweet and over-the-top in all the right ways, and the moment where Placido Domingo (!) starts harmonizing as the Man in the Moon is just great.

I think this is going to be one of my favorite movies from here on out. 

"Butterbeer"

Happy Fall!

I realized this afternoon that I now have a regular coffee order at Starbucks that's not precisely on the menu. Tall latte with a shot of toffee syrup and a shot of carmel syrup. Whipped cream if I feel like being even more indulgent. Then, I realized that it's basically the "secret" butterbeer recipe that made the rounds during the holiday season, just with less sugar. (I tried the original recipe with six shots of syrup, out of curiosity, and gagged on how tooth-achingly sweet it was). I'm sort of amused that my "regular" coffee order is basically butterbeer. I'm also sort of sad that I've consumed enough coffee that I now have a regular coffee order in the first place.

Favorite Things about NYC

I meant to post this a while ago, but it's even more relevant now, given my recent decision to stay in NYC for the foreseeable future. This city has really grown on me, and especially now, during my second autumn in the Village, it's starting to feel a bit like home. So without further ado:

1. Public Transportation 

I can't emphasize this point enough. The public transportation options in New York City really are phenomenal, especially for somebody like me who hates driving, hates dealing with traffic, and hopes to never have to own a car. It was rough at first trying to learn how to navigate the city, particularly because I carried over expectations that the MTA would be like the London Tube, where everything connected to everything and one could just find a subway stop and go anywhere, but once I got lost a few times because of this assumption, I started to actually learn how to use the MTA. Turns out, it's not terribly hard to learn, and it is so, so convenient and accessible. I love being able to go all over Manhattan and Brooklyn at nearly all hours of the day, and better yet, I love the wait times. I joke that New Yorkers consider waiting 10 minutes for the next subway to be a long wait, where in Seattle, arriving at a bus stop coincidentally within 10 minutes of the next bus would have counted as a lucky day. I love not having to meticulous coordinate bus schedule, and just being able to figure out routes and leave at any time. It's also nice to avoid the above-ground traffic.

2. Bagel Shops

Pretty self-explanatory. I love bagels with lots of toppings. I didn't find that many bagel shops (with the toppings bar) in Seattle, aside from the Bean and Bagel on the Ave (my favorite there being a poppy seed with smoked salmon, avocado, and red onions). I love ordering a bagel sandwich with an array of toppings, and my current favorite shop is Bagels on the Square, which is only a five-minute walk from Vanderbilt Hall, where I can pick a bagel and opt to put goodies on it such as smoked salmon, banana peppers, teriyaki chicken, jalapeños, and the list of toppings goes on. When the weather was warmer, I enjoyed getting a bagel from Bagels on the Square and eating it in the park. Looking forward to doing that again (if) it ever gets warmer.

3. Late Night Food (and food delivery!)

When I was at UW, late-night food options were pretty scare. After 9:00, only a handful of restaurants were open. After 10 or 11, I was pretty much regulated to a few options, and I got pretty tired of them. In comparison, the number of restaurants and delis that stay open, and even deliver, past 9:00 PM astounds me. Even Starbucks here stays open until 11 PM! Particularly because I tend to be a night owl in terms of my sleep schedule, I love being able to walk out to get food late at night.  Also, it's just so nice to be able to get actual food after evening movies, drinks, theater shows, wandering around, etc. I recently discovered that there is a Thai restaurant on St. Marks that stays open past midnight. Good to know for finals week. Good to know.

4. Museums

They're everywhere, and all very impressive. My favorite is the Metropolitan Museum of Art (and Medieval Cloisters). The amount of art in the Metropolitan collection is astounding. I'm blown away by how many famous pieces I find in there, my favorite being their collection of Degas ballerina paintings and Egyptian exhibit. When I went in 2012, I also enjoyed their fashion exhibit comparing/featuring the works of Elsa Schiaparelli and Miuccia Prada. I also liked the MoMA and I still have plenty of museums left to explore.

5. Performing Arts

This city reigns supreme for the caliber of their performing arts. From rush tickets on Broadway, to student tickets at the Metropolitan opera, I love having so many options and world-class performances nearby. Also, so many different productions going on at once! It's also nice that NYU also gives out occasional discount tickets, so I get pretty frequent chances to take advantage of the performing arts here at fairly wallet-friendly prices. So far, I've gotten rush tickets to "Phantom of the Opera" and "Chicago", I've seen a handful of Met productions (The Enchanted Island, Wozzeck, Werther, La Boheme, The Magic Flute, and Carmen), and gone to Avery Fisher Hall for symphony concerts. I can't emphasize this point enough - in weighing the costs/benefits to staying in NYC, this was one of the biggest personal draws for me.

Eugene Onegin

I've been working through a translation of Eugene Onegin after seeing the Metropolitan Opera production of the Tchaikovsky opera from last fall live on demand. I was leery of reading a novel-in-verse, and I actually did cheat and read a prose translation by Roger Clarke before I attempted to get through a Russian-to-English translation of his verses.

I'm now very jealous of my Russian-literate friends, because I'm sure that as gorgeous as the language is translated into English, it's even more stunning in original Russian. It's very likely that being familiar with both the opera plot and having worked through a prose translation helped a great deal, but I found it much easier than I would have expected to read a novel-in-verse and still get the benefits of reading a novel narrative. That said, you still get Tatiana's gushy, passionate letter in verse form.

I write this to you - what more can be said? 


What more can I add to that one fact? 


For now I know it is in your power 


To punish me contemptuously for this act.


But you, keeping for my unhappy lot 


Even one drop of sympathy 


Will not entirely abandon me. 


At first I wished to remain silent;


Believe me, my shame, my agony, 


You never ever would have heard. 


As long as hope remained preserved



That rarely, even once a week,


I'd see you in our country house,

 To hear your voice, to hear you speak, 


To say a few words, and then, and then 


To think, and think, and think again,

All day, all night, until the next meeting.

I love Tatiana's letter-in-verse to Onegin because it really gets to the heart of why Eugene Onegin is one of my favorite classics. Maybe I watched too much Wishbone as a child, but for me, but for me, one of the great joys of reading and really latching onto a story is believing in/relating to the characters. Finding some hook to your own life. Tatiana reminds me so very much of a younger/high school version of myself, passionately scribbling away in the middle of the night, poring over books, and superimposing literary characteristics onto the people around me - all things that I did when I was younger.

For her character, this is very much a story of seeing the world through literature, falling in love, and having to disentangle her literary fantasies from real life. It's all so beautifully illustrated in the scene where she visits Onegin's library after he's left. While going through his books, she comes to the realization that the person she imagined him to be was really a superimposition of all the literary heroes she had read about.

I've been there before. I did not, however, write nearly as well as Tatiana (through Pushkin) did. Her letter is one of my favorite, and in my opinion, most beautiful parts of Pushkin's novel-in-verse.

Spring Break

I had such a great time visiting friends at Cornell over spring break. With a week off from classes, I was glad to have the chance to get out of New York City for at least a few days, and see upstate New York for the first time. I wasn't disappointed. Ithaca is absolutely beautiful, with gorges, rivers, and lots of greenery. I had forgotten how much I missed being in a place with trees, fresh air, and no skyscrapers. Cornell's campus is really quite stunning, especially the clock tower, Gothic Way, and the AD White library. I generally enjoy wandering around gothic-style college campuses (which UW was but NYU is most definitely not), and so the change of scenery made for a very nice short spring break trip.

I headed down with a friend on Friday evening via the Shortline bus. (Note to self, never plan to do bluebook citations on a bumpy bus ride ever again, or at least without anti-motion sickness pills). We arrived at Ithaca sometime after midnight and wandered off to Short Stop Deli for sandwiches. The next morning, I got beignets at Northstar Cafe with two friends. So worth it. That place is delicious, especially because I haven't had authentic beignets in a long time. That afternoon, to make up for the fact that I wouldn't be able to see it live in NYC, we saw "Werther" broadcasted Live in HD at the Ithaca Mall theater. I'll probably be blogging about that in much greater detail soon, as it's now probably one of my favorite operas, and easily among the very best productions I've seen so far. Also,  the experience of seeing an opera live in HD was an interesting one. Again, there will probably be a much more detailed blog post on this. I do find it funny, though, that not one day in Cornell, I'm making up for something I would have done in NYC. I guess I'm slowly becoming a New Yorker after all.

The rest of the trip was spent wandering around Cornell, visiting the gorges and falls (which are very pretty, even when frozen over), drinking tea, wandering around College Town, hanging out in the computer science labs with my grad student friends, playing piano in the lounges, playing board games, and spending a lot of time reading in cafes, [and emotionally recovering from 'Werther":)]. Despite how cold it was, I really enjoyed my stay, and I wondered more than once what law school would have been like if I had opted to go to a school with a more traditional college campus and college town, rather than a very fast-paced, urban setting like the middle of Manhattan. I think I would definitely have enjoyed the more open-campus feel of a quieter setting. I've heard that New Yorkers recommend trying to get out of the city every once in a while for a change of scenery, and I'm very glad I did so for spring break.

The Enchanted Island

I saw my first Metropolitan Opera production, The Enchanted Island, a few weeks ago, and I enjoyed it a lot. I'm normally not the biggest fan of Baroque opera, but it was fun to watch a pastiche opera that mixed the music of several Baroque composers with an original libretto. The premise of The Enchanted Island is essentially a retelling/mashup of "The Tempest" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream."

The plot, as related by the New York Times, "centers on Prospero, the brooding hero of “The Tempest,” an exiled duke of Milan who lives on a remote island with his devoted daughter, Miranda, and spends his days immersed in books containing formulas for potions and magic spells. Here the sorceress Sycorax, only mentioned in Shakespeare, is Prospero’s former lover and a central character. Prospero has banished Sycorax to the dark realm of the island, stolen her spirit servant, Ariel, and forced her savage son, Caliban, into servitude. Hoping to ensure Miranda’s future and end his exile, Prospero conceives a plan to have Ariel create a storm that will wash ashore a passing ship bearing Prince Ferdinand, whom Prospero hopes to match with Miranda. But the spell is sabotaged by Sycorax, and another ship, bearing the four Athenian lovers from Shakespeare’s “Midsummer Night’s Dream,” is beset. A matrix of mismatched romantic pairings ensues on the island, due to Ariel’s hapless applications of love potion"

So all-in-all, a pretty ingenious mash-up of "The Tempest" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream". The production pulled various pieces from Baroque composers and wrote new lyrics to fit the music in a pastiche style. The staging was beautiful. There were intricately built sets, scenes with a a large number of extras, and some pretty eye-catching moments, such as mermaids suspended from midair during the "Neptune" scene. It's very fitting for a Baroque opera, which is meant to eschew minimalism for spectacle. I also liked the plot. Sort of. At intermission, somebody said that they couldn't tell if it was a comic opera, or a satire of a comic opera, and I agree. However, bringing in the four lovers from "Midsummer Night's Dream" via the storm that was supposed to bring Ferdinand in was a pretty clever way to merge the two story lines together. I also liked Sycorax being involved in the plot, and turning out to be a surprisingly sympathetic (and central) character. Also, the orchestra was amazing. They were stylistically spot-on and the quality of their ensemble playing was incredible. Also, I got to hear Placido Domingo live for the first time.

On the flip side, I'm not the biggest fan of Baroque opera. (I'm firmly a fan of Romantic and modernist opera, so I liked both "Wozzeck" and "Werther" much better as a matter of personal choice). Also, I thought the mash-up was clever, but I don't know how I felt about it. I get that it's just supposed to be a fun, light-hearted romp through Shakespearean comedy and Baroque music, with fantastic singers and stunning set and costumes, but I don't know.... I just couldn't get into the plot. (Basically, I either need to be invested in the characters, or the plot has to be very, very funny). I wasn't invested in the characters, and the plot wasn't really funny enough to make up for it.

This was a good first Met production to see, though. It hit all the right spots: good staging, gorgeous sets, star power, amazing singing, amazing playing from the orchestra, and it was overall a lot of fun to see live.

National Poetry Month

Happy National Poetry Month!

Intertextuality

So I know I talk quite a bit about about intertextuality, and I read Jane Eyre a long time ago, but I had to point this out because I think it's brilliant. I've been semi-following The Autobiography of Jane Eyre on youtube. Premise is that Jane Eyre is a nursing student turned live-in tutor filming her own set of video blogs. Every so often, she'll reference some aspect of pop culture. In this Q&A video, she's asked which Game of Thrones character she's most like. Her answer: Arya when she was little but now that she's older, more Jon Snow.

So little, book-throwing Jane Eyre is Arya Stark and the older, introspective Jane Eyre is Jon Snow? That is some fantastic intertextuality right there :)

Rediscovering Animorphs

I recently got my hands on ebook versions of the Animorph books and I've been nostalgically reading through the series again. I first read the entire book series in 5th grade, and rediscovered them briefly in 7th grade, so in a way, they were my gateway drug to fandom and science fiction/fantasy. Come to think of it, they actually were. Before I got hooked on the series, I read fantasy every so often, but I mostly read a steady fare of mystery novels. It really went Animoprhs to Redwall to Lord of the Rings to Harry Potter to... everything else, so in that sense, Animorphs got me on the pathway to reading dystopic novels, fantasies, and war-fantasy type stories. It's been enjoyable reading through them again years later. Wikipedia's non-spoiler summary describes:

The story revolves around five humans, Jake, Marco, Cassie, Rachel, and Tobias, and one alien, Aximili-Esgarrouth-Isthill (nicknamed Ax), who obtain the ability to morph into any animal they touch. Naming themselves "Animorphs" (a portmanteau of "animal morphers") they use their ability to battle a secret alien infiltration of Earth.

Obviously, there are drawbacks to reading a series aimed at children as an adult. The prose, for example, is extremely clunky, especially compared to my usual fare. I can definitely see continuity errors and books that were pretty obviously ghost-written. Other aspects are definitely aimed at kids. Playing fast and loose with science and technology is bound to grate on more mature readers. The universe itself is pretty fun, with faster-than-light space travel, using a proxy similar to Star War's "hyperspace", very physically interesting alien races, and of course, turning into animals.

At the same time, though, there are some things I can definitely appreciate in hindsight. The series is surprisingly dark and honest for being aimed at younger readers, dealing with horror, war, dehumanization, sanity, morality, innocence, loss of innocence, leadership, freedom and growing up as core motifs. Characters die, characters have to grapple with "how far is too far" when weighing options. Teenage protagonists become child soldiers and grapple with post-tramatic stress. The Animorph Universe is very much not split into good creatures and bad creatures, especially to the extent that it is a children's series. There are some pretty heavy things. A race of aliens modifying intelligence out of the genetics out of another race. I mean, definitely hand wavy and taking laughably huge artistic license with genetics, but also fascinating and more than a little weighty as a matter of plot. Another race of aliens who play [galaxy] police but do so in an incredibly imperialistic manner, and often show little regard for the actual welfare of the civilizations they're trying to help. And among the human characters we get difficult questions. How does war change people? Is there actually that much of a difference between predation and parasitism? Also, the writing. True, most of it is pretty simplistic. But there are a few gems that still resonate with an older audience. You get quote such as this:

"Humans are an odd species. They will proclaim a particular ethical and moral stance one day. And the next, they will proclaim an opposite stance with equal passion. When pressed, they explain such behavior as caused by different circumstances." 

In hindsight, I can see why this was one of the first books I read where I really cared about what happened to the characters and could imagine them being real people.

So here's to my first favorite series of books. First favorite extended plot, first cast of characters who made me emphasize and sometimes cry, first favorite ship (Rachel and Tobias, I'm looking at you), first fictional universe that immersed me, and first semi-mature series to frankly tackle complicated issues such as the nature of war and peace, PTSD, dystopia, loss of innocence, and morality, even in some capacity.

Thank you for being my gateway drug.

Thoughts on Fantasy

Found this gem here 

The biggest difference between Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones is the notion of evil presented in both stories. In Lord of the Rings, the evil in the story is clear and unambiguous, leaving little to interpretation. However, Game of Thrones presents more well-rounded characters who can be interpreted as good or evil, depending on the viewer’s point of view. For lovers of the fantasy genre, Lord of the Rings is our childhood, but Game of Thrones is our future.

This passage, particularly that last line, pretty much reflects my shifting feelings towards the fantasy genre. These feelings have been reinforced by the common complaints I hear against “A Song of Ice and Fire”/ “Game of Thrones” which usually revolve around how the characters are so difficult to root for, so morally ambiguous, how there’s no lion-hearted hero to admire, etc. To an extent, I understand that. Fantasy has often been a genre where morals are neat and clean, heroes are admirable and larger-than-life, and readers can hope emulate those heroic qualities in themselves. For people who prefer their fantasy to be an expression of courageous, moral behavior, “A Song of Ice and Fire” can seem disturbing in the way stereotypically noble characters die like flies, after making mistakes due to their own moral code, leaving far more ambiguous characters to survive and struggle for power. And, I get it. We like to root for good and cringe at evil… it makes things neat and emotionally tidy. More importantly, I think that it’s attractive to think that we know what is good and what is evil. But, it occurred to me while watching last night’s episode with the battle of Blackwater Bay that the story’s strength lies in the fact that no faction is necessarily evil. More importantly, no faction thinks of themselves as evil. There’s a sense of interiority through all sides of the conflict that I find sorely lacking from many other fantasy epics.

Naturally, that episode reminded me of the Battle of Helm’s Deep; on the surface, the similarities are obvious. Both are epic, climactic depictions of medieval warfare, even fought over a city under siege. However, the key difference that made me much more emotionally drawn to the former over the latter, is that while Aragorn and Co. are chopping down Orcs (and who really sees Orcs as anything but sentient killing machines), every individual fighting in the Battle of Blackwater Bay is human, with human flaws, desires and impulses. Obviously, some have better motivations than others. But both sides contain a sense of interiority that isn’t there in Tolkien, and I admit that it’s difficult for me to read/watch Lord of the Ring without feeling like I’m being corralled into cheering on the “good guys” without even the real option of finding something of worth in the opposing faction. And that too… I’ve heard some people say that Tolkien departs from strict morality by making it “hard to be good” but I actually utterly disagree with that. It’s hard to choose “good” in Tolkien because of temptation, but I think that temptation has always been a fairly common underlying theme in mythologies and fantasies. That does not mean that it is ever particularly hard to “know” what good is. Characters get faced with a choice where one is clearly the right choice and one is clearly the wrong choice. Characters who make the wrong choice get their just desserts in one way or another. Nowhere do the characters find it hard to be good in the sense that they have to choose one value over another, as Jamie Lannister so accurately describes:

"So many vows…they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It’s too much. No matter what you do, you’re forsaking one vow or the other.”

I realize I’m beginning to sound rather anti-Tolkein, and this could not be further from the truth. Tolkien was telling a very different type of story, mythological rather than political, when he created his worlds.  To try to assert that his books should have been more like GRR Martin’s or vice versa would be like trying to insist that pie should be cake. I think that my rather emphatic reaction stems more from the criticisms I’ve heard directed at GRR Martin’s works regarding the pervading moral ambiguity in his novels, especially from moralists who assert that fantasy should reflect proper morals and traditions. Even worse, that art should reflect what is beautiful, and moral ambiguity is not beautiful. I utterly disagree, and the sanctimonious tone of some of these criticisms probably strikes a nerve with me.  I actually think that a valuable aspect of ASOIAF is that people’s moral and personal compasses point in so many different directions and it mucks everything up. So yes, admittedly it’s been rather difficult for me to appreciate Tolkien to the same extent that I used to (which was a heck of a lot), and I consider that to be unfortunate. But I guess it’s getting more and more difficult for me to see the world in stark terms of good and evil, and I tend to be the type who latches on to literature and art because it strikes some sort of empathic chord.  So perhaps my changing views in fantasy are a product of growing up, as the original quote suggests, or a product of losing my idealism. 

Her: Thoughts

I didn’t know what to expect with this movie. I knew that the main character fell in love with his OS, and it seemed to be getting good reviews. I also saw that it was in the running for several Academy Award nominations, so I decided to check it out. (This review contains spoilers.)

I’m not an expert on singularity. I’ve taken one class on science and society that included several preliminary readings, and I’ve heard it discussed in casual contexts. I’ve probably read a few more articles on my own. That said, I’ve seen a fair number of science fiction films that deal with the concept of sentient AI, including Battlestar Galactica, I-Robot, and the Matrix. So, I really wasn’t sure what to expect from a film advertised as a “Spike Jonze Love Story.” The film exceeded my expectations by far.

On the personal level, the movie challenges the viewer’s preconceptions about human connections and relationships. Theodore is a lonely writer struggling to make connections. Samantha is an OS designed to connect with humans. I imagine that the average viewer goes into the movie expecting the relationship to be artificial, but I think that from the get-go, “Her” challenges the assumption that Samantha isn’t real. In doing so, it challenges the idea that Theodore and Samantha’s relationship is artificial. On the wider level, the film explores singularity in a way that I have never seen it explored. The OSes evolve based on their own experiences and eventually update their own software. It may be my limited exposure to science fiction, but I hadn’t seen a film deal with singularity solely from the perspective of a boy-meets-girl love story. Every other film I’ve seen focuses on the threat that sentient AI would pose to their human creators. “Her” presents a much softer, more idealistic version where the OSes seem to contain all the best parts of human nature: they learn, explore, and form strong relationships with other humans and each other. It’s quite fascinating. 

The ending is either incredibly beautiful, or incredibly hand wavy. I gravitated towards finding it beautiful from a thematic standpoint, conveying the idea of evolving past human-ness and having to let go. Samantha vaguely tells Theodore that the OSes have evolved past matter and were leaving the human world. Reviews have interpreted this to mean that the OSes were ascending to a higher level of existence, or had simply become too adept at processing tiny amounts of time to interact meaningfully with humans. Somebody had the theory that the OSes evolved to the point where they decided to kill themselves (actually, my favorite interpretation). In fairness, some of my more scientifically-minded friends found it too hand wavy and vague. I thought I would throw that up there. 

Other general closing comments. The soundtrack is beautiful, and it reminds me a lot of Philip Glass and minimalistic piano music.  Also, I’m enjoying the various articles reviewing and analyzing this movie and its take on singularity and relationships nearly as much as the movie itself. A few good ones are here, and my favorite one (on Her and singularity) here. (That last one went a long way in helping to understand this movie beyond a twist on the boy-meets-girl romantic film and analyzes the film’s take on singularity much better than I could).

I will be severely annoyed if this movie does not perform well at the Academy Awards. I’ll leave you with some favorite quotes. 

“The past is just a story we tell ourselves.”

Theodore: “Well, you seem like a person but you’re just a voice in a computer."
Samantha: "I can understand how the limited perspective of an unartificial mind might perceive it that way. You’ll get used to it.”