Black Mirror (2013) Season 2: Episode 1 "Be Right Back" Review & Analysis

"Film and Philosophical Analysis of Black Mirror: Be Right Back"

By Elise Pahlow

Black Mirror (2013),
Season 2, Episode 01: "Be Right Back"
Written by Charlie Brooker, Directed by Owen Harris
4/5

***SPOILERS***

The stunning return of the miniseries Black Mirror, returns with the same level of intelligence and emotional intensity as season one. In the first episode of season 2 "Be Right Back" explores grief in the future. This episode particularly deals with how technology has become not only an integral part of our every day existence and means of recording and capturing our experiences but also whether or not in fact all the pieces of our experiences and our very selves that we project into media actually make up our very identity.

Be Right Back explores notions of "psychological continuity" and "identity". This episode calls into question profound philosophical questions of philosophy of mind. In particular it explores the notion of psychological continuity as the defining feature of identity. This is separate from the notion of "numerical identity" which is the notion of an object or person existing as a single numerically distinct thing over time (Stone, 1987, p. 824). Thus when the "real" Ash (played by Domhnall Gleeson) (Ash 1) who died is numerically distinct from the "artificial" Ash (Ash 2) that Martha purchases and helps construct.  The mere fact that these two beings exist separately makes them not only numerically distinct, but also qualitatively distinct. Thus qualitative identity is what people commonly associate with the term "identity"; that is the characteristics of personality, mannerism etc that make us different from each other.

Identity also includes the notion of psychological continuity which is the concept that a person's identity consists of a narrative of continuous experiences and self-awareness of your own life narrative (Stone, 1987, p. 826). That is to say that by point of fact that Ash 1 and Ash 2 are separate entities, different in terms of qualities and experiences.

This is all setting aside the intriguing and confronting notions that a person can be constructed not only from the information gathered online and personal media documentation, but can also be altered and controlled by their "administrator". This episode really plays with the idea of the construction of memory, particularly the memory of other people. It also asks the question are we really the sum of our parts? Are we all the little pieces, the mannerism, physical characteristics or is there more to us? This episode seems to follow the line of thought that psychological continuity is necessary and sufficient for personal identity. Thus, as Ash 2 lacks psychological continuity with Ash 1, i.e. that he doesn't maintain continuous consciousness and narrative experiences of Ash 1, then under that definition Ash 2 is not qualitatively the same as Ash 1. Therefore Ash 2 does not have the same "identity" as Ash 1. He is not the same person. In common language we use the term "person" to mean a number of different things, often using "person" to refer to "identity". In Black Mirror: Be Right Back (2013) Martha (Hayley Atwell) refers to Ash 2 by saying "you're not him" she has come to realise that a "person" their very "identity" (i.e. what makes them, them and distinct from other people) is not just the surface features, mannerisms or even the memories themselves and thus Ash 2 is not the same "person" (qualitative identity and numerical identity) as Ash 1.

All the identity issues aside, there is the emotional, psychological and ethical issues surrounding the simulation of Ash 1 with Ash 2. This episode really challenges the notion of the necessity of grief and acceptance that someone has died and no longer exists. Instead the "person" can be reconstructed from all the available information, simulating their voice and even their appearance and mannerisms. However it is quickly revealed that however much Ash 2 resembles and acts like Ash 1 he is still merely a prop, a doll for Martha making the realisation that Ash 1 is truly gone forever even more painful. This poses a profound ethical dilemma about whether if we could simulate someone who has died whether a) we should, b) whether it is emotionally healthy and c) whether it is wrong to create a simulation of a person that has sentience (i.e. conscious awareness and ability to feel pain) as a replacement (Stone, 1987, p. 821). Ash 2 clearly has partial sentience as he is a conscious being, but he lacks the ability to feel pain. This is demonstrated in the scene where Martha knocks the glass off the table and Ash 2 "cuts" himself but shows no sign of pain, or distress and only notices it when he looks at the "wound". Thus Ash 2 is not fully sentient although he appears to be self-aware. Self awareness is a beings ability to be aware that it is conscious (Stone, 1987, p. 821). Ash 2 is aware from the beginning that he is a replica, a clone, a simulation. Many of these science fiction and philosophy of mind elements are reminiscent of other novels and films. For instance there is a strong similarity to Solaris by Stanislaw Lem (with film adaptations by director Andrey Tarkovskiy (1972) and later remade by director Steven Soderbergh (2002)). Solaris explores the notion of an alien stellar body discovered in space that begins to produce emanations that appear to simulate people. Other films that explore similar notions of personhood and identity are A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) where you are able to purchase a robotic child that can simulate love.

Where other films and literature have traditionally shied away from these simulations, ultimately rejecting them as monstrous, Black Mirror: Be Right Back goes a step towards challenging that notion with the ending of the episode. That despite the fact that Martha comes to realise that Ash 2 is not and can never truly be or even "replace" Ash 1 she is unable to "kill" him and this is the heart of the emotional difficulty. That urge to hold on in grief to any sort of replacement however small is such a powerful drive that Ash 2 is better than no Ash at all and thus Martha and Ash's (Ash 1) daughter is able to grow up knowing "Ash" in a sense. This leaves the audience with an uncomfortable feeling. Are we truly replaceable? If technology developed even further and Ash 2 were able to fully replicate and simulate Ash 1, would it matter? Would a perfect copy of Ash 1 be as good as Ash 1 (the original). And even further, if Ash had died and instead of Martha being notified of his death, he had merely been "cloned" or simulated with all the mannerisms etc, as is Ash 2, only more perfect, would it be the same? Would Martha have noticed?

What seems to be the major difference portrayed in Be Right Back between Ash 1 and Ash 2 is the naturalistic drives, he is mechanical. He is programmed and unable to respond or uses researched responses when he doesn't have a personalised response recorded. Is this merely an extreme version of how our own brains work anyway? Aren't we just simulating machines, learning through repetition, experiences and research? Learning through observing others and learning by simulating others.

Another interesting aspect is the different concepts of grief, so while Martha cannot cope and refuses to move on and instead opts for the nightmarish simulation of Ash, her sister assumes that she has found someone new. Also the scene early in the episode where Ash 1 talks about his mother's own process of grieving, how she put away all the photos of his brother and later his father soon after their deaths. Ash 1 seems to find this process of grieving to be strange, as if it is somehow a rejection of the memory of the person. But the simulation of Ash 2 calls into question issues of memory and perception of other people. Because Ash 2 is merely Martha's perception of Ash 1, not Ash 1 himself. She makes this clear when she attempts to provoke his anger even asking him to hit her. These scenes point out that Ash 2 has no will or drive of his own.

Overall like the other episodes of Black Mirror, Be Right Back is both challenging intellectually and emotionally. The performances are amazing and complimented beautifully by the subtly gorgeous visual style and cinematography.

References

Stone, J (1987). Why potentiality matters, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 17:4 (1987:Dec).

Lem, Stanislaw (1961). "Solaris".

Filmography

A.I. Artifical Intelligence (2001). Steven Spielberg.

Solaris (2002). Steven Soderbergh. 

Solaris (1972). Andrey Tarkovskiy.

#26 - Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

Silver Linings Playbook (2012), David O. Russell
0.5

I knew this film was going to be terrible. I just didn't realise how terrible it was until I actually sat down to watch it. The premise is bad enough, based around a man with undefined mental problems (Bipolar disorder) who gets released from a Baltimore mental institution into the care of his parents and returns to live in their family home. Somehow this is supposed to be the basis of a romantic comedy where this "crazy" guy meets a "crazy" girl and of course the two crazies fit together.

This film is not funny, it is mostly absurd and totally unrealistic. The acting is poor, especially by Bradley Cooper (The Hangover) who plays Pat and also Jennifer Lawrence (The Hunger Games) as Tiffany. This film is a terrible portrayal and representation of mental illness. With the issues never being explicitly stated or defined and instead exaggerates and generalises them. The acting is so bad that it is melodramatic and over the top. Neither of the two major characters are convincing and neither is there any "chemistry" between them. What makes it worse is that not only is the writing terrible, the performances melodramatic and unconvincing, the characters flat and one dimensional, but also the direction and camera work are totally ridiculous and over the top. The number of times cinematographer Masanobu Takayanagi (The Grey, Warrior) uses overt panning, swivelling and rotating/ circling shots around the characters is so distracting. It constantly makes you feel aware of the camera detracting from the "drama" or rather melodrama of the scenes. This arguably breaks the fourth wall and takes you out of the experience and instead focuses your attention on the camera movements themselves. And you can almost feel the pretentious "meaning" with the hand held camera moves as if the audience needed to be hit in the head to tell us...yes, the camera moves are shaky to explain that the characters are unstable. Although why we would need that to tell us is laughable since the characters are constantly acting in ridiculous and outrageous ways, and none of the action or cinematography is by any stretch of the imagination, subtle.

Perhaps worst of all is that this film runs for over 2 hours long. Further more, this film has received such widespread critical acclaim it is astounding. Receiving a whopping certified fresh rating of 92% on Rotten Tomatoes. It is also hard to believe the amount of nominations this film has recieved and awards it has won. Including Jennifer Lawrence receiving a Golden Globe for best actress, which is utterly ridiculous as she gives a wooden performance working with a very thin character that is so unrealistic and lacks any real depth or conviction. Has the entire film critic community collectively gone insane? Many of the reviews praise both the performances and direction, astoundingly. It is saddening that in particular critics are responding to the subject matter and praising director Russell's tasteful adaptation of the novel. This is a crushing blow to breaking down stereotypes surrounding mental illness in the mainstream media. That intelligent film critics believe this film is a good portrayal of the issues.

This film is crushingly cliche and difficult to watch. None of the characters are likeable as they are neither sympathetic nor have enough character development and depth to make them interesting. Most of the time the characters appear to act randomly and have no serious motivation other than the superficial "motives" overtly and repeatedly stated in the dialogue.

This film is also so predictable within the rom-com format that to claim it is in any way "quirky" or "indie" is laughable. Also the film seems to divert into a sort of dance rom-com film for some unknown reason. Most of this film doesn't make any sense and is boring. It unfortunately seems to have become a trend in Hollywood to use harsh and heavy subject matter in superficial films as if using such dark or serious subject matter automatically elevates the material to a higher level. Unfortunately this seems to have been supported by the critical response. All you need to do is to pick some deep social issue and slap it together and hey presto you've made a brilliant challenging film with winning appeal. This film has won so many awards and been nominated for so many more, that it is embarrassing. Perhaps most of all for being nominated and awarded for "best screenplay" in many places including nominated for "best screenplay" by the Satellite awards, and Russell winning the Satellite award for "Best Direction". I cannot overstate how terrible this film is and it is so disheartening that not only do mainstream audiences embrace this film, but critics as well.

Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post wrote:

“Silver Linings Playbook” serves as a textbook example of why directors matter. In any other hands, the adaptation of Matthew Quick’s novel would be the stuff of banal rom-com fluff or, perhaps worse, self-consciously quirky indie cliches. Thankfully, this fractured fairy tale of mental illness, family drama, ragged romance and die-hard Philadelphia Eagles fandom has landed in the superbly capable hands of David O. Russell." (Hornaday, 2012)

Perhaps Hornaday (2012) should have stopped at "banal rom-com fluff, or perhaps worse, self-consciously quirky indie cliches" because that exactly describes the film. 

And Roger Ebert (2012) said in his review:

"We're fully aware of the plot conventions at work here, the wheels and gears churning within the machinery, but with these actors, this velocity and the oblique economy of the dialogue, we realize we don't often see it done this well. "Silver Linings Playbook" is so good, it could almost be a terrific old classic."

This respected reviewer of the Chicago Sun Times, must not have watched much European of Indie cinema if he thinks Silver Linings Playbook (2012) had "obligue economy of...dialogue"(Ebert, 2012) or perhaps he wasn't watching this film too closely. As this film in no way could become a "terrific old classic". 

I just find it astounding and disheartening that so many people seem to have embraced this muddled film that glosses over and trivialises such important and senistive issues. This film is an insult to those who live with mental illness and to their families, trivialising and misrepresenting their experiences. It is also frankly an insult to intelligent movie goers and to cinema as an art form. 

Among the few negative reviews is David Denby's (2012) review for The New Yorker stating that the film "is pretty much a miscalculation from beginning to end". Which sums it up nicely. 

The support cast are not much better than the leads as Robert De Niro (who knows what possessed him to take such a role) acting as the father plays his now standard slightly crazy overbearing father figure. Jackie Weaver is the hysterical and in-denial mother and no doubt "deserves" nominations and awards for much melodramatic screaming and crying. Also the inclusion of Chris Tucker as another "mental patient" is so unnecessary as his character is mostly irrelevant and the script struggles to find a use for him, plot wise. His performance is also terrible as he basically plays himself, whether this is perhaps the most authentic performances of the film, who knows, I guess it would be if he actually has a mental illness. 

I really struggled to find anything positive about this film and can't really justify even giving this film half a star, as the further into the film I got the more I hated it and the more bored and frustrated I became. This is perhaps one of the worst films I have ever watched and I can't think of anything that even slightly redeems it. One of the worst things was that the writing at times would seem ironic and interesting and you would wait for the pay off to be a joke/ trick or manipulation and then you realised that the over-wrought and melodramatic deliveries weren't meant as irony! All I can say is what can you really expect with actors from films like The Hangover and a director of films such as Three Kings and The Fighter. This film is definitely not a classic and should be shelved and quickly forgotten and perhaps only taken out in later years as an example of the current times and our prejudiced and stereotyped portrayal of mental illness for a self-serving commercial endeavor. 

References

Denby, David (2012). "The Silver Linings Playbook". The New Yorker. Retrieved Friday 8th February, 2013. http://www.newyorker.com/arts/reviews/film/silver_linings_playbook_russell

Ebert, Roger (2012). "Silver Linings Playbook". Chicago Sun Times. November 14, 2012. 

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121114/REVIEWS/121119992

Hornaday, Ann  (2012). "Perfect models of Imperfection". The Washington Post. Friday November 16, 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/movies/silver-linings-playbook,1219201/critic-review.html

"Silver Linings Playbook" (2012). Rotten Tomatoes. 

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/silver_linings_playbook/

#25 - Sandcastle (2010) Review

Sandcastle (2010), Boo Junfeng
4/5

This is an incredibly beautiful film, focusing on the "coming of age" of a young man. His journey is intertwined with an adolescent exploration and sullenness that is beautifully portrayed by Joshua Tan who plays eighteen year old En. It is interesting to see the story unfold across the generations, subtly introducing narrative elements through the cinematography, utilising well placed image and edits/ cuts. It is especially beautiful to see so many small and insignificant quiet moments in this film, bringing not only a sense of aesthetic beauty to the communication, but an authenticity to the piece as well. The characters are great and the film leaves much explained through visuals and editing, rather than explicitly in dialogue. It is at times humourous and at others heart breaking. Overall this film is a poignant piece about a young man's discovery of his own families past that exquisitely explores political issues through the focalisation of one family. A brilliant film.

#24 - Lars and the Real Girl (2007) Review, Analysis & Depiction of Mental Illness

Lars and the Real Girl (2007), Craig Gillespie
2/5

This is an average comedy/ drama that trivialises mental illness. And what is most strange about the film is not that a man believes a sex doll is real, but the reactions of those around him. This film is largely inaccurate in the depiction of mental illness, frustratingly so. The performances are ok, with what they have to work with. What perhaps may have seemed a quaint and interesting premise is instead absurd and more of a fad based on the more widely known shows and increase in notion of sex dolls replacing real life relationships. Overall not really funny and too overly sentimental to be truly moving or interesting.

Analysis and Depiction of Mental Illness

***SPOILERS***

The treatment/ depiction of mental illness in this film is extremely frustrating. Not only does Lars (Ryan Gosling, Half Nelson, Drive, Blue Valentine) seem less like he is suffering from a mental illness than he is socially awkward and is coddled and suffocated by his brother Gus (Paul Schneider, Parks and Recreation, Water For Elephants) and his wife Karin (Emily Mortimer, Young Adam, Hugo) as well as the rest of the odd ball small town characters. Also what is perhaps most unrealistic is that Lars's relationship with the sex doll is not sexual and that the doll lives with Lar's brother and his wife. Also the doctor who is surreptitiously treating Lars under the guise of "treating" Bianca (the sex doll), which is grossly unethical. The doctor Dagmar (Patricia Clarkson, Six Feet Under, Vick Christina Barcelona) is not described as a psychiatrist and thus not qualified to either diagnose or treat mental illnesses, and should have referred Lars to a psychiatrist. Also delusional disorder is a quite rare disorder. The early scenes in the film set up quite clumsily obvious reasons for this abrupt and absurd delusion's occurrence  Frankly put, a woman after church asks Lars whether he has a girlfriend, or is he "one of the gays?" and in another scene a co-worker next to Lars is looking at "porn" a website for purchasing made-to-specification sex dolls. This seems extremely tenuous and a far fetched premise for Lars to go out and purchase a sex doll and instantaneously form an extreme delusional disorder regarding it. The fact that the doctor claims that this "disorder" is not "genetic" or related to brain chemistry is also a big warning sign in terms of scientific believability and accuracy. As any mental illness with have some genetic and chemical/ biological component and delusional disorder will be related to psychotic and schizophrenic disorders (as delusions occur in a wide range of other disorders including Schizophrenia, Schizoeffective disorder,  and Bipolar Disorder) as well as to do with social and environmental factors. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. 

The doctor convinces Lars's brother and wife that they must go along with Lars's delusions which is definitely not the standard treatment practise as the psychiatric community's general opinion on delusions is to not acknowledge or foster the delusions as that just perpetuates them, and instead advises to gently rationalise and help contest the delusional beliefs. Also it is ridiculous that Lars's brother and wife convince most of their friends and towns people to also go along with his delusions. Which may seem sincere and nice, but may in actuality be more harmful than helpful to Lars. In fact perhaps the most accurate and appropriate response in the entire film is Lars's brother who reacts abruptly saying that his brother is "crazy", which may seem to be "demonising" mental illness and being prejudiced, but his opinions seem sound. Gus wants to get him medical treatment straight away and get advice, which is the appropriate response. He also defies the doctor's advice and attempts to tell Lars that "Bianca" is not real. However the way in which he did this while perhaps authentic, it was abrupt and ineffectual. Perhaps it is the town and other people that are crazy and not Lars. Lars believes something that is untrue, but the rest of the people go along knowing it is not true. Which is more crazy? They believe that by treating his "girlfriend" as if she is real that it will somehow get Lars to develop real relationship and social skills, but instead they are merely fostering his mental issues rather than confronting them. And of course the film resolves in a over-sentimental neat resolution package because of course that's exactly how it works in real life, right?

To read more about delusional disorder:

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/292991-overview

For another film about sex dolls see my review of Air Doll (2009)

#23 - Taipei Exchanges (2010) Review

Taipei Exchanges (2010), Hsiao Ya-Chuan
1/5

Strange story, kind of dull and boring. The cinematography is bad with slow sweeping shots that are unnecessary, also the piano music score is overly sentimental as is the acting. Not much of interest or substance to be found in this film, a disappointment.

#22 - Machete (2010) Review

Machete (2010), Ethan Maniquis & Robert Rodriguez
3/5

From the creators of Sin City (2005), and Planet Terror (2007) comes Machete (2010) a Mexican cartel film full of exploitation level gratuitous violence. The dialogue is terrible the story overwrought and cliche fulfilling all the genre predicability. The action sequences are amazingly over the top and ridiculous and a pure joy to watch. The cinematography is good embellishing the gore and violence well. The cast is a mixed bag with Danny Trejo (Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, Grindhouse) giving a great performance as Machete, while Lindsay Lohan (Mean Girls) is terrible and out of place, as is Jessica Alba (Sin City) who is the unbelievable border policewoman who always wears the practical high heels and can't hold a gun realistically. Michelle Rodriguez (Avatar) gives her standard wooden, bad performance and Steven Seagal (Hard to Kill, Under Siege) in this film is quite strange almost playing a homage of all his old action characters. Overall a good exploitation and enjoyably gratuitous.

#21 - Django Unchained (2013) Review

Django Unchained (2013), Quentin Tarantino
4/5

Tarantino's latest piece of genre film brilliance is the spaghetti western Django Unchained. Performances are great with the amazing Jamie Foxx (The Soloist, Jarhead) playing Django. The cinematography is stunningly shot on film, with many great slow motion sequences (although there are some bad slow-mo moments as well) and great visual style that is specific to Tarantino as an auteur. The script is powerful, moving and hilarious. Part great Western, part drama and exploitation with gratuitously beautiful violence, with so much hilarious blood spurts. The music is great overall complimenting the action sequences and imagery beautifully, with only a couple of exceptions that felt out of place. Performances were great notably Leonardo di Caprio (The Departed) as Calvin Candie, Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds) as Dr. Schultz and Kerry Washington (Ray) as Broomhilda. Exceptions were the obligatory cameo by Tarantino and his acting is made obviously bad by playing across the amazing Jamie Foxx and also the inclusion of Australian actor John Jarratt (Wolf Creek) who gives a terrible over the top performance with a grating Australian accent. Also, Tarantino "attempts" to do an Australian accent and fails dismally. Overall this is a great film, lots of amazing action, great casting, beautiful visuals, hilarious jokes and dialogue and lots of gratuitous violence and all the tongue-in-cheek stuff is bound together by amazing heart in this film.