I ♥ Huckabees Pt. 2
Ok, I’m a geek. I watched it again.
Slightly different take on it now.
I still think that Isabelle Huppert’s character embodies a sort of continental philosophy, though I’m not so sure about the analytic part now. They seem to embody more of just classical western philosophy, which is more in line with analytical philosophy than with continental. I’m talking about Platonic/Socratic thought, and perhaps some pre-Socratics as well.
The interconnected and oneness thing, in particular, reminds me of some ancient Greek philosophy, though nowadays that sort of angle is seen as more of an eastern thing.
But, I will say that this movie is totally in line with my whole joke about how philosophy ruined my life. It’s not exactly a joke — it’s actually pretty accurate. The deeper you delve into these questions, the more unsettling things get. It’s particularly scary when you start to see yourself more objectively.
On the other hand, it is eventually beneficial, even for pragmatic reasons. Kind of hard to explain, though. But I’m certainly a different person having studied philosophy. Well, maybe. I don’t know how much some friends would agree with that. Hmm.
One more thing about Chris’s take on it. As far as lack of resolution… I still think there was resolution, but any remaining threads are there for a reason. I mean, I don’t think anyone achieves true understanding of reality. You might think you do, but as time goes on, you’ll start to see holes in whatever theory you’ve embraced. If you don’t see those holes, then you’re probably not being intellectually rigorous.
March 28th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
What I mean by preachy is that they have to sit there and explain the concepts to you.
To me The Matrix is a great example of a philosophical movie done well. The concepts for the most part are shown not told to us. The scene with Dustin Hoffman and the blanket should not have been needed and the word existentialism should have never been mentioned as it isn’t a common concept outside of universities and coffee shops.
Again, I’d rather them show it then talk about it.
Obviously you saw more in this movie because of your background which tells me that it does rely on buzzwords and concepts and fails to communicate its message to a larger audience. It is almost like watching a movie in another language.
March 29th, 2005 at 1:03 am
What buzzwords? I mean is a buzzword a buzzword if it’s been used for a healthy chunk of a century or longer? Existentialism has changed a bit in the 20th century, but as a basic concept it’s been around for a longer time.
Maybe “jargon†is a better word. But all genres have jargon. Star Trek has a ton of jargon/buzzwords that your average person can’t comprehend. I know I have no clue what a tachyon burst or whatever is. Does that mean that Star Trek is in another language?
What about Shakespeare? I have trouble understanding the language there. Granted, he wrote in the vernacular of his time, but it is a challenge nowadays. Would you criticize teachers who teach the original rather than the pony version?
Besides, they didn’t use much more complex language than would be used in the first few weeks of a philosophy 101 class.
Did you watch the movie only once?
Furthermore, I think you’re unfairly criticizing Huckabees because you’re giving it a purpose that it may not have really had. Who said that its goal was to convey complex philosophical problems to a general audience in an easily digestible, 90-minute dose? Sure, the Matrix sort of does that, but it never really gets past Descartes or Hume. Don’t get me wrong, that stuff is complex, but the Matrix only scratched the surface. The philosophy was really an excuse for kick-ass kung fu. They kind of glossed over their excuses for killing innocent people, didn’t they?
The Matrix was good for getting people to question stuff like whether or not we can trust our perception. But people only take that so far. They wonder if they’re hooked up to tubes.
There were two important questions in Huckabees which stood out to me which were emphatically not laced with jargon or “buzzwordsâ€. The obvious question was, “How am I not myself?†I’m still kicking that one around. The other was Tom’s question: “How come people only ask the big questions when something horrible happens?â€
The second one I can answer in part, and I think it relates to this matter. People (in general) only ask hard questions when those questions are thrust upon them. Otherwise, people want their reality television, their pop or easy listening or death metal or whatever. They pull this blanket over their perceptions in a much more dangerous way than explicitly demonstrated in the Matrix.
Remember how that family reacted to Albert and Tom? The father reacted immediately, before things got ugly. He warned him that curiosity killed the cat.
Philosophy is not easy. Parts of it are. But big, difficult questions have big, difficult, multi-faceted answers, if they have an answer at all.
So people brush off these questions until the World Trade Center blows up. That’s what he was talking about.
If the director made it dense, he did it to prove a point, and to reward the person who really dug into the movie, or who took shortcuts like me (yay college).
Anyway, I agree in part with the explanation thing, but it didn’t bother me much. I did, however, cringe when Lily Tomlin’s character asked Albert whether he had transcended time and space. Awful line. His response was funny, though.
March 29th, 2005 at 10:37 am
You have some interesting points but the movie works for you. If the movie was made for only philosophy majors and not the public then it was a total success.
However, if the movies intent was to make a funny movie that presented philosophical concepts then it totally fails. I didn’t find any of the movie funny because I wasn’t getting the jokes. I was missing something and that something tells me it was my background in philosophy. Had I read Hume or Descart maybe than I would have found the movie funny.
As a matter of fact I suspected this which is why I recommended the movie to you. There is a scene in Dustin Hoffman’s office were he has a bunch of boxes drawn on a blackboard and he rubs up against it causing part of the image to end up on his jacket.
The scene was amusing but I felt like I was missing something and that perhaps the scene had more meaning and would have been hysterical had I read this book or taken that class.
So, I see this movie as being good in a philosophy class to demonstrate some ideas which you instantly picked up on. It failed to educate me or even make me laugh. At the end I questioned nothing except why the movie was made. I think Zoolander had more merit.
Finally. I am not in the minority on this. Check out the reviews and you get a general “I didn’t get it” from the critics, most who are educated. So, what is that you got that the rest of us didn’t get and why?
March 29th, 2005 at 11:10 am
I’m not sure who the movie was made for. I get the impression it was made more for those who made it. But I can’t say for sure.
I did think it was funny, but I wasn’t laughing straight through it. Some of it I personally identified with. Tom’s conviction in particular reminds me of the enthusiasm with which I’d argue a few years ago, and still do on occasion. That also embarrassed me a little.
You didn’t laugh when they were slamming each other in the face with the big ball? I mean, how ridiculous was that?
Ok, the blackboard thing. First, I laughed just because it was funny. As far as what it might mean, well, I assume those cubes on the board were supposed to be like the cubes Hoffman’s character is always talking about. So him getting them on his jacket then standing in front of the board and kind of blending in may just be reinforcing the whole “blanket” thing. I dunno.
You may be right about what the majority of people think of the movie, I dunno. I glanced at rottentomatoes.com and I saw mostly positive or neutral reviews with a few negative ones. But that’s beside the point. People are confused by Finnegan’s Wake – that alone doesn’t mean it was a failure.
But, yeah. I suppose my background led me to enjoy it more than others. Though I’ll bet that a buddhist would enjoy it too.
I wonder what Jason thinks of it?
And actually, I should also say that watching it and thinking about it hasn’t been entirely positive, either. See my earlier comment about philosophy ruining my life.
One more thing to clear up — I mentioned something earlier about the use of the word “existential”. I’m pretty sure they weren’t talking about Sartre or anything. “Existential Detectives” in this case means that they examine their client’s position in and perspective of the universe and themselves. That is, the “Existential Detectives” were investigating so-and-so’s existence.