MovieChat Forums > I Heart Huckabees (2004) Discussion > My Existential Analysis of this 'Existen...

My Existential Analysis of this 'Existential Comedy'

posted 16 years ago by audib13
25 replies | jump to latest

This is one of my attempts to highlight a few of the connections between the thought provoking scenes of this movie and the Existential movement in 19th and 20th century Philosophy. I do list and describe a few scenes and quotes, so i'll throw on a SPOILER alert just in case.

One of the most prominent concepts in I (Heart) Huckabees is that of Martin Heidegger’s Dasein. Dasein, literally meaning "Being-there", is Heidegger’s method in which he applies another prominant Existential philospher, Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology to human beings themselves. What it does is instead of defining a "thing" and putting it into a preconceived category, one waits for the "thing" to reveal itself in its own time. The remarkable thing about Heidegger is that he never calls human beings "man", but instead we are Dasein - in other words, we are simply in a field of being where we are free to define who we are for ourselves. Our being Dasein is our "thrownness" into life(a prominant theme to the Existential movement), and we are "thrown" into life with other Dasein(you and I). This then leads to mitdasein ("with-there-being"), meaning we are still "being-there"(Dasien), but now we are there with other Dasein.

I (Heart) Huckabees demonstrates Heidegger’s Dasein and mitdasein multiple times, usually emphasized by Dustin Hoffman’s character, Bernard. In the first few scenes of the movie, Bernard speaks of infinity and "the blanket." He holds up a blanket and asks us to imagine that it is the entire universe. Each part of the blanket is a different person, place, or thing; whether it is a hammer, or Paris, or you, the reader of this review. The point he makes is that everything in the universe is interconnected and we can’t tell where one person begins and another ends. Bernard also tells us, "The universe is an infinite sphere, the center is everywhere and the circumference is nowhere." This is a wonderful example of Heidegger’s Dasein; our being has no outside to speak of, it is totality. The blanket represents mitdasein, demonstrating that we are not alone in our infinite field of being, but instead are accompanied by every other Dasein, all overlapping.

Another of Heidegger’s Existential ideas is tossed about in I (Heart) Huckabees, though not as defined as the illusions to Dasein. When Tommy (Mark Wahlberg) and Albert (Jason Schwartzman), meet the French nihilist, Caterine (Isabelle Huppert), she introduces Heidegger’s concept of authenticity and inauthenticity. In the scene, Caterine has Tommy and Albert repeatedly bash each other in the face with a large ball; they continue to hit one another until the one being beaten ceases to think for a brief period. They have discovered what Caterine calls "Pure Being." In ceasing to think, Albert and Tommy are allowed to simply be free to exist (Dasein, again), but they are soon pulled back in their minds, which Caterine names human drama. Though they think they can teach themselves to stay in a state of "Pure Being" all the time, Caterine explains that it will always be a cycle, going from "Pure Being" to human drama and back again.

According to Heidegger, before we realize our selves, we are in a state of Verfallenheit, or "fallen-ness." In this state, we are slaves to what Heidegger calls the One ("human drama"), or rather the public life. We are part of this public creature and we are categorized for being as such. This constricts us as Dasein and doesn’t allow us to realize our full potential. It is during this state of Verfallenheit, and being part of the One, that we are inauthentic. We are not being true to ourselves as Dasein, and therefore not allowing ourselves to rise to the level of existence we need to reach. It is only when we break free from the One and enter the level of Self that we become authentic, true selves. Heidegger understands, however, that sometimes we are pulled back into Verfallenheit, and must then go back through the One, or human drama as Caterine puts it, and back into the level of self. As Heidegger explains our cycle of inauthenticity and authenticity, Caterine explains much the same thing in her description of the cycle between "Pure Being" and human drama.
Another I (Heart) Huckabees scene with high existential fiber is the short poem about a rock which Albert has written for his "open spaces" campaign:

"Nobody sits like this rock sits. You rock, rock. The rock just sits and is. You show us how to just sit here...and that's what we need."

The poem brings to light the term Being-for-itself (être pour soi), which is most closely associated with famous Existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre. Because of our consciousness, this term is most often applied to human beings and states that we are always beyond ourselves, thinking thoughts of ourselves, obsessively thinking of our pasts and futures, etc. This causes alot of pain and suffering for human kind - causing us to view ourselves in the future or judge ourselves according to the past - failing to be in the present moment, in the NOW. Unlike the rock which is always in the present moment, or, "being-in-itself", Sartre believes that we can never possess ourselves fully. We can posses the rock, however, because it is a thing. The rock is not conscious, it is what it is at all moments...but this is something impossible for humans because of our capability to go beyond ourselves in consciousness.

In the final scene of the movie, Albert and Tommy are sitting on the rock and Albert claims that "The interconnection thing is definitely for real." Heidegger would smile at Albert’s newfound discovery of mitdasein, that we are not alone in our infinite field of being, but instead are accompanied by all others. "Everything is the same, even if it's different." In this closing scene, in the same place as when the movie opened, seeing them both there on the rock made it hard not to think of the characters Vladimir and Estragon from Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, a famous Existential play in which two men wait endlessly in the middle of nowhere for a man named "Godot".

The Existentialism that gave birth to many of the scenes in the movie, I believe to be numerous. I have only touched upon a fraction of these. For example, two very famous philosophers - Friedrich Nietzsche and Soren Kierkegaard - can be seen as represented by the characters of Caterine and Bernard. Nietzsche, most well known for his claim that "God is dead", may very well be an incarnation in the philosophy shown by Caterine. Kierkegaard on the other hand, who believed that God is not dead, but trully being faithful requires a "leap of faith", is brought alive in the enlightening and "soft" teachings of Bernard and his wife. I wont go into further detail about the works of these two men, but encourage anyone interested to read deeper into their two philosophies...you will certainly find more connections between the movie and the Existential movement.

I hope this has helped share some light on those both perplexed by the movie and those interested in knowing the deeper historical and philosophical aspect of I (Heart) Huckabees. If you take some time to educate yourself on the background of Existentialism, you may find that I (Heart) Huckabees prooves to be a totally different experience when viewed a second time around.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cregox 16 years ago

The script was carefully constructed, yes. That's all I agree in with you, bored one.

What do you even mean "not all coincidences are meaningful" as being comical or confused? It's plain simple: somethings have deep meanings, somethings don't.

This is not a parody of anything, and it is constructed with a lot of meanings. It's not a joke, but it has a lot of jokes in it. Even if it's a joke, you can only joke about truth. Of course, this is a matter of interpretation.

Try to understand like this: one can arbitrary add meaning to anything within one's mind, but it will only make sense if it's greeted by society due to human nature. So, connecting things (add meaning) does not depend on the author.

Let's say that old crazy David Russel was really just trying to make everything a confusion and unconnected. Every single step of it. If even then everyone else can see on one single step a single reason, the same reason, then there it is: a meaningful part.

And there's enough people in this world to add meaning to the whole movie, as you can see if you want to.

So, the more perfectly one person can construct anything to have no meaning will not necessarily leave it meaningless, since it does not depend on that single person.

And you're just expressing your single opinion close-minded assuming it's shared with the writer.

By the way, I'm a hypocrite right now: I wrote a big reply in a post that I didn't read because it was too big. :P

[–] info-16301 16 years ago

This movie doesn't convince with its "philosophy" because it lacks the humor and craftsmanship of someone like Wes Anderson (or Herzog or Lynch), who can pull such stunts more elegantly. It looks like beginner's poetry, where everything is too obvious and serves its pupose in a crude way.

That's the main problem with this movie. The Film has and is a language in itself - if you abuse this art-form to "write" (instead of "film") a popular psychology/self-help novel through it you don't exploit the medium fully.
One shouldn't put awkard dialogue into actor's mouth and write exemplary situations that proove their thesis... You write a story, use symbols, use the rich language of the movie art/craft. A little detachment, ambigous meanings, elegant solutions, symbolic or allegoric story with several possible meanings (think Lynch, Kubric), the form (aesthetics, cinematography) of the film should be on par with the message, too, etc.

I was especially surprised that those actors who are experienced stars performed like in an art-school movie because of the unconvincing and poorly written scipt or maybe just average or poor directing of the whole thing.

One bright moment is the scene/demonstration of why you cannot be in the "pure being" state all the time and how unavoidable the human drama is- it was sexy and convincing for a second, but still - if I imagine what could Kubrick do with such material...

[–] cregox 16 years ago

I hope this wasn't a reply to me, as the forum make it seems like. o_O

Either way, you're just relying, like my dad, too much on definitions.

It's far from a perfect film, but it's also far from anywhere in any average. It's not a history, it's not reality, it wasn't meant to be convincing or well crafted telling story.

It's a style and while I agree it could be done in another way, and it could be better, it was still enjoyable and pretty well done. If you tried to see poetry in this you're probably reading way too much poems.

[–] info-16301 16 years ago

Partly it might also be a reply to your post, but mostly it is my disappointment with something which addresses the themes tha should be presented better (IMO).

Mentioning beginners poetry was just for the purpose of saying what is the main critique from me - poor execution.. when the metaphors are too naive and the point expressed blatantly obvious (and naive), so it looses some dramatic power and narrows the possibility of diverse interpretation.

I usually only write here when some film surprises me positively or negatively. This one didn't convince me and I was sad that it didn't since the theme is exactly what I would like to see filmed in a less (un-intentionally) naive way. Like let's say "Inland Empire" or to stay on a light side - "Life Aquatic", maybe :)

[–] cregox 16 years ago

Yeah, it was far from being a dramatic movie, but that's one charm of it. It's more like a different way of doing a documentary. :P

I'll probably keep those two films you suggested on my list "need to watch"... Actually "Life Aquatic" already is and I didn't remember.

Have you watched Peaceful Warrior? It's basically the same theme, but a completely different approach, and a whole different movie. Plus, it's based on a real history.

[–] info-16301 16 years ago

Well, thanks for the suggestion, I wouldn't want to turn this board into a forum... still -

I also don't like Peaceful Warrior :) , since it seems naive to me and it is based on a book which is not a real history, I am sure about that. The author is ambigous about it - but I would call it perfidious lying...
It is a softened down version of the stories of Carlos Castaneda (I would even say a "blatant copy"), and Castaneda's stories are again not "real history", but a fabrication from various sources and a big hoax altogether. That is exactly what I hate about dealing with such "themes".

On the other hand you have Herzog... who is openly manipulative with truth - "ecstatic truth", but very craftful in his movie art - you should check his later "documentaries" - Encounters At the End of The World, Wild Blue Yonder, etc. then you have a rather dated "Holy Mountain" by Jodorowsky - you should see it once without his commentaries and than re-watch it with them - it is hilarious. His "El Topo" and "Santa sangre" are masterpieces, too.
With Lynch you can hardly go wrong. Maybe the "Lost Highway" is not something to write home about... But he is "existential" on a less naive level...

Wes Anderson makes very "existential" and also fun movies, which don't push their philosophy in your face like the kind of "..Huckabees" or "Peaceful Warrior".

Anyway, I shouldn't spoil your enjoyment too much - we all have different tastes...

[–] cregox 16 years ago

Boards and forums have almost no difference anyway. One of the most used forum software is even called "Bulletin Board". :D

So, I see you really dig into underground and alternatives from mainstream. I like that. But be careful, there's always a good reason why things that don't get public attention are usually forgotten. Calling an unknown job a "masterpiece" is a little naive in itself. Either that, or I'm the outdated one.

Granted, the best existential movie I've ever watched is Forrest Gump. I also agree Peaceful Warrior is not a great movie, and I know it's not a real history. It's just based on few facts, and you seem to know lot better about its background than I do. It's definetely mostly invented. I still think there's some content to read from the film, a matter of interpretation, choosing the right point of view.

But you do seem to lack a lot of faith on the unbelievable, which is quite normal nowadays. Or maybe you do believe science can't explain everything the way it is today. Maybe you kinda agree there are few differences between a hospital and a graveyard. I just hope you at least leave some room for the unexplainable.

[–] info-16301 16 years ago

You are right about the "boards"...

Just enjoy...

Forrest Gump, :) Yeah, not bad for kids. :)

Masterpieces are those things that other "more recognized" film-makers use as inspirations for their work and where they get their ideas... And some of such people are also Werner Herzog and surely also Alejandro Jodorowsky - out of the remains of his megalomaniac never realized project "Dune" two of the worlds most famous franchizes emerged - Alien and Star Wars... (a long story - better told here: http://www.duneinfo.com/unseen/jodorowsky.asp )

excerpt:

"Me, I liked to fight for Dune. Almost all the battles were won, but the war was lost. The project was sabotaged in Hollywood. It was French and not American. Its message was not "enough Hollywood". There were intrigues, plundering. The story-board circulated among all the large studios. Later, the visual aspect of Star Wars resembled our style. To make Alien, they invited Moebius, Foss, Giger, O'Bannon, etc. The project announced to American the possibility of carrying out science fiction films to large spectacle and out of the scientific rigour of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

The Dune project changed our life. When it was over, O'Bannon entered a psychiatric hospital. Afterwards, he returned to the fight with rage and wrote twelve scripts which were refused. The thirteenth one was Alien.

Like him, all those who took part in the rise and fall of the Dune project learned how to fall one and one thousand times with savage obstinacy until learning how to stand. I remember my old father who, while dying happy, said to me: "My son, in my life, I triumphed because I learned how to fail".

And anyway, those films are not forgotten, they have an even too cultic status for my taste. :)

[–] cregox 16 years ago

True, that's one good meaning for masterpiece. I guess it is also used as "wonderful piece of work" due to that, and then again, you must have used it correctly.

Only place I've heard of Dune so far was on the old videogame, and I knew it was based on a novel or something. Now I know a little more about it, and got interested just like in everything else you've mentioned before.

You resemble me my dad. He is always arguing against me using a lot of knowledge, experience, vocabulary, which I naturally don't have so far and can't refute just yet. But he always forget to pay attention to some crucial details...

Get Brazil for instance. It's a film of great value for me, and probably nobody else. I can see hidden meanings everywhere, starting from the song that inspired Terry Gilliam. He is not a very detail oriented kind of guy. He didn't put anything that's meaningful to me in the movie on purpose. But, somehow, it is there. That's when a lot of coincidences begin to defy the definition of random.

It's the little butterfly (or computer generated flying feather) that accidentally was filmed in a peculiar way, and that single thing touched the subconscious of millions of people because it means something nobody can describe, or barely notice.

And then you get films like Titanic to win every award despite of its oblivious script and almost no merit as a movie concept whatsoever. I wouldn't say it's unexplainable, but to properly explain it would be way too complex. Or you just blame the way awards are given, or any random fact.

[–] info-16301 16 years ago

It's my IMDB day obviously, :)

Nice chatting with you, sorry for being like your father, :) I am probably older than you (in my 30's) and being a wise-ass, sorry.

If you heard about Dune just now - don't watch the Lynch version, you might think less of the man, :) Just kidding - it was a flawed project, but worth checking none the less...

You mentioned Brazil - another masterpiece and you described why it is a masterpiece and what it meant to you - you're on a good way :)

The entire Gilliam opus is worth watching, including the 12 Monkeys - I liked that. And even the Time Bandits - great fantasy...

And of course the comedy movies of Monty Python teach you more "philosophy" than all the "drama" movies of the last decades of Hoolywood combined.

[–] cregox 16 years ago

Worry not, I'm updated with Terry due to Monty Python, and all his movies due to Brazil and 12 monkeys. :)

I like the end of Time Bandits, when the supreme being explains why he allows evil to exist. Kinda.

You should watch his interview about Brazil...

But still, I think Back to the Future represents a more actual reality of time traveling than 12 monkeys.

Nothing that beats The Meaning of Life of Brian and the Holy Grail "trilogy", tho. :D

Each one of them are the first and only films I've seem trying to, and succeeding to, explaining such big topics. In a way.

And nice chatting with you too! I'm off to lunch and work. :P

[–] greenbanzanas 13 years ago

If everything was so blatantly obvious, I wonder if you can explain the balloon scene at the end. I have my own interpretation, but do you?

[–] everlone_2000 16 years ago

That's the main problem with this movie. The Film has and is a language in itself - if you abuse this art-form to "write" (instead of "film") a popular psychology/self-help novel through it you don't exploit the medium fully.
One shouldn't put awkard dialogue into actor's mouth and write exemplary situations that proove their thesis... You write a story, use symbols, use the rich language of the movie art/craft. A little detachment, ambigous meanings, elegant solutions, symbolic or allegoric story with several possible meanings (think Lynch, Kubric), the form (aesthetics, cinematography) of the film should be on par with the message, too, etc.

The thing is though... it's in making the subtext explicit and turning it into the story that the film actually achieves its originality. Plenty of films have been made that engage in an existential discussion in the way you describe, but surely the fun of Huckabees is that it makes those concepts into the story.

The director's earlier film Three Kings kind of works in the way way you describe, using the first Gulf War as a backdrop for characters moving between nihilism and existentialism. This is a different approach, and it's a funny and unusual one.

[–] gallae 16 years ago

I had thought that Catarine was a sly reference to Satre, who didn't seem to have much of a sense of humour. But the Existentialism is a hard concept for me.

Regardless, I enjoyed the film thoroughly! :)

Laura S

[–] timmy_501 16 years ago

Thaks audib, that was a very useful analysis.

Seems every path leads me to nowhere

[–] triviadude 15 years ago

In regards to Caterine and Bernard, I think you are right in seeing her as representative of a kind of Nietzschean atheistic existentialism (I think they made her French because she was supposed to be a spokesperson for a kind of Sartrean philosophy). However, I would interpret Bernard as representating more of a Buddhist point of view.

I think the intent was to show that Caterine and Bernard are flip sides of the same coin and are really complementary sides of the same philosophy, not enemies. The point being, that people need to be able to see both the interconnectdess of everything and it's non-interconnectedness.

This is sort of summed up in the line at the end where they're asked, "Are you two part of a team?"

[–] calindreams 14 years ago

The thing is though... it's in making the subtext explicit and turning it into the story that the film actually achieves its originality. Plenty of films have been made that engage in an existential discussion in the way you describe, but surely the fun of Huckabees is that it makes those concepts into the story.

The director's earlier film Three Kings kind of works in the way way you describe, using the first Gulf War as a backdrop for characters moving between nihilism and existentialism. This is a different approach, and it's a funny and unusual one.

This is how I feel about the film. I love Lynch, Anderson and all the other directors who are very infuenced by philosophy and weave their understanding into their films, maybe unconsciously sometimes. 'Synecdoche New York' I think does this particularly well.

This film is much more straightforward and is essentially a comedy about philosophy. It works very well and is original. It's also a nice introduction to philosophical thinking for those who haven't studied it. It doesn't try to propund any theory either like one other godawful documentary/fictional film whose name escapes me at the moment.

[–] calindreams 14 years ago

Oh yes - godawful film = 'What the Bleep Do We Know'.

My church was showing this as part of a discussion group. It's pseudo-scientific claptrap. Huckabees explores similar territory much more masterfully.

[–] triviadude 14 years ago

In regards to "What the Bleep Do We Know", your church might have been better off conducting the exercise where you hit yourself in the face with the ball until you get it, rather than watching that one.

Now that I think more about the two sides of the same coin, are you part of a team question, with Bernard and Vivian & Catherine, they actually sort of made that theme more explicit with Tommy and Albert. As students/clients, they are approaching the same things from two different angles. Bernard and Vivian actually seem to get this with Tommy and Albert because they deliberately pair them together as each other's Other. But they don't get it in regards to their own relationship to Catherine, they see her as opposite, not complementary. At the end, Tommy and Albert seem to have greater insight into this than their teachers.

Although I suppose if you want to go outside the bounds of what's actually portrayed, you could speculate that Bernard & Vivian & Catherine are working together but they don't want their clients to know this because it's important for them to make their discoveries on their own, rather than have it simply spelled out to them.

[–] calindreams 14 years ago

I liked the Bernhard, Vivian and Catherine dynamic. Even though they were all experts it showed them still having more to learn about life. I don't think they were in cahoots, but yes, they were in the end each others 'other'.

[–] gordanz_92 14 years ago

movies are fun
:)

[–] Chytilova 13 years ago

"...you will certainly find more connections between the movie and the Existential movement.

I hope this has helped share some light on those both perplexed by the movie and those interested in knowing the deeper historical and philosophical aspect of I (Heart) Huckabees. If you take some time to educate yourself on the background of Existentialism, you may find that I (Heart) Huckabees prooves to be a totally different experience when viewed a second time around."

Great anaylsis. This was insanely more enjoyable to read than I Heart Huckabees was to watch. A litany of connections between the film and the philosophy doesn't automatically make the movie a good one unfortunely. The humor is god-awful and the cutsy attitude of too many recent independent films is more than a little off-putting. Unfortunely I already knew a lot about existentialism before watching the film and for the first time in my life it made me cringe in the hands of this awful director.

Before actually getting into the hardcore philosophy of existentialism I suggest people read the Tolstoy short story The Death of Ivan Ilyich. That is the best starting point.

[–] dark_frances 13 years ago

There are few things more damaging and misleading than superficial knowledge. No-knowledge is clear, curious or easy to expose, good-knowledge is clear and revealing, but a little bit of knowledge is up for all interpretative grabs. It can mislead with ease, it can sell itself for any price, it can appear however the interpreter is inclined to see it and it makes counter-arguments insanely complicated (for one thing, because it can always protest "but that's exactly what I was saying!"). I could try to explain why the OP's concept of "Dasein" is wrong - for instance, and without speaking in Heideggerese, this mode of being (Dasein) is inherently characteristic to only humans, so being "simply in a field of being" (social or not social) cannot be the characteristic of the concept, because it can be said about so many other things and creatures; also "...where we are free to define who we are for ourselves" is not Heidegger but New Age. But it would be an awfully difficult and most certainly pointless enterprise to clear this conceptual jungle manually, so I'll do it automatically: to anybody really interested, including the OP if they are genuinely interested in the subject and willing to go about it the right way, I recommend this article on Heidegger (and subsequent references) for further clarification: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/. But I should point out that you absolutely do not need to understand Heidegger in order to understand this movie, ...and thank god for that, we've struggled through the whole third year of faculty trying to understand his conceptual contraptions. It would really be one of the most absurd things in the world to have to know Heidegger in order to understand an American indie comedy, and it is thankfully not the case for this movie.
This movie may be a small flick with a playful penchant for self-aware fun philosophy - if nothing else, the philosophical cuteness it throws at us is a lot more fun than the list of philosophical quotes that forms The Addiction. But the analysis in the OP, apart from mingling the concepts it takes into account, is also drawing the oddest connections between (mostly random) concepts from various philosophies and the silly taunts from the movie. How in the bloody hell could human drama pull us out of the state of Pure Being if Pure Being = Dasein, and Dasein is essentially being "thrown" into life with other Dasein, which interaction is the main thing that leads to human drama? The movie has its inconsistencies as it is, it surely doesn't need further hunchbacked concepts grafted to it and then pulled together to warp ends until they meet.

This is an easy movie, mostly about a "conflict at work", where someone becomes obsessed with a colleague to the point where it makes them question their own identity and purpose in life, all done in fairly confusing but somewhat cute fun, involving dramatic philosophical concepts in a deliberately casual light, like a self-aware version of that book I saw once in a store with the title "Yoga for busy people". The movie even ends with the idea that cold and successful people are actually vewy unhappy deep inside, and will fail in the long run allowing the small but honest people to prevail. An old cliche, possibly deliberate but I doubt it.
It is the story of a (to me unlikeable) workaholic with careless parents who's going through an existential crisis because the suspicious and bewitching Brad wants to take his job and possibly harm the trees and the marsh (say that in one breath), and some absurd occurrences he's going through trying to understand "what does it all mean". I'm thinking now of Catherine Zeta Jones' line in High Fidelity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq6Ks4pxixw#t=6m15s), addressed to a John Cusack character in a similarly confused state, state triggered not by problems at work, but by his girlfriend leaving him. The philosophical concepts in Huckabees where there mostly to say "I'm making such a big fuss out of my annoyance, but this is what we all do in such circumstances", and to allow for a fairly fresh set of characters like the existential detectives and the missionary of nothingness, instead of the more typical good advisor / bad advisor characters in such movies. Going any further than that plunges one straight into gagaland - and by this I mean the Existential Concept of Gaga.
Oh, and I suspect that the name of the company had been invented specifically so that it could be twisted to F#ckabees.

there's a highway that is curling up like smoke above her shoulder

[–] greenbanzanas 13 years ago

Hmmmm.

Mitdasein=with being there

Midrash=with knowledge

Daleth=knowledge in Hebrew, but if you ask me it really means Death.

Mitdasein=with knowledge/death we can understand our existence.