I © Huckabees. Produced and directed by David O. Russell. 106 min. Fox Searchlight Pictures,

2004.  Reviewed by Jeremy Green.

(The following review does not necessarily express the opinion of the editors of Pax Pneuma.)

Albert Markovski (Jason Schwartzman, Rushmore), environmentalist and poet, sets out on a hilarious quest to lay bare three coincidences that may hold the meaning to life. He turns to the offices of Bernard and Vivian Jafee (Dustin Hoffman, Rain Man, and Lily Tomlin, Laugh In), existential detectives, for help. While Vivian spies on Albert in a rather obvious fashion, Bernard sets out to enlighten Albert on the ontology of the universe through a series of off-the-wall exercises.

It is not long in the investigation before Albert’s struggle to save a piece of woodlands and conflict with an up-and-coming Huckabees executive, Brad Stand (Jude Law, Closer), are found to be a major piece of the puzzle. Seeking to undermine Albert, Brad also employs the Jafees, but things do not go as planned (e.g., when his supermodel girlfriend (Naomi Watts, The Ring) starts wearing a bonnet).

Things really get rolling when Albert is introduced to Tom Corn (Mark Wahlberg, The Italian Job), a distraught fire-fighter seeking the meaning of life and obsessed about the “petroleum problem.” The two are ultimately wooed by Bernard’s and Vivian’s arch-nemesis, Caterine Vauban (Isabelle Huppert, Deux), and her brand of nihilism, while the Jafees struggle to regain their clients from her grips.

The search for meaning in life is essential to the human condition, but one must ask if I© Huckabees furthers this search one iota. First, despite the movie’s attempt at profundity (e.g., Bernard has several such utterances: “Everything you could ever want or be you already have and are,” or “The universe is an infinite sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere”), it is overwhelmingly nonsensical in its philosophical outlook. Such quotes as these show the movie’s overarching lack of coherence and disregard for any meaningful communication.

During an exercise, Albert is being instructed on the ontology of nature. Bernard uses a blanket to show that everything is ultimately united—disease, pleasure, pain, and love are merely modes of the blanket, but it is all blanket. His advice to Albert is to try to see this truth in the everyday world of human affairs. Albert is quick to point out the implications of such an idea; although everything appears different, in reality there is only one thing (however, one is hard-pressed to discover what this one thing actually is). Albert is right in his analysis, but wrong in his evaluation. Throughout the movie, the blanket metaphor is accepted as truth. Yet, such claims are necessarily false. To say that genuinely differing items are genuinely the same, e.g., a horse and a war, runs afoul of the law of noncontradiction—something cannot be what it is not at the same time, same way, and in the same respect. To speak in such ways is to allow meaningless logical contradictions to enter the conversation.

Further, advocating such monism is ethically deplorable. When one believes that everything is ultimately connected in such a way that eliminates metaphysical distinctions, the necessary implication is the loss of ethical distinctions. Good and evil are ultimately the same thing—blanket—and there is no genuine difference between shaking hands or murder. Yet, human evil and human suffering are realities, as are objective good and beauty. Even the existential detectives cannot escape the realm of objective value. When Albert and Tom begin courting the nihilistic ideas of Caterine, Bernard and Vivian are quick to point out the error in such ideas. Obviously they think that Caterine is wrong, and her ideas corrupt. But, this would mean that there is something objectively bad, and their worldview is then false.

Caterine is not without her philosophical faults. It is hard to see any good reason to go on living. Caterine’s position on the ontology of reality is never stated in terms of monism or materialism, but it is quite clear that ultimate human reality consists in little more than suffering. Life is the struggle between pure being (apparently attainable by being hit in the face with a giant rubber ball) and the inevitability of human suffering. The goal of life is to accept suffering while forging ahead on one’s own path. Such an idea is not far from Nietzsche’s “will to power.” Humans are caught in the muck of existence, and the individual must seek out her own good; she must will herself to power.

It is easy to see why such a worldview would be attractive to those without a theistic framework. Without an objective value-maker, there is no objective value to anything. There is no ultimate good; there is no ultimate beauty; and there is no ultimate meaning. All there appears to be is suffering and the struggle for survival. If there is no God, at least Caterine’s philosophy is honest about evil (unlike Bernard and Vivian). However, the fact that she continues to live in the movie begs the question. Why continue in suffering? Why not end it all? In a universe without meaning there seems to be little reason for doing anything whatsoever; it seems more like a breeding ground for insanity. Caterine is tenacious about convincing Albert and Tom, who really cares if someone believes the wrong thing, or, for that matter, feels a little pleasure or dies at the hands of terrorists? And, one’s own struggle to rise above the herd is delusional. The very idea presupposes that one is imposing meaning on one’s life where there is none. Ultimately, her worldview falls victim to the same pitfall as any atheistic existentialism—humans cannot live in a world without meaning. Insanity is fought off by believing in meaning where there is none; it is hard to see how that is not insanity.

In the end, Albert teaches his new friends that their squabble amounts to nothing at all. In fact, both worldviews are part of one another. Again, it is all blanket. Everything is connected, and the connection is drawn out through suffering. This helps nothing. Merely combining these positions compounds the problem of incoherence—one group says that meaning lies in connectedness, while the other says that there is no meaning. Apparently, there is meaning and there is no meaning, and this is the truth about reality. Such a worldview is utterly ridiculous. All of the logical and ethical problems of both worldviews are carried over in this new amalgam.

“But,” someone may ask, “this is a comedy; does it have to make sense?” This is a fair question. My first instinct, as one who loves stupid humor, e.g., Monty Python’s Flying Circus, is to answer no. Satire depends on drawing out the incoherence of differing opinions for its humor. However, satire uses these inconsistencies to make a larger point—that the position of the satirist is correct. I © Huckabees employs no such technique. Incoherence rules the movie, and is ultimately stamped with approval. It is clear that the monism presented is what the audience should believe. It is dressed up in humor to be accessible and acceptable.

Therefore, I cannot recommend this movie for those seeking entertainment. Not only is it incoherent, the philosophy advocated does not comport well with any kind of theistic worldview. Theism holds that there is a God who has created a meaningful universe—the opposite of I © Huckabees. Thus, one should think twice before spending five dollars to rent this movie. However, it is a great movie for philosophical analysis. With some qualification (there is pervasive strong language and a scene of sexuality) however, I can recommend this movie to those seeking a tool to sharpen their analytical skills. I © Huckabees will definitely give one food for thought, although it might be meaningless thought.

			

			

				

					< Prev
				
				

					 
				
				

					Next >