I Heart Huckabees - my take

[Howard Schumann]

I ♥ HUCKABEES

Directed by David O. Russell (2004)

David O. Russell's I ♥ Huckabees is designed to make you laugh and/or think but does neither. It is a strip mall full of over simplified ideas, a cinematic discount store in which everything is for sale: interconnectedness, nihilism, sex, environmentalism, meaninglessness -- you pays your money and you takes your choice. An across-the-board hip satire that spoofs all sides: liberal activists, French intellectuals, self-help groups, Zen Buddhism, right wing Christians, and big business, the film spares nobody but touches nothing, leaving everyone looking slightly ridiculous. In trying to play everything for laughs, Huckabees ends up being bull session fodder, a film that lacks a coherent point of view, has no payoff, and propagates the lie that the world is so complicated that one point of view is as good as another.

In the film, Jason Schwartzman is Albert Markovski, a nerdy environmental activist who heads a protest group called the Open Spaces Coalition, involved in trying to protect a patch of marshland from being bulldozed by the Huckabees department store chain. When Albert begins to question a series of coincidences in his life involving a tall Sudanese man (Ger Duany), he engages a pair of so-called "existential detectives", Vivian and Bernard to sort out the meaning of the encounters and provide direction in his life. Played by veteran actors Lily Tomlin and Dustin Hoffman, the detectives attempt to "dismantle" Albert's ego, telling him that everything in the universe is interconnected and that we all part of the same blankie, but all Albert can imagine doing is hacking off the limbs of his enemies as he lies in a zipped body bag.

The investigation of Albert's case turns out to require surveillance of every aspect of his life, including his bathroom activities and his professional relationship with Brad Stand (Jude Law), a corporate honcho for the Huckabees Department Store chain. The soulless corporation is one of Russell's targets and he has crafted its perfect spokespersons in Brad and his girlfriend Dawn (Naomi Watts), the corporate poster girl. Brad has already prevailed in taking over much of the land and now seeks control of the coalition itself, using a public relations smile and vague promises of a sponsorship deal that will produce environmentally friendly television spots with singing star Shania Twain.

As part of the training, Albert is introduced to another of the detective's clients, a depressed firefighter Tommy (Mark Wahlberg), whose wife has just left him because of his outspoken antagonism to the petroleum industry. Both try to fit the detective's philosophy into their experience but are so frustrated with the lack of results that they turn to a French intellectual, Catherine Vauban (Isabelle Huppert), looking for better answers. What Ms. Vauban has to say, however, in an obvious spoof of the French Existentialists, is that life is full of drama and suffering, a random occurrence of events without structure or coherence, amounting to little more than cruelty, chaos, and meaninglessness. The two conflicting philosophies wage a determined battle right to the final frame.

In I ♥ Huckabees, Russell wants to show Hollywood that important questions can be dealt with in a film that also entertains and he deserves much credit for setting his sights high. Russell throws out a bunch of ideas, however, then rejects them all, setting up a false conflict between advocates of "pure being" and "everything is meaningless" in a flip treatment of subjects that may seem funny and clever to some but which, in this era of Bush II, many people take very seriously. All protagonists try to come to grips with their place in the world, but the characters are so dopey that you wonder if they would be able to figure out how to program a VCR, let alone unlock the secrets of the universe.

While the film raises many important questions, it looks for answers in the wrong places and key questions are not posed. What does it mean to be human? How does one operate in life to produce the maximum satisfaction? Who is responsible for our experience? Rather than looking at their life and seeing what works and what doesn't, the character's search is only for an abstraction, a belief system they think will provide the key. Without a larger context in which to hold its ideas, however, the film becomes a purely intellectual exercise that lacks emotional resonance. Mr. Russell has said, "Philosophy doesn't interest me, except in so far as it is practical and it makes you feel more alive. He should have heeded his own words.

GRADE: B-

[Johann]

Another great review Howard.

I saw Huckabees and hated it.
I understand everything Russell was doing and laughed at a few things but I found it to be insanely pretentious.

Your review sums up a lot of my feelings about it. thanks.

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Johann
Another great review Howard.

I saw Huckabees and hated it.
I understand everything Russell was doing and laughed at a few things but I found it to be insanely pretentious.

Your review sums up a lot of my feelings about it. thanks. Thanks very much Johann. I don't feel that Russell was being pretentious (actually I dislike that word). I think he wanted to entertain and instruct at the same time but either the ideas were not completely understood or he wanted to play it down the middle. Either way it left me unssatisfied.

[Johann]

He probably did want to entertain and instruct, but I found Russell was truly preaching to the choir.

Who was this movie made for?

What did he hope to gain by giving us meditations that present us with no option but to love it's "spirit". I didn't feel enlightened or bestowed with anything new. The questions posed are questions I had answers to long ago.

But I'll be the first to admit that answers kill creation and questions promote. Which is why I hate this movie.
I get sour feelings when I think of the TONE of the questions, and the lack of a true philosophy.

Where's Nietzsche?!

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Johann
He probably did want to entertain and instruct, but I found Russell was truly preaching to the choir. Which choir would that be?
Who was this movie made for? I think it was intended for a young audience or those fogies who still like to think once in a while.
What did he hope to gain by giving us meditations that present us with no option but to love it's "spirit". I didn't feel enlightened or bestowed with anything new. The questions posed are questions I had answers to long ago. What is the meaning of life? Are you separate and alone in the universe or interconnected with everything that lives? Is suffering necessary? Glad you have answers to these questions. Wonder if you can share some of them. I'd be very interested because I'm still pondering them.
But I'll be the first to admit that answers kill creation and questions promote. Which is why I hate this movie. I get sour feelings when I think of the TONE of the questions, and the lack of a true philosophy. How would you describe the tone of the questions? If the movie espoused a "true philosophy", wouldn't you be criticizing it for being too "didactic"? Just wondering.
Where's Nietzsche Got me. Didn't he die?

[Johann]

Which choir? The choir of people who do not seek to observe more.


The meaning of life is the meaning which you give it.
Can't get any plainer than that.

We are separate only in consciousness.

Suffering is not necessary.

The movie's tone was too pushy. Too frantic.
If it had a true philosophy I might have liked it, but didactic is a possibility.

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Johann
Which choir? The choir of people who do not seek to observe more.


The meaning of life is the meaning which you give it.
Can't get any plainer than that.

We are separate only in consciousness.

Suffering is not necessary.

The movie's tone was too pushy. Too frantic.
If it had a true philosophy I might have liked it, but didactic is a possibility. Alrighty then.

[Johann]

People use "alrighty then" in only two circumstances:
mimicing Jim Carrey or as a lame phrase.

I don't know what one you're demonstrating Howard.

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Johann
People use "alrighty then" in only two circumstances:
mimicing Jim Carrey or as a lame phrase.

I don't know what one you're demonstrating Howard. Actually I was mimicing Frances McDormand in Fargo. It simply means okay. I got it - nothing sinister.

[Johann]

What, we're not gonna launch into "the meaning of life"?

You're a thread killer. *smirks*

[Howard Schumann]

Yes I definitely have strong views on these subjects but do not think this thread is the appropriate place to discuss them. If you wish to pursue this, I'll be more than happy to. Just PM me and I will respond, time and energy permitting.

[Johann]

Howard.

A movie about existential detectives created this thread. You were moved to etch comments about it here.

It's a movie about life, and even though I hated it I cannot think of a better inspiration for dialogue on vidas and deities...

Right here. In the open.
But if you really don't want to go there, I understand.


Even if we were talking out our asses it would have some merit:
people are inquisitive about this sort of thing, and it could stir up wisdom through sharing- which happens all the time @ FilmWurld.

[Howard Schumann]

The meaning of life is the meaning which you give it. I agree if what you are saying is that life is empty and meaningless but it doesn't mean anything that it doesn't mean anything. To me the only reality is experience and that spiritual growth is the purpose we are here for.
We are separate only in consciousness. I would also agree if what you are saying is that our separateness is an illusion fostered by space/time limitations and that, in reality, we are part of everything/nothing (God).
Suffering is not necessary. I agree up to a point. Since our purpose here is to expand our conscious awareness, suffering allows us to feel the needs and wants of others. To the extent that this can be achieved without suffering, it is not necessary.

[Johann]

Hmm.


I think our best friend is experience and that you do not have to experience the opposite of what you want/desire in order to confirm your wants/desires.

God to me is "the unmoved mover".
Neale Walsch spoke of it in his amazing Conversations with God books. NOTE: you do NOT have to believe he is actually talking to God in a conversation. In fact, disregard it. Just read it as though YOU are God talking to Neale and you'll be pretty damn impressed. You'll get some answers on life/God, etc. that are as good as anything published. After reading those books I found that Neale is either actually talking to God or he's a literary genius. Take your pick.

But to get back to talking out our asses, I believe that God does not, CAN-NOT change or interfere with our choices or our circumstances. He/She won't do it. It's in the programming. If we have free will and the ability to make choices and experience their consequences, then why the hell would some omnipotent power butt in and fix everything? Or make it worse?
It would take "us" out of the game- GOD would be the chessmaster. What fun is there in that for the big man? "Ha Ha those puny humans, always fucking up. Good thing I'm the DONALD...ha hah ahhaha"

C'mon. It's in the vein of logic.

I believe that we, we the people, COLLECTIVELY created our whole experience here on earth. Have you noticed that humans have projected their beliefs onto God? whether it's Jesus, Buddha or a witch named Hazel, people make their God into their God. If humans can be jealous, God can be jealous. And he sure is! "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me". If humans can be posessive, God is posessive. If humans are at war, GOD IS AT WAR. and on and on.


Is that a start?

[Howard Schumann]

I think our best friend is experience and that you do not have to experience the opposite of what you want/desire in order to confirm your wants/desires. Your wants and desires have little to do with anything. Your experience comes from your intentions, conscious or not. Life is up and down whether you like it or not. This allows for the most soul growth.
God to me is "the unmoved mover". Neale Walsch spoke of it in his amazing Conversations with God books. NOTE: you do NOT have to believe he is actually talking to God in a conversation. In fact, disregard it. Just read it as though YOU are God talking to Neale and you'll be pretty damn impressed. You'll get some answers on life/God, etc. that are as good as anything published. After reading those books I found that Neale is either actually talking to God or he's a literary genius. Take your pick. We are connected to source through our higher self, the super-mensch that has lived hundreds of previous lives in different bodies. Knowledge of God does not come from any book but from your own experience of who you are.
But to get back to talking out our asses, I believe that God does not, CAN-NOT change or interfere with our choices or our circumstances. He/She won't do it. It's in the programming. If we have free will and the ability to make choices and experience their consequences, then why the hell would some omnipotent power butt in and fix everything? Or make it worse? It would take "us" out of the game- GOD would be the chessmaster. What fun is there in that for the big man? "Ha Ha those puny humans, always fucking up. Good thing I'm the DONALD...ha hah ahhaha" For me God is not as an all-powerful being who dominates our lives, nor some objective force indifferent to the human species. That kind of God would bore me to tears. God is my friend. God is my lover, my dancing partner. In the words of Kevin Williams, "God is life, light, time and space, the pattern for all life, the energy of all matter, the heart of all that matters, the very essence of all being, the source behind every sun, the source of all light and love, the core of all things, the single point of infinite light and absolute love, and the very life force of the universe." Coming from the point of view that you are God in your own universe, it follows that you are the author of your own experience. You create your own reality out of your intention.
I believe that we, we the people, COLLECTIVELY created our whole experience here on earth. Have you noticed that humans have projected their beliefs onto God? whether it's Jesus, Buddha or a witch named Hazel, people make their God into their God. If humans can be jealous, God can be jealous. And he sure is! "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me". If humans can be possessive, God is possessive. If humans are at war, GOD IS AT WAR. and on and on. God is not something "out there". We are a holographic projection of God's will who experience ourself as individual consciousness in touch with our higher self. In reality we are God in human form, blasphemy to some.

[Johann]

All great truths begin as blasphemy, some philosopher wrote.


I read in some spiritual book somewhere that we should want nothing yet desire everything, all the while choosing what shows up in our lives.

I completely agree that our conscious (or unconscious) choices shape and define our experience. We have to be careful what we choose because every choice is an announcement to the universe of your preferences, of things that represent YOU.

Everything we think, say or do is our way of being who we are.
And if you look at the world now, some of those choices are sickening.

But we all react to it in the only way we know: through choices that are determined by our past experience, our current mindset, and our future wishes. It can't be any other way.

Here's a question: If we feel we need something (love, money, God, etc), and we're here, right now, breathing and living, without what we think we need, then why do we feel we need it?
I think it's because fear is another word for need. We fear we're lost without the things we "need", when in fact those things are PERCEIVED needs. Need is an illusion. But it's an illusion that helps us get motivated to do things.

Jesus said "take nothing with you". He meant that all is provided for. You ever hear of a guy who hasn't eaten solid food in like 5 years or something? I heard about it years ago- apparently he sits in the desert all day, absorbing the sun's rays- he said he gets all of his nourishment from the sun.
I think there's something to that. I don't believe our bodies were engineered to eat exactly 3 square meals a day, nor do I believe that we are supposed to pray. Praying is ridiculous to me.
Meditation, yes. Prayer no. Because when you're praying you're just stating the obvious, your stating what is. You're not petitioning God because God has no preference in your decisions. Like a good parent he/it/she is always there, like a comforting force, but will not interfere with your choices.

Your choices create your experience- that is how we evolve.

Gore Vidal said it best:

Choice and change is the nature of life {and it's hope}

[Johann]

Here's a sample snippet from book 3 of CWG:


GOD: "You will make God say whatever you need God to say in order to continue limiting each other, hurting each other, and KILLING each other. I tell you this: my love is unconditional and unlimited. That is the one thing you cannot hear, for it's all-inclusiveness destroys not only the institution of marriage (as you have constructed it) but every one of your religions and governmental institutions.
For you have created a culture based on exclusion, and supported with a cultural myth of a God who excludes ("God's Promise", "God's Chosen People").
And YOU call this blasphemy.
And you must.
Because if it is true, then everything you've created in your life is false. All human constructions and conventions are faulty to the degree that they are not unlimited, eternal, and FREE".


Neale: How can anything be "faulty" if you said there's no such thing as "right" and "wrong"?


GOD: "A thing is only faulty to the degree that it does not function to suit it's purpose. If a door does not open and close, you would not call the door "wrong". You would merely say it's installation or operation is faulty- it doesn't serve it's purpose".





ME: this is the type of stuff I really love- just interesting conversation about things everybody wonders about and lives with. So many times while reading those books I would throw it across the room- in elation over Neale's use of ideas and questions and words- the english language is brought into sharp focus on many occasions- how our own language is incorporated with universal truths and double-meanings.
It's philosophy without philosophy, and I've never read anything like it.

[Howard Schumann]

I read in some spiritual book somewhere that we should want nothing yet desire everything, all the while choosing what shows up in our lives. Stay with your experience. That is a better guide than what is in a spiritual book. The Buddhists say that desire and attachment is the root of suffering which is contradicted by the little homily in the "spiritual" book. Yes, we should choose it the way it is.
I completely agree that our conscious (or unconscious) choices shape and define our experience. We have to be careful what we choose because every choice is an announcement to the universe of your preferences, of things that represent YOU. Keep in mind that choosing is not an act of will but the result of underlying intention that can be contrary to our professed desires, so telling us to be careful what we choose makes more sense if it is framed in this way: before professing a conscious choice, get clear as to what your true intentions are.
Everything we think, say or do is our way of being who we are. And if you look at the world now, some of those choices are sickening. The universe is perfect. Don't lie about it.
But we all react to it in the only way we know: though choices that are determined by our past experience, our current mindset, and our future wishes. It can't be any other way. Horse bleep! Our experience unfolds outside of time. There is no past, present, or future. These are all concepts outside of our experience. We have the power at any instant to transform the quality of our lives.

Here's a question: If we feel we need something (love, money, God, etc), and we're here, right now, breathing and living, without what we think we need, then why do we feel we need it?
I think it's because fear is another word for need. We fear we're lost without the things we "need", when in fact those things are PERCEIVED needs. Need is an illusion. But it's an illusion that helps us get motivated to do things. That is because most of us live in our mind and not our experience. The more we try to change things the more they persist. To move on, choose it the way it is. When it is okay with you to be exactly the way you are and the way you are not, you then have space to move on.

Jesus said "take nothing with you". He meant that all is provided for. You ever hear of a guy who hasn't eaten solid food in like 5 years or something? I heard about it years ago- apparently he sits in the desert all day, absorbing the sun's rays- he said he gets all of his nourishment from the sun. I think there's something to that. I don't believe our bodies were engineered to eat exactly 3 square meals a day, nor do I believe that we are supposed to pray. Praying is ridiculous to me.
Meditation, yes. Prayer no. Because when you're praying you're just stating the obvious, your stating what is. You're not petitioning God because God has no preference in your decisions. Like a good parent he/it/she is always there, like a comforting force, but will not interfere with your choices. Since God is internal, not external, prayer is a way of increasing your energy and intentions for a particular result to occur. "ask and you shall receive" but be sure to say "thank you my love".
Your choices create your experience- that is how we evolve. Gore Vidal said it best: Choice and change is the nature of life {and it's hope}. Choice is just that. It is contradictory to both concepts called "change" and "hope". See my statement above regarding the nature of change.

[Johann]

Well how about "even before you ask it is granted"?

"Will" and "intention" are the same thing, are they not?

I also believe the universe is perfect- everything is going the way it's going or it would be going another way. But that doesn't mean I can't lament about what we as a species have created here.

Here's a point where it'll be tricky to explain. I also know that everything is happening NOW- there is no past, present and future- but we are CONSCIOUSLY making decisions based on the past, present and future in our minds. Does that make any sense?

How do you draw the "good" line between conscious intentions and perceived realities? Who/what determines our righteous course?

Hitler thought he was doing the world a great service, he thought he was an artist.

Bush thinks he's righteous, performing his "calling".

Do we accept people's "will" and "intentions" wholeheartedly?

What gives us the right to criticize anyone else?
How much criticism is acceptable to give? To recieve?

[arsaib4]

Alrighty then.

[Johann]

:)

[Howard Schumann]

Well how about "even before you ask it is granted"? "Will" and "intention" are the same thing, are they not?
It is a partnership. We are co-creators with our higher self and with source. Our experience is determined by the space we are in and our level of energy. When we pray, we are mobilizing the "forces" in the universe and increasing our intention that a particular result occurs.
I also believe the universe is perfect- everything is going the way it's going or it would be going another way. But that doesn't mean I can't lament about what we as a species have created here.
Lament away -- just as long as you know that you created it and must take responsibility for it.
Here's a point where it'll be tricky to explain. I also know that everything is happening NOW- there is no past, present and future- but we are CONSCIOUSLY making decisions based on the past, present and future in our minds. Does that make any sense? A decision is based upon different alternatives that are weighed. This is a process of the mind. Choice comes from everything/nothing, from your experience. It is simply a choice - chocolate or vanilla.
How do you draw the "good" line between conscious intentions and perceived realities? Who/what determines our righteous course? Hitler thought he was doing the world a great service, he thought he was an artist. Bush thinks he's righteous, performing his "calling". Do we accept people's "will" and "intentions" wholeheartedly? What gives us the right to criticize anyone else? How much criticism is acceptable to give? To recieve? Take responsibility for everything that happens in your universe.
There is nobody out there. It is all you.