November 14th, 2004
i bleep huckabees
Funny how a supposedly radically new way of seeing the world, and our role in it, results in films that look just like business as usual in Hollywood. Two films have come out lately with existential themes: “i heart huckabees” which bills itself as an “existential comedy,” and “what the bleep do we know?!” which combines documentary (i.e., mostly white male talking heads) with a cheesy plotline starring Marlee Matlin. The problem with both of these films is that they try to tell a new story using the same tired old stereotypes. In “huckabees,” we have Naomi Watts as T&A/eye candy; the immensely talented Lily Tomlin as a glorified secretary; and Isabelle Huppert as the Mrs.-Robinson seductress. Dustin Hoffman, supposedly the partner of the Lily Tomlin character, is the one getting all the face time with the clients (and looking like death warmed over, may I say). The entire plotline revolves around the “breakthrough” of two white men “understanding” that they’re really “all connected.” What’s really happening is that these men are having some EMOTIONS (gasp! god forbid) and learning to feel compassion for one another–something women are trained to do from day one. We don’t need to be zipped into a sleeping bag by an existential detective to show us how. What’s more insidious is that, despite Dustin Hoffman’s insistence that “he’s you, and you’re him”–and despite their similar socioeconomic characteristics–the actions of these two men in the world are profoundly different, as one is a corporate executive and one is a Greenpeace-like environmental crusader. The emphasis on interconnectedness masks real differences in the effect of our personal choices in the world.
In “bleep,” the most obnoxious scene is the wedding scene, which shows a fat man basically inhaling a buffet table–apparently only fat people’s brain chemistry responds to the presence of food. (”huckabees” plays for the same yuks with a scene of a fat woman greedily eating an ice cream cone.) Marlee Matlin has too much to drink and suddenly she can’t keep from throwing herself at a man she barely knows, while cartoon characters representing their neurotransmitters cavort about their ankles; of course the man’s hormonal gumby is burly, red, and talks like a frat boy–”Yeah, baby, let’s get it ON!”–while Matlin’s is slender, pink, with a tinkly voice, a hair bow, and high heels. Is it just a coincidence that of the two women “experts” the film interviews, one is a psychic channeler?
The best line from either film goes to a minor character in “huckabees” who’s fed up with her husband’s existential journey. As she gathers her belongings and children from the front lawn of their home, she shrieks at him, “If nothing matters, then I don’t matter!” We may all be connected, but I have yet to see that message presented in a way that doesn’t prop up the current power structure and encourage navel-gazing passivity rather than activism.
Thanks to KY for the title of this post.
BTW even huckabees’ website is annoying.
