I <3 Huckabees






Keep one eye on the ethics portrayed in the film, both by the characters and the filmmaker. Keep the other on the artistic elements of the film. Then consider this: Does the film have a moral vision? Should art be moral?

            The movie I Heart Hucakbees poses two contrasting philosophies. The main character Albert describes these as “too dark” and “not dark enough.” By definition, philosophy means “the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life” (Merriam-webster.com). Moral visions are the set of rules that dictate whether something is right or wrong, moral or immoral. By nature, both overlap, and everything about this film had a moral vision.

            The film as a whole had a moral vision that there is no right or wrong philosophy, as they all intertwine in the end. The meaning of life isn’t an extremely positive one, like Bernard and Vivian believe it to be, neither a dark place of meaningless and cruelty that the French author thinks it is. Instead, it is a cycle of discovery between the inner connection and how that isn’t so special. As Albert says it, “the magic is in the manure,” or as Tom describes it as “the cracks vs. the connections.” Another important moral vision the movie show as a truth is the huge impact the past has on people. For example, Albert’s dysfunctional family molded him into being embarrassed for feeling sad, which is why he has an existentialist crisis later on. Brad is also majorly impacted by his upbringings, always attempting to promote himself and his image, afraid of becoming his brother. Of course, to achieve these assertions, the movie goes through many other character’s moral visions.

            The two groups of philosophy have a very rigid sense of right and wrong, and what life is and what is isn’t. Vivian and Bernard believe that everything is interconnected, that there is no difference between people, places, objects, as they are all molecules in the end. Therefore, they believe that thinking this way is correct, and even create a career out of aiding people get to this point. This is their frame and how they view the world, and they are certain it is the correct way. On the other hand Caterine’s truth is her absoluteness. She views the world as a constant change between pure being and human suffering. She believes the world is made of manipulation, and the only way to leave an existential crisis is to accept it for what it is. Everything that is outside her scope of truth is incorrect. For example, when Albert and she are in the hotel room and he is undergoing one of Bernard’s methods she becomes angry with him for not following her “rights.”

            There are a few secondary characters that could be easily overlooked, yet had quite a strong moral vision. Although they are briefly showed, Steven’s adoptive mother and father had a very finite sense of right and wrong. They are a religious family, and moral values are often compared to those of religion. The father made it quite clear that he believed they were “in the right” with Jesus for having adopted an African boy as their son. When Tom begins criticizing his use of car and petroleum (something that is absolutely wrong in his moral vision), the father is extremely offended.

            Each character has a unique moral vision because, according to the movie, they all had different pasts, which melded them into being the person that they are. Some characters aren’t that obvious, and the filmmakers left it to the audience to make certain connections. An example is Angela: the audience knows she is bitter and knows she likes to eat a lot, therefore it could be assumed that one thing leads to the other, and in her moral vision, it balances being mean to others. In my opinion, the most interesting part is seeing the artistic elements of the movie and connecting it to certain moral visions. The film points out to the audience who is good and bad, the protagonist and antagonist. Music would always play when a scene involved Albert, especially scenes of him riding his bike searching for the truth. Other scenes, involving Brad, played no music, only sometimes his own voice repeated. By playing hopeful, instrumental music with one character and nothing with the other, the movie itself shows its biased towards the good and the bad guy.

            The movie was very heavily filled with different moral visions, which, in my opinion, really added to its ability to make people reflect. What are other elements that impact the shaping of your moral vision? Are moral visions set, or can they waver? Even if you have your “rights” and “wrongs” defined, do you follow them every time? Are there universal “rights” and “wrongs”? Should there be? The continuum of realism and constructivism, too dark and not dark enough completely overlap, and I found it extremely interesting how my place did not waiver.

            Personally, I enjoy a movie, or any art, that brings emotions, questions or feelings to me. Having moral visions often raise many of these elements because it is such a grey manner. This movie, although quirky and a little all over the place, made me think a lot, and I appreciate it for that. Yet it is difficult to state if art should be moral or not because it really depends on the individual. For my own taste, I prefer thought-provoking art, regardless of its morality or lack thereof. Others have certain schemas, different from mine, that lead them to have a whole other taste. Everything about art is very subjective and personal. Should there be a guide to the “right” type of art? I don’t believe so. Can art be moral? Yes, but it can also be super immoral and risqué. It is all a matter of perception, and how people frame their experiences.