Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mstruth

destratification and i heart huckabees

Recommended Posts

a question for the community, and primarily james:

 

how did you like the movie i <3 huckabees? (if you have seen it)

i watched it with some non-philo-intense people and was able to enjoy it, but this thread kept poping back into my mind.

 

~matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the movie (and own it), but I still think that the movie doesn't really have any sort of statement at the end, and as for entertainment value, it was terrible. Thats just my opinion I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my first impression was: people trying to make money by trying to make philosophy appealing

 

i enjoyed it anyway, and even if it lacked a backgrounded intelligent meaning it may be part of one anyway. or it may have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah I see what you mean, it just seemed to busy trying to be funny yet pretentious to the point where the movie made fun of its own storyline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i enjoyed the movie alot. i personally think its pretty cool that the capitalist market is popularizing philosophy though i can see quite a few problems with that.

 

 

if nothing else its always good to see humorous, entertaining depictions of philosophy in the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i enjoyed the movie alot. i personally think its pretty cool that the capitalist market is popularizing philosophy though i can see quite a few problems with that.

 

Lawrence Grossberg says:

 

Certainly, cultural production (both “high” and popular) is increasingly absorbed into economic markets – not merely as commodities (for that happened long ago) but as a speculative market for finance capital. Advertising and public relations campaigns are quick to appropriate cultural strategies and references. Cultural production is increasingly sensitive to, even determined by, the exigencies of market demands and marketing possibilities. But such developments do not justify the claim that the line between culture and economics is collapsing, or that the relations are always the same. It does suggest that economic agents are very aware that cultural relations are an important source of both capital and power, and that, in the face of the contemporary situation, new techniques of regulating culture and policing everyday life may be necessary. The effectiveness of such techniques depends precisely, not on their remaining hidden from view, but on the ways their very visibility enables their externality to remain hidden. It is not surprising that capitalism is so hospitable to the postmodern sensibility and so capable of articulating it to its own projects. After all, capitalism itself is fundamentally based on a kind of economic cynicism: it assumes that the source and essence of wealth lie in the exploitation of labor. In fact, as Deleuze and Guattari argue, “there is no longer any need of belief and the capitalist is merely striking a pose when he [or she] bemoans the fact that nowadays no one believes in anything anymore. Language no longer signifies something that must be believed.” What is more postmodern than striking a pose in the face of cultural meaninglessness! The “family,” emptied of its representational value, can be relocated in the lives of individuals, communities and the nation; it is taken up, invested in and placed into the spaces between everyday life and the social formation. Whatever the intentions of the new conservative’s defense of the family (and there are probably many), contemporary capitalism is articulating the family and the home to mobilize the productivity of capital itself and to discipline the population and its culture. It is a question of the strategic deployment of the postmodern sensibility into everyday life, of the articulation of the very structures of everyday empowerment into larger structures of political disempowerment.

 

Lawrence Grossberg, prof. of Speech Communications, Communications Research & Criticism and Interpretative Theory @ Univ. of Illinois, cultural studies prof, we gotta get out of this place, 1992, pg. 360-363

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too recently saw it. When I talked to scu about it he said he liked it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, just found the thread. I'm not nearly as omnipresent as I use to be ;)

 

Anyway, I did enjoy i <3 huckabees. I saw it when it first came out and just recently rewatched it with a friend.

I think you are asking me more what I thought about the philosophy (which seemed more spinozist than anything else), and especially in relationship to the movies two mechanisms of destratification (and of course my thoughts on drugs for this). But I didn't really process the movie in that way. I may try to have something meaningful to say on that level later, but for now let me tell you on what level I enjoyed the movie.

It was pop philosophy.

Which we need more of. I often go through academic obsessions and for a bit one of them has been the need for pop philosophy. As I enjoy repeating over and over again, Deleuze and Guattari wrote Anti-Oedipus as a type of pop philosophy to be read by kids between the ages of 15 and 20. I am tired of all the academic elitism, all the "You can't understand anything in philosophy without years of training." Everything that makes academics dry, sterile, dead, ossified. Or as Deleuze famously declares: "An image of thought called philosophy has been formed historically and it effectively stops people from thinking." Pop Philosophy is a desire to stop all of that.

Is i <3 huckabees something I agree with philosophically? Partially, of course. But most importantly is the need to escape being the little girl in the movie,"Mom, we don't have to ask questions like that, do we?"

 

Love

TheScuSaysPhilosophyNeedsToAlsoFigureOutWhatQuestionsAreWorthAsking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i really liked i heart huckabees. i thought the actors were pretty well chosen. jason schwartzman was awesome, and i also liked the African guy.

i thought the plot was well done, and scratched the surface of philosophy enough for the average observer, without getting over their heads. made me think a little.

i would definatly recommend it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Heart Huckabees was absolutely amazing. Other than the fact that existentalism wins over nihilism in the end, the characters are fucking helarious. Mark Walhberg played one of the best characters I have seen in a long fucking time. Maybe I like the character so much because I can see parts of myself in him. Hmm..satire is great. Does anyone remember the scene with the religous family and the African dude "WE TOOK A SUDANESE REFUGEE INTO OUR HOME" hahahaha, its how people like that think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our whole team watched it at at get together this past weekend, we thought it was hilarious.. it made a lotta sense and it was just funny as shit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I Heart Huckabees was absolutely amazing. Other than the fact that existentalism wins over nihilism in the end

 

I really dont think that is what the movie is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, maybe not. But the end of the movie is Mark Wahlberg and Jason Schwartzman talking about how they are all connected. I understand that this is not the basis of existentalism, but it is how it is based in the movie. I think that its also a satire...so you're right. Its not the only theme of the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's remotly the theme. The movie is not about 'the conquest of

one philosophy over another'. Re-read the Scu's post. It's just pop-philosophy.

 

 

I love when people attribute complexities to movies that aren't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so what is the point of the movie? Is it just to entertain us? Or are people supposed to gain something? I dont care if I "attribute complexities to a movie that arent there," for me its functionally ambigous and I appreciate the movie regardless of you calling it "pop philosophy" I have read enough real philosophy to appreciate what writers talk about vs. the way that movies misconstrue their meanings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pop-Philosophy is not meant in a pejorative manner, sorry if you took it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so what is the point of the movie? Is it just to entertain us? Or are people supposed to gain something? I dont care if I "attribute complexities to a movie that arent there," for me its functionally ambigous and I appreciate the movie regardless of you calling it "pop philosophy" I have read enough real philosophy to appreciate what writers talk about vs. the way that movies misconstrue their meanings.

 

Cole, see my earlier post on pop philosophy that justin referenced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maybe some people just need a metaphysical hug every once in awhile.

 

I laughed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This movie was bad. Yeh, it had some funny bits, but they took so long produce. It felt like you had to act like you were enjoying it, otherwise you just weren't appreciating it right, when it was all a bunch of shit. And while this might have been pop philosophy in the sense of accesibility (which I still think is a bit shaky considering the only slow parts you were supposed to understand were connectivity and the quasi-psychoanalytic methods the french woman and the DTs kept going on about), it was almost completely useless. In the end, what happens? They feel all satisfied cause they've got perspective, hit themselves with a bouncy thing and then go on with their lives like they've just got a really good tip from their therapist. Dustin Hoffman gets all pissed off when the firefighter calls him a therapist, but that's exactly what he is, and it's exactly what this is, a bad movie, with some funny bits about people going to therapy, except, let's call it existential, put "i" in small caps and add a heart in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...