Harold Crick, Craig Schwartz, Lotte Schwartz and Maxine Lund: Responsibility of existence or attempt to run away from it: Authenticity according to Heidegger

           Martin #Heidegger, a German philosopher, presents the concept of Dasein in his book Being and Time in 1927. It is a German verb which means “be present”. Then, Dasein represents human existence which #Heidegger gives two opposed ideas: Authenticity and Inauthenticity. Authenticity is the ability to be responsible of his existence, that is to say be able to modulate it according to his own convictions, wishes and feelings. There is a continuous “Worry” for human to interact with his environment by leaving his own mark. In opposition, an inauthentic existence is embodied by less responsibility: he leaves Society, his environment, organize his actions and influence his behaviour. Dasein is eluded, benefiting external codes which come from his social framework. Society’s rules are going to lead him, and he exists only as an average individual instead of a unique person. According to #Heidegger, there are 2 degrees of appropriation during existence. So, “pouvoir-être” is more or less present for humans, existing as individual or persons.

            The movies Stranger than fiction and Being John Malkovich allow us to highlight 4 intensities for existence and its both categories (authentic existence and inauthentic existence). Such a distinction is possible with the study of several protagonists: Lotte Schwartz and Maxine Lund, Craig Schwartz, Harold Crick, and John Malkovich himself.

            Firstly, Being John Malkovich proposes the possibility for human to have less responsibility. It is possible to lead an inauthentic existence, where we highlight the wish to run away from his own self.

            The desertion of his own personality can be observed with characters of Lotte Schwartz and Maxine Lund. Indeed, both women find them attractive during their meetings. However, when Lotte attempts to have sex with her, the latter pushes away her because she is not seduced by Lotte’s body. To satisfy her, Lotte has to be inside of John Malkovich, keeping her personality. In this situation, Lotte’s physic being is given up completely. Her body which constitutes individual’s identity is eluded benefiting the hosting body. In this case, we notice a kind of inauthentic existence: Lotte pushes away her former existence by taking control of Malkovich’s body and mind. Maxine operates on Lotte as Society: she imprints her ideals and wills on Lotte. She moulds her. The felt “Worry” by Lotte is not about leave his mark: Lotte only receives “Worry” by a foreign body.

            Another situation which is possible in Being John Malkovich: using another one in order to make exist his own personality.

Craig Schwartz, Lotte’s husband, has a hobby: puppets. Despite of his administrative work with Doctor Lester, he remains a puppeteer. Meanwhile, social disinterest for the profession, his lack of visibility as an artist and his financial precariousness make Craig give up his passion. It’s at this moment that John Malkovich’s body plays an important role. In fact, it is going to allow Craig to fulfil his hobby fully thanks to notoriety of another one. Then, Malkovich’s celebrity permits him to broadcast a new vision of the work of puppet-master.  In this case, we have a new form of existence: it’s a half-authentic existence. On the one hand, Craig denies his body and then physical identity. So, there is an inauthentic existence because there is less responsibility. On the other hand, he does it in order to realize his personality. He wants to highlight his aptitudes and attitudes. Then, this claiming of his true self is his “Worry”: he has one, he handles his existence and claims it. His claiming is stronger than Society, he wishes mark his circle with his vision. We have an aspect of authentic existence.  The case of Craig Schwartz shows lack of physical “Worry”, whereas the psychological “Worry” is demanded.

            Stranger than fiction shows the perfect case of an authentic existence with Harold Crick’s life.

Harold Crick leads a stereotyped life as a State employee. He is a tax inspector. His life is very ordered: minutes are decisive for all his professional actions. However, one day, his life is commented by an external voice, and he becomes aware of the foreseeable nature of his actions. He notices that he hasn’t any “Worry”: his life is completely organized by Society, with working hours or bus hours for instance. He sees that he hasn’t influence in his own life, and that he is an embodiment of Society instead of an embodiment of his personality. The external voice makes him notice other people, and particularly Ana, a pastry chef. This woman has the opposed effect to which one of Society: she allows him to struggle against it and give his own perception. This shift can be observed with clothe which are born by Harold. Before, as a State employee, he wore suits but now, he wears normal clothe. He attempts to handle his life by being less stereotyped. Here, we have a concise case of authentic existence: Harold has the “Worry” to mark his world, with his love story with Ana for example.

            Let’s go to see last time with the movie Being John Malkovich to analyze the case of a too authentic life.

            Main aspect on the movie is the possibility to occupy John Malkovich’s mind, which provokes question about this experience led by Malkovich himself directly. It happens during the movie, Malkovich is projected in his own mind. Then, this extraordinary situation shows Malkovich meeting a lot of individual, where each one has Malkovich’s head and says just “Malkovich”.

Malkovich !

Here, we have a case where “Worry” is so strong that all Malkovich’s circle is marked by his personality. John doesn’t like that situation, and seems to become crazy. It is possible to think that a Society which is only composed by aspects coming from just one personality is harmful. Indeed, people need influence of other in order to build themselves, and question their shortcomings. In a standardized Society, there would be a negative indulgence.

            To sum up, #Heidegger highlights a consequent aspect of existence: shall it have to belong to us, or shall it have to be a result of social framework? Craig’s reaction to use another person to be himself truly brings a political and sociological question: do people have good ways and means to realize themselves in Society? Then, we find an analysis developed by the sociologist Robert #Merton, with the famous key-concept of Anomie.

To open a debate, I would like to ask a political question:

Do you think that Society of Malkovich(s) is a totalitarian regime?

Ein Malkovich, ein Malkovich, ein Malkovich?