I watch good movies most often while I’m on an airplane. The other times I am watching movies it’s usually watching the newest big thing in a theater, or watching some terrible Netflix original with friends. Not on the airplane, on the airplane I have the time and solitude to watch a good movie. One such movie that I watched on an airplane was Everything Everywhere All At Once. This film was written by Daniel Kwon & Daniel Scheinert, and has Michelle Yeoh, Stephanie Hsu, and Ke Huy Quan as its main characters. These three actors play a collapsing Chinese-American family that runs a local laundromat. Michelle Yeoh’s character, Evelyn, learns the ability to tap into the skills of other versions of herself to “fight” against another version of her daughter known as Jobu Tupaki.
What initially drew me to the movie was all of the positive things I had heard people I know say about it. They talked about it like it changed their perspective on life, so when I had a golden airplane opportunity to watch I took it. Beyond the positive reviews the really long title and how absurd I had heard the movie was also drew me in. I mean, if an absurd movie with a really long title can be critically acclaimed and have people talk about it must have done something special. After watching it, I think it was something special. The three things that really made me want to write about this movie was the actual absurdity of the movie itself, the new kind of fatherhood/masculinity that the character of Waymund represents, and the life philosophy that this movie talks about.
This movie has some crazy scenes and fights, but crazy in a good way. There’s a fight scene where Evelyn and Jobu transport themselves across multiple universes and use skills from hibachi cooking to kung-fu to battle each other. Despite using silly fighting methods the tone is serious as Evelyn tries to save Jobu from despair. But there is some real silliness because to use another universe’s skills a condition must be met, and that condition can range from wearing your hat backwards to putting something up your ass (yes this happens in the movie). One of the more silly characters is the, seemingly, carefree Waymond, the husband of Evelyn and father of Joy (Jobu). He likes to play pranks on his family and will talk with anyone, even seemingly bad people, his demeanor seems to be joyful & childish. However, we learn later that his joy is his strength and his way of dealing with despair and the coldness of the universe. Waymond is an absurdist. He sees the universe as random and uncaring, but chooses to be kind and playful instead. He is also a very different kind of father & man than traditional values hold. He is kind and empathetic to people, and isn’t very good at the laundry business unlike Evelyn.
Waymond is deeply ingrained with the philosophy the movie represents, the idea that if nothing matters “choose to be kind” and to have empathy with other people. It may sound like I am gushing about Waymond and the philosophy of the movie but it is (at least this movie’s take of it) a very hopeful philosophy.
This movie resonated with me in its message of choosing kindness over anger. Maybe it is because I am young and still idealist but in many interactions in our modern world I feel like I see people not choose kindness. I see on social media, and in real life, people abusing service workers or other acts of anger. The themes of this movie made me more hopeful for a future where more people act with kindness toward each other. I am not sure if it will come about but maybe if more & more media like this one come out it will help people be more kind. However, it did oversimplify the idea of being kind to people. If people abuse you to a certain point then you cannot be kind to that person anymore and they have to make changes before mutual kindness can happen.
Despite my small criticism of how kindness is portrayed in Everything Everywhere I would classify it as a good movie. It has amazing performances from the three main characters and many of the side characters like the one played by Jamie Lee Curtis. There’s also really good visuals and I think the writing is top notch. The only real problem this movie has is that it does have a long runtime, but I think that anyone who is able to make it through will like the movie, as long as they are a well adjusted member of society. But with that statement lies perhaps the real reason people may not like this movie. This movie is for a specific kind of secular idealist. If you are a person who has struggled with existentialism then you will find this a good movie, if you are devoutly religious then maybe only the family aspects of the movie will be meaningful to you. Many people who have the time and money to go out to the theaters to watch this movie are probably secular (at least in the USA) and this movie appeals to those people. It shows another way of thinking about life that tries to combat nihilism but confirms the idea that we live in an objectively meaningless universe, a very secular opinion. Overall, I think this is a good movie with good social commentary on nihilism, existentialism, and family. But, it is definitely mostly for a non-religious audience as its message only resonates in a non-religious world.
Conner Levitt OC ’24 is a lover of ice cream and other sweet treats. Majoring in sociology, they like trying to see history play out in the experiences of everyday life.
