What makes us human? In the film “Here” the American director, Robert Zemeckis, responds to this anthropological question from a valuable topic of literature and philosophy: life as a journey of learning and the person as “homo viator”, passing through the world. Zemeckis shows that the human drama is not death, but how we live, in a hurry, without wanting to give up anything and with the constant feeling of missing something important. The film offers some lessons to avoid reaching the end of life, asking ourselves: is this all?
The daily life of Richard (Tom Hanks) and Margaret (Robin Wright) is the guiding thread of a story that shows the viewer that each human life has an immeasurable value and brings newness to the world. But at the same time, the director of the film Here, Robert Zemeckis, warns that this value is the mark that makes us similar and equal, in contrast to the temptation to use it with a differentiating bias that diminishes humanity. The master lesson in the background is that no one is the center of the world and no lives are more important than others, even if the hypnotic effects of social or economic determinism feed confusion, narcissism, or the illusion of permanence. The message is as relevant as how the filmmaker chose to transmit his proposal. He rescues in a penetrating way the ancient pagan and Christian metaphor of the vital journey and provides experiences to each pilgrim. The initiatory path of Homo Viator, like that of Ulysses, “does nothing other than return the Being to its humanity.”[1] The same thing happens to the characters in this film.
The passage of time in the couple Richard and Margaret, from adolescence to old age, offers a vast repertoire of emotions that intertwine with the sorrows and joys of other generations of the family, such as that of Al (Paul Bettany) and Rose (Kelly Reilly), the protagonist’s parents. On some occasions, the focus of interest slides towards the intimate experiences of friends and neighbors in fiction, and even to some vital episodes of more ephemeral characters that teach us how human beings struggle in a very similar way to carry on with our lives and overcome the difficulties that arise along the way.
The common home and the way of living
An important part of the cinematic story consists of the superimposition of short sequences over the course of human history that offer a faithful testimony of the value of our existence as unique, irreplaceable, unrepeatable beings linked to one another. In this context, Robert Zemeckis symbolically alludes to the early history of the Earth, to the first living beings that inhabited it and to the mark of the successive settlers who have shaped the world and human life as we know it. The selection of these shots is not random, but seems to point to the director’s purpose of emphasizing the richness and diversity of life welcomed by our planet, the home of humanity over which the shadow of extinction now hovers. Pope Francis begins his Encyclical “Laudato Sí” [2] with the song of St. Francis of Assisi, who refers to the Earth as a “sister” with whom we share our existence and a “beautiful mother who welcomes us in her arms.”
Zemeckis also emphasizes the brevity of human life compared to the history of humanity. However, the true drama before which the filmmaker places us is not only the passage of time, but how we live and how we can reconcile ourselves with the lives we have not been able to live. The characters in Here display dynamics that are easily recognizable to the viewer and that, if they connect with the film, strike the heart. The melancholy of imagined lives or dreams that were forced to be put aside in order to earn a living cast a shadow of misfortune that prevents the happiness of the protagonists. Margaret wanted to be a lawyer when she became pregnant with her first daughter, and Richard had to give up his Fine Arts studies to start working as a salesman. The difficulty of accessing a home of their own forces the couple to live with Richard’s parents and, on many occasions, this circumstance is a cause of conflict in the marriage. In some scenes dedicated to the future of this marriage we can find points of contact with the film It’s a Wonderful Life!, by Frank Capra, in terms of valuing the life we have, without tarnishing it, for what we dreamed it would be.[3]
Ultimately, Here vindicates human life in its simplicity and complexity in times when the value of the person is being blurred, exposed to error and vulnerability, and speculation is made about the superiority of artificial intelligence or hypotheses are launched about whether what is presented to us as an advantageous progress could lead to the disappearance of the human race from planet Earth.
The film helps us appreciate the value of family, the sense of sacrifice for others —instead of being distressed by believing that we are missing out on things— and provides us with some lessons to deal with the irreversibility of time, the challenges of adult life and the natural questions of human existence to which, sometimes, it is not easy to give an answer. As the writer and philosopher Leo Tolstoy states, “We have the impression that life was and will be, but life only is (…) If you can raise your spirit above space and time, then you will find yourself in eternity.”[4]
Robert Zemeckis opts for an unconventional staging reminiscent of theatre performances. In this sense, the originality of a narrative that does not run in a linear fashion is combined with the technical novelty that the camera does not follow the movement of the protagonists by going behind them, but the action is recorded by a fixed lens. This explains why the viewer sees, for most of the film, the dining room-living room of the house where a variety of families of different generations pass by. This setting, where the key scenes of the plot take place, is an artistic possibility that the filmmaker takes advantage of to underline the common and the different in each human life.
The anthropological principles of bioethics
Julián Marías discovered by watching films the existence of a “cinematic anthropology” to the extent that good cinema contributes to a better understanding of the human being and constitutes one of the best antidotes against utilitarianism and against the temptation to slip through human life with simplistic or superficial analyses. Films like Here corroborate the philosopher’s observations about the cinema’s ability to “establish vital connections, to remember the most truthful part of a person’s reality, to present the unlimited diversity of life and, at the same time, the need to choose between open paths” [5].
In Robert Zemeckis’ film we can identify anthropological principles of bioethics that are essential to recognize the ethical intensity with which a person deserves to be treated, to distinguish models and to embody universal values that arouse realistic desires for imitation. The film urges us to recognize the human dignity of each of our fellow human beings and the contingency that can affect us all, it redefines the exemplary nature of simple lives, it combats insensitivity with tenderness and provides moments of transformative kindness.
Amparo Aygües – Master’s Degree in Bioethics from the Catholic University of Valencia – Member of the Bioethics Observatory – Catholic University of Valencia
***
[1] Holdërling, F. (1979). The Archipelago. Alianza, p.83. The German poet and philosopher alludes in this way to The Odyssey, attributed to Homer.
[2] Pope Francis. Encyclical Letter “Laudato sí”. (May 24, 2015). Reflects on the responsibility of human beings with Creation and the ties that unite all living beings. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/es/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html
[3] Peris-Cancio, J.A. (2019). The fullness of filmic personalism in the filmography of Frank Capra (II). From Meet John Doe (1941) to It’s a Wonderful Life (1946). Notebooks of Philosophy and Cinema, 04. Catholic University of Valencia.
[4] Tolstoy, L. (2019). The path of life. Acantilado, p. 417.
[5] Marías, J. (1992). Sentimental education. Alianza, pp.211-220.
