Everything Everywhere All at Once is a weird but amazing movie, IDK what to think of it because this is an absurdist comedy.
***Romanticism manifesto below***
It's not because I don't get the movie, but because of the fundamental philosophical differences I have with the absurdism. I'm not sure I'm brave enough to embrace it.
Since I'm a romanticist(romanticism is not a formal philosophy and that's actually part of the point. romanticism is irrational by nature, whereas philosophy is rational. romanticism is the worst but also the best part of humanity), and the film is about absurdism, and this is where the division for me lies.
the Absurdism says life is meaningless, and you must face this fact head on and create meaning.
while romanticism says, meaning is always from within, you are the one creating it using your inner world.
But the difference is, existential meaninglessness can erode romanticism, and turn it into nihilism. A core tenet of Romanticism is the belief in the inherent worth of the individual. people's subjective experiences, emotions, and imaginations, when these things are eroded in real life... it crushes all romantic ideals, and that's why all romanticism and related movements died post WWII. Meanwhile absurdism requires something far braver and demanding, it asks you to face any atrocity and still create meaning.
in the movie, Jobu filled her inner world with everything trying to find meaning, and it collapsed into a black hole. (which is a very nice commentary on romanticism and escapism.) And that's where her romanticism ends and collapsed into nihilism. Had this movie been purely romantic, the ending wouldn't be happy. A romantic ending would require the everything bagel consume everything, in a cosmic annihilation. the Everything Bagel, is the perfect symbol of Romantic Ruination. It is the beautiful, sublime, all-encompassing black hole that validates Jobu's feeling of absolute despair and meaninglessness. She wants to embrace that ruin, the ultimate "beautiful despair" and take her mother (and the world) with her. This is the siren call of romanticism and is essentially partially what absurdism trying to revolt against.
Absurdism requires the kind of courage I'm not sure I possess, to embrace the true meaninglessness, then create meaning out of it. Also sadly this is where the division between romanticism and absurdism becomes too great. how can someone maintain longing while embracing the void? romanticism is all about the ideals, while absurdism is about survival of the reality that doesn't care about ideals. To a romanticist, ideals are all that matters even if they are painful and unattainable by nature, because that's also part of their beauty. it's almost funny that romanticism and absurdism are so similar and yet fundamentally incompatible. For a romanticist, even ruination is beauty, validation, goal even, but for an absurdist that's philosophical suicide.
In the end, romanticism is not anti-philosophy, it is anti-rationality, it's beyond good and evil, right and wrong. It champions the experiences like sublime passion, intense despair, and beautiful ruin. All of which, philosophy, by its very nature, attempts to categorize and control, the goal is to survive them. where romanticism asks you to embrace them for transcendence.