“The Worst Person in the World” : Exploring Moral Boundaries and the Art of Loving
Ethical Frontiers and Cultivating Happiness in a Philosophical Inquiry
“The Worst Person in the World” (Norwegian: Verdens verste menneske) premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in 2021 and was directed by Joachim Trier. I recently rewatched this film on Netflix.
In terms of visual aesthetics, every frame of this movie is as beautiful as a painting, conveying a sense of fluidity in the visuals. Beyond the emotional interplay among the characters, immersing in the scenes is akin to feeling the caress of a gentle breeze and basking in the warmth of sunlight.
The film was shot in Oslo, Norway, and in interviews, the director mentioned that the unique light in Oslo and the northern regions of Scandinavia played a significant role. Both the editor and the cinematographer were Danish, and despite Denmark being not far from Norway, they were all mesmerized by the light and shadows in Oslo.
This film delves into the interplay between fantasy and reality from Julie’s perspective: a self-reliant woman who believes in charting her own path but must grapple with the constraints of time and self-discovery.
Life’s possibilities seem boundless, yet within the constraints of a finite lifetime, these options must be narrowed down through personal choices.
The pursuit of happiness is commendable, but confronting the limitless can evoke a sense of bewilderment: “I feel like I never see anything through. I go from one thing to another.” Julie articulates this sentiment towards the film’s conclusion.
“Nothing’s gonna happen.”
“Of course not.”
“I’m with someone I love.”
“Me too.”
“And I can’t stand cheating. I’ve been there. Never again.”
“Right, cheating is…”
“No good.”
…
“But where do you draw the line?”
“You can feel it…”
The movie attempts to explore moral boundaries, and in this dialogue, one can sense that blurry line, the societal norms not yet imbued with concrete meanings for them. In this age of information explosion, faced with fragmented information and temptations, everything is novel. “Morality” exists because of “temptation,” and without temptation, the significance of morality cannot be underscored.
Before discussing morality, we need to answer what morality is. Before debating whether it should be followed, we need to consider the content of morality.
Morality is a type of societal norm, and being a societal norm, it cannot be separated from social customs and cultural contexts. For example, in certain times and cultures, having multiple wives and concubines might be entirely reasonable, but in different contexts, it could be condemned. In this sense, “morality” can be understood as societal expectations in a specific time and cultural context, excluding individual differences and imposing values with binding force on the community.
It is dangerous not to understand the content of morality; blindly adhering to moral norms may unconsciously make oneself an oppressor of the system. Acts of kindness towards Jews during the Nazi era were considered sinful. What now seems immoral was deemed acceptable in the societal environment of that time.
As society undergoes transformations, morality may also evolve, indicating that morality is not a fixed or absolute “truth.”
Breaking free from the framework of societal expectations, we lack a foundation to pass judgment on what is right or wrong, suggesting that all things are neutral before norms are established.
If necessary, we can almost find a reasonable explanation for every behavior, as long as the appropriate standards are applied. From this perspective, without underlying beliefs, external actions lack profound meaning for individuals, as they are essentially performances, even when the audience is absent.
Quoting Erich Fromm’s discourse in “Escape from Freedom”, we cannot solely judge whether a statement aligns with logic to determine if what we face is merely a rationalization. We need to examine the psychological motives behind our actions.
For individuals, what truly matters is not the “content” of our expressions but how we “contemplate” them. Rationalization, in this context, is merely an attempt and a strategy to reconcile the gap between personal desires and existing facts to evade inner conflicts.
The influence of societal expectations often reflects in individuals’ self-perceptions. The recurring phrase “the worst person in the world” echoes throughout the movie. When Julie initially meets Aksel, he confesses, lacking confidence, that he once considered himself “the worst person in the world.” Eivind contemplates being “the worst person in the world” after breaking up with his ex-girlfriend for Julie. Julie herself adopts the label of “the worst person in the world” due to the fluctuations in her life.
Emphasizing the earlier point, breaking free from the framework of societal expectations not only eradicates the concept of right or wrong but underscores the enduring significance of causality.
Our actions not only shape the worlds of those we encounter but also set the stage for how others respond. Our preferences for “outcomes” play a pivotal role in molding our values. However, if we need to experience everything personally to evaluate results for establishing them, life may be punctuated by numerous undesired incidents.
While life is undeniably limited and irreversible, we can glean insights from diverse life stories portrayed through various art forms. Engaging in theoretical speculation allows us to shape our values, and continuous refinement through life experiences becomes an ongoing process. The ultimate goal is to navigate the world smoothly, discerning what we can achieve and what is beyond our reach.
As Simone de Beauvoir wrote, one only discovers one’s true self through the free choices and reciprocal influences of situations. People should contemplate how they want to live, rather than merely thinking or merely living.
“The Worst Person in the World” intricately captures the sensitive unrest of youth and the intricate duality of yearning for closeness while maintaining a certain emotional distance in relationships. Through Julie’s contemplative gazes, the film vividly portrays her as both an active participant in the moment and an emotionally engaged observer of her own life. The movie’s chapter-style presentation, akin to a novel’s format, seems to mirror Julie’s desire for a literary destiny in her pursuit of happiness.
Life, when experienced from within, renders any issue inconsequential unless it is brought back to the discussion of personal well-being. As Erich Fromm articulates in “The Art of Loving,” love is an active capacity to give. In infancy, the guiding principle is, “Because I am loved, I love.” Mature love follows the principle, “Because I love, I am loved.” Immature love expresses, “Because I need you, I love you,” while mature love asserts, “Because I love you, I need you.”
An essential condition in the ability to love is objectivity towards things, the capacity to see them for what they truly are by transcending the filters formed by personal fears and desires. Objectivity is crucial because it is impossible to respect someone without truly understanding them, and lacking respect, a sense of responsibility can easily deteriorate into a desire for control.
The more one seeks control, the easier it is to feel disappointed. As the Buddha said, “All things are without self.” The universe and its myriad phenomena are constantly changing, a flowing process, and all things in the world are interconnected, dependent on each other in this fluid existence. What causes us suffering is our attachment to “ownership” and the persistence of self-awareness that craves for people and things to remain constant. In reality, all we can do is perceive things as they naturally are, remain faithful to the present moment, and genuinely experience it.
Each of us harbors subjective views of the world, especially in intimate relationships where there is a desire to be understood and cared for, but also a fear of abandonment and not being loved.
However, when individuals have strong filters or biases in their perceptions and expectations, they are more prone to losing confidence. The deeper these insecurities go, the more constraints there are on experiencing freedom within love, leading to a diminishing of happiness.
Therefore, we can say that the ability to experience happiness stems from the ability to love.
We must be able to stand on our own, walk independently without relying on crutches, before we can truly respect others in love. In the end of the movie, Julie no longer depends on relationships to fulfill her life; instead, she learns to become a better version of herself.
In the uncharted future beyond the scenes, I believe Julie will find lasting love on a peaceful and sunlit morning. :)
