Maria Lee

To what extent does the film uphold Existentialist truths?

Scene
The short film – titled “Bubble” – is an advertisement for Samsung’s K5 music-
player.1 The film depicts people wearing large bubble-like protrusions surrounding their
heads. In a series of scenes, a man and woman try to kiss, but are unable to (due to the
bubble physically being in the way); similarly, a woman tries to drink water from a water
fountain but cannot; in another scene a woman sits by herself on bench looking dejected;
another scene depicts a sea of pedestrians with each wearing the bubble. The film then
focuses on one character. He is the first in the film to realize that he – and everyone else –
is wearing a bubble, an object that constrains and isolates. He then removes his own
bubble and takes out his K5. People take notice and they all remove their individual
bubbles. The film ends with a crowd partying around the man with the K5. The soundtrack
of the film further enhances the advertisement’s message. Before the K5 is taken out, all
one hears is background noise, the sound of a world without humans talking/making noise.
However, once the music-player is brought out, one hears lively music and the sound of
people communicating.

Analysis
People often comment on having their “own little world”, a “world” in which the
focus is entirely on the individual. The K5 film takes this metaphor and makes it real on
several levels. In one respect the film’s complete focus on the individual being encourages
an existentialist point of view. While there have been various departures made from
Existentialism starting from Kierkegaard to Sartre and beyond, the central issues
nonetheless remain the same. The film raises the issues of individual subjectivity, freedom
and uniqueness, three ideas central to existentialism.

Subjectivity
Sartre, in his development of Existentialism, holds that the “individual human
being” is of the highest concern, as opposed to the general ideas pertaining to all of
humanity which past philosophers have discussed. Hence the subjective experience of the
1
The main feature of the music-player is its unique speakers; the caption of the Samsung K5 reads,
“Freedom is sharing a soundtrack: Music is meant to be shared. The new Samsung K5 has built-in, slide-out
speakers so you can share your life’s soundtrack everywhere.”
individual is imperative and is regarded as having higher importance than objective truths.
In fact, objective truths are seen as ‘untruths’ in existentialism unless they are experienced
personally and through empirical means.

As a philosophy, having a subjective point of view is legitimate; however in the K5

film, the “one-track” subjective perspective is depicted as being limiting and restrictive.
Furthermore the film leads one to question the fundamental idea of existentialism – the
validity of relying solely on the subjective experience. This is because the subjective
experience may not be the only truth. If each person had his/her own set of truths, then
what is true for one person may not be true for another. Hence there is no coherence from
one person to the next. Thus there are no absolute truths. Fundamentally existentialism
focuses on subjectivity, disregarding the possibility of objective/absolute truths existing.
Because existentialism discounts any possibility of objective truths and promotes only
subjective experiences, existentialism limits people from accessing possible objective
truths external to one self. This is an inadequacy in existentialism itself.

The film appears to criticize the subjective experience as being ‘the sole point of
view’. Before continuing, it is important to first clarify what the ‘subjective experience’
means in the K5 film. In the film, the subjective experience is portrayed/manifested
physically in the form of the bubbles placed around the heads of each character. In several
scenes the bubbles constrain the characters, obstructing them from functioning freely. For
example, the bubbles prevent the couple from kissing. The physical restriction is symbolic
of the fact that having access to only one type of perspective – the subjective perspective –
limits people from sharing experiences with one another and gaining understanding of a
wider point of view it also symbolizes isolation. Thus people in bubbles are in effect
confined within their own subjectivism and restricted from accessing objective truths (or
any truths for that matter) outside of themselves.

Here is another way of looking at the limitations of subjective experience has

given by existentialism. If one were to only see subjectively, even if one given the chance,
would it be possible for one to see objectively? In fact, how can one even know that there
are objective truths when one can only see subjectively? Furthermore, how can one learn
an objective truth by approaching it subjectively? In both approaches, there are limitations
that prevent one from seeing past the subjective experience.
Freedom
The idea of being restricted relates to the idea of freedom. For Sartre, freedom is
defined as being able to choose one’s own purpose and actions, and the ability to actively
create meaning in one’s own life. On the one hand, Sartre upholds subjectivism, which is
fundamental to existentialism; on the other hand, it is this same subjectivist perspective
which results in confinement, which is the lack of freedom.

The bubbles in the film evidently present a restriction in the freedom of expression
(i.e. the couples trying to kiss yet cannot) and it can also be interpreted – from the scene of
the woman trying to drink water – that without freedom, people cannot live. (In this scene,
the woman is prevented from drinking the water due to the bubble acting as a physical
barrier. Like the aforementioned couple, the woman here also has no choice in her
situation. She cannot change anything about her condition unless she takes the bubble off.
However, to take the bubble off, she must first be able to see that she is wearing a bubble.
But of course she – in her subjective experience – is unable to see this.)

To be encapsulated within the bubble, unable to escape from it, suggests that one
has no power to choose to “break free” from it. In fact, to be constrained within the bubble
means that one is not be able to see past it, and therefore is unable to see any other viable
options. Consequently the bubble forces upon the person only one option. Thus wearing
the bubble signifies that one is not free.

While the film seems to suggest the idea that taking off the bubble is equated with
gaining ultimate freedom, this however may not be the case. Let us return to Sartre’s idea
of freedom. To have freedom is to actively make decisions for oneself. In the film, each
character passionately breaks his bubble and chooses to participate in the ‘sharing of
music’. Choosing to break the bubble is an act demonstrative of the freedom each
individual holds and also demonstrates an active self-awareness which accompanies
‘freedom’ in the existential sense (since they become aware of the limiting effects of the
bubble). However by choosing to reject the former state (of wearing the bubble) and
embracing the latter (of wearing no bubble), this means the only option available now that
the bubble has been completely shattered is to embrace the latter state – the state of
‘sharing music’ and reaching/creating meaning. This new state brings in another issue:
what if one individual decides he does not like the current state of ‘sharing music’ and
would rather return to the former state of wearing the bubble? Choosing/wanting to return
to the former state is still an act of freewill. However because the bubble has been broken
– which suggests it is impossible to return to the former state – then one is in effect forced
to remain in the latter state (the state of ‘sharing music’). Because he has no choice, he is
then without freedom and loses his individuality.

Uniqueness
Being forced to stay in a state one does not wish to be in also relates to Sartre’s
idea of living an ‘authentic’ as opposed to ‘inauthentic’ life (living in ‘good faith’ verses
‘bad faith’). Staying authentic to oneself is central to the process of making one’s identity,
which is the crux of existentialism. For an individual to actively create meaning in his life,
he is seen to be moving away from mere existence and into an “essence”. (This idea is
derived from the existential posit that “existence precedes essence”.) To an existentialist,
simply existing has no meaning or bearing since existence is “absurd”; it is only by
consciously creating meaning in one’s life and making sense of the absurdity of existences
– the meaninglessness of existing – that one finally obtains a unique essence. Hence
‘uniqueness’ is the state that is achieved after creating meaning for oneself and exercising
the freedom that existentialism posits each individual has.

In the film, mere existence is represented by life when the bubble is intact. With
the bubble on, the characters are unable to see that their lives are absurd – the couple try to
kiss yet evidently cannot (unless they are made aware of their condition). They are
prevented from attaining that which they so earnestly seek. By wearing the bubble, they
are not free; though they exist, they have no essence.

On another level of interpretation, the film shows all the characters wearing the
bubble as having quite the same demeanor. And since each person wears the bubble, does
it mean that they are all the same and therefore not unique? On the other hand, one may
argue that if everyone were unique, would it still be unique to be unique? From an
existentialist point of view, it would be irrelevant that everyone else be unique, since the
focus is still solely on the individual.