Rating B- | A Man Called Otto： Hopeless Old Man Decides To End His Life（2/2）

（Click to read 1/2 of the article）

Otto's story is not a "serious philosophy", but I feel it answers the question of suicide better than Camus's. Camus's ideal reader is a young person who thinks the world is absurd because it does not conform to their ideals. But Otto's story is more relevant to reality. He is no longer a naive college student, but a retired old man who has experienced many hardships. Love is no longer just an ideal, but a memory to be cherished. The world is absurd to Otto, not because he has any glorious ideals, but simply because the not-so-beautiful reality suddenly has no way forward.

If Sonia had not passed away, Otto would certainly have been willing to continue taking care of her indefinitely. If the company had not forced him to "optimize," Otto would certainly have been willing to continue his very dull job. He doesn't need much to keep going, but the world doesn't even give him that. Otto's ability to survive is not because, as Camus suggested, he learned to "enjoy the present". Otto can survive because he found new ways to dedicate himself to helping others. His heart is big, but his ego is small. His happiness comes from true altruism.

The value system of the whole story can be described as quite traditional and simple. The giver will eventually receive rewards, and the lonely Otto got a "family" with deep emotions but no blood ties and thus achieved reconciliation with the world. There is no Camus-like intensity of forever confronting the world, nor is there the tragic spectacle of "enjoying life while shedding tears." You could say that Otto's story is a warm chicken soup for the soul, while Camus' philosophy is a boiling chicken blood, and viewers and readers can choose according to their own mood. It is also possible that both chicken soup and chicken blood can be a bit tiresome in the current times.

The same story can have different ratings between the 2022 remake and the original film or book, which is an interesting question. If you have only seen the 2022 remake, it can still be emotional enough to bring you tears and move you. But since the original is a classic, it is only natural to compare the two.

As for the actors, Tom Hanks is undoubtedly an excellent actor, but compared to the grumpy old man in the Swedish version, he is inevitably more handsome and sunny. In terms of the plot, the American version is actually more precise than the original. For example, the American version starts with Otto buying a rope, which immediately touches on the topic of suicide and sets the suspense. The original version, on the other hand, is Otto buying flowers for his deceased wife, which is relatively loose.

Although Hollywood's remakes of European films usually receive poorer reviews, it is not because of "messing up the script" as people usually imagine. The remake may lose the freshness of the original, but since the good mold is already in front of them, it is easy to make improvements and simplifications in the details. Another example: Otto's heart problem is already established in the American version as "failing a draft physical examination," while it is not mentioned in the Swedish original.

The main reason for the lower rating of the American version, in my opinion, is that the remake reflects the audience's more honest and sharp opinions. In other words, the unconscious and unspoken dissatisfaction or suspicion that the audience has towards the original story can be fully poured onto the remake.

We can conduct a deconstruction experiment on Otto's story. For example, if Otto were not a technically proficient home appliance repairman and a patient person who teaches his neighbors to drive for free but a disabled elderly person, without any residual heat to play, he might not have received the warmth of the strangers' family, and might have been dependent on a welfare system. The positive meaning of the story is not about the individual's ability to change his fate, but about the community's care and the support for the disadvantaged.

In fact, it's common to hear elderly people sigh and say they should have died earlier to avoid being a burden. This is a resentful remark born of resignation. The reality is that not everyone has the chance to depart peacefully like Otto, using up their remaining value before passing away. This is the harsh reality of old age. Young people have their own problems to face as well. Camus' absurdity imagines workers doing repetitive mechanical jobs day after day, but the situation for young people today is far more complex and absurd. On one hand, delaying retirement is a worldwide trend, but on the other hand, AI's rapid development is making jobs scarcer and scarcer.

A year ago, books like "Bullshit Jobs" could still strike a chord with people, as many bemoaned the fact that 40% of work was a waste of life. However, the reality is that these "bullshit jobs" are now being replaced by AI, and the problem is no longer about "bullshit jobs," but about having no job at all. It's hard to imagine which jobs will still be available to do until 65, without being replaced by AI.

The world's absurdity has long since surpassed Camus' imagination, and individual fate is far more complicated than Otto's story. However, stories always offer some philosophical advantages: a story only needs to provide one possibility of life, without necessarily giving the "right answer" to everything.

In fact, Camus himself turned to a mythical story to summarize his views: Sisyphus loves life and the earthly world so much that he deceives death, and is punished to forever push a boulder up a hill, only to see it roll down again, endlessly repeating. This reflects the meaninglessness of life. But Camus also says that once Sisyphus awakens to this meaninglessness, he becomes the “master of his own time,” "the struggle to climb the mountain peak is enough to enrich his heart," and "he is happy."

In this eloquent philosophical model, Camus is both too optimistic and too pessimistic. Who said every Sisyphus could luckily push the boulder to the top of the mountain? Otto never had a chance to climb to the happy peak, to see his unborn child, to get promoted, to enjoy his old age with his wife. For many, life is just an endless uphill battle, and one wrong step can be irreparable.

However, Sisyphus should not be seen as an individual, as people always live in some kind of community, and personal happiness is always related to the happiness of others. Despite the emphasis of existentialism on "hell is other people," loneliness is also a kind of hell, perhaps a more terrible one. Life cannot be abstracted as a relationship between people and stones, but is always a relationship between people: today you give me a push, tomorrow I'll give you a push.

Otto's story, though simple and idealized, tells us that "suicide" is not just a "serious philosophical problem," but also a series of very specific social issues: how can lonely elderly people live with dignity? How can young people create value? How can a community unite and help each other? How can an individual resist powerful forces such as unscrupulous developers? And so on.

Perhaps, when we have solved all the specific "small problems," the abstract "big problem" will be solved on its own. Action can always bring comfort beyond language. Problems that our minds cannot comprehend may be solved with love. Otto survived day by day like this. Perhaps we too can survive in the era dominated by AI.