Skip to main content

Fiji. We're moving to Fiji.

The Truman Show
(1998)

(SPOILERS) I’d had it in mind to revisit The Truman Show for a while now, and it seems many are rediscovering the picture with fresh eyes amidst a plandemic and the implications that holds for our paradigm. It’s a film I’ve never quite been able to embrace. There’s something about it that’s a little too facile, a little too on-the-nose. And I say that as an unabashed Peter Weir fan. Even with a few new angles to bring to the picture twenty-odd years later, I find that take hasn’t really changed.

I mean, its main characters are called Truman and Cristof! But that’s Andrew Niccol for you; any conscientious Hollywood writer wishing to debate themes of substance and merit is ultimately doomed to display a distinct lack of subtlety. That said, many popular readings of The Truman Show have focussed more on its pertinence and prescience with regard to reality TV and surveillance state, the normalisation of monitoring and our adaptability to modes of performance and behaviour in response to the same, rather than the premise of questioning core existential fundamentals.

Niccol’s original idea was, according to Weir, much more depressing (that wouldn’t be surprising if you’ve seen Gattaca). It was also more explicitly science-fictiony. Weir lightened it up, imbuing it with that Groundhog Day meets 50s sitcom quality (and it does carry, after all a hopeful message: Truman escapes).

A problem for the allegorical or cautionary picture is that it may not feel it needs to justify its milieu, as long as the big idea comes across. The Truman Show doesn’t really broach the legality or ethics of Truman as a goldfish in a bowl, other than to show the opposition of Sylvia (Natascha McElhone) to his plight. We are told he was “the first child to be legally adopted by a corporation” (and one can extrapolate various real-world referentiality from that, such as the impact of maritime law and trading birth certificates on the stock market). Which doesn’t really address that everyone globally, give or take, seems okay with this deception. You can analogise Truman’s plight in all sorts of valid ways, but whether this is a functional vision is a different matter.

Beyond that, though, the picture focusses in an amiably unhurried fashion on Truman’s awakening to the truth of his situation, that the world he took for granted is a deceit (see also the same year’s Dark City and the following’s The Matrix). For the sake of the movie milieu, everything is about Truman (“Maybe I’m losing my mind… But it feels like the whole world revolves around me somehow”), but one can easily extend that to the hoodwinking of the entire population. Hence its current pertinence. Indeed, more than a scenario where only a few are awake/awakening and others blindly act like sheep, one might argue The Truman Show is presenting an inverse here: that the real point is all those who KNOW they’re acting parts, per Truman’s co-stars, yet willingly spend their entire lives going through the motions in a plastic reality for the sake of a pay cheque, sacrificing all scruples and integrity. It’s easier just to go along with it all.

The extent of the individual’s self-realisation is closely guarded. As Cristof blithely notes, “We accept the reality of the world which we’re presented. It’s as simple as that”. Which means Truman must be steered away from anything that might cause him to question the status quo. His yen for travel or changes of circumstances are quashed by “friends”, “family” or “circumstance”. When he isn’t in thrall to his fears and phobias. On the most basic level, then, this is about personal fulfilment, and how a lifetime of acquiescence represents living, if not a lie, then an unlived life. On another, more fundamental to the picture’s construct, it amounts to being fed a carefully fashioned fabrication regarding the hows, whys and wherefores of our existence (“As Truman grew up, we were forced to manufacture ways to keep him on the island”).

I came across, by chance, two different references to the same excerpt from 1984 in the past few days, in which Winston Smith is instructed by interrogator O’Brien regarding the nature of that which he takes to be true (“We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull”). O’Brien casts doubt on Winston’s assumptions in respect of everything from the age of the earth, to dinosaurs, to the stars (“Nothing exists except through human consciousness”). Cristof’s ethos is exactly the same, except that he manufactures a very individually tailored framework for Truman’s human consciousness.

Such is the nature of Cristof’s divine power (“I am the creator…” he informs Truman) that many have reasonably identified him with the gnostic demiurge, the false or corrupt creator (others have explicitly seen Cristof as the Antichrist; some rather inaccurately equate the two). Often, this derives from a fiercely accusatory, Christian standpoint, it should also be noted. Thus, The Truman Show is denounced as an intentionally misguiding text, since it becomes one that sinks an orthodoxly Christian reading of the world (but again, we have to remember that in the Niccol’s fiction, Truman is able to leave this false creation; indeed, Cristof explicitly allows him to – I’ve also seen the stairs Truman climbs at the end associated with freemasonry, although they aren’t of the winding variety).

As Cristof says, “There is no more truth out there than there is in the world I created for you”. Of course, there are numerous different takes on the positioning and purview of the demiurge, depending on the branch of Gnosticism you pick, but the common thread of a corrupt or false (or illusory) material world is at the focus of modern treatments. And – leaving aside for a moment that the gnostic reading may, give or take, be an accurate one and that a Christian take is going to be necessarily partial – there are reasonable grounds to be doubtful over the resurgence of this belief in recent decades, be it as a predictive programming psyop designed to diminish association with the material realm and so invest further in the technocratic escape that seems imminent, or simply to embed an incipient despair over a futile existence (what could be worse than no God – a actively antagonistic one).

The other areas Christian – or gnostic – readings have leapt upon, being as the movement has a noteworthy religious association, is that The Truman Show codes itself as espousing a Flat Earth environment. Or at very least, an enclosed realm. The stars in the sky are not real stars. At the outset, a “ceiling” light crashes into the street near Truman bearing the legend “Sirius”. Which is itself resonant of the theory that satellites, if indeed there are any up there, are hooked into the dome over the Earth. Cristof, meanwhile, lives in an also non-physical moon (at one point, we hear the instruction “Cue the Sun”). Truman sets off in a boat and reaches the edge of the world (which suggests both the barrier of Antarctica and Time Bandits).

One could, if one wished, extended a further satirical reading – strangely, this isn’t a movie that makes much opportunity of that – to The Truman Show. After all, the posters at the travel agent warn “Travellers beware: Have you bought enough insurance to protect against – Terrorists Disease Wild Animals Street Gangs” (the first two of which have been directly used to restrict travel subsequently). In Seahaven, nuclear power is a fake (as some claim it to be) and allopathic medicine is a sham (as some claim it to be); the Geiger counters register hot for Truman, and the doctors don’t know what they’re doing (or nurses, come to that).

It’s also a nice touch that anyone protesting Truman’s reality is bought off (dad) or supressed (Natasha). It’s worth mentioning Carrey’s positioning in all this too, crossing over to a dramatic lead with just so much of his schtick along for the ride. He would embark on his own quest to investigate the nature of reality during the subsequent decade, taking in such (crassly) esoteric fare as The Number 23 and a personal association with Transcendental Meditation, as well as announcing himself as an anti-vaxer. He’d also be seen calling out the Illuminati on TV, leading to various suggestions as to the fate of his girlfriend (and notionally a historic blood sacrifice compromise for his success) and his subsequent doubling down on working according to script (anti-Trump rhetoric via grotesque artwork; returning to gurning Hollywood fare like Sonic the Hedgehog). If that’s the case, perhaps there’s resonance to Cristof’s “Truman prefers his cell, as you call it”. And that, since “You are the star”, Carrey must perform that prescribed role or else.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.