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.



Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.