Instead of discussing the experience of reality, I would like to address the characters' experience with identity in this film.
At the very beginning of the film, the actress Hannah Gill is giving an interview statement about her 'double life.' She says, "For me there is no difference between private life and public life. My life is my life, it's the Truman show." In his essay “Of Identity and Diversity,” philosopher John Locke writes about identity, “This also shews wherein in Identity of the same Man consists; viz. in nothing by a participation of the same continued Life, by constantly fleeting particles of matter, in succession vitally united to the same organized Body.” The supporting characters of the Truman show, particularly the more central characters like Meryl, Marlon and Truman’s mother, have a unique experience of identity. Their fulltime role has surpassed the nature of a role into the imitation of an identity; indeed, all acting to an extent is this taking on of a false identity. The concept of The Truman Show, however, has elevated this imitation to a level of devotion to a false identity beyond that of normal pretense-- the height of this example being in my opinion when director Christof suggests that there is an on screen conception in the future plans for the show. Ultimately actress Hannah leaves her role as Truman’s wife Meryl, revealing that there are limitations to an individual’s ability to commit to an identity that is not their own.
So, what does this element of Locke’s understanding of identity mean for Truman at the end of the film? The action of the film ends with Truman exiting the set that has been his world since birth and Sylvia seemingly running to meet up with him-- an ending which I feel suggests hope for the establishment of a life post-Truman Show for our protagonist. However, “if the Identity of the same Man consists in nothing but a participation of the same continued Life,” what will Truman’s new identity look like? I think it can be said for certain that Truman’s existing identity has already begun to be challenged throughout his realization that his world was a facade. In the opening moments of the film, show creator Christof says, “There is nothing fake about Truman himself.” What Christof means, of course, is to identify what precisely is so appealing about the television program. Because Truman does not know he is being filmed or that his life is being monitored and controlled, he does not limit his actions in accordance with that knowledge; he has no extraordinary inhibitions or intentionally wild behaviors that are common features of “reality” television in our own society. After Truman has abandoned his false life, however, I wonder if Truman too would agree that there was nothing false about his identity. A brief example-- are a person’s fears a part of their identity? Truman’s fear of open water was constructed as a plot point by the show creator; does this undermine the truth of this part of Truman’s identity?
Naturally, this discussion of humankind’s autonomy works well when thinking about the nature of humans’ interaction with deities and religion. If Christof’s decision to create a situation in which Truman will almost certainly fear open water instills in Truman a fear that is falsely part of his identity, can anything that is beyond the control of us as humans be considered a part of shaping our identity? By this, I mean to speak directly to the question of the level of direct control that God has in the lives of humans (using the modern Western Abrahamic understanding of God). I feel that the situations are comparable; the film features a substantial use of Western imagery to underscore that Christof is playing God in this situation.
This subject has raised more questions about the nature of exterior forces in shaping our identity than perhaps it has answered today. If Identity is in fact constructed of all the elements discussed in John Locke’s essay, there are many factors of which we must take inventory to truly understand ourselves. Lucky for us, we will hopefully have one series of moments to account for, unlike Truman who, I suppose after the end of the film, must in a sense begin completely anew.
You touch on two very interesting ideas. The idea of Christof being Truman's "God" as well as the idea of our obsession with reality television. I think in combination, this is very interesting. I have stated in previous comments that most of the optional films touch on the idea of the filmmaker being the "God" of its subjects and audience... They must convey right and wrong, and it is their job to present a believable reality. In this film, Truman is the first reality movie star, his life, relationships, fears, job, family.... everything is being dictated by one man watching from a control room above. This is simply the reality of filmmaking, as our emotions were personified and even almost poked at by the reactions of the audience to Truman's life.
ReplyDeleteOne disagreement I have is the ending. When Truman leaves, no we don't see him again. Neither does the audience of his show. What do they do? They move on, they don't ask questions. They proceed with the normality of their own selves and their own realities. What did we do after the film ended? Probably similar things.This is both a statement about film as well as a criticism of those deeply involved in reality television. The character "Truman" is only a character created by Christof and created by the director of the film. Once he walked out of that door, he may have been the same "man" but he was a different "person." Perhaps Jim Carrey again. Or whatever role he will play next.
I would argue that while it is true that Truman's identity has been heavily shaped by the higher-ups in the show, this isn't really any different than reality. It's hard to debate the fact that we are shaped by the actions of those around us, and so any of us in our regular lives experience a similar "shaping" to what Truman does, it just seems less sinister when we realize it. Using the example of Truman's fear of water, it would at first seem that this is something greater than what happens in real life- after all, the director is using the fear to control Truman, but this is exactly like when any of our parents teach us about what to and not to do. There's nothing inherent in why we should or shouldn't do most of these things, except that everyone is trying to shape us into people that do particular things. The show may take this to an extreme, but we can find it all over in our regular life. For example, the 'snail that bites your finger if you pick your nose' (were other people told of this? I honestly have no idea) is a blatant lie, but since everyone agrees with the ends, we are all satisfied with the means.
ReplyDeleteBasically, what I'm trying to say is that perhaps the Truman show is not so different from our lives as we'd like to believe.
I agree with Eric. Though Truman's identity has been heavily shaped by the higher-ups, it isn't different from our own lives being molded by teachers, parents, or any other authority figure. Listening to authority seems to shape our basic identity and actions though we may not even realize it. Being taught that the stove is hot and not to put your hand on it is an authority (parent) teaching you and if you don't listen you will get burned. Lessons and rules contribute to form our basic identity and perhaps Truman is a metaphor for real life (Like Eric said).
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your discussion on the ways in which Truman's identity is shaped by outside forces - namely the whims of Christof - though I'm not sure I agree that Truman must begin wholly anew at the end of the film. When Locke discusses the “participation of the same continued Life,” I interpreted that as referring to a human's status as a living being, not necessarily the reality in which they are participating. Moving to a new country can be significantly jarring (granted, not as jarring as learning that your whole world has been constructed to benefit an audience of strangers), but your altered surroundings do not alter the continuous string of memories you maintain. In my view, Truman is both the same “man” and the same “person,” for he will still have recollections of his pseudo-world once he steps through the door to experience a new reality. He will not totally shed his old identity.
ReplyDeleteThe film does bring up a lot of interesting questions about our notion of reality, though. Are we allowed to say that Truman's life is false simply because more aspects are controlled than usual? I'm always reminded of the classic rat-in-a-maze science experiment when I watch this film. It's as if Truman is being guided toward a desired result based on (metaphorical) cardboard barriers and wedges of cheese: a system of deterrents and incentives. But he still must undergo the experience, slamming into walls and taking wrong turns, and ultimately busting out of the maze. I find it hard to discredit the authenticity of his experience just because there are outside forces attempting to guide his behavior. Which, of course, leads pretty seamlessly into a discussion of God-orchestrated plans for human beings. Fascinating post, by the way!