Throughout
the film, Cole jumps back and forth in time, with landings in 1990
where he spends time in a mental institution and first meets his
psychiatrist and fellow patient, Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt); 1996,
the year the virus is released that causes the worldwide epidemic;
and 2035 where he began. We see that each time Cole travels through
history, the new reality has been affected by his activities in the
past. For instance, the formation of the Army of the Twelve Monkeys
begins based on a comment the Cole makes to Goines in 1990. But, the
reason Cole went back to 1990 in the first place was to investigate
the virus epidemic triggered by the Twelve Monkeys. Which came first:
Cole’s trip to 1990, or the creation of the Army?
During
Cole's visits back to the 1990's, he has run-ins with the law and
mental institutions and is recorded as a paranoid schizophrenic
saying “5 billion people will die from a deadly virus in 1997. The
survivors will abandon the surface of the planet. Once again the
animals will rule the world.” Though we, the audience, know that
Cole is telling the truth about being from the future, the society he
encounters on his travels question his sanity and foreknowledge of
the future. Cole's psychiatrist, Kathryn
Railly (Madeleine Stowe), who becomes close with Cole,
speaks about a phenomenon called the Cassandra Affect. Myth tells a
fable about Cassandra, a woman doomed to an eternity of foreknowledge
but without anyone ever believing her. She is left completely
helpless forced the know the future without the power to change
anything about it. Here Cole is left in a similar situation with the
entire world calling him mental deficiency instead of heeding his
warning.
The
film Twelve Monkeys explores many of the facets of mental illness and
the fluid concept of “crazy” throughout the film. The audience
and the characters of the film are constantly questioning what is
reality and what is insanity. DesCartes says that we must constantly
question the world around us for how can we ever know what it reality
and what is a creation of the mind. As the film develops, Cole
becomes convinced by therapists that he is mentally insane and the
impending doom of this future virus is a figment of his imagination.
A fellow patient in the mental institute said to Cole, “There's not
right, there's no wrong, there is only popular opinion.” Fighting
this popular opinion to find out the truth about the virus becomes
the entire focus of the film and drives the characters to explore
every possible reality.
Because
the film takes place in three different time periods, the audience
must have a flexible construct of reality to deal with the ever
changing history of the virus. The reality of every scene in
questioned and judged by all the characters involved, including the
audience. We follow the story-line through our own lens which can
often lead to false assumptions and quick judgements of what is the
truth. The truths and assumptions of the film are quickly turned on
their head as we watch history unfold before our eyes. The characters
of the film, especially Kathryn
Railly, becomes very in tune to the truth of situations and follows
in DesCartes footsteps by completely disregarding the reality that
she has come to know. While trying to convince a fellow doctor of the
new truth she has found, Railly says “I
mean, psychiatry: it’s the latest religion. We decide what’s
right and wrong. We decide who’s crazy or not. I’m in trouble
here. I’m losing my faith.” This loss of faith becomes a
realization of a new reality and breakaway from the mindless
following of the majority.
I
highly recommend Twelve Monkeys to everyone so they can experience 2035 time travel and see Brad Pitt in one of his greatest roles.
I happened to watch this movie over the summer so I am familiar with it. Honestly I did not care for it much but reading this post about it does open up some interesting questions. One of the questions which I tend to think about is the existence of time. When you mentioned how Cole is sent to the past to complete a mission, but then it turns out he was the cause of the army it makes me wonder about the concept of time. Like sometimes I try to imagine time as just a human construct and so not being linear. Of course that's probably not as philosophical. My philosophical question is about reality. Towards the end you mentioned the quote about fighting popular opinion. Descartes convinces himself of what is real to him, but what about other people? Is what's real for one person real for a different person? It seems as if we live in a world of competing realities, and the ones that are most supported are the ones that are accepted as real. For example, what if you have two people who are arguing about the presence of an elephant? One claims it is there while the other says that it isn't. Well if more people come into the argument, the one with the most supporters is therefore correct and so their reality triumphs while the other person is labeled as "crazy" or "impaired". But what if the "crazy" person truly does see the elephant? Isn't that reality for him? I suppose my overreaching question is this: Is reality particular to the individual or is there an all inclusive reality which governs existence? Great post btw
ReplyDeleteYour title would make John Stuart Mill proud, for it is synonymous to the notion of the "Tyranny of the Majority", a useful concept among Utilitarian ethicists about how a majority of a population tend to have an ignorant or incomplete conception of a piece of reality, and determine a "truth" based on an assumption or fact that is much simpler than the real event/reality. I bring this all up because after reading this blog post, I was curious to know your thoughts on how all human beings (at some points or at many points in our lives) perceive an incomplete version of reality, and how, although our conceptions are incomplete, we feel comfortable making assertions that have "truth" to them. What do you think this relationship between truth and falsehood is? Do we perceive our own versions of the truth? Do we merely perceive a world that we, as individuals want to see? I believe 12 Monkeys illustrates an important premise to human beings' psyche: Religion and belief. If the psychiatrist is losing her religion of psychology, what else does she have? Human beings love religion, it seems to be impossible to most persons to give up their religion, and because they are so ingrained with religion, does their infatuation shape and mold their perspective of the possible reality, and the real reality?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the interesting post!
Your post and mine brought up some interesting points about time in the film, but I like this idea of faith that you bring up. It seems that it the absolute duty of a physchiatrist to determine what is right from wrong in a person - for that is why one sees a psychaitrist, is it not? We feel there is something wrong with the way we are thinking or interpreting reality, if we are thinking or judging correcty, or if we need advise on if we are interpreting truth correctly. So we seek help from those trained in mental stability. But in the film we witness the doctor saying that she, the one who is most knowledgable of right from wrong, is losing her faith - a faith that she once held in the reality that she knew to be correct for all "This loss of faith becomes a realization of a new reality and breakaway from the mindless following of the majority" - a agree. This is not to say, "Well, who knows what's real." Rather, it is to say that there is perhaps an alternate reality, one that is overlooked by the majority and one that may include effects of time travel on this reality. Maybe I am getting a bit abstract here, but good post!
ReplyDeleteI think all of these comments so far have touched on some interesting topics that I want to expand. The post brings up the interesting point of psychology as representational of religion, as well as the idea of linearity. In my post about this film, which I think can also apply to many of the other optional films is to remember that the true "God" of the film- or the one depicting what we see, what is true, and the linearity- is the filmmaker. Understanding our "job" in interpreting a film with emphasis on philosophy of "self" (to me) is very important. After all, it is a film. It may bend the heads of the actors more keeping in mind that they filmed that movie almost completely out of order, but more likely in chronological order. The director and editor are the ones bringing up these questions. Thinking immediately of Inception. Did the top fall over at the end? What reality are we living in? The top neither fell over nor stayed up at the end. The movie simply ended only to remind us of how invested we are in the idea that what is occurring on screen holds some sense of reality to us! I digress further and further from my original statements, but I stress that if the question of truth vs false, and reality vs delusions is a predominant theme in these movies, remember that they are in fact openly fictional worlds created for our interpretation and analysis.
ReplyDeleteI loved this film for the questions it brought up, and my point is not to take away from the analytical process behind film; however, when truly thinking about reality and self, must we not look at our own first?