The Truman Show

?The Truman Show? is a profoundly disturbing movie. On the surface, it deals with the worn out issue of the intermingling of life and the media.


Examples for such incestuous relationships abound:


Ronald Reagan, the cinematic president was also a presidential movie star. In another movie (?The Philadelphia Experiment?) a defrosted Rip Van Winkle exclaims upon seeing Reagan on television (40 years after his forced hibernation started): ?I know this guy, he used to play Cowboys in the movies?.


Candid cameras monitor the lives of webmasters (website owners) almost 24 hours a day. The resulting images are continuously posted on the Web and are available to anyone with a computer.


The last decade witnessed a spate of films, all concerned with the confusion between life and the imitations of life, the media. The ingenious ?Capitan Fracasse?, ?Capricorn One?, ?Sliver?, ?Wag the Dog? and many lesser films have all tried to tackle this (un)fortunate state of things and its moral and practical implications.


The blurring line between life and its representation in the arts is arguably the main theme of ?The Truman Show?. The hero, Truman, lives in an artificial world, constructed especially for him. He was born and raised there. He knows no other place. The people around him ? unbeknownst to him ? are all actors. His life is monitored by 5000 cameras and broadcast live to the world, 24 hours a day, every day. He is spontaneous and funny because he is unaware of the monstrosity of which he is the main cogwheel.


But Peter Weir, the movie?s director, takes this issue one step further by perpetrating a massive act of immorality on screen. Truman is lied to, cheated, deprived of his ability to make choices, controlled and manipulated by sinister, half-mad Shylocks. As I said, he is unwittingly the only spontaneous, non-scripted, ?actor? in the on-going soaper of his own life. All the other figures in his life, including his parents, are actors. Hundreds of millions of viewers and voyeurs plug in to take a peep, to intrude upon what Truman innocently and honestly believes to be his privacy. They are shown responding to various dramatic or anti-climactic events in Truman?s life. That we are the moral equivalent of these viewers-voyeurs, accomplices to the same crimes, comes as a shocking realization to us. We are (live) viewers and they are (celluloid) viewers. We both enjoy Truman?s inadvertent, non-consenting, exhibitionism. We know the truth about Truman and so do they. Of course, we are in a privileged moral position because we know it is a movie and they know it is a piece of raw life that they are watching. But moviegoers throughout Hollywood?s history have willingly and insatiably participated in numerous ?Truman Shows?. The lives (real or concocted) of the studio stars were brutally exploited and incorporated in their films. Jean Harlow, Barbara Stanwyck, James Cagney all were forced to spill their guts in cathartic acts of on camera repentance and not so symbolic humiliation. ?Truman Shows? is the more common phenomenon in the movie industry.


Then there is the question of the director of the movie as God and of God as the director of a movie. The members of his team ? technical and non-technical alike ? obey Christoff, the director, almost blindly. They suspend their better moral judgement and succumb to his whims and to the brutal and vulgar aspects of his pervasive dishonesty and sadism. The torturer loves his victims. They define him and infuse his life with meaning. Caught in a narrative, the movie says, people act immorally.


(IN)famous psychological experiments support this assertion. Students were led to administer what they thought were ?deadly? electric shocks to their colleagues or to treat them bestially in simulated prisons. They obeyed orders. So did all the hideous genocidal criminals in history. The Director Weir asks: should God be allowed to be immoral or should he be bound by morality and ethics? Should his decisions and actions be constrained by an over-riding code of right and wrong? Should we obey his commandments blindly or should we exercise judgement? If we do exercise judgement are we then being immoral because God (and the Director Christoff) know more (about the world, about us, the viewers and about Truman), know better, are omnipotent? Is the exercise of judgement the usurpation of divine powers and attributes? Isn?t this act of rebelliousness bound to lead us down