In the Truman Show, the main character
(literally) Truman Burbank live since he’s born in a fake city, under a dome
that simulates the world, ignoring he’s living on a reality show. Every single
action of Truman is recorded and looked all over the world. And the Show is
very famous. But, as the clues and absurdities accumulate, Truman is doubting
more and more about his world.
This movie doesn’t seem at first so
existentialist. More like a satire of today’s TV reality-show. But in fact,
Truman’s existence is in question since he’s not living in the world. His world
is closed and located in one single place he has never left. And yet not a real
place at all because everybody there, except him is pretending to be someone
else. Everybody around Truman is living in bad faith, as Sartre would say, but
in my opinion, in a deeper way. They know they’re playing a role but in front
of Truman, they pretend they are what they are not. For Truman, so they have a
“reality’ in his world. But mainly for the director of the Show and the public.
And in fact it’s not just playing, because Truman thinks it is life for real.
Also Truman lives in bad faith too.
But I would say not because of him, but because of the others. Everybody else :
the Show team, the actors supposed to be his friends, the public (because the
Show can’t ignore what is the public waiting for). He’s reduced to be what the
others decide he is. And because his entire life is not private, he’s
constantly negated.
And by which way? The Look! When
Truman ignores, in the beginning, that he’s looked at constantly, he’s making a
life on is own. For example, we can take the scene of the face made with
magazines photo as an example of Sartre’s power of the look. Truman collects eyes,
mouths, noses on magazines in order to recreate a face of the woman he actually
loves. He hides it because he knows it would be considered as weird by his
co-workers. The perfect example of the shame. What he’s doing for itself is
revealed by the look of other. But he doesn’t know that he’s in permanence
looked at. When he has doubts in the second part of the movies, which drive him
crazy. He begins a paranoia, hides himself, flees or try to. He wants to escape
the constant shame. Because that’s what it is, there is no relief when
confronted to the others.
That’s exactly what we get in No
Exit, the play of Sartre. The characters are in hell, but a form of hell they
didn’t expect. A hell in which they are permanently under the look and presence
of others. That’s why they are three : if two are trying to mix and forget who
they are, a third remains. There is no escape! That’s why Garcin says in the
end that “hell is the others”. And Truman sees it, in his best friend, in his
wife, in his father, in everybody in the end. Moreover, their behaviour
reflects obviously bad faith and so seems really strange to Truman.
This movie remind me a personal
interrogation : is the world factice? I mean, not totally fake, as in Peter
Weir’s film (when even the walls in the house are decoration). But fake in a
more “interior” way. If we are beginning from the “cogito”, I’m sure that I
exist because I think. But I’m not sure that everything else exists. I feel the
things in the world. I touch, smell, taste, hear and see but this is just
experience of information, transition of information to my brain and everything
is created artificially. So it could be possible that my all world exists in my
brain. With a degree of complexion that seems to be incredible, with a past before
my consciousness awoke itself and possibilities for the future, a geography,
sciences a structure of the world, of human society, of human spirits too. And
I’m living in my brain, in total facticity, just like in a Matrix movie,
ignoring what is reality. But with some clues, just as in the Truman Show, bell
ringing at some points, when I study existentialism for example, studying the
“Dasein”, when something irrational happens to me (most of the time because of
others), when I see that there is no logic in the underground flow… Could it be
it? A fake world?
A problem remains in the Other. Who
created them, with such a complexity and why so would I ignore so much of their
spirituality? Me? That doesn’t seems to be that simple… So the other exists to,
and we have a relation. I must identify him as “other-as-subject”, like would
say Sartre. He behaves on he’s own and what I do in looking at him is making it
an object that I can apprehend. I create a body for him and to me he’s that
body, that’s easier to understand. I’m sure that the other exist, but I can’t
be sure of its representation. That could maybe explain that tastes differ. We
are not perceiving the same projection…
But the specificity of movies like
the Truman Show or Matrix is that this world of perception is controlled. By
someone or by machines (whatever). And this controls opens a third way of
facticity : the control is not the life.
We are heading back here to
Kierkegaard’s lessons. Let’s take the final scene of the movie. Truman hit the
bag-end, found the door and he’s on the verge of leaving the reality-show. His
creator speaks to him like this : “this is where you belong, this is your
world, I can protect you”. Of course, nothing bad will happen to Truman if his
world is controlled (that’s why the Show team manage to make him fear living
the town). But of course, Truman doesn’t want it. Because it’s not living. As
Kierkegaard said : “to live is to takes risks”. It’s the same in Matrix : your
not taking any risk in the matrix but that’s not living, that’s not the truth,
that’s why Neo choose the red pill.
But some are not ready to take
risks. They are okay to be slaves if they can be sure to survive. But everyone
dies in the end. That’s why we must be ready to take risks for our freedom, to
avoid facticity.
I don’t want this to be a political
essay but we must ask ourselves what is living, especially after what Paris experienced
once more…
Hi Max ! Thank you for your post, especially the end, and your enquiry : what is living ?
ReplyDeleteAccording to me, the verb "to live" has no sense if we just live confortably, without any risk. As we see in The Truman Show, Truman cannot live, even if he is in a total security, because his whole life it is totally regulated by the director of the show, there is no risk, as you said, and no unexpected. I agree with you and with Kiekegaard, if we want to really live we have to take some risks. As far as I concern the interest of the life comes from the risks and the contingencies.
According to me the meaning of being human it is to live it up, with all the ways we have, above all after what Paris is living again...
The beauty of the life, comes, among others things, of the risks, so I prefer to live in our world and take risks and make some mistakes, than live in a Truman Show World, and you, what do you prefer ?