TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- The Truman Show is an incredibly disturbing move.
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

The Truman Show is an incredibly disturbing move.

For some reason I remember it being marketed as one of the first "drama" movies Jim Carey was in, and not the absolutely terrifying and fucked up movie it actually is.

They raise a baby from birth in a giant bubble and orchestrate his life in such a way that every single person involved in his life is lying to him 100% of the time.

Ed Burns character is also far more demented than I seem to remember - the "interview" that Harry Shearer does with him is one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen.

Did I just miss all this the first time? I mean, I was 15 at the time so maybe I just wasn't as in tune to these kinds of issues - but it really does seem that it would be incredibly easy to watch it without thinking of the implications.

Thoughts?

I agree, it's quite disturbing.

I enjoyed it..... it was different from the stuff he had done before thats for sure.

I was a few years younger than you when I first watched it (oh, probably 11 or 12?). I thought it was "odd" for a Jim Carrey movie, but only because I was so young and used to comedy. I saw it maybe five or six months ago on TV one night and that's when it hit me just how messed up it was. Good movie, but disturbing.

Phreaking pwn movie, and yes. It would disturb me greatly if it were real.

Re: The Truman Show is an incredibly disturbing move.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Ed Burns character is also far more demented than I seem to remember - the "interview" that Harry Shearer does with him is one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen.

Ed burns? Do you mean Ed Harris?

Pretty cool movie though, I really enjoyed it. Though yes, the concept is quite disturbing.

Re: The Truman Show is an incredibly disturbing move.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Did I just miss all this the first time? I mean, I was 15 at the time so maybe I just wasn't as in tune

stoned.
fingering some year 8 slut at the cinema.
really dumb from too much stoning.
all of the above.

your answer is here somewhere.

i love the scene when he tries to make a plan for vanaction and they're we like, 'yea how about you do that in three months?"

first time i saw it i was like "oh jim carrey is in it, this is gonna be so much fun"

i was 10

I saw it in theaters when it was first released (and we're about the same age), and I don't think its scathing social commentary was as obvious to me then as it is now.

Although I'm not sure if this was intentional or not, one element I didn't at all identify until much, much later was the nature of Phillip Glass's soundtrack to the film. Like any other movie, the soundtrack attempts to accommodate various points of the film, but the one to this movie plays out in such a way that it sounds like the score to any hollow, derivative fluff you might see on network TV- which is more or less what I understood the writers of this film to be criticizing (that and the fact that millions seem to gobble it up without question). If I'm just reading too much in to this, it's still a very nice soundtrack from Glass.

Nevertheless, I don't find it to be as thoroughly disturbing as you have remarked. Although the essential plot would be unsettling in its own right, the fact that it's intrinsically tied in to its satirical depictions of media and consumerism tends to take a lot of the edge off.

That said, maybe I've just become too accustomed to the presence of reality television in all its grotesque forms to be as disturbed by it as I should be.

Here's a quote from a professional reviewer which sums it up nicely:

"Not even the more risk-taking alternative cinema, the Independent Film, has been so ruthless in its umbrella indictment of movies, television, music, advertising, commercials and infomercials."

Full Review

the truman show is not a good movie to watch while on acid...


but if youre sober, then its a great movie.. hmm.. think im gonna watch it tonight

I'm going to FIJI!

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog I'm going to FIJI!

Well, don't try to book a trip now- it's the 'busy season.'

Still consider it one of my favorite movies...I get dissed alot of citing it too. I think a lot of people might have your initial reaction, RJT, and gloss over some of its implications.

The final scene was one of the most amazing cinematic experiences I have ever had.

I seriously didnt expect that boat to just sail through a painted wall of sky. And when he finishes it off with "Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night".. well thats just brilliant.

we had to study it in highschool, i think it was in year nine?? anyway all i remeber was that at the time i was too much of a stoner to remeber...

It's really a great movie that raises a lot of issues even beyond the obvious ones. I think that it's especially interesting in light of the prominence that so-called "reality television" has gained in the time since.

I don't know that I consider it especially disturbing (within the larger context of how people actually think and behave, it doesn't strike me as especially atypical), but because it paints a picture of hypotehtical human action that many people would find objectionable, I can understand the characterization.

Most people are essentially raised from birth in their own not-so-giant bubbles (and, unlike Truman, most would never have the courage to leave them.) Most people's lives are largely orchestrated by phenomena outside of the conscious control of those living them. Granted, I don't think anyone is dealing with a comparable level of lying in their lives, but there's a large gap between lying and telling the whole and precise truth, and I do submit that a not inconsiderable portion of most people's words and actions fall a good deal farther towards the former part of that spectrum than we'd like to admit.

Ed Harris' character presents an interesting religious commentary. He is, essentially, the "God" of Truman's encapsulated world. Consider what so many people believe: that there is an all-powerful "God" who created the known universe, who takes an interest in their personal affairs and to a significant extent guides their lives. To many people, this is not just a belief - it is a desire. They actually want to have their lives controlled and managed much the way that Truman's is in the movie.

If we are to reject his character as "demented," "disturbing," et cetera, then I think it's fair to attribute a similar characterization to such a "God," if there were one. I think the fact that most everyone is inclined to agree with Truman's choice when, at the end of the movie, Truman rejects that level of control, mirrors the reasons why we ought to reject the idea that a personal God overseeing the daily lives of human beings would somehow be a desirable or even acceptable state of existence.

another film that has somewhat a similar setting to this one, is Bad Boy Bubby ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106341/ )

"Bad Boy Bubby is just that: a bad boy. So bad, in fact, that his mother has kept him locked in their house for his entire thirty years, convincing him that the air outside is poisonous"

I recommend it to all you sick fvckers here in the COR.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Ed Harris' character presents an interesting religious commentary. He is, essentially, the "God" of Truman's encapsulated world. Consider what so many people believe: that there is an all-powerful "God" who created the known universe, who takes an interest in their personal affairs and to a significant extent guides their lives. To many people, this is not just a belief - it is a desire. They actually want to have their lives controlled and managed much the way that Truman's is in the movie. If we are to reject his character as "demented," "disturbing," et cetera, then I think it's fair to attribute a similar characterization to such a "God," if there were one. I think the fact that most everyone is inclined to agree with Truman's choice when, at the end of the movie, Truman rejects that level of control, mirrors the reasons why we ought to reject the idea that a personal God overseeing the daily lives of human beings would somehow be a desirable or even acceptable state of existence.

This is an interesting thought, but there are a couple of areas where I think the analogy breaks down pretty significantly. First, I don't think Harris' character is really all that similar to the "God" of popular western religions in particular because he clearly doesn't embody the "Omni-3" role, as he is neither all powerful nor all benevolent. Beyond that, I think there's a massive difference between "overseeing" and "manipulating" - Harris' character would have to be a God who cares not for his creation, but only for his own personal gain.

Effectively the only God I can really see Harris character compared to is a weak version of Spinoza's god, but even then the level of determinism required doesn't seem to jibe with the apparently free-will of Carey's character.

So while I can see some corollary between Harris' and god, whatever kind of god he's supposed to embody doesn't seem relevant to much of the world. A large part of religious belief is instilling a sense of responsibility to a higher power, and in the world of the Truman show there can be no responsibility what-so-ever.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT This is an interesting thought, but there are a couple of areas where I think the analogy breaks down pretty significantly. First, I don't think Harris' character is really all that similar to the "God" of popular western religions in particular because he clearly doesn't embody the "Omni-3" role, as he is neither all powerful nor all benevolent. Beyond that, I think there's a massive difference between "overseeing" and "manipulating" - Harris' character would have to be a God who cares not for his creation, but only for his own personal gain. Effectively the only God I can really see Harris character compared to is a weak version of Spinoza's god, but even then the level of determinism required doesn't seem to jibe with the apparently free-will of Carey's character. So while I can see some corollary between Harris' and god, whatever kind of god he's supposed to embody doesn't seem relevant to much of the world. A large part of religious belief is instilling a sense of responsibility to a higher power, and in the world of the Truman show there can be no responsibility what-so-ever.

It's true that the analogy is not especially strong in any strict sense -- it's really more of a symbolic comparison.

Harris' character is by no means omnipotent, but he does exercise extraordinary power over the "world" that Truman lives in -- summoning elements like fire and lightning in different attempts to dissuade Truman's efforts to leave in a way that seems somewhat allegorical to the gods of earlier religions. He isn't omniscient, but, again he does possess extraordinary knowledge of Truman's world through the however-many cameras (I recall it struck me as far too low a figure) on the island, and the information provided by the actors on the show. In both senses, he's clearly more limited than God would be, but still comparable in an abstract sense.

Benevolence is clearly a more problematic comparison, but it often appears during the movie as though he genuinely believes that his actions are in Truman's interest (even when they are pretty clearly not.) Belief in the Omni-3 God usually implies belief in some sort of objective "good" and therefore objective "benevolence" that I tend to have a problem digesting, especially in the context of the problem of evil. But I think it's fair to say, at the barest minimum, that Harris' character attempts to maintain a pretense of benevolence. And arguably, Harris' character appears more benevolent than God -- no one on Seahaven Island is stuck in abject poverty while they slowly starve to death, whereas many people under God's "care" are in the real world.

As far as the difference between overseeing and manipulating, I think that there is a bit of a more fine line than you're letting on, though I concede that again in this respect the analogy is imperfect at best. Consider a hypothetical situation where a person is going to make a bad decision, but God "inspires" them to recall a memory that helps them make a better decision instead. I don't think that's outside of the realm of religious belief, but it's arguably both overseeing and manipulating. Probably not everyone who believes in a personal god holds the same beliefs about how that God affects their life, which muddies the waters even further.

It's definitely another problem that the personal God envisioned by most believers wants to have an actual "relationship" with them and, ostensibly, wants them to be aware of his existence, whereas Harris' character aims to conceal his existence to Truman (until the very end as a final attempt to keep him from leaving.)

Despite the significant differences, though, I do think that the scenario presented is similar in enough respects to the idea of a paternalistic personal God who "knows what's best for you" that it, at the very least, raises the question of just how far we would want a "God" to go in creating a little world just for each of us where we'd be "safe" and "happy."

Re: Re: The Truman Show is an incredibly disturbing move.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN stoned. fingering some 8 year old slut at the cinema. really dumb from too much stoning. all of the above. your answer is here somewhere.

loooooooooooooooool

you're going to meet your maker soon

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter It's true that the analogy is not especially strong in any strict sense -- it's really more of a symbolic comparison. Harris' character is by no means omnipotent, but he does exercise extraordinary power over the "world" that Truman lives in -- summoning elements like fire and lightning in different attempts to dissuade Truman's efforts to leave in a way that seems somewhat allegorical to the gods of earlier religions. He isn't omniscient, but, again he does possess extraordinary knowledge of Truman's world through the however-many cameras (I recall it struck me as far too low a figure) on the island, and the information provided by the actors on the show. In both senses, he's clearly more limited than God would be, but still comparable in an abstract sense. Benevolence is clearly a more problematic comparison, but it often appears during the movie as though he genuinely believes that his actions are in Truman's interest (even when they are pretty clearly not.) Belief in the Omni-3 God usually implies belief in some sort of objective "good" and therefore objective "benevolence" that I tend to have a problem digesting, especially in the context of the problem of evil. But I think it's fair to say, at the barest minimum, that Harris' character attempts to maintain a pretense of benevolence. And arguably, Harris' character appears more benevolent than God -- no one on Seahaven Island is stuck in abject poverty while they slowly starve to death, whereas many people under God's "care" are in the real world. As far as the difference between overseeing and manipulating, I think that there is a bit of a more fine line than you're letting on, though I concede that again in this respect the analogy is imperfect at best. Consider a hypothetical situation where a person is going to make a bad decision, but God "inspires" them to recall a memory that helps them make a better decision instead. I don't think that's outside of the realm of religious belief, but it's arguably both overseeing and manipulating. Probably not everyone who believes in a personal god holds the same beliefs about how that God affects their life, which muddies the waters even further. It's definitely another problem that the personal God envisioned by most believers wants to have an actual "relationship" with them and, ostensibly, wants them to be aware of his existence, whereas Harris' character aims to conceal his existence to Truman (until the very end as a final attempt to keep him from leaving.) Despite the significant differences, though, I do think that the scenario presented is similar in enough respects to the idea of a paternalistic personal God who "knows what's best for you" that it, at the very least, raises the question of just how far we would want a "God" to go in creating a little world just for each of us where we'd be "safe" and "happy."

bla bla bla.. dumb it down for us man

Re: Re: The Truman Show is an incredibly disturbing move.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN stoned. fingering some year 8 slut at the cinema. really dumb from too much stoning. all of the above. your answer is here somewhere.

I thought you were writing a haiku lol


*edit* before one of you arts majoring bastards corrects me on the fact that his post was no way in propper haiku format, eat me im an engineer not an english major......

Re: Re: Re: The Truman Show is an incredibly disturbing move.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp I thought you were writing a haiku lol

haiku is 5 7 5 man


Fingering young one
really dumb from much stoning
all of the above


sushi

Re: Re: Re: The Truman Show is an incredibly disturbing move.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp I thought you were writing a haiku lol *edit* before one of you arts majoring bastards corrects me on the fact that his post was no way in propper haiku format, eat me im an engineer not an english major......

before your ninja
you need to sharpen your skill
ninja stars will fly

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.