|
The Truman Show is an incredibly disturbing move. (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| 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 |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
before your ninja
you need to sharpen your skill
ninja stars will fly |
y''+3xy'+2y=0
dont piss me off or ill bust out the vibration dampening equations..... |
|
|
| RJT |
| 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." |
What you're describing generally exemplifies the inherent contradictions within most faith systems that involve the Omni-3 description, and I certainly wouldn't claim that my interpretation of the analogy you posit is without its problems (oddly enough though, they seem to be the same problems you could offer against any person believing in an Omni-3 deity).
I do think that the symbolism of the analogy is strong in that you're absolutely right to say that while Harris is neither "all knowing" or "all powerful", his character is likely the closest human representation of those ideas we can even fathom. The idea that it does raise is the question of just how far we would like god to be involved in our lives (should we choose to believe in one) - however, this comparison is something I struggle with both in the film and in traditional religious frameworks.
Specifically the issue is of course whether or not we are entirely free (if god interferes in the affairs of man I think there is a strong case to be made that we aren't free - in which case personal responsibility and justification go right out the window), or to what degree god is an active or passive force within the world.
In the Truman Show it would seem that all freedom is removed from his life, and in that sense I worry about how far the analogy of Harris as a god can go.
None the less an interesting view of the movie. Thanks for taking the time to write it all out. :) |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
BOOOOORING
keep the posts short or you'll never get laid |
|
|
| wizniz |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_alfi
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 was just thinking the same thing (about acid & watching it again) |
|
|
| glass |
| You know what else is ed up, someone missing your call the night before and telling you to call you that night, and then not answering your call.:whip: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Specifically the issue is of course whether or not we are entirely free (if god interferes in the affairs of man I think there is a strong case to be made that we aren't free - in which case personal responsibility and justification go right out the window), or to what degree god is an active or passive force within the world.
In the Truman Show it would seem that all freedom is removed from his life, and in that sense I worry about how far the analogy of Harris as a god can go.
None the less an interesting view of the movie. Thanks for taking the time to write it all out. :) |
Yeah I mean that's definitely a problem with a lot of faith systems generally. I think that this sort of tension between an interventionist God-figure and freedom is made somewhat more transparent in the Truman Show, which is probably why I see it as being a little revealing regarding faith systems which seem to suffer from similar problems.
Even a God which was a mere designer and didn't interfere with human affairs would still have placed significant restrictions on freedom simply by virtue of the capacities and inclinations that comprise man's nature. There are many things I am not free to do because I am not physically capable of doing them, and if God designed my body then he also decided what I would be physically capable of doing and what I would not be physically capable of doing. It is also doubtless the case that there are other things that I might do that I am not able to do simply because I would never even conceive of them. In some sense I could be considered "free" to do them, but if my cognition is limited to the extent that I never would think to, then such freedom is pretty meaningless.
Of course, there are no easy answers to fundamental questions about free will, responsibility, and the role of God or gods in our lives. The movie doesn't -- and shouldn't -- try to answer them, but I do think the fact that it raises some of these issues is part of what makes it a very satisfying work of cinema, at least to me. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Even a God which was a mere designer and didn't interfere with human affairs would still have placed significant restrictions on freedom simply by virtue of the capacities and inclinations that comprise man's nature. There are many things I am not free to do because I am not physically capable of doing them, and if God designed my body then he also decided what I would be physically capable of doing and what I would not be physically capable of doing. It is also doubtless the case that there are other things that I might do that I am not able to do simply because I would never even conceive of them. In some sense I could be considered "free" to do them, but if my cognition is limited to the extent that I never would think to, then such freedom is pretty meaningless.
|
Have you ever read anything where the above bolded statement has been fleshed out in a more academic sense? I don't believe I've ever come across that kind of interpretation of gods intervention in the physical world, and I think I might like to use that notion for a paper I have to write in the not to distant future.
Really an interesting take on the limitations of freedom. |
|
|
| denys envy |
| Heidi Schanz is yummy |
|
|
| glass |
| quote: | Originally posted by glass
You know what else is ed up, someone missing your call the night before and telling you to call you that night, and then not answering your call.:whip: |
|
|
|
| RJT |
| I was in the middle of writing two midterms, I wouldn't have answered for anyone. |
|
|
| glass |
| Whatever Rob, you broke my heart:sadgreen: |
|
|
|
|
