The Truman Show Review
by John Strelow (mbjs AT pacbell DOT net)July 15th, 1998
The Truman Show (written by Andrew Niccol, directed by Peter Weir, 1998)
I have long waited for Jim Carrey to be perfectly cast, hoping I could see some glimmer of what other people find entertaining in his rubber face and foolish antics. I had thought it would have been as the Riddler in BATMAN FOREVER, inasmuch as the best actor to play the most obnoxious of villains should be the most obnoxious of actors. Unfortunately, it worked only too well, as the Riddler was easily the worst part of a film that disaster, a so-called film which probably had the worst quality per dollar ever. (And don't tell me BATMAN AND ROBIN, so low in quality that it does not qualify as a movie.) I couldn't even bring myself to enjoy the scenes he had with Nicole Kidman, despite the fact that Mrs. Cruise reigns supreme as My Favorite Woman.
But the appealing part of THE TRUMAN SHOW was director Peter Weir, a director with a soul which makes movies like DEAD POETS SOCIETY and WITNESS better than they have any right to be. I can just see studio executives happily chomping on cigars, declaring, "We'll get Peter Weir!", because after all, Weir directed Robin Williams in his first dramatic role, forgetting that Williams by that time had more than proven that he had something which has hitherto been lacking from Carrey's work: talent.
Furthermore, Esquire's David Thomson had assured us that THE TRUMAN SHOW was "the movie of the decade". When David Thomson speaks, I listen, and assume nine times out of ten that the opposite is true. Thomson has the inimitable quality of drowning his reviews in his intelligence and candor, disguising the fact that he more often than not cannot tell a good movie from a bad one. But before one discounts a man who says THE SEARCHRES is practically John Ford's only good film, that THE SHINING is Kubrick's only, and that Brian DePalma hates his talent, one must realize that when David Thomson is right, he is usually very right.
In the case of THE TRUMAN SHOW, he is almost right. Just because the film is not really the movie of the decade or even the movie of the year does not mean that it is not an excellent film, for it is. Flaws are minor, while design and execution are near perfect. Weir and screenwriter Andrew Niccol (who made a similar yet less accomplished film in last year's underappreciated GATTACA) have crafted a pristine postmodern fantasy world with only a few holes, which do not become obvious until consideration later.
THE TRUMAN SHOW is at least the third film this year about an elaborate con setup, following Alex Proyas' DARK CITY and David Mamet's THE SPANISH PRISONER. (One could argue for PRIMARY COLORS, but there is little focus on the victims of the political con.) Proyas' film serves for a more direct comparison, as both films are about characters in artificial world of which they become gradually more aware. Both films were created by soulful Australian directors (though Niccol hails from New Zealand). Both films also have the same failing, which is to say the ending. Though THE TRUMAN SHOW does not sink to the sappy humanism of DARK CITY, the ending is forced, and capped by a line of dialogue for which there is no need.
THE TRUMAN SHOW is rightly less sinister than Mamet's film. While Mamet takes on the menacing idea that all people are acting and no one is what they seem, Weir and Niccol show us that the postmodern age is not necessarily sinister; it just is. It is less sinister because a sympathetic face is given to the manipulator: the always solid Ed Harris plays Truman's creator, Christof. And just because THE TRUMAN SHOW falls short of making a lasting impact on its audience does not preclude it from being enjoyable. The ending turns away from a statement, a statement which the film indicates need be there and then never provides. Nonetheless, Weir and Niccol have taken great pleasure in creating Truman's world, and its imaginative flourishes provide the film's best moments.
And what of Jim Carrey? Though he may be awarded an Academy nomination, reports of Best Actor have been greatly exaggerated. Which is not to say that he is bad, for in this film he is not. A minor flaw in the Truman Burbank persona is that though he is supposed to be the most real figure in an artificial world, he is its most fantastic. Yet on most occasions, the Carrey on the screen is actually Truman Burbank. Occasionally, as in the disastrous last line, he is actually playing Jim Carrey. But then again, that may be the point. The film shirks when it comes time for an answer, but at least it dares the question: in the postmodern world, who can tell the difference?
Copyright John Strelow 1998
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
