The Truman Show Review
by Nikki Lesley (nikki AT cs DOT usyd DOT edu DOT au)October 16th, 1998
The Truman Show
Director: Peter Weir.
Starring: Jim Carey, Ed Harris, Laura Linney, Noah Emmerich.
A movie like The Truman Show is really hard to come to terms with. For
a start, there's all the hype associated with it. I like to go into a
movie with very little idea of what's about to unfold, making it
possible for me to judge a movie on its content alone. With the
publicity machine and the positive word of mouth that is associated
with this movie, it's close to impossible to do that. Consequently,
I'm heading in to The Truman Show with a whole lot of baggage, not the
least of which is the notion that everyone else loves it. Second, it's
one of these movies where it's not clear whether the film maker is
being clever, or whether the reviewers/audience members are reading
something that's not there. I'll come back to this point. Given these concerns, my capsule summary would be that it's quite enjoyable but
not all that it's billed to be.
This is yet again a movie advertised to be Jim Carey in his first
serious role. While Carey does a competent job with the part of Truman (Truman, for goodness sake; has no-one heard of subtlety?), it is by
no means the stand-out performance of the year. His part is still a caricature: an over-the-top, hammed-up performance. His appearance in
Cable Guy was streets ahead of what's happening here.
As I try to discuss the performances, I come up against the point I
made in the opening paragraph: what is this movie really trying to do?
I think there are a couple of possible ways to read it.
i) Is it meant to be about a real person who was caught up in this artificial, televised world? We are shown many details that seem to
suggest that this is the case: intricacies of how this event is staged
are revealed, to a level that is meant to convince us that it is
feasible; certain actors (Noah Emmerlich as the best friend for
example) play their parts in the television show as if it is meant to
be real; the shots of the general public again suggest that this is a
real phenomenon.
Ultimately, however, The Truman Show falls well short. The whole concept just doesn't bear close scrutiny under this premise. Firstly,
how exciting would it really be to televise someone's life 24 hours a
day? Even if it was deliberately filled with choreographed events,
there's just way too much mundaneness to fill the screen. We're told
that people leave the television on at night to sleep while Truman is sleeping, a reasonable premise only if you're in the same time
zone. Ok, that takes care of the night but what about travelling to
work every day, sitting at work for eight hours, showering, eating?
How often would that be interesting and are people really going to be watching continuously, just in case something interesting happens? And
don't even think about what the actor who is playing the wife is
called upon to do. Also, (spoiler following but if you don't realise
that this is going to happen in the movie, then there are a lot of
Hollywood movies out there that you can enjoy), if you had spent all
your life living in what you thought was reality only to find out that
it was a television set, don't you think you'd have some sort of
pretty serious nervous breakdown? Add to this Laura Linney
shamelessly over-acting in the role of Truman's wife and Jim Carey
hamming it up and it just can't be real.
ii) Clearly it must be an allegory. Let's treat the pieces that
suggested realism as merely attempts to make the allegory plausible,
so that we can't just brush the film away as something that could
never happen. Then what's the film trying to say about human
existence? We watch too much television? We need to question our
reality more? The media is manipulative? What is life but a series of
events, orchestrated by some unseen conductor, where we are not even
the players but rather the instruments?
Well, The Truman Show could be saying any of these things. This
is where it all comes down to interpretation. Is the movie being so
clever that it's not forcing its message down the viewer's throat,
touching on all these issues but ultimately leaving it up to the
audience to do some work and take away what they can from it? Or, is
it simply a collection of interesting ideas rather than a coherent
allegory, thrown together to make up the mandatory 2 hours? Much as
I'm a huge fan of Peter Weir, I fear it is the latter rather than the
former. (For an movie that fits into the former category, see Peter
Weir's Fearless.)
The Truman Show seems to be one of those movies created from an
idea thrown around at lunch time. The concept is not a particularly
original one: since philosophising began, people have postulated the
idea that everything around us is a figment of our imagination. All I
can know is myself: what proof do I have of other people's existence?
Well, I'll take it on trust that the reality I see is
reality. Alright, let's take this concept. Suppose the reality I see
isn't reality. Wouldn't that make a cool movie? But what can I really
do with this concept now? One of two things: either the protagonist
discovers that the reality isn't real or he doesn't. Well, it's not
much of a movie if he doesn't, so he'd better discover it.
With whom are we meant to identify in this movie? Truman?
Perhaps, but I think instead the intention is that we identify with
the viewers of the television show. In this way, we can watch what's
going on with a knowing complicity: Truman should question reality but
we know we live in the real world. Ultimately perhaps this is the
point of the movie: are we really any better off in our real world,
watching Truman, than Truman is in his orchestrated one? If so, again
there are problems. The choice of the television viewers seems
disingenuous, to say the least. Are they meant to represent the
ordinary people? Two bar-maids, two security guards, a slob in a
bathtub and two old crones, none of whom are tremendously
appealing. They're really there for their comic potential, rather than
for their representation of the everyperson. We never get to know them
well; in face, we never really get to know anyone well, not even
Truman. As such, I'm not drawn in to this movie, and I don't really
care too much about the plight of anyone. In this position, it's hard
to get caught up in the allegory. The media manipulates? Not here. I
don't care about anyone. Question my reality? My life's not like
anyone's in the movie so that doesn't apply. There's a conductor manipulating the events of my life? If so, my only choice seems to be
to leave. It seems that as an allegory, The Truman Show is not a
roaring success either.
All this suggests that I'm slamming The Truman Show, but that's not my intention. All I'm saying is that it's a bit confusing, since
different actors seem to think they're in different movies. It's also
a bit disappointing since there seem to be some interesting directions
the movie could have chosen to go but didn't. Overall, however, The
Truman Show is mostly a moderately interesting movie with nowhere near
the depth that it's purported to have.
Rating: CR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ratings System
HD: High Distinction
D: Distinction
CR: Credit
P: Pass
CP: Conceded Pass
F: Fail
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- nikki http://www.cs.su.oz.au/~nikki/m_r/Intro.html
--
Nicole Lesley email: [email protected]
"The world won't end in darkness,
it'll end in family fun"
The Beautiful South, One God.
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.
