The Truman Show's opening. A dialogue that isn't real. A character who isn't real. A world that is?

Scene analysis of The Truman Show (0:00:00 – 0:05:00)

In this essay I will examine how Peter Weirs 1998 film The Truman Show utilises multiple narrative frameworks, juxtaposition of characters and cinematography to critique media (consumption and production). The opening sequence introduces us to the dramatic premise – a man living his life unaware that his every move (for his entire life) is being broadcast for millions of people to watch. This sequence also serves to foreshadow the central conflict between Truman, the unknowing star, and Christof, the creator of ‘The Truman Show’ TV show, which film viewers are sometimes viewers of. The film engages us in a narrative filled with blurred boundaries, which some critics suggest makes it impossible for viewers of the film to truly suggest they are much different from inter-film viewers of the Truman TV show (Knox 2010) who we might critique for supporting the manipulation of an entire being’s life. The premise inevitably leads me to questions about surveillance culture in modern society.

Syd Field (2005) suggests that act one's purpose is to set up a story by establishing character, dramatic premise, the circumstances surrounding the action, and the relationship between the main character and others. In The Truman Show the characters are initially established through documentary style interview clips interwoven with ‘credits’. Meryl, Marlon and Christof talk about the TV show, whilst clips of Truman, in this section are of a TV with him on 'Live'. Therefore, the concept of the film existing both inside and outside of Chrisof's TV show introduces the theme of boundaries which are already, with the interweaving of The Truman Show on the TV and the documentary, becoming blurred. The layers, as in a novel’s frame narrative, are intoxicating and easy to fall into. We're watching a documentary about a TV show, then we are watching a TV show, then we're just watching Truman's life. We might suggest it is easy to lose ourselves thanks to the disorienting nature of this. (Lavoie, 2011) Given this disorienting effect Bishop (2000) argues it 'obscures rather than resolves (real 1977, 202) media's impact on our lives' and asks 'who's the real captive - is it Truman, or is it the viewers watching Truman?'

Weir uses a reversal of the traditional establishing shot, into progressively closer shot, sequence to capture us further. Our first transition from documentary to TV show occurs as Christof’s eyes transition to Truman’s. With Truman we zoom out, hear his dialogue, then return to a more zoomed out Christof. But neither’s setting is properly revealed. By only slowly revealing the 'circumstances surrounding the action' (Field 2005) we are left wondering what on earth the 'earth' that this premise is built upon is going to look like. David Ball (1983) calls this a 'forward' – the audience is not solely interested in the present, but in the future of the story, of what is yet to be revealed. This delay is extended by the shallow focus that subtly obscures the world behind 'Meryl' in her piece to camera.

Her piece to camera, and the others, interwoven with credits – e.g. Hannah as Meryl – underline that the actors are acting as a) actors and b) real people. Actors are acting as real people who portray characters, whilst Truman (Jim Carrey), the film and the TV show's namesake, is 'play acting'. The actors, supposedly being genuine, appear somewhat dishonest - Meryl and Marlon never actually look into our eyes, rather directing their voice at an unknown producer offscreen. Meanwhile Truman, play acting, faces us, and in his statements, in his lone intimate bathroom framed by household objects seems the most honest of the lot.

Meryl smiles whilst saying there is no difference between a private life and public life. Marlon suggests 'nothing is fake, merely controlled' - this kind of linguistic manipulation and their pauses to think suggest they are having to think around a morally challenging thing. What kind of a person could do this - is a question we are forced to consider. How can they persuade themselves what they do is okay? I think we are forced to determine that they lack empathy.

In contrast Christof does look into the camera. He does appear honest. His moral quandary for us comes from a different angle. Why does he view what he is doing as acceptable? The credit, 'created by Christoff', suggests a desire to be a main character, to be named and zoomed in on (as he is in the documentary), and to be recognised. A desire which many of us share. But we can infer the extreme nature of his own desire to be recognised in this sequence, and therefore can understand why he lacks empathy for Truman - who is the main character for millions (or billions) of people. It is the classic paradox of the 'parent' (the 'creator') who pushes the child to achieve their (the parent’s) dreams, without much consideration for whether said dreams are also their child's.

The exploitative nature of this relationship is underlined by the choices of when to cut between Truman and Christof, so that they are effectively in dialogue with each other. Viewers 'leave him on all night for comfort' Christof informs us. Truman 'replies' 'you're crazy you know that'. 'Crispin Miller in a National Entertainment state argues media supposedly 'brings individuals closer together' - but in reality Bishop (2000) argues, it has destroyed our sense of community'. The fragmented, created dialogue between Truman and Christof underlines this lack of real community, lack of real interaction. It has effectively made what could be considered an adopted son and father unable to communicate properly. Therefore, the movie clearly is in dialogue about the worries of progressing media. Bishop (2000) argues this is only on a superficial level partially because the film is prioritising the viewers consumption (entertainment) rather than criticism. But here I think we do consider our own relationships and interactions with others more greatly, with watching such extreme manipulation of Truman’s life.

The other purpose of the interwoven scene is that a good story 'promises the major opposing forces will meet head on. Anticipation of this can hold the audience. Can even tease us by getting close to confrontation and then pulling away again.' (Ball 1983) This interweaving therefore acts as a foreshadowing, an early close, and yet far, confrontation between protagonist and antagonist.

The dialogue contains dramatic conflict, which Ball (1983) suggests comes on multiple levels.

1.     Me against other individuals. I want stamps, you guard them with a bat.

2.     Me against society. I stole your stamps. Now wanted by the FBI, hunted. I broke law. Society chases me. The adversary is not you, I am fighting for freedom, fighting against society.

3.     Me against fate, the universe, gods etc. Hard battle to win. Not a conflict likely to result from stamp stealing.

Ball (1983) suggests the better the story the more the motivation is irresistible, and the obstacle is immovable.

Christof – the creator of the world Truman is trapped in is Truman’s major obstacle - is presented first with a close up on his largely black costume, with black glasses - at the time of release, reminiscent of an ever more famous, ever more surveillant Steve Jobs.

 

 

 

Furthermore, Christ(of) is a not so subtle biblical allusion. (Lavoie, 2011) Going back to the credits we remember the prominent label telling us 'created by Christof’ and Hannah (Meryl) even describes living in Christof's world as being a 'blessed life'. Therefore, the film clearly does present Christof as an extremely powerful, almost god-like being. An immovable obstacle that allows the story to reach a higher level of conflict, and peril.

This opening sequence tells us a lot about 'How is it going to end?' (Truman's question played w/ epic non-diegetic music). Are the audience (and Christof) ever going 'to have to go on without (Truman)?' Given the obstacle, as viewers we can understand the possibility that Truman is right when he says ‘I’m not going to make it.’ This is a god like creator that would almost rather have Truman dead than escape. ‘It's a life' Christof says. From the beginning sequence we might reply 'only just.’ Our first sight of Truman is surrounded by a TV that is framed more as a cage, lined with lines that appear visually very similar to a prison cell’s bars.

 We leave the cell for the main title with a sequence that mirrors the movie’s final scene, with Truman leaving through his door, leaving the camera behind. We return to another call forwards 'and in case I don't see you…'

Truman's statements up until the title do reply to Christof, and foreshadow his own story. Additionally, they tell us about the man himself. There is dramatic irony as Truman is acting like he is the main character, acting like an adventurer, a hero. He is one, but in 'reality', as far as he is concerned he is conversing, 'acting', with himself. Despite having a wife, friends and neighbours, in our first meeting he is alone. He is choosing to spend time alone, acting out an alternative reality. From these factors we can infer his desire for an escape from his current reality, and therefore the potential that he knows he inhabits a place in which his is trapped. (Can you really escape from a place in which you are not trapped? Would you need to?) Therefore I disagree with Lavoie’s (2011) assertion that Truman is 'cosmically naïve'. Despite Truman’s supposed ignorance, Weir underlines his disagreements with Christof's philosophy, demonstrates his desire to be separated from those that are his fake friends, and his desire to escape from his world and into another. Subconsciously at least he seems aware.

Post title, the shot has moved inside so we are now watching the TV show, not watching 'The TV', but nevertheless our impression of Truman being in a sense ‘trapped’ is continued. Truman is centrally framed, and very well dressed.

It is so perfect that it cannot be real. We infer that in his outside world he also has to be a character. I agree with Knox (2010) 'Truman is continually delivering a performance of some sort'. Exaggerated by the unreal classic greetings with neighbours, one of whom we see filming him. Again, Truman's isolation is presented, he is isolated in a world of spectators, not friends. A parable that underlines the negative consequences of a life of fame.

Truman's subconscious awareness earlier when he plays two opposing characters who say 'use me as an alternative source of food' (if I die before the summit), and reply 'ew gross' underline the disgusting reaction we might have to using someone. Truman, placed in his bathroom face half illuminated, half cast in slight shadow, is suggestive of the dark burden which we can infer he lives with, that ‘eats away’ at him. The reality is that no one treats him normally, but he lacks understanding or knowledge as to why. Psychologically, with what is (without editing) almost a soliloquy, we see how he responds to the things that feel off, and how accurately these correlate with issues that this ‘panopticon’ is responsible for.

The film introduces the theme of surveillance, and its effect on us. Suggesting that’s its existence affects us, and our society, more than we consciously realise. That we can never, even if it is subconsciously, truly be ourselves when under constant surveillance. Kovanic (2011) goes so far as to suggest that surveillance will ultimately move our definitions of what is wrong, such that it is always having a negative consequence on someone.

Truman 'plays along'. This is part of his society’s negatives, the false joy, that seems energy sapping when we truly look at it – and certainly appears to require more effort than his ‘job’. Statements like 'whole kit and kaboodle' are not said in reality, and therefore add to this sense of falsehood. This correlation between the falsehood and surveillance is underlined by vignetted lenses that remind us we are not just watching a show, but that supposed surveillance is actually happening.

The diegetic classical radio music, that continues over Truman’s ‘morning routine’, once he is out of the car (becoming non-diegetic) presents this scene like an elevator to the audience. Classical music is played over things we need to get through, a hold on the phone, an elevator, when we are studying. Therefore, we might see through the smiles to a life that is far from idyllic. Something Truman has to get through everyday. Presenting the dystopian nature of a society always being watched.

What Field (2005) would call 'plot point one' is the falling of the light. The bird sounds over this section are an interesting sound choice - diegetic here. Nothing added. None of the earlier dramatic music. It is like only the natural creatures know how to react to what has happened. This could be an inciting incident however it is rather an example of refusal of the call to adventure under Field’s (2005) model of narrative. Given the refusal the audience expects another inciting incident to come, building tension which helps Weir to introduce the world. Now, viewing the world, we are actively waiting to see what might go next, what might be a call to adventure that Truman would act upon?

The ‘mise-en scene’ seems 'disneyland esc', with red roads, colourful houses, everyone walking and driving the same way, calming music, perfect weather. And characters who say 'thankyou very much' perfectly in sync. Which ‘should provoke audiences to question their presumptions of the "naturalness" of their constructed realities, racial or otherwise, in this rea’ (Bishop, 2000) How are our lives affected by surveillance which we are subjecting ourselves more and more too? We wonder.

Yet we have to wonder whether critics are correct when they point out films failure to work as criticism, for it has not prevented the penetration of media (social and consummative). Unfortunately, as with Truman, the refusal of the call is certainly an easier option than looking at our own privacy, or our own desires for fame. For most of us those we look to marry, or befriend, are likely found on the very apps who take away even more of our privacy, not, unfortunately, in Fiji. Therefore the Steve Jobs like CEOs exploit our privacy successfully, and in consequence, as Kovanic and the film predict, seem to hurt our psychological self in the process.

(2421 words)

 

Bibliography:

Ball, D. (1983) Backwards and Fowards. Southern Illinois University Press.

Bishop, R. (2000) The Truman Show as Failed Media Criticism.

Field, S. (2005) Screenplay. Random House.

Knox, S. (2010). Reading The Truman Show Inside and Out. Film Criticism (Vol XXXV).

Kovanic, M (2013). An introduction to the Surveillance Society. Human Affairs (24).

Lavoie, D (2011) Escaping the Panopticon. Utopian Studies (Vol 22).

Weir, P. (1998) The Truman Show. Paramount.