(Connor Tweardy)
Monday, September 15, 2008
The Truman Show
Hey guys, this may be a bit off-topic, but I think it still merits discussion. My mind started to wander during the lecture today (I swear it was only for 20 seconds Mr. L.) and I started looking at Mr. Lazarow's wall of movie posters. The one for The Truman Show caught my attention, so I turned it on when I got home today. For anyone who doesn't know it is about a 30-year-old man named Truman whose entire life is a TV show, and he doesn't even know it. In an interview a reporter asked The Truman Show's director, "why is it you think Truman has never come close to discovering the true nature of his world?" The director responded "we accept the reality of the world with which we are presented, it's as simple as that." Do we? Look at the Middle Ages, during that period people lived in a drastic social hierarchy with a life of leisure for the rich and an early grave for the poor. Not only that, but they accepted it and didn't want it to change. The fully accepted the way their world was when they were born. On the other hand look at modern times, today people base their entire lives around advancing their social position. But is that us trying to change the status of our world, or accepting the fundamental values of the society in which we live? Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
It's a little bit of both. We change the status of our world, or what we accept as "our" reality, in order to conform with the fundamental values of society. Obviously, every society/everyone in said society wants both a measure of security and a chance to have a good life. Neither choice is good or bad.
Continuing with the APEH example, the time period dictated a certain way of achieving said value/goal. The Medieval men (and women) tended to value security over progress. (On a not quite relevant note: While the rich did have a longer average lifespan, they had their own problems. Due to their "life of leisure," hedonistic nobles/lords were more likely to die of gout etc. Additionally, due to the lack of medicinal knowledge, death transcended class.) Due to the omnipresent threat of death and decay, they needed (and chose--either consciously or unconsciously) to accept the only form of stability they had control over--thus the rigid social hierarchy.
On the other hand, like Dr. B pointed out, our Renaissance ideals of education and progress stem from a growth in overall wealth (and increased lifespan). We can afford to advance our social status. Thus, we tend to value progress over security.
To answer your question, in the two scenarios, both a change and a preservation has been made. While we may not usually take the time to examine it, our reality is one that is only imposed upon us by others/exterior forces to a point. In the end, acceptance is key. It indicates they we have free and individual choice.
Grace Yuan
Wow, I actually saw that poster in class and thought something similar. What struck me about Truman's situation was that since he was born and raised in that environment, it was a reality to him.
Which gets you to start thinking, how can you figure out where you lie, or even where the human race lies in the big scheme of things. The saying, "I think therefore I am", was proved by a philosopher, and it is a very complex proof. That is all we know for certain, that our minds exist. I read Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy a while back, and doesn't the story line have something to do with mice or rats running an experiment with humans to figure out what the meaning of the universe is? Isn't the biggest question we have what is the meaning of life.
I am definitely thinking too far, and it is stretching it a bit, but basically I was wondering how we can be sure of anything in our surroundings.
(Arvind Kalidindi)
Well I think it depends on whether you accept the reality of your world as changeable or not. If you believe like most of the Medieval people did, that their social world was static and unchanging, then it was. We are simply aware of opportunity for change, whether it is created on our own or facilitated by others.
Arvind's comment reminds me of The Matrix. Do you take the red pill and have the wool lifted from your eyes and see your surroundings for what they truly are? Or take the blue and live in ignorance, described by some as bliss but unaware of your universe and therefore less capable of making any kind of change. Tying in the Euro examples, I think the Renaissance allowed us to do that.
(Steve Szumski)
I think it's really weird that Connor brought this up because I had never heard of this movie until 10th period today when I was talking with one of my friends. She randomly brought up this movie and explained the plot to me.
So... moving on... I am struck by the fact that, regardless of the fact that Truman had lived his whole life on a remote island, he had a sense that there was something more to life. He began to question the "norms." Back to good ol' Orwell, this is similar to the experience the future people of Oceana would probably experience. Most likely, they would begin to question the normal things in life and wonder if there were something more, wonder if they were missing out. The Party of 1984 desired to control people's vocabulary in order to control their world. Would it work?The people around Truman controlled his environment through words (mainly lies), telling him that his (imaginary) father died at sea, which gave him a fear of the sea, and squelching his childhood desire to be an explorer by informing him that everything had already been discovered. By controlling his environment, he grew up believing, but then later questioning. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we cannot be controlled one hundred percent by our environment (semantic, or other). It is many times the questions, not the answers, that play the larger role. Without questioning where would we be? Without questioning, where would Truman be? If we didn't question politics, religion, etc., where would we be? This relates back to what we've been talking about, too, in that we cannot always take what people say and believe it right off the bat-- we need to scrutinize is, question the bias behind it, etc. Just some thoughts. I hope I didn't confuse anyone too much.
(Emily Thompson)
Expanding on what Emily said, the lies that Truman was told by everyone could not have gone on forever. I think that this has do to with in part his semantic environment, even if it was filled with lives. For example, I remember this one part in the movie where his wife was asking him if he wanted to eat something while holding it up to the camera and advertising it. Even Truman can tell that such behavior is abnormal and starts to question what she's doing. So this kind of shows how Truman accepted some of the values of society, but at the same time, it shows how he is not like some sort of puppet that won't question anything. It shows that we question many things in our lives, even if we do not know it at times.
A quick note on the Hitchhiker's Guide comment that Arvind made. I agree that the meaning of human life in the grand scheme of things is interesting. What makes humans so different (assuming there are no Ford Prefects/other anthropomorphic aliens), I guess, is that we can expand our infinitesimal role in the universe through language. Through thought and action, we both affect and are affected by our society. Thus, we cannot be entirely shaped by our society since we contribute to the foundation of it.
Grace Yuan
Mary's comment strongly reminded me of T.C. Mitts and his failure to question the signifigance of the Niagra of Language. I feel it unecessary to summarize this section, for we have all read LITAA.
However...a point that was brought up in AP Euro by Dr. B was that although the people situated at the bottom of the social ladder in the Middle Ages lived lowly lives, they were content with themselves as long as they led pious lives. They had aims for their children to socially surpassed them in the slightest bit, no matter how thin the margin was. In fact, many committed to serfdom (and were bound to the land) because they knew that they descendants would, in turn, be guaranteed a piece of land with which to work. The reason that the poor grew poorer and rich grew richer was due to the fact that knowledge is power. This has just about been a recurrent theme in everything that we've read thusfar, and Hayakawa's work is no exception.
As the Renaissance took its toll in 1450, the humanists advanced yet further and became Renaissance Courtiers due to their ability to critique and study the language of man (philosophy, poetry, etc..).
In our American, secular (for the most part) society, there is no Church or papal order or monarch to restrain our progress. We aim for the ideal, and we taste victory simply because, once again, knowledge is power. As Dr. Bjornstad stated, the expectations of students in Moorestown High School and a high school in Camden differ quite greatly, as I think all of you may agree.
The standard over the years has risen, and the bar must continue to be raised...especially because affluence is a factor in the successes of man.
(Samantha Maliha)
Adding in my two cents:
Regarding Connor's question, I believe that we can accept the status quo and strive to change it at the same time. While we may be satisfied with society as a whole, very few of us would accept all of society's current values today, and there are always elements that we wish to improve. We would only stop calling for improvement and change if we finally came upon Utopia, and that will never occur.
Human nature inevitably calls for change, but also requires elements of similarity and consistency between each transition. The more common elements that are retained, the slower and more gradual the change is. For example, the American Revolution was considered by Joseph Ellis to be a "revolution in slow-motion", or more of an evolution than a revolution. Compared to the frenetic pace of the French Revolution, where an entire social system was overthrown, in the American Revolution relatively few elements had to be changed during the transition from colony to nation because the thirteen colonies already shared many traits with the soon-to-be America.
The acceptance of the status quo and the desire for change are not mutually exclusive. Occasionally, we will tilt too far in one direction or the other, but when we do, the eventual shift back to a balance between the two is inevitable.
In addition, regarding Grace's quote:
"Thus, we cannot be entirely shaped by our society since we contribute to the foundation of it."
I believe that we cannot be wholly shaped by our society and language in any circumstance at all. Even if we did not contribute to the foundation of society, society still would not be able to completely dominate us.
For example, look at 1984, where the Outer Party did not contribute to society in any significant way and was not involved in its construction, but still was not under complete control of society and language (Newspeak). Winston is only one example of the Party's failure, as Julia had pointed out that she had gone off with and corrupted "scores of men."
Whether we have a role in building society or not, language and society can never completely control us.
Thoughts?
(Eric Wei)
I agree with Eric that "the acceptance of the status quo and the desire for change are not mutually exclusive." As we are coming to learn, life is not limited to ABSOLUTES. Rather, we live in a world of qualifiers, which in a way allow us to have such arguments. Thus, we may sometimes choose to keep to tradition, while other times, we may strive for change.
Moving on, I would like to comment on the extent to which language and society controls or shapes us, an idea Grace brought up. I think I agree with Eric's opinion that "language and society can never completely control us." I particularly emphasize the word "COMPLETELY" because I believe that certain aspects of society do have SOME influence on us; a good example is the media. Many of our thoughts are shaped by what we see or hear on television, on the internet, and in advertisements, yet at the same time, clearly, the media does not COMPLETELY control us.
(Janet Lee)
Post a Comment