Moral Deliberations in Modern Cinema | Page 5

or choose to be put in his position. He found
himself responsible for all these people without being consulted. There
was no consent or act of choice involved. How can anyone be
responsible for the well-being and lives of other people - if he did not
CHOOSE to be so responsible? Moreover, Truman had the perfect
moral right to think that these people wronged him. Are we morally
responsible and accountable for the well-being and lives of those who
wrong us? True Christians are, for instance.
Moreover, most of us, most of the time, find ourselves in situations
which we did not help mould by our decisions. We are unwillingly cast
into the world. We do not provide prior consent to being born. This
fundamental decision is made for us, forced upon us. This pattern
persists throughout our childhood and adolescence: decisions are made
elsewhere by others and influence our lives profoundly.
As adults we are the objects - often the victims - of the decisions of

corrupt politicians, mad scientists, megalomaniac media barons,
gung-ho generals and demented artists. This world is not of our making
and our ability to shape and influence it is very limited and rather
illusory. We live in our own "Truman Show". Does this mean that we
are not morally responsible for others?
We are morally responsible even if we did not choose the
circumstances and the parameters and characteristics of the universe
that we inhabit. The Swedish Count Wallenberg imperilled his life (and
lost it) smuggling hunted Jews out of Nazi occupied Europe. He did not
choose, or helped to shape Nazi Europe. It was the brainchild of the
deranged Director Hitler. Having found himself an unwilling
participant in Hitler's horror show, Wallenberg did not turn his back
and opted out. He remained within the bloody and horrific set and did
his best. Truman should have done the same. Jesus said that he should
have loved his enemies. He should have felt and acted with
responsibility towards his fellow human beings, even towards those
who wronged him greatly.
But this may be an inhuman demand. Such forgiveness and
magnanimity are the reserve of God. And the fact that Truman's
tormentors did not see themselves as such and believed that they were
acting in his best interests and that they were catering to his every need
- does not absolve them from their crimes. Truman should have
maintained a fine balance between his responsibility to the show, its
creators and its viewers and his natural drive to get back at his
tormentors. The source of the dilemma (which led to his act of
choosing) is that the two groups overlap.
Truman found himself in the impossible position of being the sole
guarantor of the well-being and lives of his tormentors. To put the
question in sharper relief: are we morally obliged to save the life and
livelihood of someone who greatly wronged us? Or is vengeance
justified in such a case?
A very problematic figure in this respect is that of Truman's best and
childhood friend. They grew up together, shared secrets, emotions and
adventures. Yet he lies to Truman constantly and under the Director's
instructions. Everything he says is part of a script. It is this
disinformation that convinces us that he is not Truman's true friend. A
real friend is expected, above all, to provide us with full and true

information and, thereby, to enhance our ability to choose. Truman's
true love in the Show tried to do it. She paid the price: she was ousted
from the show. But she tried to provide Truman with a choice. It is not
sufficient to say the right things and make the right moves. Inner drive
and motivation are required and the willingness to take risks (such as
the risk of providing Truman with full information about his condition).
All the actors who played Truman's parents, loving wife, friends and
colleagues, miserably failed on this score.
It is in this mimicry that the philosophical key to the whole movie rests.
A Utopia cannot be faked. Captain Nemo's utopian underwater city was
a real Utopia because everyone knew everything about it. People were
given a choice (though an irreversible and irrevocable one). They chose
to become lifetime members of the reclusive Captain's colony and to
abide by its (overly rational) rules.
The Utopia came closest to extinction when a group of stray survivors
of a maritime accident were imprisoned in it against their expressed
will. In the absence of choice, no utopia can exist. In the absence of full,
timely and accurate information, no choice can exist. Actually, the
availability of choice is so crucial that even when it is prevented by
nature itself - and not by the designs of more or less sinister or
monomaniac people