Philp K. Dick and the Truman Show

[Steven Thorpe a.k.a. thor]

(Any non-science fiction readers may still know of PKD as the author
whose works were used as the basis for BLADERUNNER and TOTAL RECALL
and who often incorperated such themes as "what does it mean to be
human?" and "what is reality?" in his novels.)

from alt.books.phil-k-dick:

ew...@rci.rutgers.edu (Ed Angelina) writes:
>On 6 Jun 1998 01:51:41 GMT, jbo...@mindspring.com (John Boston)
>wrote:

>>This film is indeed so derivative of PKD--especially TIME OUT OF
>>JOINT--as to be a rip-off. But it's a really _good_ rip-off.

>And be warned now, there's probably plenty of SPOILERS in what
>follows, if you haven't seen the movie yet . . . . and maybe even
>spoilers for a couple of PKD novels too. Read further at your own
>risk.

>Anyway, I've read TOOJ, and much other PKD, and just saw Truman today,
>and I just can't muster up the outrage that so many people here have
>about it.

>Fine, in broad outlines, the premises of TOOJ and Truman are very
>similar, though *certainly not* the characters or plots. There are
>some themes in the movie that seem rather PKD in style, but I see that
>elsewhere in good and interesting literature, television and films.
>I mean, the premise is absolute solipsism, right? How can I be
>sure that the world is really real, as I see it, that it isn't just
>being manipulated and created as an illusion, specifically for me?
>And what if I cannot be sure?

>Just like Christof tells us in his interview: We accept the reality
>we are presented with; we can't help ourselves.

>This movie had some real "PKD moments" in it, I'll grant. I thought
>that the scene running from the voices on the radio through the false
>elevator expressed a kind of PKD paranoia theme better than anything
>explicitly based on PKD ever has. The voices on the radio had real
>overtones of Valis or Radio Free Albemuth, or the televised messages
>of UBIK, or that talking toy early in Flow my Tears. But, frankly,
>the reason that I'm willing to let this movie off of the hook is
>because, in the end, it really was much less interesting than some of
>these best moments promised, and much, much less interesting than a
>good Phil Dick novel.

>In Flow my Tears, as Jason Taverner is being released from police
>custody, General Buckman tells him: "But, you will be electronically
>monitored wherever you go. You will never be alone except for your
>own thoughts in your own mind, and perhaps not even there." PKD's
>world has no door at the edge marked "exit" where you can escape, no
>realm of safety and privacy, even inside your head. (In Flow my
>Tears, for example, the telepathic, or "psionic", hotel clerk near the
>beginning seems gratuitous, but really ends up symbolizing that
>Buckman's threat isn't an empty one.) The nature of PKD's world is
>that there's never quite enough information to truly understand what
>is going on. Look at the end of VALIS or Divine Invasion. There is
>no neat ending, no conclusion where the good guys win, where the
>struggle is over.

>For all of that, it's a good movie, and folks who like PKD will
>probably enjoy it. But that's not quite the same as a rip-off.
>just my $0.02,
>Ed Angelina


Well, for all of that, my two cents is that an interesting premise for
a movie by an interesting director went horribly wrong. An inquiry into
the shattering of one man's artificial reality and the consequences of
that shattering (not to mention the fact that by watching the Truman
Show every one in the world was as culpable for Truman's plight as . . .
but it doesn't matter. They don't go near that stuff) was turned into
simple minded light comedy. How sad. This movie could really have
been something.

Anyone interested in pursuing the question of illusion versus reality
versus artificial reality and the paranoia that goes along with such
questions should check out some of Philip K. Dick's work: UBIK, TIME
OUT OF JOINT, EYE IN THE SKY, A MAZE OF DEATH, etc.

Also, THE ARTIFICIAL MAN by L.P.Davies about a man living in a small
village who discovers his world is a construct and his friends and
neighbors are really just actors . . .

--thor

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's probably true that a baking-soda bomb wouldn't really blow-up
a planet. But, hey -- it's a puppet show. --Kevin Murphy

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Norb42]

Steven Thorpe

>Well, for all of that, my two cents is that an interesting premise for
>a movie by an interesting director went horribly wrong. An inquiry into
>the shattering of one man's artificial reality and the consequences of
>that shattering (not to mention the fact that by watching the Truman
>Show every one in the world was as culpable for Truman's plight as . . .
>but it doesn't matter. They don't go near that stuff) was turned into
>simple minded light comedy. How sad. This movie could really have
>been something.

I could argue that I don't think "The Truman Show" was simpleminded at all.
I could argue that, although not a deep analysis of the nature of reality
(that's always a *real* tricky subject for film), I found it an intelligent,
ingenious, and thought-provoking comedy. I could also argue against the
assumption that "comedy" equates "sinpleminded", and that serious issues cannot
be effectively or interestingly addressed in a lighthearted manner . . . but
you know, the last time I did that, it was in my freshman-year Chaucer course,
and I ended up banging my head repeatedly on the table to make a point. Sure,
people came up to me afterwards and told me what a good case I'd made, but I
think it really shook that prospective student. So I'll move on to another
thread now.
I mean, it's certainly okay not to like the movie. And you're in the
minority here, which puts you in the same position I was in when I liked the
last "Seinfeld".

Norb
But honestly! What kind of pretentious tredefoul complains that the Canterbury
Tales have too many jokes?

[Hunter Felt]

>
>
>
> Well, for all of that, my two cents is that an interesting premise for
> a movie by an interesting director went horribly wrong. An inquiry into
> the shattering of one man's artificial reality and the consequences of
> that shattering (not to mention the fact that by watching the Truman
> Show every one in the world was as culpable for Truman's plight as . . .
> but it doesn't matter. They don't go near that stuff) was turned into
> simple minded light comedy. How sad. This movie could really have
> been something.
>

> Anyone interested in pursuing the question of illusion versus reality
> versus artificial reality and the paranoia that goes along with such
> questions should check out some of Philip K. Dick's work: UBIK, TIME
> OUT OF JOINT, EYE IN THE SKY, A MAZE OF DEATH, etc.
>
> Also, THE ARTIFICIAL MAN by L.P.Davies about a man living in a small
> village who discovers his world is a construct and his friends and
> neighbors are really just actors . . .
>

Hmmm... I think one of the best parts of the movie was that it could have
easily turned into one of those derpressing dark, dreary concepts... I liked
it better this way. It was much more effective this way as opposed to
something like "Total Recall" (the most very pretentious piece of schlock
that desperately tried to hide its nature as a brainless action film.. but I
digress) It was not very deep as opposed to Phillip K. Dick... but movies
aren't meant to be THAT deep (if you want good philosophy read a book) I
think it did well with the variety of themes it juggled (one man's struggle
to survive against powers beyond his control, excitment and adventure
against safety and familiarty, the increasing lack of privacy in today's
world), well-developed characters, and even some effective use of symbolism
(loved the picture of Truman as a clown in a cage)... plus I love "Twilight
Zone" endings.

Oh well, differant strokes for different folks... (wait, I have an idea for
a TV show....)

[Steven Thorpe a.k.a. thor]

nor...@aol.com (Norb42) writes:
>Steven Thorpe

>>Well, for all of that, my two cents is that an interesting premise for
>>a movie by an interesting director went horribly wrong. An inquiry into
>>the shattering of one man's artificial reality and the consequences of
>>that shattering (not to mention the fact that by watching the Truman
>>Show every one in the world was as culpable for Truman's plight as . . .
>>but it doesn't matter. They don't go near that stuff) was turned into
>>simple minded light comedy. How sad. This movie could really have
>>been something.

> I could argue that I don't think "The Truman Show" was simpleminded at all.
>I could argue that, although not a deep analysis of the nature of reality
>(that's always a *real* tricky subject for film), I found it an intelligent,
>ingenious, and thought-provoking comedy. I could also argue against the
>assumption that "comedy" equates "sinpleminded",

Actually I wasn't equating comedy with simplemindedness. I meant what I
said. I thought an interesting and complex concept was "reduced" to simple-
mindedness and what could have been intense psychological drama was reduced
to light comedy. Two seperate problems.

>and that serious issues cannot
>be effectively or interestingly addressed in a lighthearted manner

I never said that. I agree. But in this case I believe it trivialized the
subject matter.

. . . but
>you know, the last time I did that, it was in my freshman-year Chaucer course,
>and I ended up banging my head repeatedly on the table to make a point.

Ouch. That's a attention getter. <G>

>Sure,
>people came up to me afterwards and told me what a good case I'd made, but I
>think it really shook that prospective student. So I'll move on to another
>thread now.
> I mean, it's certainly okay not to like the movie. And you're in the
>minority here, which puts you in the same position I was in when I liked the
>last "Seinfeld".

Well, I knew I was going to be in the minority on this, but what the hell,
after reading about how "original" and "brillant" this concept was, "there's
never been anything like it" and other Hollywood b.s. I went to see it and
was disappointed by how watered-down and stepped-on the whole "original"
idea was handled.

But I'm really not trying to rain on anybody's parade here. It's not my
intention to badmouth it (considering it's probably one of the best movie
that's been released in a good long while and I'm a big Peter Weir fan --
going all the way back to THE LAST WAVE and PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK) just to
register the fact that it had the potential to be so much *more* than
what we got.

>But honestly! What kind of pretentious tredefoul complains that the
>Canterbury Tales have too many jokes?

"Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many
notes, that's all. Just cut out a few and it will be perfect."

--thor

[Steven Thorpe a.k.a. thor]

Hunter Felt <hf...@mediaone.net> writes:
>thor:

>> Well, for all of that, my two cents is that an interesting premise for
>> a movie by an interesting director went horribly wrong. An inquiry into
>> the shattering of one man's artificial reality and the consequences of
>> that shattering (not to mention the fact that by watching the Truman
>> Show every one in the world was as culpable for Truman's plight as . . .
>> but it doesn't matter. They don't go near that stuff) was turned into
>> simple minded light comedy. How sad. This movie could really have
>> been something.

>> Anyone interested in pursuing the question of illusion versus reality
>> versus artificial reality and the paranoia that goes along with such
>> questions should check out some of Philip K. Dick's work: UBIK, TIME
>> OUT OF JOINT, EYE IN THE SKY, A MAZE OF DEATH, etc.

>> Also, THE ARTIFICIAL MAN by L.P.Davies about a man living in a small
>> village who discovers his world is a construct and his friends and
>> neighbors are really just actors . . .

>Hmmm... I think one of the best parts of the movie was that it could have
>easily turned into one of those derpressing dark, dreary concepts... I liked
>it better this way.

Well, like you say: Different strokes . . .

>It was much more effective this way as opposed to
>something like "Total Recall" (the most very pretentious piece of schlock
>that desperately tried to hide its nature as a brainless action film.. but I
>digress)

Hey, its Paul Verhoven. Nuff said. Even BLADERUNNER was turned into
a killer android action movie, though Ridley Scott had a much better
handle on the material and is probably 100 times the director Verhoven
will ever even *hope* to be. The definitive PKD movie has yet to be
made. Maybe someday THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE will be made right, but
even that runs the risk of being turned into just an alternate reality
action war flick. Sigh.

It was not very deep as opposed to Phillip K. Dick... but movies
>aren't meant to be THAT deep (if you want good philosophy read a book) I
>think it did well with the variety of themes it juggled (one man's struggle
>to survive against powers beyond his control, excitment and adventure
>against safety and familiarty, the increasing lack of privacy in today's
>world), well-developed characters, and even some effective use of symbolism
>(loved the picture of Truman as a clown in a cage)... plus I love "Twilight
>Zone" endings.

You know, I was just on the other end of this arguement with friends when
I insisted that I had a hell of a lot of *fun* watching LOST IN SPACE (The
Movie). I took a lot of flack insisting that it was just entertainment,
it's based on a campy 60's TV show -- I wasn't expecting top-notch science
fiction, and my last line of defense -- but Gary Oldman was *cool*!
Oh, well.

>Oh well, differant strokes for different folks... (wait, I have an idea for
>a TV show....)

You can't do that on TV!

--thor (We now end our broadcast day . . .)

[Steven Thorpe a.k.a. thor]

r...@world.std.com (Robert P. Krajewski) writes:
>In article <17F71E387S...@134.139.84.1>, tho...@csulb.edu (Steven

>Thorpe a.k.a. thor) wrote:

>> Well, I knew I was going to be in the minority on this, but what the hell,
>> after reading about how "original" and "brillant" this concept was, "there's
>> never been anything like it" and other Hollywood b.s. I went to see it and
>> was disappointed by how watered-down and stepped-on the whole "original"
>> idea was handled.

>Well, there was one thoughtful review that identified it as a good
>*synthesis* of various things which have been done before. And sometimes
>it seems like things don't quite mix and there are really two or three
>separate ways the movie could have gone. But I think there's enough
>imagination in that synthesis that would just saying that there's been
>nothing quite like _The Truman Show_.

>The light surface of the film was a decision that was quite deliberately
>taken. It was originally going to be set in an ersatz New York City, but
>the team thought that surface menace would distract from the larger
>issues. And frankly, urban distopias are artistically bankrupt right now
>anyway -- the easy way out of posing an issue. "Darkness" is a cliche you
>find on a _Batman_ movie gimme cup.


Oh definitely. On all counts. The normality of the small, isolated village
is the perfect counterpoint to the odd things Truman begins to notice as
his artifically contructed reality begins to show its cracks.
There's too much weirdness in a big metropolitan city to begin with.
Would anyone even notice if a little spotlight fell out of the sky in
NYC?

>Anyway, it is almost frightening how much Philip K. Dick's work has
>anticipated all kinds of issues that have been hot topics since the
>mid-80s.

Dick's work is *so* rich in ideas and visual stuff. Unfortunately, there
aren't enough Ridley Scotts to mine it and use it as thoughtfully as
it should be used.

--thor

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A paranoid psychosis. Imagining that I'm the center of a vast effort by
millions of men and women, involving billions of dollars and infinite
work . . . a universe revolving around me. Every molecule acting with
me in mind. An outward radiation of importance . . . to the stars.

--Philip K. Dick, Time Out of Joint

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Robert P. Krajewski]

In article <17F71E387S...@134.139.84.1>, tho...@csulb.edu (Steven
Thorpe a.k.a. thor) wrote:

> Well, I knew I was going to be in the minority on this, but what the hell,
> after reading about how "original" and "brillant" this concept was, "there's
> never been anything like it" and other Hollywood b.s. I went to see it and
> was disappointed by how watered-down and stepped-on the whole "original"
> idea was handled.

Well, there was one thoughtful review that identified it as a good
*synthesis* of various things which have been done before. And sometimes
it seems like things don't quite mix and there are really two or three
separate ways the movie could have gone. But I think there's enough
imagination in that synthesis that would just saying that there's been
nothing quite like _The Truman Show_.

The light surface of the film was a decision that was quite deliberately
taken. It was originally going to be set in an ersatz New York City, but
the team thought that surface menace would distract from the larger
issues. And frankly, urban distopias are artistically bankrupt right now
anyway -- the easy way out of posing an issue. "Darkness" is a cliche you
find on a _Batman_ movie gimme cup.

Anyway, it is almost frightening how much Philip K. Dick's work has