What if my life was a lie? What if everybody I knew was plotting against me?

Who, or what, is in control of my life? These types of questions prompt the idea
behind Peter Weirs The Truman Show. The content of Trumans story leads the
audience to ask existential questions about perception of life and the individuals
role in the world; simultaneously, we are amused by antics and the films impressive
mise en scne. The Truman Show asks existential questions in a way that all people
can enjoy.
The Truman Show is about a man named Truman Burbank whose entire life is
a live television show, broadcasted twenty-four hours a day. Were informed of this
fact from the very beginning of the movie. We often view Trumans story through
the eyes of his spectators, leaving us to wonder if its just our speculation as a real
audience, or the fake one. It is claimed to be the most popular show in the world
(this claim being made by the fictional audience), though some people oppose it as
cruel to the main character. This perspective of knowing something the characters
do not is called dramatic irony.
The problem Trumans character faces is one of existential crisis. The
philosophical field of existentialism deals with the authenticity of the human spirit
(Crowell, Stanford). Without diving too deeply into the subject, most existential
questions deal with humanitys meaning in the world. Some of the classic
questions are Who am I? or What is my role in the world? or as poet T.S. Eliot
put it, Do I dare disturb the universe? Truman is forced to reevaluate his place in
the world as he discovers it is false, which triggers these types of questions.
Another interesting take on this movie is through the creator-creation relation between Truman
and Christof, who is portrayed by Ed Helm. Beyond the realm of story-time, Christof and his crew- the

crew meaning Trumans friends and family- make commentary on the quality of Trumans life, and what it
has to offer to the world. He makes comments on the reality and fabrication of Trumans life, ultimately
promoting the show as a force of hope and positivity in the world. Christof also provides historical details
of the show, such as Truman being born on live camera, and explaining the challenges of keeping the
truth hidden from Truman. One of Christofs comments in story-time openly admits that they plan on
methodically keeping Truman from discovering the truth. Christof also quotes, If his was more than just a
vague ambition, if [Truman] was absolutely determined to discover the truth, there's no way we could
prevent him.
We also see members of the shows audience, probably to add to the cultural invisibility and to
reflect the plot sequence (characters hug when Truman succeeds). This takes away from the
verisimilitude of the plot, as we begin to wonder why an audience would ever want to watch the boring
details of a mans life. But all in all, the real audiences of The Truman Show mostly overlooked that fact
(Rosenbaum).
The content of the film has a variety of topics in philosophy, psychology and science fiction. For
this reason, the film appeals to a smarter crowd, but because of its standing as a Hollywood film, some of
the content appeals to a dumber crowd as well. Content such as Jim Carreys persona, reality television,
product placement, and screwball humor are just a few of the Hollywood-esque subjects in the film that do
not require deep thinking. Skeptical critic, Jonathan Rosenbaum, explains that similar content in other
narratives tends to be less cheery:
Some reviewers have cited Paul Bartels 60s short film The Secret Cinema as a
precedent. But the first half of The Truman Show reminded me of Robert Heinleins 1941 story
They... and the second half echoed Frederik Pohls 1954 story The Tunnel Under the World ...
Heinleins story is a distilled paranoid fantasy, Pohls a satire. And its clear that Niccols script for
The Truman Show is adroitly playing in both registers educating the viewer along with Truman
in the paranoid scenario, while setting up a satire of sunny TV depictions of the good life until
the two projects eventually come together (Rosenburg).

Though we are told the story of Trumans discovery out of sequence, Truman
is especially traumatized when he first sees his long-dead father. The non-diegetic
soundtrack of the film (by Philip Glass) picks up for the first time in the film, and we
view a trouble-faced Truman from a high angle, indicating his distress. It is at this
point in the film that he begins his existential quest, testing the limits of his
predetermined world and noticing the absurd routines that his community falls into.
But this sequence only lasts from 31 minutes into the movie to the 59th minute in,
when the cast of the show seemingly assures his safety in the world. The running
time of the 103 minute movie does not heavily focus on typical existential moods
like dread or alienation.
In fact, one could state the opposite. Even though Truman does have these
alienated feelings, the focus in his existential quest is not placed on bitter emotions,
but on the maneuvers he and his cast take as he tries to leave the island. Truman
tries to leave his neighborhood but there is a traffic jam; when he unpredictably
returns to the same route, the traffic is gone. Truman combats his psychologically
instilled fear of crossing water by forcing his wife to take the wheel as he drives
over a bridge. Truman physically evades power plant workers and a spontaneous
forest fire as he reaches the outskirts of the dome that is his whole world. All while
these things are happening, he is experiencing the enraging idea that his life turned
out to be a big lie, but the audience is fixated on the screwball plot.
Jim Carrey, in retrospect, is the biggest giveaway for The Truman Show
being a Hollywood film. Even though this is one of his less goofy films, Jim Carrey
has a whole division of slapstick comedies under his name (Looking at Movies, 109).

The fact that he stars as the leading role influenced many to go and see the film in
the first place. HIghly personified actors will sometimes appear in roles that play
against their character types to strengthen their personas, or to exemplify their own
talent(Looking at Movies, 291).
Another giveaway for this being a Hollywood film is the ridiculous amount of
money spent to make it. These types of films are the most familiar to us because
the producers of the films spend a lot of money to have them made; and in return,
the audiences give them large profit. Because of this, most studios tend to stick to
what they know: same genres, same themes, same actors, same calculated risks.
The Truman Show cost $60 million dollars to make, which was a lot more than some
Paramount Executives were comfortable paying for a humorless Carrey movie
(Entertainment Weekly).
Paramount Pictures purchased the original script of the film from screenwriter
Andrew Niccol. (Variety) Paramount put producer Scott Rudin in charge, who hired
Peter Weir as the director. The director is accredited the mise en scne of the film,
which includes all of elements of the film intended to be seen- the actors, the set,
costumes, and usually the cinematography and editing; however, in the case of the
Truman show, Scott Rudin was set on starring Jim Carrey as Truman. Jim Carrey and
Peter Weir were reported to have some creative differences on the set, ultimately
furthering the way the film turned out. (Entertainment Weekly)
According to Variety Magazine, the original script of the film was in a bidding
war between Paramount and Warner Brothers, which paramount evidently won. This
leads to speculation on what would have happened if Warner Brothers had
purchased the film. It would probably have a different star, a different director, and

probably a different focus on content. Had Warner Brothers purchased the script,
they could have mangled the script in anyway they liked. There could have been
little changes, like keeping the metropolitan setting in Niccols script or the
precursor name of the protagonist: Malcom (Variety). Perhaps they could have made
bigger revisions: Truman could have been changed to a female protagonist, or
maybe Truman would be commentating the show after he escaped the set. Maybe
the film would have focused more on Trumans realized disparity and ended with
him committing suicide- all of these scenarios are unlikely, however, because major
film studios would never let a theater-going audience be exposed to such
unguarded cultural visibility.
Cultural visibility deals with topical content that reveals something about our
viewers. In most dramas and comedies, it would be awful to see Truman die; the
film would not work for a horror and even the appropriate genre of science fiction
usually has a winning protagonist. No, audiences need something culturally
invisible. Something that affirms our culture. In the 1990s, film goers were looking
for relatable, postmodern humor in the art. (Dirks)
The Truman Show may have not been an art film, but it was surely a film that
touched the hearts of its audience. Maybe it was because it didnt follow the
paranoid, dystopian canon of its predecessors. Maybe it was because Jim Carrey
played a character we could only imagine being. Either way, the Truman Show hit
home to thinkers and watchers alike.