While we watched the Adjustment Bureau, I had several questions as I'm sure many of you did too. Here were several of them:
1. Who was the Chairman in the film (I know that somebody found info that the director said that the Chairman was a female character in the film)? Did Norris and / or Elise see the Chairman during the film or was it earlier in their lifetimes before the film ever began? (Do you buy my idea that it was the guy that said hi to Norris on the street after the second time Norris and Elise meet?)
2. When Harry said to Elise and Norris that the Chairman rewrote the plan, the book showed a blank space ahead for the two of them. What do you think that meant? Does the blank space mean that David and Elise get to forge their own destiny? Or does it mean something else? Explain. And what does this say about the mind of the Chairman, that two humans can change the
3. Kids in past classes have asked why there weren't any female adjusters. I didn't have an answer for them as to that question. I have also criticized the film's Western / Euro - centered bias when it talked about giving mankind free will during the Roman times and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Assess the film in light of these flaws.
4. Why do you think the filmmaker decided never to show the Chairman in his/her/its true form? By leaving this question unanswered, what was the filmmaker's intent?
5. Think about Harry's crisis of conscience when Elise and David broke up for the 3rd time (when he left her at the hospital), and he asked Richardson about the rightness of the plan. Put yourself in one of the adjusters' shoes and try to make sense of it all when you're only given part of the picture. Does this limited view of the big picture reflect our own view on life in general? Why or why not?
6. Do you agree with Thompson when he says that "free will is an illusion"? Why or why not?
7. What is the filmmaker saying about order and chaos when Thompson tells us about the times when humans had free will and made a complete mess of the world?
8. Looking at Harry's statement at the end (see below), what do you think is the filmmaker's message? Why?
“Most people live life on the path that we set for them to afraid to explore any other [path]/ Sometimes, someone like you comes along and knocks down the obstacles that we put in your way. People should realize that free will is a gift that you’ll never know how to use until you fight for it. I think that’s the Chairman’s real point. And maybe one day, we won’t write the plan, you will.”
Pick four of these questions and answer them for Friday May 8 by 11:59 pm. 400 words minimum for your total answer. Thanks.
Some articles on the inclusion of philosophy in Adjustment Bureau:
1. https://www.philosophynews.com/post/2011/09/05/The-Adjustment-Bureau-and-Free-Will.aspx
2. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/plato-pop/201103/what-the-adjustment-bureau-tells-us-about-free-will
3. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/plato-pop/201103/how-the-adjustment-bureau-threatens-free-will
4. https://maxandrews.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/the-philosophy-behind-the-adjustment-bureau/
5. http://www1.cbn.com/movies/the-adjustment-bureau-fate-free-will
1. https://www.philosophynews.com/post/2011/09/05/The-Adjustment-Bureau-and-Free-Will.aspx
2. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/plato-pop/201103/what-the-adjustment-bureau-tells-us-about-free-will
3. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/plato-pop/201103/how-the-adjustment-bureau-threatens-free-will
4. https://maxandrews.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/the-philosophy-behind-the-adjustment-bureau/
5. http://www1.cbn.com/movies/the-adjustment-bureau-fate-free-will
Will Drake
ReplyDeleteQuestion #1
Immediately upon finishing the movie on Monday, the question of who the chairman actually is struck me. I think that it is important to first look at what the director said: that it was a female character. After knowing this, I did some research online and discovered multiple other theories that try to answer the same question. The results that I found from my research online seem to have people pointing towards the clerk from the dance company, Robyn, as the actual chairman in the film. Now, why a person with such immense power is working as a clerk at a dance company is something I still cannot answer. Robyn was present at multiple important parts of the film, such as when Norris arrives at the courthouse and Robyn directs him into the area that Elise is at.
Question #2
When Harry shows the book to Elise and David and there is a blank space in the book and says that the chairman rewrote the plan, I think this means that Elise and David are free to forge their own destiny. I think that after all of the struggle to try to prevent Elise and David from being apart, the chairman eventually decided it was best to step aside and let these two be together as it is clearly very difficult to keep them apart (because the books previously had them together until it suddenly changed). As for the chairman, I think that allowing Elise and David to live together without trying to separate them goes to either show that she is an understanding person, or that the bureau is tired of trying to keep them apart and would rather focus their efforts elsewhere.
Question #4
I think that the filmmaker decided to never show the chairman in her true form because it adds an element of mystery if the audience does not know who the person actually is. By not showing what the chairman really looks like, it keeps the audience engaged and continually wondering who the chairman actually is. Personally, if I had been shown who the chairman really was, it would have given a face to the name and made them less “spooky.” When I do not know who the chairman really is, I am free to imagine that they look and act however I want them to. I believe it was smart to now obviously show who the chairman really is.
Question #8
Looking at the quote, what I interpret it to mean in the context of the film is that most people do not bother to deviate from the plan. But, there are a few, such as David, who will come along and try to deviate from the plan and cause all sorts of madness. In the context of the real world, I think the quote means that people will do what is natural to them and what they are comfortable doing, but that they are not so open to trying new things. Instead, people would rather stay where they are and where they are comfortable instead of trying to reach new heights. Additionally, I think the point made about free will applies to the real world and the movie, meaning that people do not understand the true power of free will until they need to fight to maintain it.
I think the chairman in the film was a female character that Norris and Elise both saw during the run-time of the movie. According to George Nolfi, the director, he planned on revealing that the chairman was a woman during the movie but later cut that scene out. He ended up not revealing the chairman and letting people interpret who they thought it was. I think that the chairwoman was the clerk from the dance company, because she was present during key moments about Norris and Elise. I’m not completely sure though, this is all speculation.
ReplyDeleteI think the blank page in the book meant that David and Elise get to choose their own destiny and become masters over their lives. At the end of the movie, Mitchell says that maybe the Chairman’s real plan was to find people who would defy their own fate and allow them to seize control of it themselves. I agree with this interpretation of the Chairman’s motives. This says that the chairman is willing to relinquish control over the people’s lives if it is for the best. In a way the adjustment bureau wants what is best for humanity. They claim to be the cause of the renaissance and other great times in human history. However, I think that if someone would try to take control over their own destiny like Norris did they would let him if it were for the best.
6. I do not agree with Thompson that free will is an illusion. If destiny was predetermined there would be no point in acting a certain way or making any decisions ever. People may say that free will is just an illusion but they do not truly believe it. If they did truly believe it, they would never worry about doing anything ever again. There is no predetermined destination you get to decide where you want to go. If not, what’s the point in trying?
7. Perhaps the filmmaker is trying to tell us that chaos would result if we truly had free will. I do not personally believe this, but I will explore the extent of his argument. Maybe if everyone truly had free will there would be no organization in society. There may not be certain rules that we as humans had to abide by such as the need to eat or to find a mate. Maybe the filmmaker is saying that order must be predetermined or else there would be none. If we look to the animal kingdom we can see that animals have a certain nature and abide by certain rules. What makes us so different from animals?
TB
ReplyDelete2.
I think that the blank space just meant that whatever action they were destined to take, it was to be done without interference from the Bureau - no plan, no reason to interfere. I can’t see someone as omniscient as the Chairman being unable to see the future or even allowing free will to exist only partly, so I think it must fit into the master plan somehow.
6.
In a way, yes, but only in the sense that technically (since we operate on certain principles, have certain predispositions and such) we will react the same way in the same situation the vast majority of the time and not really exercise any random “will”. There is still an overarching free will in that we are allowed to select what that repeatable action would be (choice to have different priorities than someone else).
7.
They are saying that whenever humans and humans alone are allowed to take control, they will inevitably devolve into, for lack of a better term, animals. All of the examples listed in the film were meant to convey (although the reality of those events might not agree) the destruction that people resort to when not coddled into a good society. In truth, of course, there is so much good and evil at every time period that there is no real way to pick out instances of humanity collectively reverting to our roots, but that is the message the filmmakers wanted to send.
8.
The filmmakers (through Harry) are trying to say that things earned are more satisfying and real than those given (like free will had previously been given, causing devastation) but this message is poorly supported by the premise of the film as a whole. It is like asking people during a test to select a or b and expecting them to figure out that the real answer is the square root of 42 - saying that people need to fight for free will makes no sense if you don’t tell them that they don’t already have it. That is the only reason Norris and Elise were able to “break” fate so to speak, because the bureau messed up - not because the two were so driven to live their own lives in spite of the plan (not to mention they were following the plan, just an earlier version). When people are only able to select the path the bureau set for them, why is it bad when they do? The filmmakers are trying to say that hardship makes the end prize (free will) sweeter, but they picked probably the only prize for which this couldn’t be the case.
TB
2..The blank space was a destiny which is unforeseen, Elise and Norris have the power to create their own destiny. Throughout the whole movie they were being tracked and had a designation for them, but everytime they found each other it altered. It altered in a way which is not supposed to happen. Close to the beginning of the movie, the agents said that if they kissed the “code” would be altered forever. The kiss never happened but they managed to find each other again and enter the world which the agents were in, by traveling through doors to different locations of the city. They decided to give up on their future and let them decide it for themselves, because “fate” kept bringing them back together.
ReplyDelete3. I think they didn’t have any female adjusters because the stereotype of women are “too sensitive” or “too emotional” causing them to “ruin” the future. In the situation with Norris and Elise, they assume that if any female adjusters were to be involved they would want them to be together and help them be together. The “chairman” which takes many forms could be women who would be a twist but we don’t know what form they are.
4. The filmmaker didn’t show the “Chairman” true form because they wanted to leave it a mystery. Norris asked one of the adjusters why they wanted him and Elise separate but he never got a response because they didn’t know either. They have never met the chairman they have never spoken to or heard them speak. They are working for this mysterious being in charge of the future and saying things must go this way or that way or else it is “bad.”The adjusters have no idea what is the true meaning behind separating two people from falling in love. They are doing as they are told, by someone they have no idea who they are or what they are.
5. I somewhat agree with Thomas saying that free will is an illusion. Free will is an illusion to an extent. We are able to do the things we want, but things are already predetermined. We have our own thoughts and possibly the same ideas or renovations of an idea which already existed. But our path in life is already determined. We can choose where we want to go or who we want to be but that was already determined when you were born.
Question 1: I believe that the Chairman is the bartender in the two scenes where David Norris is in the bar. In the first scene where Harry comments on Norris’ obsession with Elise’s phone number, there isn’t anything that stands out. In her second scene, however, she welcomes David Norris and says it is good to see him again, has a “Norris for Senate” sign outside the bar, and hands him a note from his “friend” Harry. However, Harry is seen leaving from a door next to the bar, not the actual bar door. This stuck out to me as an interesting choice by the director that must have some meaning. Also, both times she is in the movie, the camera is on her face for a significant amount of time, which it doesn’t do for any other characters in a small role.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 3: In light of the director’s comment that the Chairman is a woman, the fact that there are no female adjusters makes more - albeit not much - sense. Perhaps the film was attempting to create a visible divide between the two, like the queen bee and worker bees? The film is much too Eurocentric. During the Dark Ages, when the adjuster claims mankind was given free will and failed, the Middle East was thriving. It is often referred to as the Islamic Golden Age, with advancements in mathematics and science (e.g. creation of algebra and the father of surgery) unlike anything the world has seen before. Unless the adjusters only control the Western world, the claim that mankind failed during the Middle Ages is untrue.
Question 6: I do not agree with Thompson’s claim that “free will is an illusion.” This argument was predicated on the fact that because God (swt) - in their case, the Chairman - knows the course each person will take, people must not have free will. Indeed, it makes one feel powerless knowing that their life is planned out. However, it could also be argued that because God (swt) is all-knowing, He could simply know the end result of each of our decisions. Thus, we still have free will, but God (swt) is able to predict it before it happens.
Question 7: By explaining that the times humans were given free will resulted in catastrophe, the filmmaker connects chaos with free will. Free will, such as David’s pursuit of Elise despite contrary plans from the Chairman, represent disruptions to order. On a larger scale, free will from 1910 to the 1960s was a deviation from the control of the Chairman, and it nearly ended the world. Perhaps unintentionally, it also calls into question the purpose of our existence. If we don’t have free will because we are so incapable of making good decisions with it, then why are we here? Overall, the filmmaker reframes the argument from fate versus free will to order and chaos. Either we follow fate and have order or choose free will and fall into chaos.
Who is the chairman?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the chairman is different for everyone. What I mean by this is that the chairman for Norris could be his friend or coworker. Why I think that is because he always supported him and kind of guided him through the movie. I also believe that Elise might have met the chairman before the movie started. That is why I believe the chairman is different for everyone and that there isn’t one exact chairman.
What does the blank space mean?
What I think the blank space means is that at the beginning there was one plan that had changed over time which meant Elise and Norris couldn’t be together. In the blank space symbolize their future together that is yet to be filled. I believe that the plan gets changed many times and that they have earned their way to write their plan. I guess it’s not free will because the adjustment Bureau Will always find a way to tweak the plan eventually but they get to start with a fresh new canvas until their plan gets written out for them.
Do you agree with free will is an allusion?
I agree with that free will is an allusion. This is because I personally believe that everything is influenced by your mind and a higher power. And that there is a plan already set out for you but can change over time. So overall I think that we believe that we have free will but in the bigger scheme of life it has already been planned out for us. There for we think we have this beautiful thing of free will but it is all in illusion that we live bye. So overall I believe that everything happens for a reason that we don’tNecessarily have an idea why it happens.
What do you think Harry’s statement means?
I believe with the filmmakers were trying to say in harry statement
is that people get caught up with the routine of their life. Most people go to school college work and they do this over and over and over. And that some people are scared to take risks in their life and do stuff that they enjoy and write their path of life with things of their passion is because of the fear in failure. So in the part where he says maybe one day we will write your plan you will is symbolic for the fact that one day you should come over this fear and so stuff that you like and you are passionate about so it feels like you are writing your own plan and living your life to the fullest.
1. I think all signs in the film pointed towards the Chairman being god, or some sort of higher power. It was explained in one of the scenes that the humans give the chairman “many names”. Meaning that the chairman is essentially what they worship as a god. I think that in the film the chairman could have been hidden in the film. I don’t know exactly what was so special about the second guy that said hi to him, but it could’ve been. It might’ve been Elise’s friend when he was running into the courtroom and she said “she's in the bathroom”. I feel like it could make sense, because who just sees this guy and knows instantly that he wants to go meet her.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the blank space means that Elise and David can forge their own destiny. I think that when the Chairman saw how hard they have fought for each other, that it was time to change the plan. That being said, I think two humans can change the plan if they break all of the barriers. What caught my attention was how this basically means they are writing their own destiny, does that mean all along they didn’t have to follow any plan? That in the end their plan wasn’t even the true plan since the Chairman decided to make it a certain way.
4. I think that the Chairman could or could not have been in the film. I think that if the film maker decided to never show the Chairman it was to personally hit home with every viewer. This way it would make people think, is our god really who they say? Or in another way, it allows everyone to see someone in the film and decide who they think the Chairman was and why. I think not putting in the Chairman was a good way to leave the question unanswered about how this heavenly body acted. I think either way the film turned out fine and the intent was powerful.
7. I think this part of the film simply made it amazing. The purpose of this scene was to show how humans are not fit for free will yet. Tompson says that sometimes humans have the right idea at hand, but they never really go the right way. I think by showing how all of mankind is thrown into a pit of chaos because they are given free will is a great way to explain what is happening in the movie. Some of the parts I was a little iffy about? Was the cubans missile crisis really that big of a deal that all of humankind's free will had to be taken away? (I wasn’t there for the missile crisis so perhaps it was). I understand the middle ages, because that time was just wild for absolutely no reason. I wouldn’t be surprised if we all didn’t have free will, but just the illusion of it solely because of what happened during the middle ages.
-Dominick Stoops
https://joeysphilosophical.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteQ2)
ReplyDeleteI believe that the blank space shown at the end represented an uncalculatable path, they were free from the adjusters so they must be unable to know how their future will change. This essentially means that David and Elise get free will, but that may also just be a part of the plan it’s hard to know. There is also the big issue that if even a single person gets free will that butterfly effect could make all futures unpredictable for the Adjustment Bureau. I think the Chairman must have set forth a plan that results in a world of free will, but only progressively inches forth towards that goal. This must mean that determined humans who have free will are better than any amount of adjustment. The Chairman must have this crafty plan of some sort, otherwise giving anyone free will will destroy the whole system.
Q3)
The film definitely has some major world building issues with its Western biases. Diversity in the Bureau is a big HR problem, from my recollection there was only one notably non-white adjuster, let alone a female one. It makes the Bureau feel much smaller than they should, especially with there being very little screen time of the Bureau actually working on something beyond New York. The story of Western development and the altering of free will isn’t as bad to me, mainly because the development of Rome and the Industrial Revolution are still global achievements. Yet, only mentioning those (especially the Cuban Missile Crisis which just feels very American-centric) once again makes the Bureau feel constricted despite the exposition given to the audience.
Q4)
I think the filmmaker wanted to simply leave the Chairman as vague as possible so it could be up for interpretation. The film mentions that the Chairman is known by many names, which obviously hinting that they are god (multiple gods, the phrase has been used before referring to god). Yet the only thing the Chairman appears to be on face is a benevolent being who knows all fate (a lot like the omniscient god we’ve discussed). There is also the more oblique possibility that the filmmaker got lazy and decided to put focus on the rom-com (which is what the movie devolves to by the 2nd half) and cut extraneous philosophy at that point.
Q6)
Thompson is extremely wrong, and proven wrong by “chance” multiple times. David choose to ride the same bus for three years, which may have been in a bid for a higher chance but changed reality none the less. Even then, going off the idea of a butterfly effect the minor choice (which are stated to be in our control) still have a demonstrable effect; e.g. buying 1 brand of cereal may boost sales if enough people make that choice which impacts profits, stocks, etc. Even Thompson had no clue, he’s not the Chairman and it was proven that you can resist the adjusters so obviously you need free will to obtain free will as David and Elise did.
1. I don't think there is a particular Chairman in the film. I feel the purpose of the Chairman throughout the movie was for the viewers to be oblivious to who or what it is or represents. I believe it comes from within or up above, like a higher power. You never see the Chairman in the film, but rather it is depicted through David’s words and actions. Right before Harry shows Daivd and Elise their plan, he delivers, “The Chairman comes in different forms to everyone, and you rarely realize when it happens.” This means that the Chairman could be figuring out something for characters in the movie, and they aren’t even aware. It is present to David at times he would never expect. For the better or worse, I feel as if the Chairman is always there throughout the movie, helping shape David’s path for the future.
ReplyDelete2. I feel it means that David and Elise’s future is in their hands. It is representing that they have free will - a blank plan. There are no guidelines for what they can or cannot do. The world is their oyster. No one is telling them how to live their life and everything they choose to make of it from here on out is fully up to them and their decision. There is nothing set in place for what they have to do or accomplish, which can be good or bad. They can choose to do nothing with this open path or they can break out of societal norms and make a difference in the world around them. They are free to do whatever they want or can imagine. It is just as simple as that, the plan Harry presented to David and Elise was blank, meaning their life is under their own circumstances. They can do what they want with their lives because no one is telling them anything. There are no restrictions on their future or their next move. Thus, the blank space is an open invitation to write their own future, their next adventure together.
4. I think the filmmaker never showed the Chairman, so the viewer could depict their own meaning, or interpretation of who the Chairman is and their importance to the meaning of the film. With this, I imagine the filmmaker’s intent was to allow the watcher to have an open mind about the movie, without knowing the true meaning behind it all. The filmmaker wants to leave the viewer having many unanswered questions that they have to dig deeper into finding out about after the conclusion of the movie. Moreover, they can develop their own meaning of what the Chairman is actually trying to portray by not physically being present throughout the movie.
8. I suppose the filmmaker's message is about how many of us constrain ourselves within society and a day-to-day life, without ever thinking about breaking away from that. People rarely foresee beyond the surface, like about how they can potentially make a new discovery in the world or try to reach a possible conclusion to one of the many unanswered questions in the world. We often spend so much of our life caring about what others think about us, so we don’t ever dare to be different or try new things, in fear of standing out. Through this message, the filmmaker is realizing that very few people step out of their comfort zones, to carve their own path to success, and rather let society dictate their way through life. One will never know what free will really is unless they break from society and seek for a greater understanding of the world around them.
1.)I do think that is a fair argument by Thompson, that you don't have as much free will as you think you do. Your Parents control must do what you do for the majority of your adolescent life and that majorly dictates how you continue on throughout your life. I think that as the movie portrayed, it is very possible to change your life and change the path that is provided to you by others. Elsie and David fighting for their love against the odds of the bureau showed that there are certain aspects of your life that are”meant to be”. Regardless of how you think your life is supposed to pan out, or in spite of the direction that someone else outlines for you, I, contrary to what the adjustment beauru’s objective, believe that no one can possibly control every aspect of someone's life and that includes that person.
ReplyDelete2.) I think that the blank space represents the path of freewill that is presented to them. They took away the story and path that the bureau and created something that was never supposed to happen. Once upon a time, there was a reality where they were meant to be together and the connection that they shared could not be broken by the very organization designed to separate them. This either proves fate or the strength of shear will power.
3.) The filmmakers statement is, I think, related to the statement that I said above. There are points in your life when you need to have people making decisions for you. You cannot be expected to raise yourself by yourself as a child, and further be expected to make consciously sound decisions as an adult. That is why you have parent guidance. They have experienced more than you and therefore have advice to give to you, but there is a time, somewhere around your 18th birthday that you are expected to take responsibility for your own life. It doesn't happen right away but typically you have somewhat of a slow transition into adulthood. You spend your adolescence being told what to do because you don't know any better; then your teenage years are spent developing your opinions and learning how to implement them into constructive aspects of your life. It isn’t until you're an adult when you get to truly make some of your own choices. Because of this, I feel that many people feel obligated to follow the steps that your parents have imprinted for you along the way, but their need to be a reminder that you can stray from that path.
4.) I lean heavily towards the criticism that there are no female adjusters because in that sense I strongly feel as though the film strayed towards the connotation that the world would only function as it should with a strong presence of men. The introduction of Elise being a party crasher in the mens restroom is also a scene that I also feel elevated to powerful male status. While watching the movie i felt that these feelings were unwarranted, but i actually think the female and male dynamics strongly affect the film. I do feel they somewhat redeemed themselves in this area by allowing David and Elise to break through the system, but i do feel they could've done immensely better with female characters.
6) Free will could be viewed as an illusion. Depending on the environment free will could not be free at all, but what a dictator thinks is free. Freedom of speech is not real but it is still believed in so it free will. People who believe in it make it real and when it's brought up others think it's real too. In the movie where David had though he was doing his own free will until it was snatched before his eyes. Nothing that he did before was his own free will but the will of someone else. Not knowing if you're in charge of your own fate is scary. 4) The Chairman never being shown was a very ominous but still smart decision. By never really knowing who the chairman is, the filmmaker id letting the audience's imagination come up with something. The
ReplyDeleteChairman can be anybody from someone they work with to god. They were making limitless possibilities come to life without showing tgrh face. But the best assumption of who the chairman would be is close to a god. Since they are responsible for everyone's free will and they decide what happens in life. This was a great film strategy kind of like Blair witch where they never actually showed the witch making the movie even more scary 8) I think the filmmakers wanted this message to resonate with the audiances. For them to think about his spiel and understand this applies to everyday real life as well. Thompson only adds the idea that the chairman could be a god be he understands the world outside if being in it. Thompson and the adjusters are not held down by the chairmans will they have a deeper understanding of life. People's lives need to be controlled because they don't trust humans to have free will, they think it must be controlled. 7) Thomson knows the whole history of humans, all their mistakes and everything that happened. He knows what happened to the world. This only adds to my theory of how much the adjusted know and how they are disconnected to the rest of the human race. They have been enlightened from the chairman for better understanding, they don't have to worry about being under control of free will because they have been enlightened. The adjusters were knowledgeable to the degree of explaining almost as if they were there. They understand the importance of what they are doing because they’ve seen what happens when they don't step in.
I think the Chairman could be really anyone. He could have been the guy who said hi to them but if the director said it was a female character that sort of disproves it. The only female characters I can think of are the receptionist at the dance studio and the nurse who wheels out Elise when David leaves her at the hospital. The nurse seems like the most realistic option because she shows up when Elise loses hope that David will come back and the Adjustment Bureau had officially ended their relationship.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the pages of the plan went blank to me appeared that The Chairman had decided to give humans another chance at free will. I doubt that The Chairman would continue to have a plan for everyone but make an exception for just 2 people. I think The Chairman's hope is for The Adjustment Bureau not to be needed. He is hopeful and the fact that these two were able to forge their own path gave him hope that the rest of the world could do the same. He desires a world where humans have free will but he just wants to make sure the people are ready.
I have no answer to the Western-bias of the film. However, I did notice that none of the adjusters were female which I interpreted as an intentional decision. The adjusters control the people and I interpreted the fact that they were mostly old and white and all men as a metaphor to how most of the world is. That might be me reading into it too much though and maybe the director just wanted the men in suits with fedoras aesthetic.
I think that the director never showed The Chairman because he was a God figure in their universe. He probably wanted to keep The Chairman as an idea instead of a physical being for the audience, like how most people who believe in a higher power don’t know what he/she/it looks like. I think the idea that someone has a plan for them but is also willing to allow them to forge their own path is comforting for a lot of people, but if they see what he looks like it sort of destroys that mysticism. If David and Elise find out who their worlds higher power is they have more knowledge than any human should have.