While we watched the Adjustment Bureau, I had several questions as did many of you. 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 three of these questions and answer them for Monday, April 25 before class begins. 350 word 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://maxandrews.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/the-philosophy-behind-the-adjustment-bureau/
4. http://www1.cbn.com/movies/the-adjustment-bureau-fate-free-will
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://maxandrews.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/the-philosophy-behind-the-adjustment-bureau/
4. http://www1.cbn.com/movies/the-adjustment-bureau-fate-free-will
1. I thought that the chairman was his father, who we did not meet in the movie. I thought this mainly because, His father died I thought this was a faked death because his wife and other son were already dead, and he had maybe begun having problems splitting his time between work and home, not only that but his death would be necessary to put his son on the correct path to either Elise or to becoming president. Another reason was because of the ending where the chairman erases Norris and Elise from the plan. To me this seemed like a father realizing his son is in love with this woman or this could be seen as an attempt to keep the bureau intact which could mean it could be anyone.
ReplyDelete2. To me that seemed to mean that they no longer had a place in the plan and so long as they didn’t interfere, they were now free to do what they wanted, and essentially had total freewill. That blank space in the book shows that they are now free to make their own choices and not have their lives tampered with by the bureau. I think it says that either the chairman actually does care about them now and is fine to have them together like Harry said, and my theory about his father being the chairman. However, I think it’s more likely an act of panic and knowing that no matter what they did these two people would keep messing up the plan, to the point where they had to concede and change the plan altogether to prevent a problem in the deviation from the plan.
3. Even casting wise it was fairly bad about diversity, to my knowledge the only main cast member of color was Anthony Mackie. Not only that but the only female main cast member was Emily Blunt. So, this film is really lacking in diversity. I don’t know when it was released but the fact that it also shows only straight relationships (this is a problem with many modern movies). It is lacking in a lot of places, but this is where you really see it.
-Emma Moskovitz
I quite enjoyed watching The Adjustment Bureau. I found the portrayal of “Heaven” as an organization littered with red tape very interesting, and the way that the screenwriter (as well as Phillip K. Dick, whose short story this is based on) constructs the world and the Bureau’s perception of free will was fascinating. The questions that I have set out to answer in this entry are questions two, four and five.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I’d like to discuss the blank space that appears in the plan book for Norris and Elise. I believe that the blank has two possible meanings: one is that the two of them are completely in control of their plan and can forge their own futures. While this is plausible, I don’t believe that the Chairman and the rest of the Bureau would allow these two to just have complete control over their lives; there would be too many ripples. Which brings me to the other option, the one that I think is the correct choice: that this represents the plan being rewritten by the chairman. In this outcome, the Bureau still has some control over Norris and Elise’s lives, but that future will almost certainly have them ending up together. Finally, the fact that the Chairman was influenced so much by Norris and Elise’s love that they changed the plan in order to accommodate them suggest to me that the Chairman, if they are in fact a God figure, is a very compassionate God.
On the topic of the Chairman, the next question I’ve chosen to tackle asks why the filmmaker never shows the Chairman in the movie. I believe that this was done in order to introduce that ambiguity into the film; that lingering question that makes you look back through the entire movie to wonder “Who could possibly be the Chairman in disguise?” That choice also has an added effect of making the Chairman even more of a mysterious figure. If we look at other media, specifically Avatar: The Last Airbender, a character’s impact on the story can still be extremely present without seeing their face one time throughout the runtime of a movie/season of a show. In Avatar’s case, this happens with Fire Lord Ozai, who the audience never fully sees until the first episode of the third and final season. Nonetheless, his impact is still felt very frequently throughout the show, and his actions are easily grasped through the lenses of Zuko and Azula, his kids; where the audience sees just how awful of a father he is without even seeing his face.
Finally, I’d like to talk about Harry, and his crisis of conscience. I believe that Harry is by far the most human of the adjusters, showcasing just how emotional these “angels” can be. His conversation with Richardson about the rightness of the plan is quintessential to the human experience. We only ever really know what has happened to us during our lives, and the best thing we can do is react to those moments, plan accordingly, and improvise when things don’t go as planned. That is one of the most human things I can think of, and Harry is really the one who exemplifies that the most throughout the movie. After realizing how important it is for Norris and Elise to be together, he decides to assist Norris in retaining Elise’s love, and ends up revealing so much more of the world to Norris than he originally intended to.
2. I think the blank space in the book means that Norris and Elise have now accessed their own free will after all the fighting they did to be together, so they now get to be in control of their lives together without the interference of the adjusters. So I agree that they get to basically forge their own destiny now. What this shows about the mind of the chairman is that they have a lot of power, but they will only use it when they feel that they have to. Once they see that someone is capable of handling their own free will and proving that they earned it, the chairman rewrites their fate and lets them take it into their own hands.
ReplyDelete7. I think the filmmaker is saying that in real life, we humans have free will and sometimes go crazy with it. With all the freedom and power we have, sometimes we do reckless and wild things with it, which is likely how a lot of horrible things in the world happened, like Wars and Holocaust. The world would likely be a more peaceful place if everyone had to do something to prove themselves worthy of free will and prove that they wouldn’t take advantage of it. In the movie, the adjusters are able to plan people’s lives out which would most likely prevent so many tragedies from happening in the world.
8. The filmmaker’s message is that we can’t go through life being afraid to do big things and step out of our comfort zones. The only way we will be able to control our lives and earn our free will is if we actually fight for it, as Norris did in the movie, and ultimately got what he wanted; Elise. He didn’t accept that his plan was to not be with her and did everything in his power to fight for her, and ultimately, it worked. We need to realize that our freedom is a gift that we shouldn’t be taking for granted. If we fight for our free will, we will take control of it and no one else will have that control except us.
2) When Harry shows to Elise and Norris the book which showed the re-written plan with blank space ahead for the two of them, I think that it meant that they were ultimately given free-will by the chairman. The blank space shows that there is no predestined path for Norris and Elise, and they are free to go and do whatever they want, only controlled by pure chance. To me the whole point of the movie is about Norris fighting to acquire his free will and never giving up, and he wins at the end when the chairman gives it to him, as he realizes that since Norris fought so hard for his free will he won’t be irresponsible with the control he has over his life, unlike his predecessors during the two World Wars and fall of the roman empire. When Harry says: “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.”, he is explaining that since Norris and Elise fought for their free will, they will know how to use it wisely and be responsible.
ReplyDelete4) I think that the filmmaker purposely decided to leave the Chairman out to let everybody imagine it as they want. They probably thought that no matter who they put as the chairman a lot of people were going to be dissapointed as it was not who they expected, so they left the image of the chairman to the audience’s imagination. It could be a man, a woman, and old or young person, a spirit or even a cow that holds the place of the chairman in the watcher’s imagination, and it is more satisfying to them that the chairman is whoever they want it to be
5) I think that most adjusters blindly followed the plan because they believed that if it wasn’t followed by the letter, something similar to World war I or II would happen. They think the chairman is never wrong and is the only way to have a world in order. I think this view is often reflected in the real world as a lot of people blindly believe everything a teacher or parent tells them as they think they can never be wrong.
-Elliot Viaud-Murat
EMELIA MOORE
ReplyDeleteWhy 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?
I think the filmmaker decided to never reveal the true identity of the chairman to highlight the mystery of who or what god is. Leaving it up to interpretation to each individual is basically the entire premise of religion, each individual having their own idea of who god is. I also think it’s also a good film choice when filmmakers never reveal something that has an unknown physical form. Putting a face to god sometimes can make a movie feel more unrealistic, and unprofessional I think. Similar to horror movies, it adds more depth when a being is hinted at but never revealed. The essence of the being is enough for the audience.
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?)
I agree with your idea that the chairman was the man who waved while Elise and Norris were walking together. As you stated, I felt it was just an unneeded scene that had no purpose within the context. It would make sense that the chairman was most likely a bystander, not a main character because it is more unlikely to notice and it could have been a number of people. It would make sense that the chairman saw Elise and Norris together, and probably contributed to his decision for them to rewrite their fate. But the waving man just seemed to be very ordinary, just watering his grass which makes him a little more sus, and the way he interrupted an important scene makes it seem like he was the chairman.
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
I think the blank space within the book is supposed to symbolize Elise and Norris’s free will. Since they were able to overcome all the obstacles threw in their way, I think that the chairman thought they earned their free will. I think that this shows the chairman is compassionate and understanding, not strict and rigid. The film would've been very different if God refused their request to change their fate. The film conveys the chairman as a loving god, not one who punishes. This signifies that if an individual is passionate and determined to forge their own path, they can have free will. It is about persevering for your goals no matter what obstacles you face.
The questions that I took most interest in are one, six, and seven. At first, I personally believed that the chairman was Elise. I had thought this because the agents were after Norris for so long to try and remove her from his life, like blocking his way from getting to her, setting up different distractions along the way, and even burning her number just so they can keep their “plan” in tact. Now, after reviewing it some more, I am not so sure. I think that it is quite possible that Norris and Elise could have seen the chairman in the film, as the chairman takes many different forms, and they talked to many different people along the way. I also think that the idea stated that the guy who said hi in the beginning could have very well been the chairman. At first, I was confused by this because there were many distractions that said hi to Norris, but the point being that this one was prolonged, and totally unnecessary. I think that in some senses, free will is an illusion. A lot of our choices that we make pretty much determine the choices that we will make inthe future, sort of like a butterfly effect. I think that, on essence, we don’t always make choices based on free will, and that a lot of what we do is sort of already chosen for us. I believe that what the filmmaker was trying to say about chaos resulting as free will given to humans is that when we have something so beautiful, such as free will, we take it for granted in order to benefit ourselves, and we don’t always know what’s good for us. I think the examples that he gave pointed to this specific point, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Dark Ages, and more disastrous events. I think Thompson was trying to say that whenever humans are given their own free will and choices to make on their own, they take advantage of it and twist it to their own benefits, which is definitely true.
ReplyDeleteThe film confused me a lot to be completely honest; there were “rules” that I didn’t understand and many ideas which I didn’t either. But, there were some questions that I wanted to focus on.
ReplyDeleteFor one, I genuinely had no clue who the chairman was, but I don’t think it was any of the main characters. If anything, I believe Mr. Wickersham’s idea that it was the random guy with one line. It wouldn’t make sense for obviously Elise, Norris, or Charlie to be the chairman, as they all were affected by the adjusters, nor do I think Thompson or Richardson would act the way they did if they were the chairman. The most likely out of the prominent characters would be Harry in my opinion, but he is clearly a lower status than the other adjusters. So I believe most likely we didn’t see the chairman at all, that they’re God; someone we don’t see, but who is just there according to religion.
Next, I don’t get why the plan changed in the first place. If the adjusters are so adamant about their fates being the same, why did the plan ever change in the first place? Was it because of other ripple effects? Or did the chairman just decide to change it like they did in the end? The way I interpreted the blank plan was that they now had complete freewill, though I wonder how doing that entirely changed other people’s plans. I believe this whole blank plan signified the idea that we have preplanned destinies that we will live out if we don’t fight for it to change. So it is some form of soft-determinism or such, I’m not quite sure though.
I believe that the director left the chairman out of the film completely to keep it ambiguous. That way, people would theorize and wonder who it could possibly be. But I also think it alludes to God: whether they are actually real or not. As far as we know, there may not even actually be a chairman. Or, if there is, they may not appear human either. So overall, I think it is to leave people wondering, just as we wonder if God is actually there.
4. I believe the filmmaker did not show the chairman's true form because he wanted to leave it up for interpretation to each individual who watches it. I believe he did not want it to favor a certain religion. The movie is not intended to promote a religion, but rather provide a philosophical viewpoint on life. The chairman sounded like he was God, due to the fact that all the angels were under his domain, but I believe that the filmmaker did not want that to get in the way of the messages and philosophical thoughts throughout the entire movie.
ReplyDelete8. I think the filmmaker's message in Harry’s final statement was advocating for action. He wants people to stop sitting back and watching the world go by. That mentality will not create success and will not help you achieve your goals. If you go through life with that mentality, then you will not break the predetermined path. The filmmaker suggests to the audience that this is not the best way to go about life. It is a warning to take action in your own life and create new opportunities. It is a sign to continue to work hard and do not let up off the gas pedal. Good things come to those who work hard is a message the filmmaker intends to send.
2. To me, the blank space in the new plan for Elise and Norris means that the couple does not have a predetermined plan and has gained free will. Their future is up to them and the choices they make with every decision. The chairman is no longer in control of them. Norris and Elise have defeated the chairman and his plan. This shows that the chairman has emotions and is not stuck on his original plan. I think the chairman was waiting for someone to challenge his power and authority. This finally happened, so he gave Elise and Norris the free will they deserved. The chairman wanted to give someone this power, they just had to earn it. I think some of the angels did not know the chairman extremely well. He had his own plan
Charlie Cusimano
ReplyDeleteThis movie often raises a lot of questions. Not particularly the words that were said but the plot overall. The first question I’ll reflect on is, Who is the chairman? I did question whether or not the random guy on the street was the chairman. I think I remember Harry saying the Chairman comes in different forms. Maybe the chairman can shapeshift, the chairman could be the old man, Norris’ manager, etc. But I also questioned whether or not Elise was the chairman. Maybe she was the chairman and she was testing Norris, but ended up really liking Norris and now they’re in love. Maybe Richardson didn’t want them together because she is the Chairman.
Why would the creator leave an open end on the chairman? I think it’s so viewers can come up with their own ideas. Like my idea, maybe the chairman is Elise. I think it’s one of those things where the director is allowing their viewers to come up with their own stories. It’s similar to the play Waiting for Godot. At the end of the play, Didi and Gogo don’t end up meeting “Godot” it’s left to the imagination of the audience to decide who Godot is and what happens.
The last question is, Why was the book blank at the end of the movie? Did Norris and Elise rewrite their destiny? I think I could continue to play on my idea of Elise being the chairman. Elise gave into loving Norris. She could’ve erased the plan to lead a new life together. I can also think if Elise isn’t the chairman. In the beginning of the movie, the adjusters say that a kiss could be powerful enough to change everything. At the end, they shared a really powerful kiss because they thought it’d be their last time together and their fate would be changed. But after their kiss, the adjuster police people disappeared. Maybe they were powerful enough to change their destiny. Maybe this just means that the adjusters really just…adjust. They might have realized that this really is the “right plan” and the chairman (ELISE!!!!) is okay with it.
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?)
ReplyDeleteI do not think the man waving was the chairman. I personally thought that the scene wasn't choppy, and the man was there to show the public warming up to Norris again, especially Red Hook where he lost the election before. The consent of hellos and greetings from people surrounding David show the people who are relying on him and yet he still chases after Elise in the end. I also think the chairman would be more involved in the person's life. The way Harry worded it, saying that everyone met them, makes it seem that the chairman would at least get on a first name basis with whom he was talking to.
Even though he said he wasn't, I still think the Chairman is Harry. He has reason to lie and say he isn't, to keep the air of mystery around it, but I think there is significant evidence that points to him being it. In the first part of the movie, he knocked over the coffee cup, one of the biggest uses of magic in the film other than the doors. He never gets in trouble other than getting reprimanded by people who also don't know who the chairman is. His ability to get Norris and Elsies' future changed so fast as well as how he comes up with the idea to jump through doors and get the briefcase with information all point to him being in a higher position, perhaps the highest.
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?
I think he didn't disclose the Chairman because it adds to the story of not knowing. As watchers, we are left with many questions about our world about fate and free will, and if the chairman was disclosed, then a watcher could choose to villainize them. The chairman was not made to be villainized, just to be there like a parent watching their kid. People could blame the Chairman for their plan, but I don't think that was the director'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?
If I was an adjuster, I would try to understand the larger plan, but also be desensitized to what was happening. If I was alive that long following the will of an unknown person, I feel like I would get used to it and treat it like any other job.
I think the limited view is constricting but also useful. For example, if an adjuster needed to make an action that would cause negative emotions or hurt someone, then they could do so without feeling much remorse. The limited view doesn't show a person in general, it doesn't show their childhood or their memories, their emotions or past relationships, but in doing so, it helps the adjustment process and keeping workers guilt free while working for the greater good.
3- These are all definitely questions I thought about while watching the film. It honestly seems like most of the characters in the movie are men, though I don’t know why that would be. In the world of the film, maybe it doesn’t matter. Maybe these “Bureau” members are like angels and have no gender. It was weird that the film portrayed these beings in charge of everything as men in bowler hats, speaking English, operating what seemed to resemble a Western sort of establishment. But maybe this is just because our main human characters are from the West and speak English- maybe people in other cultures would perceive them differently. But then all of the Bureau people would be just like the Chairman, changing appearances depending on where they were. And there’s also the fact that, yes, Thompson’s explanation of why mankind can’t have its own free will is very Euro-Centric. I think the filmmakers just might not have put much thought into these aspects of the film.
ReplyDelete4- Since the Chairman is supposed to be perceived differently by different people, I think not revealing them to the audience is a smart choice. Because we don’t have any idea what they look like or how to think of them, it’s left up to our own perception, much like how it would be if the Chairman were real. Although- and I might be misremembering- don’t multiple people refer to the Chairman as a “he”? But that’s likely a similar situation to what I talked about in the previous answer.
6- I agree, but I also don’t. It’s hard to explain. In the real world, I think that if we knew everything about everything we could predict the future. I think true randomness does exist, but only in the sense that to predict something that is random we would need to know minute details that we don’t have the ability to know right now. For example, it might seem random when someone gets a disease, but there still is a reason that it happens. The little particles in their body somehow interacted in a way that they just happened to form said disease- we couldn’t have predicted this, but that’s only because we can’t see every single particle, if that makes sense.
I think the same is true for free will. I think everything we do is 100% predictable. But that isn’t necessarily the absence of free will, it’s just predictability. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Everything we do is for a reason, even if it’s not a reason we can easily see. We are free to make our own decisions, but we’re guided by all of the tools we’ve been given. And our brains are going to work out whichever decision is best through the tools at our disposal.
In the world of this movie, it does seem like the characters have free will. They’re having the outcome of their actions changed by the Bureau members, but they’re able to react mostly however they want to.
Bailey M.
1 I think Elise is the chairman in the movie for a few reasons. The first one is the directors confirmation of the chairman being a woman. I think the concept of the chairman being ayone random like that guy on the street is meant to throw you off but if it were any random person I would have probably guessed it was Elise ' s friend who showed Norris where Elise was (told him that she’s not in that room, but the other). The one thing that has the sold its Elise though is her timing when first meeting him in the bathroom. It was too coincidental.
ReplyDelete#2 The the chairman’s original plan for them to be together worked out, the blank space in the adjuster’s book wont stay blank for long. I believe the butterfly effect is the best way to describe fate in their case. But basically both Norris and Elise are each others inspiration, and they constantly feed off each other. Both of their lives were effected so heavily that their plan become one. They obviously will continue to grow as individuals and face different "fate" challenges but every thing they do has a ripple on their environment (good or bad).
# 4 By leaving the chairman's identity a secret the director wants you to really grasp the idea that fate (the chairman) is meant to be a mystery and that who ever is incharge of our plans will always be unknown but all knowing and effects us at all times. Which sounds a l ot like some form of God, a higher being, or a creator being the main deciding factor in our fate.
Morgan S
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 plan?
ReplyDeleteI think that the Chairman wrote a new plan for them, but isn’t going to show them what it is. The blank page represents the freedoms and choices they can make in their lives, but they will still follow the Chairman’s new plan for them. The idea of being able to forge your own destiny isn’t too big in the movie and the Chairman always has a plan for everything so I don’t know why it would change for their circumstance. Sure, the power of their love was able to get the Chairman to rewrite their plan, but that doesn’t mean that he is giving them free control of their destinies. I think the Chairman’s decision to change the plan for them shows that love is not only a human quality and even higher beings can be influenced by the power of it.
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?
I believe that the filmmaker never showed the Chairman in his true form because the Chairman is supposed to represent God and they don’t want to try to portray God as a human or anything else. They don’t know what God looks like so they’re not going to create an image for him in the film. I think you get the idea of the Chairman’s powers and abilities without ever seeing him so I don’t think it's necessary to show him.
8. Looking at Harry's statement at the end (see below), what do you think is the filmmaker's message? Why?
I think that the filmmaker’s message is to follow your dreams because you can make life what you want it to be. Even though there was a written plan for Elise and David to not be together, they were able to do the unheard of and get the plan rewritten. There might be times in your life where something feels impossible or unreachable for you, but the filmmaker’s message is that you never know what can happen, so push for what you believe in and how you want to live your life.
Max Kepler
4.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think the chairman is anyone or maybe the chairman just doesn’t have a specific look so I think that was a big part of why the filmmakers didn’t have a scene where someone was introduced as the chairman. They said that the chairman comes in different forms so I think assigning the chairman to a form for Norris would take away from that notion. By leaving the question unanswered I think the filmmakers forced the audience to do some deeper thinking in multiple ways. For one we as a class were forced to think about the possibility of anyone in the movie being the chairman. In a different sense it allowed the audience to consider the possibility of this reality being real and that they may have a chairman in their life because it is not limited to a single actor in the movie.
6.
I don’t think I agree that free will is an illusion, maybe in that movie where the adjustment bureau is confirmed to be real free will is an illusion, but not necessarily in the real world. I think in some ways it is an illusion because you simply cannot control the actions of others and the natural processes of the earth. It’s unfortunate but sometimes no matter how hard you work you cannot achieve what you want. However, I do believe you can control your individual actions, influence from others can be very strong, but there is nothing predetermined for your future. I just think your free will isn’t completely freeing if that makes sense.
8.
Harry’s statement at the end of the movie is interesting from the filmmakers perspective. I think that it’s this message of warning almost despite its somewhat inspirational aspects. I think it has a lot to do with telling people to go to a place of mindful decisions. We rarely think about everything, sometimes I’ll look at the road and think how strange it is that we are all in moving boxes and just know all these rules so we don’t hit each other, but as a general I rarely think like that or think why we do what we do and who made that decision. I think the filmmakers were trying to get people to tune into a mindset where they think mindfully about their actions and consequences and why they are making them because If you don’t you are living a life planned for you not one you plan for yourself.