The Big Questions: Why Are We So Obsessed With Film Characters’ Lives?
For a while, I have wanted to start a mini-series on the blog where I reflect on questions asked by many people on the internet and share my own thoughts. This post will be the first of that series!
Over the past few weeks, I’ve had the incredible opportunity to study film psychology at Harvard’s Pre-College Program. The class asked us to ponder why movies make us feel things, what our role is as audience members, and how we interact with the characters on screen. We explored all of these topics through the psychological lenses of Sigmund Freud, Laura Mulvey, and others in order to find answers. The class often reminded me of how I felt as a viewer when I watched my favorite films for the first time. I decided to take a deeper dive into one of my favorites, The Truman Show, and how the film satirizes the spectators’ obsession with the lives of film characters and celebrities.
It’s no secret that as humans, it is natural to want to observe the lives of others. Peter Weir’s 1998 film The Truman Show not only exemplifies this want but satirizes it as well. The film follows Truman Burbank, a seemingly ‘regular old Joe’ as he makes his way through daily life, which is manipulated by a film crew. Thousands of crew members and extras work overtime to create the perfectly fabricated nuclear life the main character has to live. Of course, Truman has no idea he is the subject of a top-tier television show or that he is watched by millions of eager spectators each month, and chaos ensues as he tries to find an escape from his faux-perfect life. The film also observes the reactions of loyal viewers as their enthrallment with Truman becomes stronger throughout the film. Weir is poking fun at the somewhat obsessive ‘watcher’ culture surrounding film audiences and how much they enjoy being a part of another person’s life. Although the film is meant to parody the viewers’ nosiness into strangers’ lives, it still epitomizes the same argument: spectators enjoy that films allow them to spy on strangers.
Camera angles can completely change the way in which the audience feels they are supposed to interpret a film. In this movie, most shots are filmed in an extremely invasive but secretive manner so Truman does not suspect anything. In one particular scene, a hidden camera is attached to the underside of a dock and captures his panic attack as audiences of the fake television show follow along. It is a very personal moment, yet millions of people are spying on him, forgetting his humanity and only recognizing him as entertainment. This scene, and many others, reflects the viewers’ strong desire to have some insight into a stranger’s life, consequentially seeing them as an object meant for looking at. The objectifying gaze of this scene is very reminiscent of Hitchcock’s 1954 film Rear Window, in which the protagonist, Jeff, creates entertainment out of watching his neighbors partake in their daily activities. His overly inquisitive personality serves as a baseline for the plot of the film as he spies on his female neighbors, similarly forgetting they are humans and only treating them as amusement. Rear Window reflects Laura Mulvey’s ideas about the male gaze, which is prominent in the film. Jeff has voyeuristic tendencies that reduce his female neighbors to objects simply needed for fetishization. These tendencies increase gender stereotypes and only serve the purpose of treating women as objects. The Truman Show is a bit different in that it follows Mulvey’s ideas about objectification, but it is not limited to women here. In fact, the character who is manipulated and objectified the most is Truman. The audience follows him relentlessly as they invade his privacy and diminish him to simply being a spectacle for their enjoyment. Although the manifestation of objectification is different in these two films, they both reflect Mulvey’s ideas on scopophilia and fetishization.
In addition to Mulvey’s ideas, the film is very aware of Sigmund Freud’s theories, which are the original ideas that Mulvey expanded upon. Voyeurism is partially driven by libido, which is the sexual attraction towards others and the desires that stem from that. The Freudian desire to spy on strangers finds resonance in Truman’s story. He is meticulously watched by strangers and watched by an unseen audience. The surveillance portrayed in the film parallels Freud’s idea about the voyeuristic pleasure that comes from looking at strangers. Truman goes about his life under the gaze of others, while his real aspirations, such as being a world explorer, are suppressed. Freud would most likely say that the audience’s engagement with his life is an indication of their own subconscious desires, letting them live vicariously through him. The film provides a deeper dive into Freud’s concepts of voyeurism, and the mocking of these concepts makes for an exciting film.
The movie’s focus on Freudian theories can be compared to modern-day examples of voyeuristic shows. The best example of this is Prime Video’s 2023 show Jury Duty. The show follows members of a jury as they deliberate on a case, except all but one of the jurors are paid actors trying to play a prank. The non-actor, Ronald Gladden, thinks he is taking part in a real trial, and the premise of this show is very similar to that of The Truman Show. The latter has much less of a sexual aspect driving its voyeurism, but viewers are still captivated by a curiosity for how Ronald will find out about his faux reality. Both shows tap into a desire for both power and justice for their respective main characters, and the manipulative crews behind the design of either show also somewhat mirror each other. Spying on strangers provides some of the most satisfying entertainment, and it’s safe to say that the general population will probably not give up on their voyeuristic tendencies any time soon.
The film could be even better understood in the context of one of the most popular televised events of the nineties: O.J. Simpson’s 1995 murder trial. As Simpson famously tried on gloves from the crime scene and repeatedly defended himself, over 150 million nail-biting viewers awaited his fate alongside him. In the same way, viewers tuned in every day to binge-watch Truman’s life, 1990s Americans hardly took breaths in between streamings of Simpson’s trial. To put it simply, both took over the lives of viewers and caused an unhealthy obsessive culture surrounding spectatorship. Although this trial did not inspire The Truman Show, and there are no murderers in the film, it could be interpreted as a mockery of all who watched the trial. Like Jury Duty, the trial provided an opportunity for viewers to peer into a high-tension trial, and it left them hoping for justice for the victims in the same way audiences hoped for Truman’s justice.
The Truman Show provides a thought-provoking investigation of voyeurism and its association with the modern world. The film is somewhat of a cautionary tale, tempting viewers to think about the ethical boundaries of the growing ‘surveillance culture’ in society. By presenting a reality where Truman’s whole life is broadcast without his knowledge, the film reflects upon Mulvey’s ideas about objectification, encouraging the audience to do the same. By mocking the concept of watching someone’s life in real time, the audience can contemplate Freudian ideas about voyeurism and reconsider their role as spectators. The film makes us consider the need for a balance between media consumption and respect for human dignity. It is making jokes about an audience’s tendency to become obsessed with the media they consume. At its core, though, The Truman Show reminds the audience of the importance of originality, authenticity, and genuine connections that define humanity in an increasingly voyeuristic world.