With body swap movies being the norm since the 1980’s, deep philosophical issues can be found in some of the most surprising of places.
Whether we are aware of it or not, the men and women churning out Hollywood movies at such an alarmingly rapid pace are doing a service for the world, and it goes beyond just entertainment. Movies with a social conscience frequently get the nod from the Academy year after year, and it is hard to deny the educational value of countless historical films. Movies can be a powerful tool to get a point across and its easy accessibility makes it one of the greatest forms of media of all time.
But there is another aspect of life writers and filmmakers alike seem to drool at the idea of. Philosophy has been a driving force behind movies for a long time, even though it might not get the credit it deserves. Writers frequently borrow from their philosophical favourites without even the slightest piece of recognition to the men and women that are the foundations for their stories. Only a savvy viewer can see the parallels without having it spelt out nice and simple. But aside from the more artsy films that can be hit or miss, there is a more clichéd [or ‘time tested’ if we’re being kind] sort of movie that is usually campy and/or involve learning ‘profound’ life lessons, but they also bring up a weighty philosophical issue at the same time. Movies a la Big, Freaky Friday and 13 Going on 30 are among the many of such films that inadvertently plays with the concept of personal identity and its ability to transcend the physical self.
What is most notable about this collection of movies is the characters ability to change physically while still maintaining their ‘non-physical self’. That is, although Tom Hank’s character was plucked from his own body and placed in that of an adult, he still maintained all his youthful quirks and naivety. He was still himself, even if he wasn’t. Same goes for the copy-cat movie, 13 Going on 30. Sure, it’s easy to point out if they made the switch and were no longer ‘themselves’ it wouldn’t make a very interesting movie. But this slant towards this Cartesian dualism notion is interesting, because there are a many philosophers who would argue that the two aspects of self are one in the same or completely inseparable. So, as a result, these films can be seen the pop culture ground zero for a debate that has been conducted over decades. What does self identity really boil down to? Just the body or the soul? The ability to maintain your memories? Looking at various movies I’ve seen I planned to sort out what is what and see what the overall consensus in the films are, as well as use them as a starting point to addressing an issue that truly effects all humanity.
A lot of these rely on what is known as psychological continuity rather than spatiotemporal, being in the physical body you were born in and continuing in it over time. All this means is that a person is still the ‘same’ if they are able to keep their memories, character traits, and so on. This can be exemplified by the 1995 film Fluke in which after being in a terrible car accident and man’s psyche is transported in to that of a golden retriever. In essence he is one and the same person. He remembers his wife and child, his opinions on things and basically every memory of his previous life. Although he is now a completely different species, on the inside he is the same. If psychological continuity is all it takes to still be the same, than the dog is clearly the same person. But even within this sub-genre of movies involving reincarnation there are examples that contradict this belief. Chris Rock’s film Down To Earth has a character who initially remembers every detail of his former life. However, by the end he is placed in a new body and his memory is wiped clean and reverts to the psyche of his host’s body. Does this show that even without the same body and mind a person can be the same? The way the end plays out is that while this new body is completely different and calls himself by a new name, some of the characteristics are the very same. [Most memorably was when the new body says ‘Let me feed you’, the pickup line repeatedly used by the former character.] Does this suggest there is a tertiary aspect to human identity? I think that because of all the heaven, angel references throughout that what this film shows is the concept best known as a soul. Just what the soul is is extremely subjective but from my own experience gathering opinions from people is that it is something eternal and perhaps a piece of God within ourselves. Once again, it seems to fit in with the general motif of the movie and drags up a whole host of other issues in philosophy, namely the nature and/or existence of the soul.
The one movie that might throw off everything is Being John Malkovich which doesn’t deal with incarnation exactly, and is not the conventional body swap movie at all. Perhaps it’s also worth mentioning that it is one of the most bizarre movies I’ve ever sat down and watched in its entirety. Malkovich takes that traditional approach to such movies and throws it out the window. Freaky Friday, for instance, involves a mother daughter team switching bodies but keeping their respective psychological continuity. It’s straightforward and easily dealt with. Although physically different, one would be hard pressed to argue that with such altered mentality that Jamie Lee’s character was still the ‘same’ with the obvious difference of an ordinarily very prim and proper executive acting like the sixteen year old inside her. Malvovich on the other hand, dealt more with possession and self identity. The main characters discover a secret portal in to the head of the famous actor and can become him for ten minutes before being spat out on to the New Jersey turnpike. Unless you possess a keen ability to hold on to and control Malvovich’s mind, the guest becomes absorbed in to his mentality, see what he does, feel what he does and are generally at his mercy. However, as a working puppeteer the man character slowly becomes able to actually control John Malkovich’s every move and permanently reside in his body while John’s ‘real’ mentality is suppressed.
It probably sounds complicated for anyone who hasn’t yet to view it, and I’ll be the first to admit it isn’t exactly that cut and dry. But it opens the proverbial can of worms when it comes to self identity. When a person becomes John, what happens to their physical body? Are they still themselves or are they just one part of John’s subconscious? Can two people reside in one body? And, if so, is one dominant and the other repressed? An interesting question that was addressed in a very brief but extremely bizarre moment was what would happen if John himself jumped through the portal in to his own brain. He ended up in what I could only call Malkovich land, in which everything was him, wrapped up in his own subconscious. In short, it was about as screwed up as it gets but an important consideration when tackling these kinds of movies.
I would have to say, including the last garish example all of these films rely on the psychological continuity theory, which we can accredit to John Locke. If we possess the same thoughts, memories and mannerism, we are the ‘same’ as we used to be. It is in our history and memories that we define who we are and so that’s why all these characters, despite being thrust in to unknown territory maintain their sense of who they are. I’m quite sure they will continue to release out these kinds of films even if they follow the same predictable plot namely because they show something I think we’d all like to believe in. Of course this is nothing but my own opinion, but to think even for the most fleeting of moments that there is something distinctively ‘us’ aside from our body, a mentality and history unseen but ever present in our busy minds. As the great Alfred Hitchcock said, “Drama is life with the dull bits cut out.” We go to movies to experience a piece of ourselves in greater than life proportions. Perhaps this is exactly what philosophers need to really analyze what the basis of humanity truly is.
0 comments:
Post a Comment