![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Adjustment Bureau
13/3/11 10:33Oh this is going to be such a negative post, which is a shame because I don't often take a whole post to review one film, but it can't be helped. I first need to make a few things clear, because I am going to have to talk about religious elements of the film and I think everyone knows that can lead to misunderstandings, especially when you’re a non-believing blogger. So some disclaimers and explanations:
1.) The Adjustment Bureau is a religious movie. As such at time the beliefs expressed in this film directly contradict my world view
2.) I’ve watched, read and enjoyed a lot of media over the year that expresses ideas that contradict my religious world view (films and books that clearly express the uncontested belief that God exists and that there’s a divine plan) and have never really felt uneasy about taking in this media. Everyone gets to believe their things, I’ll go on believing mine and we’ll all watch media about each others beliefs for the benefits that can bring (understanding, the possible realisation of chances for compromise between different groups, or just straight up entertainment from an interesting source)
3.) I’m not especially fond of some of the logic constructs, which are linked to religious beliefs, that crop up in books like Narnia and I’d try to argue against them reasonably, with the understanding that anyone else is free to dispute my ideas as long as they’re not offensive and they don’t expect to convert me to their way of thinking. At the same time I don’t necessarily feel like I always want to put down media which contains religious views that do lead towards an offensive contradiction to the way I see the world. For example, I find he way that Narnia presents puberty troublesome and its treatment of Susan misogynistic, the books expression of these views are linked to the religious structure that informs the text, but I don’t feel the need to hurl the book at the wall. The reasons for this are many and complicated.
4.) There has been one time in my whole life that I can remember where religious ideas expressed, without critique, in a book made me so uneasy I could find no way to be satisfied with this type of free argument structure. That book did actually contain offensive material towards another religious group, I felt the views being expressed were so dead wrong and I think everybody has their own tolerance level for how much uncritiqued offence they can watch go by in media before they need to put it down.
5.) Watching The Adjustment Bureau was not quite the same, because the films expression of how a divine plan works doesn’t express prejudice against one particular group, but against the entirety of humanity. The idea that humanity is not a good species is something I’ve seen expressed in lots of places, but I found the expression of that idea in this film particularly distasteful because it was linked to religious logic and the logic seemed sloppy. I hold my hands up and make clear my personal bias here – I don’t like religious theory expressing ideas that humanity is a big bunch of wasters who can’t do anything right and so I did not enjoy this element of the film, but I might have been more tolerant of a piece of media expressing this view if a.) the logic behind it were more robust b.) it wasn’t linked to religion
6.) I fully understand that just because I felt extremely uneasy about the ideas being expressed in this film they do not remove my right to believe in what I believe in, nor are they offensive just because I find them squicky
7.) Just because there is no substantial opposing theory offered to these ideas does not make this film a bad work of art (although it is for other reasons) or a propaganda piece. Many pieces of art only show one side of an argument and are effective works of art/not propoaganda
8.) I am not calling for censorship of the expression of alternative ideas to mine, nor am I saying ‘I can’t watch this, it has religion in it’. I just need to explain that part of what made this particular film so awful for me to watch had to do with the logic behind the metaphorical examination of divine control
9.) I don’t want to imply that all religious people would agree with the views expressed in this film, or that these views ‘should’ be something nice, religious people stand against – we probably wouldn’t get along if they thought all of humanity was a waste of space (and there’s a big difference between that and thinking humanity has flaws), but y’know they get to say whatever they want because that’s how free speech works
10.) There were many other reasons why I didn’t like this film besides the fact that I found the way ideas I did not agree with hard to take in this one piece of media
In 'The Adjustment Bureau' human life is controlled by The Adjustment Bureau, shady men who dress like 50s government agents with trilbys and grey trenchcoats (yes all of them are men). They must make sure that every human life sticks to The Plan, which is written by The Chairman (for who we humans have many names, hint one of those names is God). Matt Damon’s character David Norris, meets Emily Blunt’s character Elise (actually do we ever find out her second name?) and forms a quick romantic connection with her. According to The Plan they’re not supposed to be together after that one kiss and it’s only because David’s ‘guardian agent' Harry falls asleep at a crucial moment that they meet again. David also arrives at his office earlier than he is supposed to and so sees members of the bureau ‘adjusting’ his colleagues brains so they’ll agree with Norris’ solar power project. The plan is well and truly off track.
A lot of reviews are calling this film an examination of free will vs predestination, which I find odd because there is no substantial examination of free will. The film proposes a world where the divine plan, run by The Chairman, really exists and no matter how they might try humans cannot change the plan themselves. Free will does not exist in the world of ‘The Adjustment Bureau’. Well that’s not quite right, humans are allowed free will in small matters, for example what drink to get on the way to work. In the big matters humans may think about exercising their free will (as in the impulse for free will still exists), but any unknowing attempt to deviate from The Plan in a significant way will be corrected before the human being can put their free will into action. Basically, humans have free will in thought, but in action they’re strictly controlled.
At first it seems like David and Elise's attempts to be together show that free will really does exist and can change The Plan. However, it emerges that they only want to be together because The Plan is always being rewritten. In earlier versions they were meant to be together and these versions keep poking through into reality. In the end David gets the relationship he wants, which isn’t in The plan, not through his own free will but because the fact that he and Elise fight for their relationship shows The Chairman something that makes him change The Plan. As the voice over moral at the end tells us (paraphrased) ‘what the creator really wants is for humans to keep fighting for the life they want, to keep overcoming the hurdles he puts in their way and then what they want becomes part of The Plan’. Now, that is not free will as I understand it, although I don't have enough religious knowledge to know whether this kind of interpretation of free will makes sense in terms of the major religions. By my understanding of free will this ending makes ‘The Adjustment Bureau’ a film that wants the audience to believe it has shown free will at work, changing human lives, but has actually shown them how a divine plan might adjust so that your free will wishes become part of the plan. And this only happens if you’re very exceptional people, the rest of humanity that plods along refusing to fight hurdles, is undeserving of free will and continues to exist in a controlled state while David and Elise go ‘free’ this time.
I find this version of the way the world works contrary to my beliefs (see disclaimers above) as well as rather troubling, but the point where I actually swore out loud at the screen from frustration came in the middle of the film, when an agent known as The Hammer explains that humans used to have free will, but that control was taken back by the maker of The Plan. At certain points in history The Chairman apparently stepped back from control and gave people free will. The first time resulted in The Dark Ages, and when control was released again in the nineteenth century humans to brought about WWI and WWII. When David asks how why the world is still kind of bad now, despite the bureau taking back control, The Hammer provides an answer to the effect of ‘We’re still working to get it back on track’. These seem extremely poorly constructed rhetorical arguments (for one thing they ignore any good that may have come out of other events taking place during the time periods when control was released and ignores any bad stuff that came about in time periods where The Chairman exerted control like The Enlightenment). The Hammer’s view is also the most depressing assessment of humanity I’ve ever heard expressed and to hear that it’s backed by The Chairman, by the all powerful being that made and controls the entire world, leaves no room for the audience to say ‘well maybe that’s just the view of his imperfect servants, perhaps God has more faith in us’. It’s just a hugely condemnatory way to approach the entirety of humanity and it makes me really sad to see something created that would cast every person in humanity, not just as flawed, but as pretty much worthless, immoral, unpleasant characters. I guess I don’t understand how a persons religion could lead them to such an idea (and yes, again I note my bias that if someone were to present this idea without any religious links it might have less of a powerful effect on me).
Shall we move on to what else I didn’t like about this film:
Elise: Elise is in this film…why? Oh right to be a love interest, for shots of her legs in a short skirt and…um.... to provide the drive for David to continue to try to exert his free will! I mean…she has no agency, the plot devices in the film make sure that she can't be told anything that would lead to her having agency and at the end of the film when David tells her that if they stay together all her dreams will disappear it takes her about a second to agrees to follow him where he leads, in order to see if they can beat The Plan. I mean take at least a pregnant pause of drama to decide whether you want to risk your career aspirations and dreams for this guy.
Also there’s a definite vibe towards the end that to be successful in a high profile way is preferable to being successful in a less high profile way. Elise will be one of the greatest dancers and choreographers of the age if David leaves her, but if he stays with her she will ‘end up teaching dance to six year olds’. I get that if your dream is to be a great choreographer and in the end you don’t get there that doing anything else might be a bit of a let down, but we can’t know if it would be a let down for Elise for no one is allowed to ask her. Perhaps she would trade high profile success for lower profile success because teaching children might be fulfilling to her. Perhaps she would resent David forever if he killed her dreams of being a high profile dancer. Who knows? Instead of a real answer we get this really awful implied assumption that to be a teacher (which is a traditionally female role, especially when you add in ‘dance teacher’ and ‘teacher younger children’) is fundamentally a lesser job and less desirable than high profile success.
Weak sci-fi: Really, is it even worthy of the name sci-fi? The adjustment agents have hats that let them open special doors that take them to a new location, which can be anywhere in the world. How the hats work is not explained. Large areas of water, or rain, shield people from the agents ability to control circumstances. Again there is no explanation. The most decent sci-fi element is The Plan, which appears as a constantly changing diagram in notebooks that the agents carry around. There’s no explanation of how they function, or how many plans fit in a notebook, but the effect does at least look cool. Are these sci-fi elements symbolic in some way?
Theories on romance: The bit where I really lost it with this film came towards the end. David asks why the bureau cares so much that he doesn’t end up with Elise and Harry answers that if he ends up with her she will be ‘enough’. David won’t need to strive to be a Senator anymore, because that hole that drives him to be in front of crowds will be filled by Elise. The Plan needs him to be a Senator because he’s going to do great things (although these great things are unspecified, but I can let that go because maybe Harry is bound by the great rule of all sci-fi - you can’t tell people what you know about the future).
Yep that’s how life works. Once you find the perfect partner they are the only thing you need and any grand career aspirations are exposed as a simple reaction to a lack of domestic approval, attention and love. Clearly every successful, high profile person is walking around with just a little part of them missing, because they haven’t found The One yet.
And there are other weird, littler things about romance that crop up in the dialogue. David and Elise have a conversation where she asks how he knows she doesn’t have a fabulous boyfriend now, it is three years after they first met after all. David is pretty clear that it would not matter if she did, he would persist, but he says (paraphrasing) that if she were married then that would be a problem. *Sigh* because marriage is the only romantic commitment that a.) can’t be broken b.) should be respected by outsiders who fancy you right? *Sigh*
More on women: In a film so lacking in the women, that makes Elise’s character into a cross between manic pixie girl, a woman with one interest (although I did like the way this creative drive was represented in the film, for example when she is unsure about her wedding she goes to her studio to dance to try and work things out - nice) and a woman with no agency I am suspicious of every little reference made to the ladies in this film. So when Harry says (paraphrase) ‘your father could have been so much more and your brother could too, if they both hadn’t died, but it wasn’t in The Plan’ and David asks if his mother was also a casualty of the plan, but is told her death was ‘just chance’ I am ragingly suspicious in the way I interpret that remark. The lady in his family isn’t mentioned as someone who wanted to, in fact could have, been more and she apparently wasn’t important enough to have a place in The Plan that meant she had to be removed from earth.
So that was (not) a fun night at the cinema. I’m also kind of sad to find out that this film is based on a Philip K Dick story. Does anyone know how closely it sticks to the source material? Has anyone else seen this film and what did you think of it?
1.) The Adjustment Bureau is a religious movie. As such at time the beliefs expressed in this film directly contradict my world view
2.) I’ve watched, read and enjoyed a lot of media over the year that expresses ideas that contradict my religious world view (films and books that clearly express the uncontested belief that God exists and that there’s a divine plan) and have never really felt uneasy about taking in this media. Everyone gets to believe their things, I’ll go on believing mine and we’ll all watch media about each others beliefs for the benefits that can bring (understanding, the possible realisation of chances for compromise between different groups, or just straight up entertainment from an interesting source)
3.) I’m not especially fond of some of the logic constructs, which are linked to religious beliefs, that crop up in books like Narnia and I’d try to argue against them reasonably, with the understanding that anyone else is free to dispute my ideas as long as they’re not offensive and they don’t expect to convert me to their way of thinking. At the same time I don’t necessarily feel like I always want to put down media which contains religious views that do lead towards an offensive contradiction to the way I see the world. For example, I find he way that Narnia presents puberty troublesome and its treatment of Susan misogynistic, the books expression of these views are linked to the religious structure that informs the text, but I don’t feel the need to hurl the book at the wall. The reasons for this are many and complicated.
4.) There has been one time in my whole life that I can remember where religious ideas expressed, without critique, in a book made me so uneasy I could find no way to be satisfied with this type of free argument structure. That book did actually contain offensive material towards another religious group, I felt the views being expressed were so dead wrong and I think everybody has their own tolerance level for how much uncritiqued offence they can watch go by in media before they need to put it down.
5.) Watching The Adjustment Bureau was not quite the same, because the films expression of how a divine plan works doesn’t express prejudice against one particular group, but against the entirety of humanity. The idea that humanity is not a good species is something I’ve seen expressed in lots of places, but I found the expression of that idea in this film particularly distasteful because it was linked to religious logic and the logic seemed sloppy. I hold my hands up and make clear my personal bias here – I don’t like religious theory expressing ideas that humanity is a big bunch of wasters who can’t do anything right and so I did not enjoy this element of the film, but I might have been more tolerant of a piece of media expressing this view if a.) the logic behind it were more robust b.) it wasn’t linked to religion
6.) I fully understand that just because I felt extremely uneasy about the ideas being expressed in this film they do not remove my right to believe in what I believe in, nor are they offensive just because I find them squicky
7.) Just because there is no substantial opposing theory offered to these ideas does not make this film a bad work of art (although it is for other reasons) or a propaganda piece. Many pieces of art only show one side of an argument and are effective works of art/not propoaganda
8.) I am not calling for censorship of the expression of alternative ideas to mine, nor am I saying ‘I can’t watch this, it has religion in it’. I just need to explain that part of what made this particular film so awful for me to watch had to do with the logic behind the metaphorical examination of divine control
9.) I don’t want to imply that all religious people would agree with the views expressed in this film, or that these views ‘should’ be something nice, religious people stand against – we probably wouldn’t get along if they thought all of humanity was a waste of space (and there’s a big difference between that and thinking humanity has flaws), but y’know they get to say whatever they want because that’s how free speech works
10.) There were many other reasons why I didn’t like this film besides the fact that I found the way ideas I did not agree with hard to take in this one piece of media
In 'The Adjustment Bureau' human life is controlled by The Adjustment Bureau, shady men who dress like 50s government agents with trilbys and grey trenchcoats (yes all of them are men). They must make sure that every human life sticks to The Plan, which is written by The Chairman (for who we humans have many names, hint one of those names is God). Matt Damon’s character David Norris, meets Emily Blunt’s character Elise (actually do we ever find out her second name?) and forms a quick romantic connection with her. According to The Plan they’re not supposed to be together after that one kiss and it’s only because David’s ‘guardian agent' Harry falls asleep at a crucial moment that they meet again. David also arrives at his office earlier than he is supposed to and so sees members of the bureau ‘adjusting’ his colleagues brains so they’ll agree with Norris’ solar power project. The plan is well and truly off track.
A lot of reviews are calling this film an examination of free will vs predestination, which I find odd because there is no substantial examination of free will. The film proposes a world where the divine plan, run by The Chairman, really exists and no matter how they might try humans cannot change the plan themselves. Free will does not exist in the world of ‘The Adjustment Bureau’. Well that’s not quite right, humans are allowed free will in small matters, for example what drink to get on the way to work. In the big matters humans may think about exercising their free will (as in the impulse for free will still exists), but any unknowing attempt to deviate from The Plan in a significant way will be corrected before the human being can put their free will into action. Basically, humans have free will in thought, but in action they’re strictly controlled.
At first it seems like David and Elise's attempts to be together show that free will really does exist and can change The Plan. However, it emerges that they only want to be together because The Plan is always being rewritten. In earlier versions they were meant to be together and these versions keep poking through into reality. In the end David gets the relationship he wants, which isn’t in The plan, not through his own free will but because the fact that he and Elise fight for their relationship shows The Chairman something that makes him change The Plan. As the voice over moral at the end tells us (paraphrased) ‘what the creator really wants is for humans to keep fighting for the life they want, to keep overcoming the hurdles he puts in their way and then what they want becomes part of The Plan’. Now, that is not free will as I understand it, although I don't have enough religious knowledge to know whether this kind of interpretation of free will makes sense in terms of the major religions. By my understanding of free will this ending makes ‘The Adjustment Bureau’ a film that wants the audience to believe it has shown free will at work, changing human lives, but has actually shown them how a divine plan might adjust so that your free will wishes become part of the plan. And this only happens if you’re very exceptional people, the rest of humanity that plods along refusing to fight hurdles, is undeserving of free will and continues to exist in a controlled state while David and Elise go ‘free’ this time.
I find this version of the way the world works contrary to my beliefs (see disclaimers above) as well as rather troubling, but the point where I actually swore out loud at the screen from frustration came in the middle of the film, when an agent known as The Hammer explains that humans used to have free will, but that control was taken back by the maker of The Plan. At certain points in history The Chairman apparently stepped back from control and gave people free will. The first time resulted in The Dark Ages, and when control was released again in the nineteenth century humans to brought about WWI and WWII. When David asks how why the world is still kind of bad now, despite the bureau taking back control, The Hammer provides an answer to the effect of ‘We’re still working to get it back on track’. These seem extremely poorly constructed rhetorical arguments (for one thing they ignore any good that may have come out of other events taking place during the time periods when control was released and ignores any bad stuff that came about in time periods where The Chairman exerted control like The Enlightenment). The Hammer’s view is also the most depressing assessment of humanity I’ve ever heard expressed and to hear that it’s backed by The Chairman, by the all powerful being that made and controls the entire world, leaves no room for the audience to say ‘well maybe that’s just the view of his imperfect servants, perhaps God has more faith in us’. It’s just a hugely condemnatory way to approach the entirety of humanity and it makes me really sad to see something created that would cast every person in humanity, not just as flawed, but as pretty much worthless, immoral, unpleasant characters. I guess I don’t understand how a persons religion could lead them to such an idea (and yes, again I note my bias that if someone were to present this idea without any religious links it might have less of a powerful effect on me).
Shall we move on to what else I didn’t like about this film:
Elise: Elise is in this film…why? Oh right to be a love interest, for shots of her legs in a short skirt and…um.... to provide the drive for David to continue to try to exert his free will! I mean…she has no agency, the plot devices in the film make sure that she can't be told anything that would lead to her having agency and at the end of the film when David tells her that if they stay together all her dreams will disappear it takes her about a second to agrees to follow him where he leads, in order to see if they can beat The Plan. I mean take at least a pregnant pause of drama to decide whether you want to risk your career aspirations and dreams for this guy.
Also there’s a definite vibe towards the end that to be successful in a high profile way is preferable to being successful in a less high profile way. Elise will be one of the greatest dancers and choreographers of the age if David leaves her, but if he stays with her she will ‘end up teaching dance to six year olds’. I get that if your dream is to be a great choreographer and in the end you don’t get there that doing anything else might be a bit of a let down, but we can’t know if it would be a let down for Elise for no one is allowed to ask her. Perhaps she would trade high profile success for lower profile success because teaching children might be fulfilling to her. Perhaps she would resent David forever if he killed her dreams of being a high profile dancer. Who knows? Instead of a real answer we get this really awful implied assumption that to be a teacher (which is a traditionally female role, especially when you add in ‘dance teacher’ and ‘teacher younger children’) is fundamentally a lesser job and less desirable than high profile success.
Weak sci-fi: Really, is it even worthy of the name sci-fi? The adjustment agents have hats that let them open special doors that take them to a new location, which can be anywhere in the world. How the hats work is not explained. Large areas of water, or rain, shield people from the agents ability to control circumstances. Again there is no explanation. The most decent sci-fi element is The Plan, which appears as a constantly changing diagram in notebooks that the agents carry around. There’s no explanation of how they function, or how many plans fit in a notebook, but the effect does at least look cool. Are these sci-fi elements symbolic in some way?
Theories on romance: The bit where I really lost it with this film came towards the end. David asks why the bureau cares so much that he doesn’t end up with Elise and Harry answers that if he ends up with her she will be ‘enough’. David won’t need to strive to be a Senator anymore, because that hole that drives him to be in front of crowds will be filled by Elise. The Plan needs him to be a Senator because he’s going to do great things (although these great things are unspecified, but I can let that go because maybe Harry is bound by the great rule of all sci-fi - you can’t tell people what you know about the future).
Yep that’s how life works. Once you find the perfect partner they are the only thing you need and any grand career aspirations are exposed as a simple reaction to a lack of domestic approval, attention and love. Clearly every successful, high profile person is walking around with just a little part of them missing, because they haven’t found The One yet.
And there are other weird, littler things about romance that crop up in the dialogue. David and Elise have a conversation where she asks how he knows she doesn’t have a fabulous boyfriend now, it is three years after they first met after all. David is pretty clear that it would not matter if she did, he would persist, but he says (paraphrasing) that if she were married then that would be a problem. *Sigh* because marriage is the only romantic commitment that a.) can’t be broken b.) should be respected by outsiders who fancy you right? *Sigh*
More on women: In a film so lacking in the women, that makes Elise’s character into a cross between manic pixie girl, a woman with one interest (although I did like the way this creative drive was represented in the film, for example when she is unsure about her wedding she goes to her studio to dance to try and work things out - nice) and a woman with no agency I am suspicious of every little reference made to the ladies in this film. So when Harry says (paraphrase) ‘your father could have been so much more and your brother could too, if they both hadn’t died, but it wasn’t in The Plan’ and David asks if his mother was also a casualty of the plan, but is told her death was ‘just chance’ I am ragingly suspicious in the way I interpret that remark. The lady in his family isn’t mentioned as someone who wanted to, in fact could have, been more and she apparently wasn’t important enough to have a place in The Plan that meant she had to be removed from earth.
So that was (not) a fun night at the cinema. I’m also kind of sad to find out that this film is based on a Philip K Dick story. Does anyone know how closely it sticks to the source material? Has anyone else seen this film and what did you think of it?