"The Adjustment Bureau": A Movie Review.

"The Adjustment Bureau": (Universal, 2011), Director: GEORGE NOLFI; Starring: MATT DAMON; EMILY BLUNT; TERENCE STAMP; ANTHONY MACKIE; HARVEY MITCHELL.

Lawrence Sutin, ed., The Shifting Realities of Philip K. Dick (New York: Pantheon, 1995), pp. 259-281.

"You don't have free will, you have the illusion of free will."

The Adjustment Bureau is a delightful surprise. The film is filled with ideas and may even be seen as an exploration of the dilemma concerning free will and causal necessity or, theologically, between God's foreknowledge and human agency. Mr. Nolfi is on the side of freedom. He bases this provocative film on the writings of Philip K. Dick, especially the short story "The Adjustment Team."

I do not know Mr. Nolfi's work. "To the best of my knowledge and recollection" -- as they say when testifying before Congress -- I have not seen another film directed by Mr. Nolfi. However, I know several things about Mr. Nolfi strictly on the basis of this hit movie: First, Mr. Nolfi is or was raised as a Catholic; second, Mr. Nolfi is fascinated by philosophical issues and is well-read in metaphysics and epistemology; third, as I have said, freedom is crucial for Mr. Nolfi's artistic concerns and in "his" life, especially the freedom to select one's loves.

Is Mr. Nolfi a woman who is a lesbian? A gay man?

In light of timely issues concerning gay marriage rights, it seems clear after viewing this movie that the injury done to persons denied their loves, along with their autonomy, becomes lethal. The film suggests that free will is possible as well as necessary for persons even in a God-centered universe ("the Chairman"), but only as a product of daily struggle for each of us. There are always forces seeking to deprive us of freedom together with a natural human corruption towards "unfreedom" or slavery. Frithoff Bergman, On Being Free (Indiana: Notre Dame Press, 1977), pp. 1-15 and Ronald Dworkin, Justice for Hedgehogs (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011), pp. 219-255. A classic discussion of free will in the Kantian tradition is P.F. Strawson, "Freedom and Resentment," in Freedom and Resentment and Other Essays (London: Methuen, 1974), p. 23.

Before turning to the plot used to dramatize these ideas, I should direct the reader to other books and films examining this ancient controversy at the center of The Adjustment Bureau. Compare Nelson Pike, "Divine Omniscience and Voluntary Action," in Jerry H. Dill, ed., Philosophy Today, (New York: MacMillan, 1969), pp. 120-141 with Richard Taylor, "Determinism and the Theory of Agency," in Sidney Hook, ed., Determinism and Freedom in the Age of Modern Science (New York: NYU Press, 1978), pp. 224-250 then David Foster Wallace, Fate, Time, and Language: An Essay on Free Will (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), pp. 141-219 and James W. Felt, S.J., Making Sense of Your Freedom : Philosophy for the Perplexed (Indiana: Notre dame Press, 2005), pp. 62-88. Finally, a recent collection of scholarly papers examining the controversy surrounding the concept of freedom from scientifically sophisticated perspectives is J.K. Campbell, M. O'Rourke, D. Shier, eds., Freedom and Determinism (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), pp. 103-211.

Matt Damon plays aspiring politician "David Norris" who meets a beguiling stranger named "Elise." Beethoven's "Fur Elise" plays in the mind during their brief encounter in a men's bathroom (gender is in question from the outset, as noted, suggesting a gay marriage analogy) as Norris is about to make a concession speech after losing a Congressional election.

"Elise" is played with unusual charm, intelligence and allure -- as a barefoot Cinderella -- by British newcomer Emily Blunt.

Is Ms. Blunt related to Cambridge spy, Anthony Blunt?

If so, acting and mystery may be in her nature as a thespian. All spies are and must be actors; all actors are spies on their fellow citizens who provide them with material. These are perfect qualities -- mystery and allure -- for the role of enchanted "princess." (See Anthony Hopkins as "Anthony Blunt" in "The Fourth Man.")

Mr. Damon is suitably heroic and, despite his character's youthful peccadillos, very likable as well as unassuming in the role of Hollywood action hero and "romantic lead with a brain" whom we have come to expect. Mr. Damon has been described as "the thinking woman's hearthrob," much like myself, and also as "Indiana Jones with a Ph.D." -- unlike myself. ("'Drawing Room Comedy': A Philosophical Essay in the Form of a Film Script.")

Analogies to JFK and other politicians undermined by their passions or penises -- or is "penisi"? -- (i.e., Mr. Weiner, no pun intended) recalls the argument of Thomas Aquinas and Baruch Spinoza concerning balancing the emotions with reason, or the need for "temperance" resulting in "serene acceptance" of tragic imperfection in life given our limited perspectives. After all, "only the Chairman has the full plan," we are told, solemnly, "the rest of us know only bits and pieces of it." ("Is this atheism's moment?" and see the Robert Redford film, "The Candidate" then Spielberg's "Minority Report.")

On the other side of this issue are philosophers like F.H. Bradley and the existentialists who defend the wisdom of the emotions expressed through the body. Sartre contends that our emotions define our identities as "freedoms in the world." Simone Weil sees human freedom as God's "invitation" to men and women to "choose themselves" and their world in passionate and almost erotic opposition to evil as an affirmation of "gravity and grace."

Compare John R. Haule, "The Sword of Separation," in Pilgrimage of the Heart: The Path of Romantic Love (Boston: Shambala, 1990), pp. 24-42 with Elizabeth Johnson, She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse (New York: Crossroad, 2009), pp. 191-224 ("The mystery of relation in God ...").

"All I have is my choices."

Mr. Damon's character says: "All I have is my choices."

Even the defiance of God for this Tristan-like character is justified by his love for a woman. But is loving Elise the "defiance" of God? Or is that love only what God intends for Mr. Norris? The film hints in conclusion that the Chairman is YOU, the audience member who decides (by participating in) the meaning of the story -- for instance, by choosing to care about these fictional characters as one cares about the people in one's life. This "caring" is achieved by recognizing that fictional characters are metaphors (substitutes) for the persons in our lives. ("'Unknown': A Movie Review" and "'Finding Neverland': A Movie Review.")

If our choices always define us then God must intend our freedom and never our slavery. Freedom as the authentic and self-constituting choice to affirm our passions whatever the consequences may be is the essence of the Romantic defiance of Enlightenment reason: "Wings of Desire" meets "The Matrix" as our hero searches for this elusive woman -- his entangled particle partner who baffles and captivates him -- searches for her even at the cost of what many people would consider "success." ("'Inception': A Movie Review" and see the Robin Williams film, "What Dreams May Come.")

The angel-like footsoldiers ("caseworkers") for the "plan" occasionally screw-up. The plan is alterable with the slightest variations, even as butterflies may shape the weather around the globe merely by flapping their wings. ("The Butterfly Effect.") James Gleick, Chaos (New York: Viking, 1987), entirety.

When the angels or caseworkers err, however, they may have to live with their victims' tragedies which become their own nightmares. Unless victims can be persuaded to accept slavery, the "Adjustment Bureau" has liability issues. Mr. Damon's Norris is guided by a likable African-American "angel" (Anthony Mackie) troubled by slavery who is sympathetic to the hero's dilemma.

Terence Stamp plays a zealous defender of determinism relishing Nietzsche's "will to power" and the seductions of order. He too has a role to play, a role that is set against the symbol of the statue of liberty. Anthony Flew, "Predestination, Freewill, and Determinism," in An Introduction to Western Philosophy: Ideas and Argument From Plato to Popper (London: Thames & Hudson, 1989), pp. 222-271 and Amit Goswami, Ph.D., The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World (New York: Putnam, 1995), p. 19 then Isaiah Berlin, "Two Concepts of Liberty," in Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 118-173 (areas of personal life where the state may not intrude).

"You weren't supposed to see her again." 

Is Mr. Damon's character essentially determined to act fixedly in the material world? If so, would this material causal determination have any bearing on his inner states and emotions? Is freedom about randomness or absurdity as distinct from rational choice? Unpredictability or chance may exclude the possibility of determination without guaranteeing freedom? Is Norris a pawn in a chess game played by the Chairman and others?

The caseworkers in ill-fitting hats separate the lovers ("the sword of separation") ruling that they are "wrong" for one another's predetermined "plots."

But what if each person is integral to the other's life-story, knowingly or unknowingly?

The repetition of a kiss between the leads will make their love indestructible. Such a love cannot be altered even by the caseworkers. ("You may kiss the bride.") The notebooks carried by the angels depict something like neural connections suggesting the universe is within the mind of God. ("Stephen Hawking's Free Will is Determined.")

" ... a liberterian [sic.] in no way denies the relevance of nature to human choices nor does she deny that it is possible to influence actions by presenting the agents with relevant motivations (rewards, punishments and the like). So the argument, common since the time of Hume, that only determinism can account for the efficacy of rewards and punishments, is wide of the mark. Liberterianism does not, indeed, accept the statement that 'we always act on the strongest motive.' The problem with this (as noted in the previous section) is not so much that it is false as that it is obvious, in that we do not, in general, have any independent way of measuring which motive is strongest, other than by observing 'how the agent actually behaves.' In many cases it is more illuminating to say, not that our action is determined by the strongest motive, but rather that we determine the strength of our motives by determining which motives to attend to. Thus when we are weighing a question of convenience it often makes good sense to say that it is we who decide whether personal convenience or moral obligation will weigh more heavily with us."

With regard to our futures, there are many matters or choices as to which God has no knowledge because they are instantiated only at the moment ("now") when one makes them, by oneself, thereby forging one's identity as the unity that makes those choices meaningful. ("David Hume's Philosophical Romance.")

" ... there are quite a few matters with regard to the future (especially those concerning free actions of persons) about which God does not, as yet, have any definite views because there isn't, as yet, any truth to be known about these matters. As soon as there are such truths, God will be the first to know. ..."

William Hascker, Metaphysics: Constructing a World View (Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1983), p. 44, p. 53. Please see Robert Brandom, Reason in Philosophy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009), pp. 147-227. ("How analytic philosophy has failed cognitive science" and "Metaphor is Mystery.")

Excellent discussions of free will in a causally determined universe may be found at Simon Blackburn, Think (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 81-119 and Bruce Aune, "Metaphysical Freedom," in Metaphysics: The Elements (London: University of Michigan, 1985), pp. 159-187.

Much of this literature confirms Catholic theological treatment of the problem from a Thomistic/Kantian direction that is increasingly attractive to scientifically-informed thinkers making use of the same vocabulary in secular discussions. D.G. Leahy, Novitas Mundi: Perspectives on the History of Being (New York: SUNY, 1994), p. 328.

"Whatever happened to free will?"

The concept of time at issue in the film is reflective of developments in physics and mathematics. All forms of determinism assume a linear concept of time. Events that occur in the past causally determine subsequent events as "effects." This classical or Newtonian understanding of time is captured in spacial metaphors.

Current understandings of time, however, liken "objective time" (there may be no such entity, by the way) to a spiral or mandala. Time has become a more fluid and less rigid or unidirectional entity, while Bergson's durational or experiential time is also more malleable than is supposed in common sense perspectives on time. These perspectives are usually based on an outdated physics of absolute space and time as distinct from the space-time continuum, which is certainly not "relative" in an epistemological sense. ("A Review of the t.v. Show 'Alice.'")

With regard to human choices, realities or identities are constituted in the act of choice. Persons become their freedoms or narrative options in the plots of history, politics, law or culture, certainly through loving in a grand Christian narrative of redemption. Great literature has emerged from these revolutions in scientific understandings. For example, Anthony Powell's A Dance to the Music of Time and Marcel Proust's Remembrance of Things Past, or the film Once Upon a Time in America. A recent novel exploring time, choice, meaning and identity is Penelope Lively's The Photograph. ("Master and Commander.")

David and Elise are entangled particles whose narrative choice to love one another contra mundus (a choice many gays and lesbians have faced for decades!) develops against colossal social opposition and constitutes them as subjects or identities. Who they are and may become, as individuals, is inextricable from the love they feel for one another. This loving simply is David-and-Elise, so that to deny their love is not only to dehumanize them but to destroy their best selves that can exist only in relation to one another. Richard E. Palmer, Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1969), pp. 162-223. (See also Harry Stack-Sullivan's "interpersonal psychology" and R.D. Laing's "self-and-other.")

" ... if the passage from probabilities to definite outcomes requires something beyond the standard quantum framework -- it's at least possible that free will might find a concrete realization within physical law. We might someday find, as some physicists have speculated, that the act of conscious observation is an integral element of quantum mechanics, ["The Chairman"?] being the catalyst that coaxes one outcome ["instantiation"] from the quantum haze to be realized. ..."

Brian Greene, "Teleporters and Time Machines: Travelling Through Space and Time," in The Fabric of the Cosmos (New York & London: Penguin, 2004), pp. 437-469, esp. p. 456 (emphasis added).

Is this a "hermeneutics of freedom" for the empirical world? Many thinkers argue that reality is invitational or participatory. 

Professor Greene is a quantum physicist and leading exponent of string theory currently teaching at Columbia University. The doors to perception become wormholes in this movie as we wind our way through space and time to reach the Chairman, the boss, you (the moviegoer). ("Jacques Derrida's Philosophy as Jazz" and "Donald Davidson's Anomalous Monism.")

The Adjustment Bureau is a romantic or Operatic love story focusing on freedom as a struggle for the other in whom we see ourselves best. All that was missing from this romantic comedy is a great musical score by Puccini, perhaps, seducing audience members at certain crucial moments in the "story." This may be the ultimate date movie for 2011 and beyond.