Minority Report - Video Style

I shall start with a list of things that the movie Minority Report has in common with its short story counterpart: the names John Anderton and Danny Witwer, the general premise of Precrime, and...no wait, actually that's it. Everything else was different. No, really, everything.

Plot
Well, the plot starts out almost the same. John Anderton, the dashing protagonist (though in the story he was actually a fat bald man), gives a quick introduction to the innerworkings of the Precrime process, which is mostly the same. The only real difference is that the precogs have visions, and the police interpret these visions which are captured on video, whereas in the story, the precogs merely mumbled incoherent nonsense, and computers interpreted the audio. The whole Army failsafe concept was scrapped for the alternative of having a chief justice of the supreme court and a doctor overlook the investigation process. However, John Anderton naturally realizes that he has been pegged for futuremurder and takes off running. He is not kidnapped by the army. However, he is attacked by police officers on jetpacks, which was certainly an intriguing chase scene. Another notable difference is that Anderton is not actually the creator of Precrime, but is rather just an officer, so he hunts down the real creator, and is...attacked by plants....Yeah. The lovely lady tells him that he must kidnap the precog Agatha in order to find his Minority Report. However, other than serving as the impetus for the kidnapping, the minority report serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever in the story. Yes, that is correct. John Anderton, after undergoing ocular surgery and being attacked by robotic spiders (yeah) then kidnaps Agatha only to discover that he does not even have a minority report. The title of the movie is then not mentioned at all for the rest of the film. That's the biggest difference, really, the minority report doesn't even do anything or mean anything at all. Oh, there is also a complete and utter difference in the intention of the main character. After accidentally killing the man he was supposed to kill, Anderton realizes that he has been set up (there's another difference, by the way, movie-Anderton only tried to arrest his victim but the man forced him to shoot him, whereas story-Anderton shot his victim intentionally). By the end of the story, however movie-Anderton and story-Anderton are completely different. Movie-Anderton sets out to discredit and destroy Precrime by proving that the Director, the one who set him up, murdered in order to get the precogs. Story-Anderton, however, murders a man in order to keep Precrime functioning. One attempts to destroy it, while the other tries to save it.

Point of View
The Point of View is slightly different in the movie. In the story, Anderton was the sole focus; we were only able to see the story and the other characters through his eyes. However, in the movie, the focus is primarily on Anderton, but we also get to see some other people. There are several scenes in which Anderton is not even present, such as with the director Lamar Burgess and the investigator Witwer. Spoiler Alert, Witwer gets shot. This scene is particularly important because now we can see that the true villain is not Witwer, who was the original object of our suspicion, but is actually Burgess. Wowza kapowza! But we didn't get Anderton's take on this scene, because he wasn't even aware it happened. The focus is less on Anderton and how his realizations drive the plot and more on how the audience is directly shown what's happening. Also, by the end of the movie, Anderton disappears completely for almost 15 minutes, and the audience is not able to see how he pieces together all of his evidence to get a clear understanding of what's happening. Suddenly he just appears, and the audience is like "what the heck's going on?" and Anderton's like "don't worry, everyone, I'm fixin' to explain it to y'all in this very convenient monologue." His rap-up speech at the end sort of reminded me of the end of a Scooby-Doo episode where The Gang, after apprehending the criminal, explains how they arrived at their realization to the audience, because children are not very good at unraveling mysteries, apparently. So basically, the difference is that rather than getting Anderton's realizations in real-time as the plot advances, we get a quick summary all at the very end.

Setting
The setting is virtually the same between the two. Naturally, because the movie is...y'know...visual, we are able to get a pretty vivid idea of what the setting looks like. Apparently all cars run on autopilot and can drive up walls, which is kind of cool. However, the setting isn't really all that important, other than just looking nice and acting as a decent excuse to throw together some ridiculous special effects. Just like how it was in the story, the setting only matters in that it allows the concept of Precrime to exist. The story is in the future, hey, that's a perfect place for something as futuristic-looking as Precrime to exist. Other than that, nothing really mattered. Oh, the movie took place in Washington D.C., while the short story took place in Chicago. That's...pertinent somehow, I'm sure.

Characterization
The main character is still John Anderton, and he is still characterized fairly indirectly. Other than the fact that the two characters are completely different, they are essentially characterized in the same way. We are only able to discern who Anderton is through his interactions with others and how we observe his actions. However, the other characters are characterized in a completely different fashion from how they were in the story. In the story, John Anderton told us exactly what to think about everyone. Woah, I don't trust that guy, and you shouldn't either! Hey, don't worry, this guy will take care of me. Hey you, you're strangling my wife, and I don't approve! We don't get this in the movie, really. We aren't able to hear Anderton's thoughts, so we can't really tell exactly how Anderton feels about anyone, other than through actions with them. All of the people are essentially characterized indirectly, and we no longer have Anderton's opinions and views telling us who to trust and who to suspect.

Theme
However, through all of the many differences betwixt the story and the film, the theme essentially holds the same. In my last post, dear reader, I spoke of a theme of the dangers of having an army in times of peace. Forget that, the army is not even mentioned in the movie. However, there is still the question of free will. In the film, the question of free will is even more blatantly shouted out at the audience. When John Anderton is hunting down Leo Crow, the man who he is supposed to kill, Agatha directly urges him not to continue searching for him, stating that he still has a choice to just walk away from the hotel and not murder Crow. However, he ends up heading into the hotel anyway, which starts to make us wonder "hey, maybe he didn't have a choice after all." And then John pulls the gun on Crow, and we start to say "Oh hey, I guess he really couldn't choose not to kill him." And then he starts reading him his Miranda Rights, and we say "Hey wait, I was promised bloodshed!" So in the end, it appears that Mr. Anderton wound up having the ability to choose after all, which makes us feel happy! But then Crow forces Anderton to shoot him, and we start to ask "Wait...so Anderton had free will, but it didn't actually matter...so does free will matter at all?" Well that's a whole new can of worms, m'friend. All's I know is that Tom Cruise is insane.

No, you're getting a Porsche, Oprah! Surprise!

Minority Report - The Super Post

I like to think that all of my posts are pretty super, actually.

Plot
The important thing about the plot of "Minority Report" by Philip K. Dick is the pace. The action of this story literally never stops. Ever. It's like if you just cut out all the dialogue of a Dragon Ball Z episode. You just get two shirtless men beating the crap out of each other for about 30 minutes. I'm going somewhere with this, I promise. John Allison Anderton has quite the day indeed. He gets accused of pre-murder, is kidnapped, gets caught in a car accident, breaks into Precrime headquarters, escapes via airship, rescues his wife from a mysterious assailant, assassinates an Army general, and jets off the planet. The plot never seems to slow down for more than a paragraph or two before it picks back up again, which ultimately sets the story's pace at roughly three times ten to the eighth meters per second. This pace has several effects. Most of all, it makes the story fun. Personally, I think stories with no action are just hard to read. I can breeze through an action-packed story easily, but stories full of dialogue and inner conflict just seem to draaaaag on. The story is also suspenseful. Because so much action keeps happening, the situation constantly changes. People Anderton (and therefore the reader) once suspected eventually become allies, and people he believed were friends ultimately become his enemies. Anderton initially suspects Witwer, declaring that "the set-up is fairly obvious....This will give Witwer a legal pretext to remove me right now," (p. 125) but then quickly shifts view Kaplan as the enemy, stating that "He can break the Precrime system" (p. 143). The conflict of the story shifts and bends throughout the story as the fast-occurring events change the situation. The conflict and antagonists are not always clearly defined, which makes the ending unpredictable and the story very entertaining.
Picture Pending.

Point of View
In this particular story, the point of view is called Third Person Limited, meaning that the story specifically follows one character, John Anderton, and the reader is able to discern his thoughts and feelings, but the thoughts and actions of other characters remain hidden. This is important because it gives the reader exactly as much information as Anderton is given, so we as readers suspect all the characters that he does, and we are equally surprised as he begins to uncover the truth. We are unable to see the intentions of any of the other characters, so when Anderton is convinced that he is being "framed--deliberately and maliciously" (p. 125) by Witwer, the reader trusts in his intuition and begins to suspect Witwer. However, once he discovers that "Fleming and his men were operation under Kaplan's orders," and that Kaplan had been "making sure they got him before the police," (page 141), the reader immediately begins to trust Witwer and suspect Kaplan. The point of view keeps the reader from seeing all the pieces of the puzzle until the very end and keeps the conclusion completely unexpected.
Picture Pending.

Characterization
There are exactly two ways in which people are characterized in this story. The first method applies only to Anderton. We see his actions and indirectly characterize him and get a feel for who he is. He is a man determined to survive, which is apparent by his response of "My safety" to the question of "which means more to you--your own personal safety or the existence of the system?" (p. 139). One would initially consider this to be selfish, as he has sentences countless people to detention camps for crimes they haven't committed yet, but when it comes down to it, he will not accept the fate for himself. However, this actually uncovers a strong sense of justice, based on his reasoning "If the system can survive only by imprisoning innocent people, then it deserves to be destroyed." (p. 139).Though he created Precrime, he would rather see it destroyed than have it imprison innocent people. He views himself as innocent, and therefore feels that if Precrime imprisons him, then the system is broken. It doesn't matter that he is the criminal in question; it only matters that an innocent man is being threatened with imprisonment. It just happens to be a coincidence that the only time he has considered a man's innocence is when he himself is in danger.

The second method of characterization is used to paint the picture of virtually every character who is not named John A. Anderton. Anderton literally tells the reader what to think about every person he meets. His opinions are the only things that we can use to understand the characters he interacts with. We immediately begin to distrust Witwer as Anderton blames him for the apparent conspiracy to kick him out and describes him to be as "Nice as a water moccasin" (p. 124). We also begin to distrust his wife as Anderton becomes completely convinced that she will betray him and "would describe [the card] in detail to Witwer" (p. 126). We also begin to trust Fleming, who rescues him from the car crash and from being arrested by the police. Anderton also begins to trust Kaplan, which is evident from Lisa's thought that "Probably Kaplan will protect you," (p. 138), so the reader starts to trust Kaplan as well. However all of these opinions of other people completely flip around as Anderton begins to uncover more of the story. He starts to trust Lisa, and eventually Witwer, and realizes that the true enemies here are Fleming and Kaplan. Ultimately, our view of the other characters depends totally on how Anderton feels about them.
Picture Pending.

Setting
Not much is really said about the setting. The main action takes place within some sort of city, and it is alluded that the rural parts outside of the city are locked in constant warfare. However, the important part of setting is not really the where but the when. This story, presumably, takes place sometime in the future, as apparent by such things as "precog mutants" and "airships," which as far as I know do not exist currently. The time period of this story is extremely important, as it would be impossible to create a story about Precrime in a time period where peering into the future is impossible. So the author creates his own slot in time and creates seemingly feasible technology which makes the story more realistic, rather than complete fantasy through fortunetelling and divination. Ultimately though, the setting just allows the plot to take place in a mildly realistic fashion and does not really add much to work as a whole. It could have taken place in Texas, and not a whole lot would have changed.

Theme
Oh boy, here it is, Le Pièce de résistance. I am fancy.

I have hereby discovered two distinct things, one more minor, and the other more major.

Let's start this show with the minor theme: the dangers of a strong, active military in times of peace. The army and the police force appear to be opposed to each other. Initially, the two act like they're working together to protect the public, as each keeps the other one in check, as noted by Anderton on page 122: "A duplicate file of cards pops out at Army GHQ. It's check and balance. They can keep their eye on us as continuously as they wish." The two look like they're working together, but eventually, the Army attempts to undercut the police force in a sneaky power grab, as the Army tries to discredit the concept of Precrime and dissolve the police force. The story shows just how quickly and subtly a standing Army can take over a state under the pretext of protecting the public.

The more major theme is actually a very common one, particularly amongst stories concerning things like precognition or time travel. This, of course, is the existence of free will. The concept of Precrime is based on the fact that once a person is deemed guilty of future-murder, then that person has ultimately already made the decision. Thus, the police force interferes, and actively prevents the would-be criminal from making this decision before they ever actually make it. But if that concept holds true, then does anyone really have free will? Apparently, the precogs are able to see into the future and see the decisions that somebody is going to make, implying that the future is set in stone. However, this concept is superseded by the idea that once a person becomes aware of future events, they are capable of changing the future before it happens. This also ties into the theory of Precrime in that once the police force becomes aware of the future, they are able to prevent these future events. But then this would imply that the only way that a person can have free will and the ability to control their own destiny is to be able to become aware of the future and actively prevent the events that have been predicted. This is evident from the fact that Anderton became aware of the future and thus was able to actively choose not to kill Kaplan, and then became aware of the minority report and actively chose to kill him anyway, but under different circumstances. Anderton apparently believes this as in the last few lines he notes that "My case was unique, since I had access to the data." He asserts that the only way a person can change the future is by becoming aware of the future. Otherwise, free will does not exist.

But outside of the context of the story, in this normal world where the future is completely and utterly unknown, does free will exist? Who cares? Batman is riding Superman.