The Adjustment Bureau

I recently watched The Adjustment Bureau. I like a lot of movies which are based on Philip K. Dick's scifi. But I didn't think too much of this movie. Well, I didn't think badly of it. I just mean I thought it was pretty good overall, and probably a cut above most scifi movies Hollywood churns out, but it's nowhere near as good as, say, Minority Report or Blade Runner.

Spoilers ahead, so please don't read the rest of this if you don't want to read spoilers.

Also, apologies since this is more rambling and disorganized than I'd normally like.

The premise of the movie is that Matt Damon's character, who is a rising politician, is told by the Adjustment Bureau ("angels") that he is not allowed to fall in love with Emily Blunt's character, who is a rising dancer, because to do so would mean both their career trajectories wouldn't be fulfilled. He wouldn't become POTUS while she wouldn't become a world famous dancer. Of course, the Chairman ("God") is behind all this as well, although it's not until closer to the end that we hear much about the Chairman.

I think the biggest problem for me was that it was more love story while I was expecting the more cerebral aspects, particularly the debate on free will and predestination, to be at the forefront. Like to explore these issues more. But for the most part the romance was actually more central and the focus of the story. The romance was quite well done though, and at many times very moving. But again I guess I was just disappointed that the philosophical ideas seemed to be superficially discussed and then more or less gently pushed aside in favor of the romance as well as some light action.

I think Matt Damon and Emily Blunt had really good chemistry together. Their love for each other was very believable. It was easy to root for them to come together.

I wish Terence Stamp's character had more screen time. Or did more than what he did. He had a compelling character, but in the end he didn't seem to do a whole lot. Where's General Zod when we most need him?

While the action scenes were fun, I would've traded the action for more sophisticated exploration on the free will vs. predestination theme.

As far as the romance and action go, it probably helps that Damon is pretty wide-ranging in his acting choices. Like he's done action movies including the Bourne flicks as well as movies which require more dramatic range like The Departed.

I liked the whole star-crossed lovers idea in the movie, but I wish they had made things more "star-crossed," more tragic, than they turned out. The ending was way too nice and sweet for my tastes.

Similarly, I think the film could've been improved if it was filmed more like a film noir flick. Maybe something along the lines of the look and feel of Dark City.

I wonder why, when given a chance to ask any questions, Damon didn't ask more or better questions than he did.

The Bureau was much more limited than it probably needed to be (e.g. part of their power or ability is invested in donning their fedoras). This raises a potentially intriguing question in why the Chairman would allow humans to thwart adjusters if adjusters are meant to carry out his plan.

Interesting, too, was how one of the adjusters on the Bureau had a guilty conscience and thus was moved to help Damon's character. But given that it was a test by the Chairman, yet this angel didn't know it was a test, he would've been going against the Bureau and ostensibly the Chairman in his mind. So wouldn't that make him worthy of punishment rather than reward? Likewise Damon and Blunt.

In any case, how are humans (or adjusters) supposed to know what the will of the Chairman is, whether future choices might not simply be another test from the Chairman? What sort of guidance from the Chairman is there for humans? In the movie, the Chairman doesn't ever reveal his will in a sacred business text or somesuch. The adjusters have a notebook which shows the possible worlds given this or that antecedent choice. But while it shows future possibilities, it doesn't lay down whether this or that choice is a morally good or bad choice. Why should it be a bad thing for humanity if Damon isn't POTUS, from the Bureau's as well as the Chairman's perspective? Perhaps it is bad, but how would Damon know? Without any sort of revelation from the Chairman, Damon is on his own to ponder such imponderables. As such, why wouldn't Damon (and Blunt) be justified in thinking the Chairman is merely using him as a pawn for his own purpose, which may or may not itself be moral? How does Damon know he's not bowing his will to the will of a malicious Chairman, for instance? And is it just and equitable for the Bureau or Chairman to punish Damon without at least laying down what's right and what's wrong? Yet the Chairman via the Bureau does punish humanity for morally bad choices, even as he doesn't tell humans what constitutes morally good or bad choices. This would seem to be more in line with the Greek pantheon of gods and goddesses than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Damon and Blunt live at the sheer whim of the Chairman.

BTW, the Chairman apparently walks among humans in disguise. He can look like anyone, as one of the adjusters explains. We might not even know we've just met him. I guess this is meeting chairmen unawares! Yet this too seems to be more in line with mythology than reality. More like the Norse god Odin who wandered Midgard as a one-eyed, bearded old man. By contrast, not that there aren't theophanies, or not that Jesus didn't look like an average first century Jew, but this Chairman traveling incognito amidst humanity while doing random acts of kindness is hardly the God of the Bible. On the one hand, the Chairman seems to care enough about humanity to wander among us. But on the other hand, he never does anything more including reveal his will to us. Like a progressive parent in Bridge to Terabithia who preferred being called by his first name than being called "dad" by the kids and never tells the kids they're doing anything wrong even if they are. I suppose it suits modern conceptions of God to think he thinks kindly of us and occasionally helps us out when we need him, but he doesn't want to be too involved with us so that he is telling us what to do and what not to do. In other words, we want someone like Gandalf for our God, not Yahweh.

Getting back on target, there's the silly history of humanity where bad periods of history like the Dark Ages (supposedly) and World War I and II were associated with a time when humanity was given free will to do whatever they pleased without any intervention whatsoever by the Bureau. Since this experiment was a moral failure from the Bureau's perspective, the Bureau decided to step in and take control, to adjust the course of history. I suppose this was to justify to the audience that the Chairman by way of the Bureau did know better than humans how humans should live. But if so, it isn't quite so satisfying, given that the Chairman never tells humanity what's morally good or bad, and given that he apparently thinks otherwise when he claims it was all a test and then rewrites his plan for humanity to allow Damon and Blunt to fall in love with one another. So I guess Damon and Blunt did know best after all! At any rate, the Chairman is pretty fickle if you ask me. Not someone I'd want presiding over a company I've invested stock in.

Not to mention this also seems like a silly way to deal with the free will vs. predestination debate. Like how easily the whole free will vs. predestination debate devolved into a simple test. Of course, I expected human autonomy to win given our culture and how most secular movies tend to go, but I was hoping for it to win out in a slightly more sophisticated manner. In point of fact, this move struck me more as a warmed over way of saying "the power of love conquers all" than something penned by PKD's labyrinthine mind.

Further, doesn't free will as popularly envisioned imply the power or ability to choose otherwise? Yet Damon and Blunt can't help but fall in love with one another, no matter what the cost to themselves. So what sort of a choice do they have in the matter, really? This in turn would seem to undermine the movie's desire to elevate human autonomy. This would seem to be at least somewhat mutinous against the captain of the human soul.

Indeed, their love for one another was written as part of a previous plan by the Chairman. But the Chairman later scrapped this plan and somehow forgot to keep the two from loving one another. But then he didn't really forget to keep the lovers from being lovers, since it turned out it was all a test. He apparently writes or re-writes a new plan to make it all work out for Damon, Blunt, and, of course, humanity. Seems like a rather arbitrary Chairman to me! Entirely unlike the God of the Bible.

Plus, from the Chairman's perspective, wouldn't revision of the plan also be part of the plan?

Since the movie is mainly meant to be a love story, it's also important to ask, what does it teach people watching this movie about love? For one thing, it teaches us we can't help whom we fall in love with. Likewise that we should all long for our soul mates. It teaches us passionate feelings indicate we're in love more so than anything else. Feelings of love are all but definitive of love. This is perhaps on the opposite extreme to the idea that love is nothing more than a sort of gritted teeth sense of duty.

So we should ask, are these things biblical? That's what we should keep in mind. What's the biblical perspective on love and marriage? For instance, is romantic love a necessary let alone sufficient condition for marriage? I'm not at all suggesting romantic love isn't an ideal or that we shouldn't seek it in marriages, not at all, but what about marriages where the couple don't fall in love until after they are married? Is this even possible these days? Can a marriage between two otherwise godly and physically and emotionally mature Christians with a stable financial situation and the support of their Christian friends and family, without any internal of external pressure to marry, and no other compelling barriers, take place, even if they are not in love with one another, although they do see each other as good friends? If wise Christian friends and family think they're a good match, and no one including the couple has any objections save for the fact that they're not in love with one another but are good friends, a fact which many of us Westerners happen to think is absolutely crucial prior to marriage, then is this romantic love truly crucial to a happy marriage? Of course, what I've just said is counter-cultural. But again what's the biblical take?

Anyway, so maybe The Adjustment Bureau is on par with Total Recall, which I didn't think as highly of as many other people did, but I did like. In a similar way that I thought Total Recall was more about action than ideas, I thought The Adjustment Bureau was more romance (with some action) than ideas.