Is it Sci-Fi or Psychosis?

Rating: 10/10 (28 August 2005)

The central plot of the movie appears to be Sci-Fi, but, in the end, is it really?
Ostensibly, we learn, humanity is nearly wiped-out in 1996 due to a super virus, so humans from the future send someone (Bruce Willis) back to investigate to supposedly find a cure for use in the future. This narrative unfolds as one would expect if a person appeared claiming to be from the future; Willis is put in a psychiatric institution. This is where 12 Monkeys begins to distinguish itself from the typical time travel film.
Because we are following Bruce Willis'character both in the future and the past, the viewer can't say for sure whether Willis' character is actually from the future, or merely psychotic. The movie somehow is able to maintain the plausibility of both possibilities up until the very end. Sane or insane, time-traveler or nut-bucket is what the film plays with expertly.
Theories abound to explain one version or another. My personal view is that a) you're not supposed to know if it's real or fantasy, that IS the point, but that forced to pick b) I'd go with the Sci-Fi sanity explanation. I favor the explanation that both the doctors/wardens of the future and Willis are caught in a temporal paradox which plays itself over and over, much like the movie we get to see repeatedly every time we pop in the DVD. Events are bound to happen because Bruce Willis is unable to stop the virus outbreak.
Some feel that Willis himself enables or even is necessary for the virus to be unleashed in the first part. This theory holds that the red head that steals and unleashes the virus is partially inspired from Dr. Railly's first lecture in which Willia and his buddy from the future, "Jose," play a part in the Dr's presentation on the "Cassandra Complex" where someone knows the future but cannot change it. The red head feels the human race does deserve to die but is rebuffed/ignored by Dr. Railly, perhaps fueling his desire to disprove the Cassandra complex and deliver a world destruction he has foreseen. Theorists on this line also point to Dr. Railly's call to the Virus lab which causes the head scientist to give up security to the red headed guy, allowing him to steal the virus in the first place. The major problem with this theory is initial causation.
If Willis from the future is needed to create the virus dispersal event how did he ever end up a time traveler in the past to begin with? If he is needed for the virus outbreak, how could it ever have happened in the first instance if only the young Willis was at the airport the very first run through?
The better explanation, to my mind, is that if you assume the time-travel sanity POV, Willis must NOT be necessary for the virus outbreak at all, and that he once viewed the event without seeing himself involved, only to be sent back and become involved, creating the childhood memories for future paradox loops. By this theory, we're only watching one showing of the loop, where Willis is involved, but can't thwart the virus outbreak. The only major defect in this scenario is why would the people from the future send him back to begin with considering the final scene on the airplane where the woman from the future sits next to the red head and claims to be in insurance (indicating the people in power in the future desire the virus to get out...so why send Willis to investigate?)
None of the Sci-Fi explanations is without logical paradox, which leaves the more mundane psychosis explanation which, since it is based on logical/mental inconsistencies can explain everything by means of delusion. Sure some argue the bullet, the picture, the kid in barn etc, but, since we get the story through Willis we can't really trust any of it.
As you can see, this movie is complex and presents very interesting questions. Everything about the film shines as it uses the medium to create the two possible narratives simultaneously. This couldn't have been an easy movie to write, edit or direct, and yet all are superb.
Also one, has to point out Brad Pitt's role is perfectly acted. Pitt's performance is worth the price of admission or rental even had the movie been terrible. Not only excellent, but simply an amazing portrayal of an insane man. Pitt deserved an Oscar for best actor.
If you haven't had the chance to view this yet, make a point to.