A Christmas pudding of a movie

Rating: Null/10 (9 July 2002)

The resources put into Hollywood blockbusters are truly staggering; it's not just the money, but the skill as well, especially into one like this, with its polished special effects, virtuoso stunts and huge sets. `Gladiator' and `Titanic' may have been flawed as drama, but we filmgoers sure got a visual spectacle. Here there is plenty of spectacle, in the form of Spielberg's Washington of 2054 (owing something to Fritz Lang's `Metropolis') but we something else besides, a serious philosophical question, as well as plenty of action, intelligent dialogue and some good performances from Tom Cruise, Max von Sydow and Samantha Morton. Even the supporting cast are stronger than average. There's a lot to take in; it's a real Christmas dinner of a movie, and you wonder sometimes if Spielberg hasn't overloaded his viewers.
At least he doesn't insult their intelligence. It is to a large extent a chase movie but there's also some suspense as to what the chase is all about. The storyline of the film is a genuine examination of the ethics of acting on information about the future. The `pre-cogs' who foresee future murders are kept in conditions no ethicist would accept, but, assuming such an ability exists, there is a very interesting question: Should society intervene even when a future murderer has no present intention of committing the crime? In some limited circumstances people with a strong propensity to commit certain sexual offences and people who suffer mental delusions which make them likely serious offenders are kept in preventive custody but usually they have got there because of earlier criminal acts. In Spielberg's 2054 the only sanction for a future crime is `containment' (suspended animation) for an indefinite period. As most of the murders are not premediated, and hence not likely to carry the death penalty, it seems you might be better off to kill somebody outside the jurisdiction and then do the jail term.
The larger issue, I guess, is have we free will, or are our lives pre-determined? There is an easy answer to that; if our lives are pre-determined we don't know what our future holds, so we might as well proceed on the basis that we have free will and therefore are responsible for what we do. We cannot be responsible for what we might or might not do. The Department of Future Crime works to a high order of probability (far higher that could ever be achieved in any future reality but even it can make mistakes -hence `minority reports'). Even so, why should it protect potential killers against their own impulses? Isn't that a matter for individual responsibility? As for the victims, some contribute through their conduct to their own demise eg where a battered spouse rises up against her (usually) tormentor. How do we deal with the narrow legal lines between murder, manslaughter and justifiable homicide? The justice system operates with the wisdom of hindsight and a Dept of Future Crime, in its anxiety to prevent a murder, may act without regard to all the matters which must be considered for a just result.
Still, a superior effort. Enjoyable, thought-provoking and a visual treat.