Preparation can be Costly

How costly can preparation (or the lack thereof) be? If there is one thing America has taught me through war, is that being prepared for it can save many lives, and lacking preparation can lead to the death of many. Lets portray American Sniper for example, it depicts a unique situation, one in which they are at "war" in order to prevent a war. Ironic isn't it? but it's just as real as it is ironic. Chris Kyle has over 160 credited kills to his name, these are all people that could have "potentially" lead to a severe war and/or death of many people. Kyle is seen as a hero, but in reality also viewed as the bad guy, after all, who are we to decide whether or not someone will choose to do something catastrophic until it does happen?
Morever, we have a situation in which we are doing everything we can, to be prepared for potential threats following the 9/11 attack that we didn't have a clue would happen. Now take Saving Private Ryan, a very distinct film that has a purpose within the purpose. One that, although is supposed to be about saving a Private in the midst of war, conveys how difficult it was to obtain victory during WW2 after the conquering of much of Western Europe by the Nazi Germany reign and the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese Navy. Here we have a situation in which the lack of preparation caused us many lives. These two events and many like it, have shaped the way we think and take threats now. We have to make a choice on "potential threats" as Shelly Kagan states in Intending Harm, we either choose to kill one/a few in order to save two/a multitude, or we run the risk of that person killing many before facing justice.
Being in the position of the military, what exactly are you supposed to do? Do you go on a killing spree of these "potential" threats, or do you sit back and wait for a drastic tragedy to happen? One could argue that America wouldn't be in this position in the first place if they would just stay out of other countries; then again, had America stayed out of the way during the first two world wars, they would not only have ran the risk of being conquered as well, but they would have simply sat back as the holocaust was occurring and dictatorship engulfed the world.
Many believe wars and armies shouldn't exist in the first place, I can partially agree with those bold statements, there shouldn't be a need for either to exist, but the truth is, there is evil all over the world, and power being handed down to one person or one group of people can be heavily dangerous, thus leading to a need for systems of self-defense. America began with the Militia, whom along with all the other brave people who stepped up are responsible for our independence. Evil actions have forced the world to create armies and self-defense systems. American Sniper depicts both a hero yet somehow a bad guy, similar to a vigilante, it shows the way America now prepares for future events, safety at the cost of lives. Saving Private Ryan depicts what the consequences were for the lack of preparation, victory at the cost of lives. We end up with two unfair options, Safety and preparation first at the cost of lives or lives at the cost of the lack of safety and preparation.

War, What is it Good for?

War and fighting is a fundamental part of being a human. Even from the beginning times man fought to see whose strength and abilities would determine the victor, leader, king, ruler. But as time has progressed we have seen a shift in the way war is fought. Instead of skill in combat in close quarters, we see battles being fought from much greater distances.

Team America: World Police, was directed by Trey Parker who is the co-creator of the TV series South Park. This should come to no surprise as the absolute disregard for the potential of backlash. Team America does a good job in representing the ideals that many, not all, Americans believe. When i use the term "American" if am referring to the citizens of the United States of America. This is a misuse of the word that many of us use and is shown over the top in the song that plays called, "America, Fuck Yeah". The United States is not The whole two continents of the Americans. the film depicts this by telling where the areas visited are by their relationship to the "real America".

The war that is fought in Team America is one that everybody can relate to more closely than others if they are young. The war on terrorism is an ongoing conflict that the United States tries to face. With the bombing of the twin towers in our time we have a more personal connection with this war that is being fought. Shelly Kagan talks about how war is justified if the damage that is cause is less than what the evil would've cause had it not been stopped. (332) To put this into perspective, in Team America, the Eiffel tower, the Arc de Triomphe, the Great Pyramids, and the Sphinx are all destroyed in order to stop a couple people with bombs. This is taking the situation way out of proportion and exaggerating it, but it does bring fourth something that needs to be seen.

The United States causes immense economic destruction and physical destruction when they try to help a country or capture a couple of terrorists. Terrorist that are always thought of to be either Arabian or Muslim because of recent events that have occurred, as seen in the movie as well. Much of the fighting that occurs which the United States is a part of, is not our fight at all. We as the "Greatest Country Ever" (which we are far from) feels that it is our obligation to help all the other countries of the world who are struggling through military conflicts, when we have our own problems at home that we decided to continue to sweep under the rug. The dominant military force that we do have has made our boarders safe with the possibility of invasion not being an option. This is also the reason that we find it to be our obligation to "help" the other countries in times of trouble as we see it.

One of the best parts of the film for me was the bar scene which a quote that is actually very deep came into the movie. The quote is:
          "There are three kinds of people: Dicks, Pussies, and Assholes. Pussies think we everyone can
          get along, and dicks just want to fuck all the time without thinking it through, but then you got
          your assholes. All the assholes want to do is shit all over everything. So pussies get mad at
          dicks once in awhile because pussies get fucked by dicks, but dicks also fuck assholes and if
          they didn't fuck the assholes, you'd get your dick and your pussy all covered in shit."
This may sound like an absolute stupid quote, but it actually describes the United States to a T. We are the Dicks, Pussies, and the Assholes all at once depending on what angle your look at us. We do care to much about other countries and we try to help all the time, but in the process we turn into Assholes and try to change the country to be more "Americanized" this brings out the rebels. They think they are the Dicks and we are the Assholes, while we think they are the Assholes and we are the dicks, when in actuality they are correct.

Something to leave you with and think about.

#TeamAmerica

War is something that has plagued mankind since it's begin years. Wars have caused some of the greatest civilizations known to man to end tragically. Most people believe waging battle or causing a war with another country is pointless and harmful to both parties in the end, but the key word is most. The United States of America is one the greatest examples of a country that uses war for self gain without regard to other people. The movies Team America and American Sniper both translate this ideal effectively. In the movie Team America, a U.S formed tasked forces performs the job of being a global police. The plot of the film is that a heroic U.S team saves the world from a global terrorist. The other film, American Sniper, also provides a similar viewpoint of U.S citizens being heroic beings in our global community. Both films point at the idea of Americans participating in war, and that when they are in war, they're doing the right thing. Immanuel Kant said,in Groundwork for The Metaphysics of Morals, "What we really intend is rather that its opposite should remain a law generally; we only take the liberty of making an exception to it, for ourselves or to satisfy our inclination." The quote makes me think more about more why the U.S has participated in some wars and what they gained from that participation. One war in particular that I would like to bring into light is the War in Iran. While it might seem that the U.S. is helping a country in need, I think one real reason is that the U.S. was trying to destroy a governmental unrest and create a governmental ally in Iraq. They participated in war for self-gain, not for helping people. I think the U.S lives on the ideals of this quote : "God Bless America, and no place else"

What do you all think?

War is a Drug

The distinct contrast between the views of soldiers and the views of civilians fuel the disconnect between them. Soldiers operate under a condition with a few principles.

They have a job. Their job is to protect their men at all cost. The lives of their men is worth more than the lives of their combatants. They are fighting to sustain the strength and ideals of America, because they strongly believe that the United States is worth suffering and dying for.

These principles are heavily loaded, and often lead to expressions of outrage while they are doing daily civilian tasks, such as going to the mall or shopping in a grocery store. The soldiers in American Sniper and The Hurt Locker become frustrated while they are not on tour, because they know there are American men dying in war at that very moment.

Chris Kyle, famous American sniper, and Sergeant William James, leading IED technician and bomb defuser, have entirely bought into the beliefs of the military and support them in their entirety as a result. Soldiers are almost forced to accept the principles of military life in order to psychologically survive the war and the horrendous acts against humanity they are ordered to commit. However, as Dr. J pointed out in class, defending the ethical decisions and morality of military acts from the stance of the ends justify the means is a dangerous way of approaching moral and ethical dilemmas. As Nagel wrote in “War and Massacre,” “In the present war such measures [the deliberate killing of the harmless: civilians, prisoners of war, and medical personnel.] are sometimes said to be regrettable, but they are generally defended by reference to military necessity and the importance of the long-term consequences of success or failure in the war.” Although, the military is a necessity to our American way of life and military men deserve both honor and praise for their sacrifices and contributions to our country, this does not negate the need for ethical criticism when evaluating our military practices as a whole.

As civilians, we harbor the rights of U.S. citizens without having to experience the cost of protecting those rights first hand. For this reason, I am grateful for the military members and their sacrifices. American Sniper and The Hurt Locker highlight the way that the excitement and socialization of war is so intense that it is difficult for military men and women to acclimate back to civilian life. Immoral acts are nearly always a derivative of selfish behavior. The acts of individuals in the military should be judged on whether or not they are ethical, based on their reasons for committing them. If they commit acts with the intention of protecting their own men and women, their acts, depending on the severity and philosophical viewpoint, can be argued as permissible. On the other hand, if their acts are a result of their lust for the excitement of war, then their acts are of a selfish derivative, in which they expended the suffering of others for their own superficial gain.

Team Chris Kyle for America

Team America, the movie with puppets and was a joking war movie.  In the first couple minutes, the movie really represents the problem with war when Americans invade, in my opinion.  We go into a country balls-a-blazin' straight for the enemy, not considering what the cost is for the people whose land we are intruding on.  I.e. In Team America, they blew up the Eiffel Tower and this huge building, costing many lives, just to say that they "got the bad guys". In my personal interpretation  I felt as if them blowing that up was to illustrate how we don't really respect the damage we can possibly do as long as we neutralize the target, mission accomplished.  Likewise, Chris Kyle, who killed around 160 people as a Navy Seal, to protect his homeland, our homeland, from the terrorists and people who "potentially" want to harm America.  In American Sniper, Chris after his first kill lost his sense of who he is, the people he killed became almost target practice with little moral repercussions. Intending Harm, by Shelly Kagan helps us relate Chris Kyle’s actions by “if I kill the one to save the two, the death of the one- although intrinsically evil- is on the balance of a good”. Chris Kyle killed all of those civilians/terrorists/humans for the safety of his fellow marines.  Even though his kill count was around 160, he aided in the saving of hundreds of marines, some he saved more than once. 
Just War theory, allows death in war to be called as morally acceptable as long as certain specifications are met. One main aspect that could be potentially be seen as violated in Chris Kyle’s movie, was the fact of the civilian home invasion in a way that we beat certain members of the family; whom may not know a single thing about who or where the main rebellion leaders may be.  The one aspect of that possible violation is that they have the cities evacuated because of a war zone, but honestly who wants to be kicked out of their home leaving everything behind to run away because Americans are fight with a small specialized group in your country.  These people fight back against Americans most probably because they just want to live how they want to live, they want to protect where they have set up home, and protect their family.
Team America though, was all about how this actor named Gary will help learn of the terrorists plans and save America, at the expense of killing the people who just want justice for the way that America has damaged their homes and invaded their lives, forever changing who they are and what they think of the rest of the world.Chris Kyle in America’s eyes could be interpreted as a murderous villain, a martyr, and or a soldier who was doing his job, and as a person who had two military parents growing up, I believe he was just doing his job.

‘Merica.

V for Vendetta

​In V for Vendetta, V fights for a revolution against the current political state.  Though many of his actions seem rooted in revenge for his past mistreatment, he continues to revolt for what he believes to be a truly corrupt state.  He believes that his actions are necessary to bring about the revolution he wishes to see, so many of the deaths that happened by his hand were an inevitable means to his end.  In this sense, V, himself, is not evil, nor does he intend to cause harm for harm’s/evil’s sake (Kagan).  The only people that V intentionally seeks out to kill are those linked to his imprisonment and disfiguration.  The rest occur through his actions of revolting to make a less dystopic society.  

​Evey starts as an innocent, somewhat disgruntled bystander.  During the initial meeting of her and V, Evey helps V escape.  In sparing his life, V feels an obligation to help Eveywhen she is left unconscious from the ordeal.  V must outweigh the consequences of taking her with him or leaving her.  Ultimately, he takes her to his place of residence, in a sense imprisoning her.  Though there are some negative side effects on Evey’s part, V felt that her life outweighed her imprisonment since she would have most likely been taken to a concentration camp for aiding V at the news station.  This action shows how evident it is that V is concerned for the people within the dystopian society that he is revolting against, since he has already saved Evey from law enforcers at a previous point.  In this way, V is very determined to bring about some type of goodness, even if he has to produce some negative outcomes.  He is saving Evey’s life in turn for her innocence, he is bringing about death to weed out the corruptness of the political power, and he is blowing up parliament to bring about a revolution to create a better, less corrupt society.  So, in essence, his actions (though harsh) are merely a means to an end, and the deaths and other negative outcomes are inevitable to bring about his ideal state. (Nagel)  In the end, V has changed Evey’s perspective so drastically that she is the one to send the train to blow up parliament and help actually start the revolution in his absence.  His determination led Evey to believe in his cause, and led thousands of others to continue his cause when he couldn’t.

The Time loop of the present and future

First off, anyone and everyone would love to be able to time travel. There are so many options and possibilities that we have all missed out on that if we knew the answer to we might change them. I agree with Lewis when he says, "that a possible world where time travel took place would be a most strange world, different in fundamental ways from the world we think is ours." (492) This strange world is pictured perfectly by the bizarre world that skynet takes over in the Terminator movie.

James Cameron builds The Terminator much like the movie Looper is seen. There are irrefutable fact that come into the equation that make you overthink the movie because of the impossibilities. In The Terminator Officer Kyle Reese is sent back to protect Sarah Connors because is going to be killed by that terminator sent back before him. This seems all fine an dandy, until we consider the whole picture. The only reason that Kyle is sent back is because the future leader, Connors, told him to protect his mom, but in turn, ends up having sex with Sarah Connors causing her to have her child who eventually sends Kyle back to save his mom again. The only way that we can justify this is with the multiple times and universe theory, which means there are identical worlds out there with just very minor differences. If we take this into consideration then it is possible to change the past because the past for you is another persons present. David also states that, "the past is impossible to change because it is logically impossible."

Another issue that time travel has is the formation of matter that was not originally there. The laws of physics that matter cannot be either created or destroyed. This would be the in the instant like Looper where there are both two loopers present who are the same person. This would be impossible for two of the same person to exist in the same time and space. Time travel to the past has my aspects that can be questions and proved wrong unless the whole world that the movie is built in stays true to its own boundaries. The future has no boundaries though. The actions of the future are not decided yet and therefor have no implications that would hold the time traveler bound to his/her previous time.

The time machine problem is a perfect illustration for this movie. If i stole a time machine only to donate it to a museum so my early version could steal it again and donate it once more, then there is a never ending cycle. The only way for this to end is by the person dying before his time frame, loop has been reached again.

Time travel is one of those issues that people would never be able to contemplate and is only attainable in the movies. This is why we cant logically come to a conclusion for the questions that we ask because we do not know of the right answer and this time. Maybe a future version of us will tell present us the answer.

The World Forgetting, By the World Forgot

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind explores the concept of memory and the possibilities once deleting memories becomes a reality. Upon this discovery, a market for deleting painful memories of loss and pain immediately surfaced. Joel Barish and Clementine Kruczynski take advantage of this new technology and erase each other from their memories in the wake of their broken relationship. Other than telling the creative love story, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind unveils new conflicts regarding memory and time as two people try to avoid the pain of lost love.

The interdependent relationship of memory and time is overtly exposed in this film. Memory is the recording of events over a period of time. Memories cannot be recorded without the passing of time, and for this reason memories are recorded in a linear fashion: past, present, and then future. As found in our readings, Taylor suggests, “The future is something necessarily lying ahead of us, and the past, behind us” (486). On the other side of the coin, time cannot exist without the recording of memories. If an observer cannot record memories, then that observer  cannot distinguish previous events from present events. Establishing two points between two events is necessary to comprehend our linear conception of time. Furthermore, if the linear nature of time cannot be determined, then the concept of the future is an impossibility.

This impossibility is readily revealed with basic mathematic principles. To anticipate a future event, a trend must first be determined. In this model, the trend is the slope of a line that represents the linear nature of time, where the future is a point further down the line than the event point currently being observed. In this respect, the past is all the previous event points on the line of which the observer remembers traveling. For a line to exist, at least two points must exist. In terms of time, these two points would be an event in the present and a memory of an event in the past. By using the points remembered from previous events and the event point of the present, the observer ultimately calculates the slope of this line to anticipate future events. Therefor, without memory, the concept of time vanishes, as there are no past events for an observer to remember and thus no way to anticipate future events. There is only the present. Only a single existence. The late Alexander Pope romantically envisions the beauty of this reality in an excerpt from his poem “Eloisa to Albert”:

How happy is the blameless vestal's lot!

The world forgetting, by the world forgot.

Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!

Each pray'r accepted, and each wish resign'd;

In a world where memories can be eradicated from a heartbroken citizen by going to a clinic, the nature of both memory and time are challenged. In this film Joel and Clementine rashly delete each other from their memory in a desperate attempt to elude the pain of their shattered relationship. However, upon doing this, they run into each other again and fall in love for a second time. The conflict between time and memory comes fully to light when their deleted memories are exposed to them. After reviewing their previous medical records and seeing the ugly side of their relationship and breakup, they realize their previous records suggest they will eventually hate each other and suffer at the hand of their relationship. It seems as though this would encourage them to go their separate ways and avoid the massive heartache likely to ensue. Surprisingly, Joel and Clementine ultimately choose to start over with a new relationship and love each other with reckless abandonment.

Why would they make this decision in the light of such exceptionally clear and personal evidence that strongly indicates their relationship will fail?

Based on the concept of time being linear in existence, Joel and Clementine found themselves in position of the “eternal sunshine of the spotless mind,” as described by Alexander Pope. Previously, their relationship was following an event curve with a downward slope. The future events of Joel and Clementine's relationship, as predicted by them, seemed to only get worse. This was due to the fact that the slope of their satisfaction in their relationship was negative and showed little signs of improvement based on the memories of their most recent events. Upon deleting their memories, Joel and Clementine deleted all of the previous event points of their relationship and all of the slopes and predictions of the future that came with those points. For this reason, they found themselves in a situation where they could start over and re-establish the direction of their relationship. Joel and Clementine’s story artfully exposes how the manipulation of memory has the capacity to control time and its interpretation.

The Predestined

Predestination is something that haunts time philosophy. Predestination is a form of time loop, in which, the time traveler is caught in a loop of events that predestines them to travel back in time, thus fulfilling their role to create the future. This loop can be seen in the film, The Terminator.

Firstly, in The Terminator, the character Kyle Reese (27 years old) must go back in time to become the father of his future leader, John Connor (33 years old). Does not make sense right? Well, this is predestination at its finest. Kyle Reese was born in 2002 and was sent back in time to 1984 to become the father of his future leader who had not been born yet. As time progressed, Kyle (under the tutelage of his son, John) would be prompted to go back to the future, thus creating the loop. 

In "Making Things to Have Happened", authors Chisholm and Taylor discuss the sufficiency and impossibility. The impossibility is the focus of The Terminator. Impossibility is it is impossible for event B to take place without event A taking place. And,in case of The Terminator, it is impossible for event A to take place without event B. This is defining the loop in simplest terms. 

But my biggest question for you all is "Is it possible to break this loop"? 

Terminating the Loop

The Terminator, a 1984 movie with questionable graphics that has so many relations to Looper. In both films, there are people from the future traveling back in time to assist some way in the past.  The question we discussed in class was how did Bruce Willis not know what Younger Version of him would do.  Just like in Terminator, Kyle had to come back in time to save Sarah Conner from the Terminator because she was the going to carry the future of the human existence.  Unlike in Terminator, Joseph Gorden- Levett had to see what the potential future would be when the Future him came back and did the damage to the child Seth.  Yet, Kyle in the Terminator came back and became the father to John Conner, leader of the rebellion. The issue with the paradox with time is that the future joins the past which equals the present; though neither film had the same time traveling effect with regards to memory.  Looper was focused on the future in a sense that memories could constantly be accessed, Terminator was not using a lot of memories from the future to aid the quest to save Sarah.  They did not know where the Terminator was going to be.  All characters from the future had to join the past because there was no way to ever get back to the future.  Which begs to question the of how time traveling back into time, why is it so loved by movie writers? Why change the past, to potentially make a better future? Thinking of people trying to consider "time as a river", and "space as a great motionless vessel", how can one possibly believe traveling back up the river (into the past) is nearly as possibly and traveling into the future.  Going back into the future poses so much threat to certain existence because if just one thing is changed, a life can be altered, a species can be eliminated, Earth can be destroyed; Or in Looper, Seth could become the RainMaker, or John Conner not existing at all.  The simple paradox of time travel into the past to alter the future is impossible, even though Hollywood thrives from the idea.

Wondering Why Hot Tub Time Machine Didn't Make The List

David Lewis and Dr. J have both mentioned the grandfather theory: if one were to go back in time, she could not kill her grandfather because he would be incapable of having her parent who would be incapable of giving birth to her. In one scene in Back to the Future, Marty saves his father from an oncoming vehicle and saves his life; this is an interesting alternative to the grandfather theory.  We never considered the possibility of saving our parent, grandparent, or distant ancestor from death; something else would have saved them, as we exist, yet we could have also?

One major fallacy arises as the movie concludes: the dynamic of each of Marty’s family members has changed.  Because Marty altered his parents’ path, they became more confident and successful.  Their lives are drastically different: considering this, Marty’s existence would be too, and he would not exist or would exist as a different Marty, one who did not travel backward in time and eventually return.

My time machine theory (please ignore the logical errors): if one person had access to a time machine, travelled back in time (assume they're leaving 2015), and stayed for more than a moment, the present (2015) would change.  Someone would have stayed at a stop light one second longer, another person would not have bumped into their future spouse, etc. If numerous people time travelled backward, the present would begin to change drastically. If many people travelled back in time, the present would change constantly, every fraction of a second, you would be a different person or cease to exist. I’m not sure if that makes sense, but one person could change the present and future, so numerous people could radically alter it.

Richard Taylor’s description of time travel is simple, undermines all of our classroom theories, and is a total buzzkill: “To imagine “returning” to an earlier time is merely to imagine the recurrence of the events of that time” (484).  In other words, it is impossible and left solely for the imagination.  According to Taylor, “The future is something necessarily lying ahead of us, and the past, behind us”…sorry Marty (486).

Sidenote: way easier to follow than Looper.

Check out if you're bored, finished all your homework, and enjoy silly conspiracy theories and/or buzzfeed-like articles:

Reasons Time Travel Exists: lmao ok

Groundhog Day

Groundhog Day portrays the evolution of a man's perception while stuck in a seemingly endless time loop. At the start, Phil Connors is egotistical and manipulative; his only concern is to get out of Punxsutawney and, soon enough, out of the time lope he becomes suck in. Connors' first actions in this time loop involve him manipulating the people around him to achieve temporary pleasures, such as robbing the bank truck, seducing women, and endangering others' lives to take a joy ride. Connors lives like this for a while, only doing things to amuse himself. Eventually, he begins to dread the time loop. Everything thing he does is done in efforts to free himself from the time loop. So, though Connors has total control of his free will, his primary reasoning has changed. This the changes the type of actions Connors carries out. Connors is stuck in the time loop and a bout of depression. He continues to try to break the time loop, but several failed attempts leaves Connors depressed. He attempts suicide several times trying to break the loop, but he finds no success. Connors, in his depression, loses his sense of free will when his suicide attempts just end with him waking up again on Groundhog Day. Through out a lot of the movie, Connors tries to woo his co-worker Rita. Connors, after his depression, decides to change how he interacts with the people he encounters. He is nicer to others and uses the knowledge he's learned over the course of his time loop to help others. So, through this time loop, Connors has some fundamental changes in his ideology. This in turn allows him to act on different wants or needs. He makes such a dramatic change from the start of the time loop to the end of it that he is able to break the time loop. His ability to discover new desires and act on things to lead him to that desire show how Connors continued to have free will throughout the time loop, though it seems his actions were limited at times. In the beginning, Connors is acting in things to build himself up to satisfy his self-absorbed perspective. But as the story progresses, he starts to act in a more kind manner to others because he has grown tired of his manipulative and lonely ways. This change in him is eventually what is able to break the time loop. 

The Puppeteer

Craig Schwartz to Monkey: You don't know how lucky you are being a monkey. Because consciousness is a terrible curse. I think. I feel. I suffer. And all I ask in return is the opportunity to do my work. And they won't allow it... because I raise issues.

Summary: Puppeteer Craig Schwartz and pet store clerk Lotte Schwartz are just going through the motions of their marriage. Despite not being able to earn a living solely through puppeteering, Craig loves his profession as it allows him to inhabit the skin of others. He begins to take the ability to inhabit the skin of others to the next level when he is forced to take a job as a file clerk for the off-kilter LesterCorp. Behind one of the filing cabinets in his work area, Craig finds a hidden door which he learns is a portal into the mind of John Malkovich, the visit through the portal which lasts fifteen minutes after which the person is spit into a ditch next to the New Jersey Turnpike. Craig is fascinated by the meaning of life associated with this finding. Lotte's trips through the portal make her evaluate her own self. And the confident Maxine Lund, one of Craig's co-workers who he tells about the portal if only because he is attracted to her, thinks that it is a money making opportunity in selling trips into Malkovich's mind after office hours for $200 a visit. Craig, Lotte and Maxine begin to understand that anyone entering the portal has the ability to control Malkovich's mind, which also alters his entire being. This experience makes Maxine fall in love with a composite. This ability to control Malkovich's mind begs the question of the ultimate psychedelic trip for Malkovich himself, who begins to feel that something is not right in the world as he knows it.

 At the beginning of the movie, Craig tells the monkey about having a consciousness; he sees it as a curse as it allows him to feel, think, and suffer. Suffer because of his free will, his will to make choices and have to live up to the consequences. We see Craig's free will all through out the movie. However, the free will of a person is portrayed very distinctly in the movie. While in Leaving Las Vegas, the free will is seen in the actions that both Ben and Sera make; in Being John Malkovich the free will of a person is shown as having control over their own mind.

Lotte, Craig's wife, goes into the tunnel and is inside of John's mind, however, so far both Lotte and Craig have no control over John's mind. When Lotte emerges from John's mind, she tells Craig that she is transgender, she feels like she is a man. In an attempt for figure out her emotions, Lotte goes back in and while in John's mind she receives a call from Maxine and she invites John out to dinner. When Lotte returns to John's mind to met up for dinner, she falls in love with Maxine. Both Lotte and Craig are in love with Maxine, but Maxine only has feelings for Lotte when she's in John's body and has no feeling for Craig. In an attempt to receive Maxine's love, Craig goes inside John's mind and has intercourse with Maxine and finds out the he can control John. The remaining of the movie turns into a battle of John's free will, Craig has taken over John, but Maxine has taken Craig's free will as he will do anything to please her and receive her love. John loses his free will to Craig and he can't do anything about it. While Craig is in full control of his mind, he ends up living through John's life and is no one without John. The puppeteer has control of the puppet, but is nothing without the puppet.