minority report

Minority Report - Individual Autonomy vs Collective Good

Warning: this essay contains spoilers for the movie Minority Report. 

You can’t run, John!

One of the fundamental questions Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report poses is whether or not individual autonomy weighs more than the collective good. This question is particularly apparent in the finale, which, albeit conclusive, roots itself on a rather open-ended question: 

Why exactly was PreCrime disbanded? 

The most obvious answer assumes that once Lamar Burgess’s murderous past to establish PreCrime was uncovered, the public moral outrage was too much of a PR nightmare to deal with (presumably, PreCrime was funded on taxpayer’s money). However, such an assumption would be far too simplistic and naive, especially given America’s notorious history of violating human rights in the name of homeland security (think Guantanamo Bay, for starters). No, to assume that one woman’s death would sufficiently rouse public protest against a seemingly perfect system that creates a utopia of safety is, sadly, too naive of a notion to be sufficient a reason. Instead, let’s consider the alternative reason why PreCrime was disbanded – the possibility that innocent people may have been wrongly jailed. 

While this second reason may seem obvious to the viewer, consider that, like many things hidden away from the public, PreCrime’s internal function was unknown to many outside its precincts: in one scene, a man giving a tour to school children claims that the three precogs – Arthur, Dashiell, and Agatha – have their own rooms with toys, books, and exercise equipment, and that they must be kept in isolation because they are too sensitive to normal environmental stimuli; in reality, the precogs are kept in a narcotic state in an isolated, antiseptic room, never quite awake nor quite asleep, just so they can function 24/7 for PreCrime to predict any potential murder at any given time. So while the tour scene is a small one (and more of some background dialogue while we see John Anderton paralyze his own facial muscles to look twenty years older), we can assume that, like the naivety and outright ignorance of the touring school children and the tour guide, the general public in Minority Report really has no idea the intricate, internal workings of PreCrime beyond its ultimate result – that it stops murders from happening, and the numbers show. 

So now let’s assume that once Burgess committed suicide and (presumably) Anderton testified to everything that happened – how PreCrime works, who Ann Lively was, why and how she was murdered, why he was set up by Lamar – would the reasons for individual autonomy and innocent until proven guilty still hold? Somehow, I find myself doubting either reason: Anderton states that there has not been a single murder in D.C. ever since PreCrime was established; additionally, most crimes after the establishment of PreCrime are spontaneous crimes of passion, which means the PreCrime officers more or less caught the perpetrators in the act of murder, as can be seen in the opening sequence of the movie. This means PreCrime 100% is efficient on paper – something unheard of in the real world. So would anyone dare to suggest disbanding such a system if there was even the slightest, most minute chance someone may have been jailed unjustly? Somehow, I find that very doubtful. 

While the chances of a minority report (when one precog disagrees with the other two in a prediction) are never stated, we can assume that it happens infrequently enough that the original creators of PreCrime would design the system to erase said minority report (note: Wally, the caretaker of the precogs, only erases echoes, aka the instances when the precogs visualize past predictions. Presumably he does not manually erase minority reports because that could possibly lead to error, which PreCrime touts as non-existent, which means the erasure of minority reports is likely done by a computer). Even then, only a handful of people would know that such a mechanism existed – Anderton, himself the head police officer of PreCrime, did not know of this until consulting with the retired Dr. Iris Hineman, the other co-founder of PreCrime – so until the revelation about Burgess, it’s highly unlikely that anyone knew how to manipulate the PreCrime system to commit murder undetected. PreCrime, despite its intrinsic human error, is a perfect system. 

You could argue that PreCrime was disbanded on the basis of human error, given it was touted as an absolutely perfect system. However, if you put it in perspective, there really isn’t any system that’s truly perfect: random error is inevitable, and the goal of a system designer is to minimize (ideally eradicate) systematic errors as much as possible. In this case, PreCrime is possibly one of the best systems you could ever ask for: minority reports (analogously random errors) are known to exist to only a few people, and beyond that everything is controlled with perfect, surgical precision. 

The most feasible reason for PreCrime’s disbandment, then, must be because of the potential corruption of the upper echelons of PreCrime – the systematic error, per se. When Burgess’s motives and means of securing PreCrime became public, it became very clear that, with the right position, power and knowledge, anyone could manipulate the PreCrime system and commit murders any which way they want. Of course, such a manipulation takes quite the planning and proper time span – I could only imagine the intricate steps Burgess took to kill Ann Lively without being caught, or what sum of money he must have offered Leo Crow in order to imprison Anderton before the truth about Lively’s death and the inherent, systematic flaw of PreCrime became apparent – so presumably, Burgess wanted to silence Anderton and anyone who could potentially uncover the truth about PreCrime and minority reports before such knowledge became untraceable with subsequent generations (this assumes, of course, that the existence of minority reports was never documented and was known only by the co-founders of PreCrime). We could infer, thus, that Burgess effectively wanted to create the ultimate utopian country when PreCrime became a national establishment. 

However, once it became apparent that the systematic flaw of PreCrime was not the minority reports themselves but in the way it dealt with random flaws (by erasing minority reports instead of allowing the PreCrime officers to consider alternative futures of the supposed perpetrators and/or victims), the disbandment of PreCrime was inevitable because such a systematic flaw not only rendered PreCrime as an imperfect system, but that such imperfection meant that this system itself could not justify its lack of “innocent until proven guilty” judicial processing. Even if hundreds of potential perpetrators were caught in the act of committing murder, it also means that those who were convicted of pre-meditated murder (those not caught in the act), regardless of their murderous potential, were jailed without due processing, thus violating their own civil right to testify in court. PreCrime is nothing short of an autocracy – a utopic one, but autocratic nonetheless. 

Minority Report ends on a rather unique note. On the surface, it argues that individual autonomy and civil rights outweigh the needs of a collective – Arthur, Dashiell and Agatha are eventually released to live out the rest of their lives in peace in isolation – and that misdemeanor can only be rightly punished after the fact because the future, no matter how accurate a prediction may be, is never absolute. The more interesting implication stems from the fact that PreCrime, once its flaws become apparent, is no different than an autocracy, yet until its disbandment is fully supported by the American public. The remaining question lies once again in the question regarding the balance between individual autonomy and the collective good, and at what cost we are willing to sacrifice to fulfill the needs of one side of the scale; unsurprisingly, Minority Report argues for the former (it’s an American film after all) and ends on a rather hopeful, humane tone as well. 

Everybody runs.

…

Old Writing on Minority Report and Recommended Reading: 

The Metaphysics and Paradoxes of Minority Report – originally posted on October 12th, 2010

Is there a Minority Report?, or: What is Subjectivity? – Matthew Sharpe, PhD

The Metaphysics and Paradoxes of "Minority Report"

Concerning Possibility 1:

When I ask whether the human failure to predict the future is “epistemological,” I mean simply: does our failure to predict what is to come equate to a failure to know something that is in principle knowable? If this supposition is true, the future is actually a thing already laid out fully formed in some “fourth” dimension, or is at least something all of whose necessary conditions are already fully laid out, so we are merely playing out roles that are constantly bringing it into fruition. The issue in either case is that we humans just do not happen to know this future, because of our lamentable epistemic limitation or “finitude.” Beings who are not finite like us, however, like God, angels, or the pre-cogs in Minority Report, could conceivably have the epistemic equipment—or as Kant might say the “intellectual intuition"—to know it.

Concerning Possibility 2:

The second option raised is a more radical one. It is that our human failure to know the future is ontologically revealing. This failure is not something to be lamented, because it indicates something about the nature of the spatio-temporal universe. What it indicates, quite simply, is that the future is not the kind of thing any creature could ever know, and for the very best reason: namely, because it does not exist as a fully pre-formed set of actualities that could ever be known by anyone or anything.

- Matthew Sharpe, PhD in Is there a Minority Report? or what is Subjectivity?

Minority Report is one of my all-time favorite films for numerous reasons, one of them primarily making me rethink film as a narrative and artistic medium (as well as opening up my love for classic and modern film noir). The premise is this: in 2054 Washington D.C., murder has become a relic of the past thanks to the Precog program, a program which consists of three precogs – children with the ability to predict future murders, homicides and killings – that acts preemptively to prevent would-be killers from committing their crimes. John Anderton (played by Tom Cruise) is the head of the pre-crime unit, leading a routine life until one day, he is preemptively accused of killing a man he has never met. The movie takes off with John trying to prove his own innocence while diving into the truth about the Precog program and the nature of a minority report. 

Minority Report’s premise presents interesting ideas about the ontological paradoxes regarding future predictions – so much so that I felt compelled to write about one of the most fascinating scenes is at the very end (here’s the video link): 

John openly confronts Lamar (the Precog director) about the corruption behind the pre-crime program, bellowing out in rage and fury for everything that has cumulated up until now. The precogs, sensing Lamar’s murderous intent, begin narrating the future yet to unfold, and very closely so to when the actual events are occurring that at one point, John and a precog overlap in what they are saying. This presents some additional paradoxes about the nature of a precog for reasons I will attempt to illustrate here: 

This is a little schematic I drew up to demonstrate how closely the precog’s prediction is in conjunction to the actual event taking place:

  • Events (i.e. dialogues) are denoted by letters A through E
  • t = 0 is the event occurring during "real-time,” t = +1 is the event being predicted by the precogs, and t = –1 is the event told after fact (which does not apply here)
  • ∆y is the time difference between what the precogs predict and when the prediction occurs
  • The blue line designates on what time frame (i.e. future or real-time) the precogs narrate what eventually occurs real-time: therefore, the smaller ∆y becomes, the sooner the precog’s prediction comes true; additionally, if ∆y = 0, then the precogs are narrating the events in real-time as they occur (eg. event D)

To better illustrate what I’m trying to get at, here are the events (dialogues) and their corresponding screenshots, and for clarity’s sake overlapping dialogue will be bolded (note: it’s much easier to see what I’m talking about if you watch the video beforehand): 

…

Dialogue A: the precog’s prediction is preemptive before the actual event (Lamar’s and John’s dialogue), as inferred by how the dialogue of the precog and real-time subject (i.e. Agatha and Lamar) do not overlap. 

Precog 1 (Agatha): “Think about all the lives that little girl has saved" 

 

Lamar: ”Think about the lives that little girl saved. Think about all the lives she will save. Let her go. She could have saved Sean.“

John: "Don’t you EVER say his name!!!”

…

Dialogue B: Precog #2 takes over the narrative prediction, which is still preemptive relative to the real-time event (John yelling) taking place. 

Precog #2: “You used the memory of my dead son to set me up”

John: “You USED the memory of my dead son to set me up! That was the ONE thing you knew that would drive me to murder…”

…

Dialogue C: Precog #3 takes over the narrative prediction, which is still preemptive. Note however that ∆y (the time between the prediction and real-time) is shorter, i.e. the cut between the prediction (precog) and event (John). 

Precog #3: “What are you gonna do now, Lamar?”

John: “What are you gonna do now, Lamar?”

…

Dialogue D: This is the most interesting portion of the preemptive narration of the precogs. Here, the precog’s prediction overlaps with the real-time event – that is, both the precog and John say the same line at the same time. This is jarringly different than the nature of the precog’s presented beforehand, which has always been preemptive, and additionally presents another paradox regarding the precogs’ nature (which I will discuss shortly below). 

Precog #3: “How are you gonna – ”

John: “ – shut me up?!”

…

Dialogue E: the precogs revert back from real-time narration to their normal preemptive narration; notably, ∆y is larger than original (unfortunately this is not up to scale in my first schematic) because Lamar and John are not yet together on the patio/rooftop. 

Precog: “Forgive me, John." 

Lamar: "Forigve me, John.”

…

Some may argue that this extends to an argument of pre-destination versus freedom of will, and that our inability to predict the future is a necessary quality: all this and considering what’s presented in Minority Report, I’d say we have for ourselves an interesting case of where narration within the universe – as opposed to the traditional narrative speaking outside of the universe – functions as another unique paradox within the film’s universe; that is, the precogs are simultaneously narrating to us the viewer what is going on and to the people within precrime, and eventually at a small paradoxical point in time the precog is essentially rehearsing what is occurring real-time. Additionally, we can consider how this works from a metaphysics/modern physics POV, and what paradoxes (or impossibilities) arise as a result of the precogs preemptive narrative nature: 


Some notes about this schematic of the future and past light cones: 

  • y-axis = time t from event A, x-axis = distance r from event A
  • event A occurs at (0,0) 
  • 1/c = the limit, derived from rise/run = ∆y/∆x = ∆t/∆r = 1/velocity = 1/speed of light (speed of light notated as c)
  • Above x-axis = the future, below the x-axis = the past
  • r distance is a function of t time, r(t)

Now, to illustrate what occurs before event A (past light cone) and after event A (future light cone): 

  1. The shaded yellow area below the x-axis = all cumulative events leading up to the occurrence of event A
  2. Event A occurs
  3. At t₁, subject at rᵢ away from event A is affected (r₁ ≤ rᵢ)
  4. The shaded dark green area above the x-axis = all events possibly affected by event A up until t₁
  5. The light green area above the x-axis = all events possibly affected by event A past (and inclusive of events prior to) t₁
  6. All of these events – past and future - demonstrate the core concept of causality: events prior to event A cumulate into the occurrence of event A, and the occurrence of event A affects all possible future events afterwards. 

Some important notes to consider regarding modern physics: 

  • The information of event A travels at the speed of light along the limit 1/c
  • Light always travels  forward, therefore the information of event A progresses forward as well (aka you cannot jump back to the past light cone once you have crossed the x-axis into the future light cone); by extension, information cannot be “time traveled” backwards
  • EVERYTHING is dependent on event A
  • EVERYTHING is in the same frame of reference (aka everything occurs during the same relative time)
  • r is always less than or equal to rᵢ because nothing travels faster than the speed of light
  • 1/c is on both sides of the y-axis because the information of event A travels in opposite and complementary directions (i.e. if I snap my fingers between you and I, the sound of the snap would travel towards me and towards you at the same time) - thus, the light cone shape results on a 2D scale
  • The value of 1/c is VERY small, thus indicating that at a given, small interval of time, the information of effect A has traveled much farther with respect to r – that is, for a small about of t, you travel a large amount of r with respect to the limit 1/c that dictates how information of the event traverses forward in time. To scale, t is short and r is large
  • Anything that occurs outside the shaded areas of yellow, dark or light green are caused by a different event other than event A

With all of this in mind, we can now see why the precogs, by default of their predicting nature, violate the principle of causality with their Mode of Operation (M.O.): 

  1. Before the precogs are stimulated by a murderous vision (event A), they exist before event A takes places, and are as unaware of its possibility as anyone else (they exist below the x-axis at t = -1)
  2. Once the precogs are stimulated by the murderous vision (event A), they essentially jump towards the future where event A has already occurred (they experience above the x-axis at t = +1) and learn of the information regarding event A
  3. The precogs then jump back below the x-axis back to the past light cone from the future light cone to pre-event A, yet still remember the information they retained from post-event A and are now able to narrate the occurrence of event A
  4. During the unique event D, the precog narrates what’s occurring real time (they are at t = 0), yet continue to violate causality since they are at a r distance away from event D, which occurs at t=0, r=0 - that is, how the precogs are perceiving the event is occurring faster than the speed of light c 

This presents a lot of paradoxes and problems within the realm of modern physics since accordingly, you cannot know of an event’s occurrence until after the event has occurred by virtue of light (and by extension information) progressing forward only: to predict the future is to essentially “time travel” from before to after and then back to before the event occurs and retain information, which would mean you made information “progress backwards” - which is impossible from what we currently understand with modern physics. 

The precogs essentially violate the nature of causality by their own preemptive nature, which adds another interesting question of whether or not they included themselves in the occurrence (or not) of event A: 

The acknowledgment of this evident paradox raises what is decisive in terms of our trying to decide the philosophical issue of freedom-necessity raised by the film, both within it and “for ourselves.” It shows that each of the pre-cogs’ predictions in Minority Report represents a phenomenon exactly akin to Bertrand Russell’s famousparadoxical list. As you may know, this is a list that aspires to list all the lists that have ever existed that did notinclude themselves in what they inventoried. As Russell reasoned, when we try to think about such a list, and specifically about whether it might ever be completable, we soon run into an aporia.

– Matthew Sharpe

Based on the metaphysical extrapolation of the precogs functions, they are essentially entities that are within and external to progression of time within the universe of Minority Report yet still adhere to the same frame of reference relative to the same universe: they can predict an accurate future without including themselves as a cumulative effect into whether or not effect A occurs, yet at the same time are very much embedded within the past light cone that filters into effect A even occurring all. By nature, they are the perfect paradox that breaks any “rule” or “limit” of modern (but not theoretical) physics: they’re both humans and Gods, effectively. 

The precogs really present a inherent paradox to the metaphysics of accurate prediction, and whether or not the ontological paradox really exists if the precogs do not factor themselves as entities also cumulating into the occurrence (or not) of any given event – all of which makes Minority Report a fascinating film to consider from a metaphysical, philosophical and narrative POV. 

*Note: I learned ALL of the (meta)physics after two hours of consulting from a nuclear engineer and previous knowledge. All qualms with my mistakes should be shot at me, slingshots and all. 

Two hours were spent on this whiteboard as I (re)learned aspects of light cones, special relativity, and the limits of light, time and information progression. 

The Terrible Power of Memory Manipulation

If there ever was a deadlier power over humans, memory manipulation stands alone as a deeply personal one. 

Many famous serials and stories use memory as a premise for their plots and people, which is unsurprising: immediately there’s a plot device of mystery and intrigue surrounding the character – whether it be internal or external – and for the rest of the story we want to see why, what, and how it all happened – the genesis, the origin, the forbidden fruit, we’re hooked on piecing together what exactly is going on. 

Memory manipulation, of course, occurs to varying degrees. There’s the traditional all-out amnesia, which can be seen all the way back from old folk and fairy lore like princes who forgot their true beloved in stories collected by the Brothers Grimm; there’s classic science fiction elements of wiping out a personality and replacing it with another, as seen in Total Recall starring Arnold Scharzenegger (“If I am not me, then who the hell am I?!”); the selective erasure from a portion of memory, which drives Jack Harkness to pursue and find out why a previous organization did so to him; residual memories that are passed onto the next generation by unique means, like in The Giver; stories that deal with real world medical issues of neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer’s in Away from Her; and then the murky past that serves both as a beacon of light and a haunting, driving obsession to either resolve or run away from it, seen all too often in serials like Jason Bourne. 

Why are memory narratives so engaging? Foremost they are psychological: more than the physical actions at hand are the underlying pulsations of nerve signal, the undulating nuances of electrochemical messages spiking back and forth, to and from somas to axons to dendrites of neurons; yet beyond these neurobiological bounds there is something more science has yet (or if ever) to fully encompass and objectify what exactly composes the arena of irrational emotions – the enigma of psychology. 

We can never be sure if our memory is 100% accurate. Details are lost, omissions are consciously or subconsciously made, facts vary slightly, retellings and subsequent recounting dilutes the actual event more and more: it’s a very fickle component of our cognitive existence – essential, but fickle. Evolutionary, memory serves as a compilation of survival and social skills needed to get by – instinctual muscle memory and habitual memory, you could say. And while humans have evolved to exist on secondary resources (e.g. money) as a means to indirectly survive off primary resources (e.g. soil, water), thus leading to cultural and infrastructural development as we know it, memory still plays an integral part of our daily lives. Whether it’s habitually checking your car mirrors,  playing a piano piece without sheet music or even balancing on your bike – memory is all over the place, instinctually and habitually so. 

Memory is more nuanced than instinctual and habitual tendencies. There are instances we remember for various reasons. From what your boss told you this morning (“Do you still have my stapler?”) to how beautiful your spouse looks on the eve of your honeymoon, what we choose to remember is essential to how our lives function, and invariably these memories – regardless of intention or purpose – are driven by deeply personal reasons. After awhile, the truest aspect of memories is the emotion associated with them – emotions of love, hate, happiness, pain, joy, sorrow, wonder, trauma, all of it. In this sense, memories are incredibly raw in the undulating, hidden reservoirs of our cognitive conscious. This is why memory manipulation is such a engaging and haunting narrative premise to play off of. 

Take for example Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report. John Anderton, upon discovering a glitch in the pre-cog system, soon learns that he will kill a man he has never met. Despite great efforts to evade a highly computerized (optimistically futuristic) society, Anderton eventually finds the room of the alleged victim, Leo Crow. 

This scene is crucial: Anderton sees the man’s bed covered with pictures of children, one of which is of the man with his missing (and likely deceased) son, Sean. Upon seeing these photos Anderton completely breaks down, and when Crow returns into the room Anderton violently rushes at and brutally beats down Crow in a fiery rage and passion. 

What’s noticeable about this climatic scene is that up until now, Anderton methodically and cooly found clues to who could possibly be framing him. Yes, there are moments of action, but nothing compared to the almost bestial fury he unleashes when he’s led to believe Crow was the pedophile who kidnapped (and probably killed) his only son years ago.  And despite the orgy of evidence evident upon the scene (as Danny Witwer later determines, “this [was] a set up”), Anderton lets go of logic to act upon his primal emotions of anger and pain, to unleash upon this alleged man all the emotional scars that never found solace or closure for all these years. Haunted by guilt and long, long episodes of desperation and disillusionment, Anderton holds his memory of Sean so closely to his heart that in a moment of weakness, he loses all his cool and nearly fulfills his own predicted destiny. 

Anderton’s reaction results from an external and intricate manipulation of a memory deeply personal and painful. It’s a very low blow, but considering the perpetrator accomplished other personal goals prior and after it’s not surprise they used such effective and cruel psychological puppeteering. His emotional response is a powerful one not because of what happened, but because it is raw and unrefined beyond any measure of objectivity. 

While Minority Report explored the consequences of a memory past, Christopher Nolan’s breakthrough Memento explored individual fragments of memory leading up to the final consequence. 

Structurally, Memento is one of a kind: it begins with a man being shot, and then a backwards (and eventually forwards) progression to where it all began, where we the viewer finally piece together what has happened to the character of Leonard Shelby, who suffers from anterograde amnesia (the loss of ability to create new memories after the event which caused amnesia due to damage to the hippocampus or surrounding cortices). 

Shelby is haunted by memories of his wife, who he believed was killed by the same burglars who caused him to suffer from retrograde amnesia. He gets by by taking pictures of people and scenery, and then writing himself notes about what he feels or knows about the subjects in the moment he can still recall these feelings or knowledge; that way, he hopes, he progress forward and not start over again from scratch. Lastly, the most important information that he can absolutely never, ever forget – he tattoos them on himself. Fool proof, right?

Wrong. As we can see from an outsider’s objective lens, the people around him manipulate Shelby’s artificial memory mechanism for their own exploits: Shelby’s landlord charges him for two rooms while he only occupies one; Natalie uses him to drive out a man Dodd from town; and Teddy uses Shelby’s investigative vigor to track down his own set of criminals (or so he says). 

There’s a lot of discussion about the fabula and sujet of Memento, but for writing purposes I won’t discuss them here right now. Instead, I believe the implications of Nolan’s breakthrough indie speaks volumes for a few reasons: 

As I’ve said before, memory is not 100% valid: it is a figment of collected information stored in our brains, clipped and edited to our needs and liking. Even if we document the actual events via writing, photography or film, there is always the question of who’s perspective these forms of documenting come from, and whether or not they capture enough of the whole event to merit factual validity. We don’t necessarily need these types of documents to remember an event, but they very much help us remember certain details and emotions that would otherwise be lost to the crevices of cognition. In Shelby’s case, he takes polaroid pictures because he needs to write down his thought process immediately: he relies on a artificial means of memory building, and though it is quick it is no where near the processing speed of the human brain. This limited time frame is just enough for people to take advantage of him for their own needs – and by extension, this time frame is the same time for something to seep in and “tamper” our documenting process. 

Minority Report masterfully combines film noir aesthetics with chique science fiction elements, highlighting a very classic form of memory manipulation – the haunting effect that drives the protagonist to act the way they do, an echo from the past leading to the ultimate conclusion. Memento, on the polar opposite fold, is a generously unconventional film that explores memory manipulation in the opposite way, where we know the conclusion but not the beginning, the echo from the past. Both films were released around the same timeframe (Nolan in 2000 and Spielberg in 2002), so it’s especially interesting to see how two films that explore memory resonate and diverge so much from one another. 

Memory is a very intricate arena of the mind, and any tampering of it invariably violates our own identity. At its core, memory manipulation is incredibly intriguing, terrifying, and deeply emotional – enough to make it a terrible power to have over another. 

Additional Recommended Reading

• Is There a Minority Report? (or What is Subjectivity?) – by Matthew Sharpe, PhD in Philosophy from the University of Melbourne.