Oedipus & Minority Report Questions

"What good are eyes to me? / Nothing I could see could bring me joy" (1472-1473).

To what extent is Oedipus responsible for his own fate in the play? Be prepared to discuss at least two examples from the text which lead you to believe he is or is not responsible.

How good a king is Oedipus?  In what ways does he excel as a leader?  In what ways does he fall short? 

    Oedipus also has certain shortcomings as a leader, the most prominent of which in this text being his distrust of outside opinions. Or rather, Oedipus seems to be paranoid of opposition. An example of this would be his reaction to Creus' alleged attempt to remove him from power. Oedipus accuses Creon of trying to remove him from power by having Teresias prophesize lies that say the king is guilty. Creon cunningly explains that this could not be the case; it would be irrational considering that the two had equal shares of power in the kingdom, and that he wanted nothing of Oedipus' power. Even after this explanation, Oedipus will not accept that Teresias' words were of his own accord. "When my enemy moves against me quickly, / ... I plot and pay him back." Creon then replies, "What do you want? / You want me banished?" Oedipus relentlessly denies the banishment: "No, I want you dead" (693-700). The accusations against Oedipus were extreme, but not as extreme as his sudden avowal to execute a close friend and fellow ruler. Thus, Oedipus falls short as a leader when he makes rash accusations to protect his reputation and his powerful position.
    
    On the other hand, Oedipus generally comes across as a benevolent monarch; a well-intentioned man. He listens sincerely to the words of the people and does all that is in his power to help his dying city. Perhaps he may have had alterior motives (fighting for the sake of his own dignity, pride, or arrogance), but in the eyes of his people he was a just and righteous ruler. When the murder of Laius is revealed as the curse on the city, Oedipus addresses Creon, saying "Now you have me to fight for you, you'll see: / I am the land's avenger by all rights, / and Apollo's champion too" (153-155).

Since Oedipus is considered the quintessential tragic hero, then what would you argue is his tragic mistake?  In other words, what in his own character/personality or what wrong-headed action does he take which leads him to his ultimate downfall? Choose a particular flaw or action and explain its relation to his disgrace and exile.

The excruciating situation in which Oedipus indirectly vows to banish himself from his city is mostly just that: a situation. On the surface there was nothing Oedipus could have done to know his deeds, and he could not have avoided the curse placed upon him. However, it is understandably hard to believe that Oedipus had no free will in his life--or rather, he killed the man that he was destined to kill, without knowing this explicit destiny. I think the most notable character flaw with Oedipus is his inconsistency of purpose in his pursuit of information. His goal is to find the murderer of Laius, and yet when Teresias is in his court trying to explain the truth to him, he lowers himself and insults Teresias' blindness, having nothing to offer. It was as if Oedipus secretly knew his own destiny, and knew what he had done, right at that moment--and wanted to write off his wrongdoings to the alleged conspiracies of Creon.

If we agree that Oedipus the King is about the role of fate and humans’ inability to escape destiny, in what ways does Minority Report, and the character of John Anderton in particular, support or refute Oedipus’ notion of destiny?  Think of two scenes that support your position.

The film more directly challenges the problem of free will and the escape of a predicted destiny. The scene in which Anderton kills the man that (he thought prior) killed his son is the first notable example of his struggle against his destiny.

The eyes are often associated not just with the act of seeing but also of revealing oneself to others. In the film, explain the different ways that eyes or the act of seeing are used for:  1. The Precogs, 2. John Anderton, 3. The culture of the world of the film. 

The Precogs were chosen and imprisoned mainly for the ability of their minds, but their superhuman talent can also be attributed to a type of foresight--so not actually their eyes, but rather their ability to see events that have not yet transpired. Their ability is the basis for the entire Precrime operation and vastly helps the government enact control over the people of DC.

Anderton's eyes or ability to see are not superior to anyone else in his surroundings, but within the Precrime operation he is the only one daring enough to question the principle of predicting people's future decisions. In Anderton's case his eyes are primarily useful for authentication; when he goes back to the Precrime building in order to retrieve Agatha, he uses "his" eyes to unlock the doors.

In the surrounding culture, eyes are the government's token of identification. Wherever anyone goes, automated eye-scanners pick up on the identity of everyone passing through. On the government end, people that are fugitives or outlaws can be kept track of and apprehended much more easily than they would be otherwise. For people, this means that their every move and decision is tracked by some external source; when one walks into a store, they are greeted personally and recommended certain items based on their purchase history. (Perhaps, due to this extensive database of information, it was able to more accurately predict the decisions people would make that lead to murder.)

The story upon which the movie is based was written in the 1950's.  The movie came out in 2002 but is set in 2054.  How much of the events/the attitudes of the movie do you see in contemporary American culture?  Where will be in 44 years?  Speculate on the direction in which our country is headed.  What future contingencies are we preparing for?  To what extent does our attempt to prepare for certain future events determine our own fate?

Certain observations that struck me during my viewing of the film did seem relevant to the general future of the United States. There was certainly a new level of technological expertise and innovation, what with the levitating cars and such, but less superficially I found the explicit class divide with respect to new technology a very realistic proposition. One may note that well-to-do individuals, such as John Anderton, live in futuristic apartments with automated appliances and voice-activated stereos and lighting systems. But when Anderton is on the run from his own people, the movie implicitly focuses on some of the less affluent communities in the futuristic portrayal of Washington, D.C. For example, when Anderton runs to the former plastic surgeon who exchanges his eyes, he has to hide out in a lower-middle-class apartment complex and avoid the spiders. The brief insights into the lives of the other people in the apartment complex suggest that although the city on the surface is incredibly well industrialized, the average people benefit very little from this, while still being tracked and controlled by central authority.

In considering your reading/viewing, we asked you to think about the degree to which our contemporary world resembles the 2054 "future" of Minority Report. Check out this NPR podcast to hear several ways in which the future is now.  What do you think of these huge technological?  Which will be most beneficial?  Which is most disturbing?

I will admit that with the advent of powerful technology--and the widespread adoption of such technology by consumers in the form of personal devices--there is a great potential for surveillance or malicious disploits to be a major detriment to a large population. As more internet-enabled devices are adopted the potential of such a future expands. However, I feel that the dispute between predetermined destiny and human autonomy established in the film does not apply today. Traditionally, such a discussion would exist over religious or spiritual boundaries; for technology to become a large enough component of daily life for it to jeopardize the certainty of human autonomy is a bewildering thought. Perhaps in the literal year 2054, such a scenario would be more feasible, but I see less of that reflection in the workings of our contemporary society.