'The Truman Show' analysis

When watching 'The Truman Show' I struggled to pinpoint a genre as it doesn't specifically fit into any category. At first, I felt it was a comedy but then the revelations about Truman's 'fake' life and his reactions gave it a sub-genre of a drama. The whole series of deaths and upset, aswell as Truman's dramatic anger and reactions made me think it was a comedy-drama.

Throughout the film it was clear 'The Truman Show' broke most theorists conventions. For example Vladimir Propp's theory of stock characters included in almost every narrative, doesn't specifically apply to 'The Truman Show'. Although you assume Truman is the 'hero' and the 'stolen lover' from his teens is the 'princess' the other characters are almost made out all to be villains. All of the characters are lying to Truman and producers of the show even attempt to kill Truman in order to stop his escaping his 'bubble world'. There is no 'helper' or any of Propp's stock characters.

The same applies to the binary opposites theory created by Levi Strauss. You have the obvious good vs evil, with Truman being the good and the producers of his world being the evil, and of course the light vs dark that works alongside it. Aside from that there are no other clear binary opposites

However 'The Truman Show' does include Roland Barthes semiotics. At the very start of the film, a piece of film set falls into the middle of the road, and the audience immediately recognises this is a sign, that all in Truman's world is not as it seems. The secretive camera angles adds to this. Throughout the film you work alongside Truman, discovering more signs that suggest the issues with Truman's world.
ROLAND - SIGNS/SEMIOTICS