The
Confrontation between Being and Becoming: An Analysis of Sartrean
Existentialism in Robert Zemeckis’ Cast Away (2000)
Chayan Modak
Ph.D. Research Scholar
Department of English
Cooch Behar Panchanan Barma University
West Bengal, India
Abstract: This paper will
attempt to analyse Chuck Noland, the central character of Robert Zemeckis’
film, Cast Away (2000) from the
perspective of an existential conflict between being and becoming as he is
thrown into an ironical state of void and inaction on the deserted island after
his plane crash-lands into the Pacific Ocean. The film wonderfully portrays how
Chuck who never turns his back on time and is always desperate to resolve his
business odds, encounters a meaningless and absurd situation of strandedness, a
state of being which is ‘self-contained’ and ‘non-conscious’ but he does not
simply accept his situation, rather wages a battle with all possible means to
survive in that wilderness with utmost courage and perseverance. By applying an
Existential philosophy about the nature of being or ontology formulated by
Jean-Paul Sartre in his book Being and Nothingness (1943), the study will focus
on the way the protagonist activates a will to challenge and reject his given
state of being and takes the ‘leap’ to transcend himself into a new state of
being.
Keywords: Being,
Becoming, Sartre, Existentialism, Leap, Cast away
1. Introduction:
Cast Away (2000) is an American survival film which is
written by William Broyles Jr. and directed by Robert Zemeckis. Tom Hanks plays
the central character named Chuck Noland. Chuck is a very punctual executive
engineer who travels the whole world resolving productivity issues for a
company called FedEx. As the title suggests, the film narrates the tale of
Chuck's desperate struggle for survival after he is cast or thrown into a
wilderness full of adversity and devoid of any human sensibility. His encounter
with the brute and non-conscious reality of that wilderness is similar to the
existential confrontation of “being-in-itself” and “being-for-itself”, the two
types of being formulated by Jean-Paul Sartre in his book Being and Nothingness. Chuck represents that conscious and free
human being or the being-for-itself who can defy his facticity by taking the
leap to transcend himself through action. The film portrays how he chooses to
strive so he can break from the given and thus, confirm his being, asserting
the true characteristics of a being-for-itself.
2. Theoretical Framework:
This study deals with
Sartrean Existentialism as a theoretical tool for the sake of discussing and
analysing how the being transforms with respect to the protagonist of the film.
Jean-Paul Sartre’s study of phenomenology is purely based on the study of
consciousness and the relation of consciousness with the being of phenomena.
Jean-Paul Sartre's book on
phenomenological ontology namely Being
and Nothingness basically focuses on two types of being:
i. Being-in-itself or being
of phenomenon
ii. Being-for-itself or
being of consciousness
Sartre has formulated
another mode of being which is “Being-for-others” which, however, is not a
matter of concern for this work.
By the term “being-in-itself”,
Sartre means the non-conscious and objective reality of being which remains
away from the domain of our consciousness or experience of it. Sartre avoids
using the term “man” and “things” in place of “in-itself” and “for-itself”
respectively because of a dualism working in them and also because those terms
imply the concept of hierarchy in which man, the rational animal is deemed to
be superior (Catalano 43).
Sartre puts forward mainly
three features of being-in-itself which are: “Being is in-itself”, “Being is
what it is” and finally, “Being is” (Sartre 20-22). To be precise, in-itself
refers to the “absolute unity that things have with themselves” (Catalano 45).
Being-in-itself can not relate itself with others and it is perfectly “identified
with itself.” It is “brute” existence of things and it is “beyond affirmation
and negation” (46). Further, being is “what it is” that is, it does not require
unity rather “it is its unity” (47). Finally, by the statement “being is”,
Sartre means that being-in-itself exists without “reason and justification.” It
does not stem from any possibility which is a human quality. It is rather
"contingent” which means it is “simply there” without any logical
necessity of its foundation (48).
[Source: (Zemeckis
00:36:52)]
Fig. 1 shows close up
visuals of Chuck who is fully perplexed and unaware of the context. An elevated
mountain peak and the surroundings all around seem to have reduced him into a
phenomenon without any essential qualities. But his gesture also shows a
willingness to apprehend the environment and to take up action.
Sartre refers to
“being-for-itself” by stating that it is a conscious being “which is not what
it is and which is what it is not” (Sartre103). By this mode of being, Sartre
means the human being or the human reality. But though this for-itself is
distinguished from the in-itself, yet it carries with it a “facticity” because
humans cannot decide the condition and circumstances of their birth (Catalano
100). But for-itself is different from in-itself in so far as it has
consciousness which in turn gives rise to a ‘nothingness’ or ‘lack’ within
itself (Sartre 110-111). Sartre says that this nothingness introduces
‘negation’ into the world (112). The for-itself nihilates or negates what it is
and therefore, the for-itself is a ‘failure’ because it always aspires to
achieve the “totality which it lacks” (113). The for itself is also free to
choose and do whatever it likes and thus, it bears the entire responsibility of
its own freedom.
Fig. 2 projects the
contradiction between the vast background and a minuscule being thrown out
there. But his efforts to arrange the logs to make an SOS sign resembles the
fact that the being-in-itself still activates a will to act by rejecting the
given condition.
3. Existential
Confrontation between Being and Becoming in Cast
Away:
In the film Cast Away,
Chuck Noland (Tom Hanks) is a man who is always obsessed with time. He is shown
to be teaching his employees the value of time. According to Chuck, losing
track of time is a blunder as he says, "...we never, ever allow ourselves
the sin of losing track of time” (Zemeckis 00:05:37). Though Chuck is deeply in
love with his girlfriend named Kelly, yet he is so busy in his profession that
he has not yet been able to marry her. He suffers from a tooth-infection but he
hardly takes the appointment with a dentist due to his busy schedule.
But fortune plays a strange
game with Chuck. One of his business tours turns into a massive nightmare as
their aircraft encounters a heavy storm and consequently, collapses into the
Pacific Ocean. But surprisingly, he remains relatively unscathed during the
crash and succeeds in escaping the submerged plane using an inflatable
life-raft. After he comes out from the depth of the ocean, he floats on the
water throughout the whole night without any consciousness until he discovers
himself washed up on an uninhabited island (00:32:25).
Having gained
consciousness, Chuck observes the surroundings which are mainly occupied with
forests and mountains. He remains dumbstruck with the thought of his stranded
condition. His eyes can only experience the deep blueness of the ocean all
around and he is thrown into a wilderness right in the middle of it. He is only
left with a few FedEx packages and the raft. He sits motionless for a while and
probably ponders over his helpless condition. This is a moment of crisis, an
impasse from which he finds no escape route. He screams loudly to find help in
vain. He realises that he is now trapped on an isolated island to struggle for
existence.
Such a state of being that
Chuck finds himself in is identical to Sartrean non-conscious and
self-contained ‘being-in-itself’. It is similar to what Sartre terms as,
“being-of-phenomenon” which is completely in itself. Chuck's absurd
situatedness reduced from a state of being-of-consciousness is akin to a brute
and non-conscious existence of being. His ironical placement on that island is
an absolute contingent fact because he never finds the explanation of why he
has reached there. On the island, Chuck comes to sense merely the concrete
objects like hostile saline waters, dumb stony hills and static, coastal
vegetation all of which ironically symbolise his inactive and impotent
condition. Chuck looks helpless when he realises this critical stage of life
where he is doomed to die soon without food, drink and shelter.
But Chuck is a human being.
Although he undergoes an existential shrinkage from conscious to a
non-conscious, in-itself being, a mere phenomenon, yet human reality, according
to Sartre, is the reality of consciousness. Man is not like the being of
phenomena and is not completely in-itself. It is a conscious being and this
consciousness helps man be aware of his disintegrity with himself and others.
Man is the “being-for-itself” who possesses a nothingness inside him. Sartre
holds the view that the lack or nothingness gives rise to a freedom (Sartre
461-462). This freedom makes him free to choose, to choose whatever he wants
to. Therefore, it is entirely upon man to bear his own responsibility upon
himself. Chuck, after being cast away on the island, had to choose his own
path. The Sartrean notion of ‘anguish’ is relevant here in Chuck's stranded
situation. Sartre states that being entirely free and responsible, the
for-itself encounters a sense of anguish because he can visualise before him a
set of possibilities which can only be achieved if adequate
action is undertaken. As he writes, “Anguish is precisely my consciousness of
being my own future, in the mode of not-being” (Sartre 56).Chuck could choose
to stay inactive out there but, in that case, he would have to encounter what
was destined for him. But Chuck makes the difference by choosing to act.
[Source: (Zemeckis 00:45:34)]
Fig. 3 shows the
foregrounded massive, overpowering sea which seems lethal, merciless and the
shallow focused adamant, striving protagonist bent on undertaking action to
take the ‘leap’.
From the very beginning, he
makes up his mind and initiates a battle with everything he can utilize to stay
alive. Once he finds himself washed up on the island, he begins his struggle
for existence. He is not seen to be regretting or mourning for his cruel fate.
Rather, he starts to comprehend the surroundings and intends to collect
everything that can turn out to be useful for his survival. He makes use of
every single thing in every single way possible. Throughout the process of his
struggle to escape the ordeal, Chuck seems to have sustained a positive outlook
for, he unpacks the FedEx packages much later when it becomes necessary. Yet,
he does not unpack one with angel wings probably because the wings on the
package symbolically provide him with the impetus to continue striving for his
chance to return where he belongs. He succeeds in carrying it along the
formidable journey until he is extracted by the cargo ship. Eventually, he
leaves it at the door of the sender's residence with a note that says “this
package saved my life” (02:14:03).
This is to be noted that he
does not merely go through an ascending order of shift from the inactive,
absurd state to a conscious being. There are moments when he faces obstacles in
the process and once again descends back to the absurd, void state of
phenomena. For example, after seeing a flickering light of a passing ship, he
becomes overwhelmingly responsive and puts an utmost effort to signal it with a
torch. But when he fails to catch its attention, as the night breaks, he takes
the daunting decision to sail towards it on the inflatable raft that saved his
life earlier. But the huge devastating waves crush him down against the rocks
beneath the surface of the sea leaving him utterly pain-stricken with a severe
thigh-wound (00:56:30).
Again, in the film, the
viewers come to experience Chuck's frantic state of mind just after his futile
attempt to light a fire by rubbing a woodstick on another. His efforts go wrong
and he ends up receiving a wound on his palm. Being angry, Chuck starts acting
wildly. He kicks at the stuffs nearby and throws the volleyball away with a
bloody palm (01:07:55). This particular scene is a perfect example of how Chuck
goes through the process of an existential shrinkage from a conscious human
being to a mere phenomenon, to a concrete object filled with nothingness. He
seems to be encountering a meaningless void universe without any exact
knowledge or purpose. He seems to be grounded in a place which is alien to him.
The context he is in is a given one which ties him up with a facticity. But
Sartre says that the for-itself can arise out from its facticity. He notes that
“There is freedom only in a situation, and there is a situation only through
freedom” (Sartre 511). Freedom emerges from situation because man can transcend
from the given circumstances through the conscious act of nihilation.
Gradually, Chuck calms down and contemplates on his action. It is then when the
ball printed with blood from his hand catches his eyes. He offers it a human
face by drawing eyes and mouth on it and then names it Wilson. Thus, he sets up
a relationship with Wilson. He talks to it on a regular basis and shares his
thoughts and plans with it. Now, his interaction with Wilson is significant in
many aspects. It denotes Chuck's extreme loneliness and a desperate wish for companionship
on the island. It symbolises his longing for socialisation. Besides, it also
symbolises the strength of human bonding and mutual assistance. Moreover,
Wilson restores in him the consciousness of ‘for-itself’ that must act out.
Soon after he meets Wilson, his joy knows no bounds when using a better
technique, he succeeds in making the fire.
The real moment of leap
begins for Chuck after he struggles for four years on that island. Chuck, by
then thin, bearded and with very minimal clothes, is utterly disheveled but
quite adept at picking up the survival techniques. One day, he cautiously
discovers a broken enclosure of a portable toilet (Zemeckis 01:22:56) which
compels him to undergo an epiphanic vision of his escape from there. He
exclaims, “This could work” (01:24:03). From then on, the film showcases an
ascending graph of his efforts to bring about the shift. Sartre mentions that
human beings are “a set of possibles” (Daigle 35) because humans are free
beings and nothing binds them to their possibilities. Man can wish to be what
he is not and nothing determines him to accomplish the task of being so. Chuck
visualises the possibilities of getting out from there with the help of a raft
which he can now build by executing his plan.
Sartre says that the
for-itself is “a knowing being” (Catalano 133). It can comprehend the in-itself
with the help of his knowledge which emerges from the awareness and intention
of doing something (134). Sartre adds that nothingness in man is an internal
consciousness. Man negates the in-itself internally, then acts out externally.
In Chuck's case, firstly, he conceptualises the whole thing in his mind and
then he attempts to implement it in the outside circumstances. With Wilson, he
makes calculations of the wood stems and bark ropes that will be required to
construct the raft. He uses the toilet enclosure as the sail of that raft. For
Sartre, the “for-itself is a project; it is constantly making itself.” By
getting out of the past, it can “affirm itself through its actions” (Daigle
35). Chuck knows that “this is gonna be tight” (Zemeckis 01:25:52), as he says
but he looks resolute on being that project through action. While working to
serve his purpose, once he doubts lest his raft should yield up in the midway
letting him die. He hallucinates as if Wilson is preventing him from
undertaking this suicidal mission. But the next moment, he dismisses his
fearful concerns and remains fixed with his motives. He yells at Wilson, “...I
would rather take my chance out there on the ocean than to stay here and die…”
(01:29:40) confirming the attitude of a for-itself, a human who chooses to take
the leap while desperately wishing to negate his facticity or the given. After
an arduous job, when he is finished with building the raft, he waits for the
perfect weather when the winds will favour him to sail against the waves away
from the island. Finally, his time does come and he sets out with Wilson and a
few FedEx packages in his quest for rescue.
4. Conclusion:
According to Sartre, “Human-reality everywhere encounters
resistance and obstacles which it has not created, but these resistances and
obstacles have meaning only in and through the free choice which human-reality
is” (Sartre 511). But he adds that such résistance is a condition of our
freedom because without resistance human beings will accomplish whatever they
wish. In such a case, this will not be the human world (Catalano 203).
Moreover, the for-itself must take action to authenticate itself or he is bound
to suffer from an existential angst. Besides, Sartrean Existentialism is an
atheistic philosophy which does not appreciate any transcendental beings to be
the sole authority of human lives. Man's existence is a contingent fact. After
birth, man is abandoned but free to build an essence all on his own. Therefore,
In Existentialism Is a Humanism, Sartre writes that “...man is nothing
other than what he makes of himself” (22). In Cast Away, Chuck
persistently believes in his ability. He shows an invincible physical and
mental fortitude battling against the brute and opaque state of being.
Ultimately, he resolves to accomplish what seems inconceivable and suicidal.
His decision to go sailing towards the unforeseeable only to come across some
passing ships makes our blood run cold. It is here that the film upholds a
profound sense of commitment and optimism which makes it one of the best survival
dramas till date.
Works Cited
Cast Away. Directed by Robert Zemeckis. 20th
Century Fox and DreamWorks Pictures, 2017.
Catalano, Joseph S. A
Commentary on Jean Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness. The University of
Chicago Press, 1974.
Daigle, Christine. Jean-Paul
Sartre. Routledge, 2010.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being
and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. Translated by Hazel
E. Barnes, Routledge, 2003.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism
Is a Humanism. Translated by Carol Macomber, Yale University Press, 2007.