FlashForward and the Openness of the Future

My friend Jimi hipped me to the existence of a new TV series called "FlashForward." When he explained the premise, I was so immediately interested that I am now caught up in the season after only one night (which is at episode 7 as of this post).

Here is a summary of the show's premise from Wikipedia:

A mysterious event causes everyone on the planet to simultaneously lose consciousness for 137 seconds, during which people see what appear to be visions of their lives approximately six months in the future - a global “flash forward”. A team of Los Angeles FBI agents, led by Stanford Wedeck (Vance) and spearheaded by Mark Benford (Fiennes), begin the process of determining what happened, why, and whether it will happen again. Benford contributes a unique perspective on the investigation; in his flashforward, he saw the results of six months of investigation that he had done on the flashforward event, and he and his team use those clues to recreate the investigation.

The team investigates a number of events related to the flash forward, including "Suspect Zero," who did not lose consciousness during the event, the sinister "D. Gibbons", and a similar mass loss of consciousness in Somalia in 1991. Meanwhile, personal revelations contained within the flashforwards occupy the personal lives of the principal characters. Mark Benford sees his alcoholism relapsing, his wife sees herself with another man, and other characters grapple with similarly unexpected or surprising revelations in their flashes forward.

Determinism and Freedom are rarely as overtly and prominently featured in a television series as they are on FlashForward. It is also equally (if not more) rare that a philosophical subject such as this is combined with such excellent writing and acting.

So far, while it is clear many of the characters hold a fatalistic view of the future, it is obvious that the openness of the future is a given in the FlashForward universe---as it should be.

In the most recent episode, a character speaks of the future saying this:

"[The future] is no longer going to unfold as I had feared. My gift to you is release from… the feeling that you're no longer in control. The future is unwritten. Make the most of it."

I'll continue to watch and perhaps write more updates of any significant developments.

Push, Knowing, and the Future: Determinism and Openness in Two Recent Sci-Fi Films [Warning: Spoilers!]

This summer, Summit Entertainment released two sci-fi thrillers that are similar in many ways, but different in one major respect. Both films are action-packed and laced with impressive CGI. Both films are set in present day among seemingly ordinary people who turn out to either possess remarkable abilities or to have been chosen for a unique purpose. But these two films deal with the nature of the future in diametrically opposing ways. In this brief Note, I'd like to explore the fundamental difference between the way in which the future is depicted in each film and provide commentary on why I believe one film represents the classical view of future determinism and the other represents the biblical view of future openness.

Knowing and Future Determinism

Starring Nick Cage, Knowing is about a professor of astrophysics at MIT who does not believe the future is predetermined. The professor's conviction of the randomness of the universe, and the pain that can often result, stems from the sudden and tragic loss of his wife shortly before we enter the story. Nick Cage's character also has a son, a sister, and religious background he has long-since shunned due to some ambiguous conflict with this preacher father.

The prof's presupposition of randomness is put to the test when a 50 year-old time capsule is unearthed at his son's school housing a cryptic code penned by a gifted and misunderstood schoolgirl. When his son suggests the sequence might be a mathematical puzzle of some kind, Cage's inebriated character cannot resist the temptation to analyze them in search of meaning and purpose. With a few short keystrokes in Google's search field, the prof finds that most of the numbers are the exact dates of major world disasters along with the precise number of casualties. In classic thriller fashion, he reaches out to a close friend who of course thinks he's crazy. (Who saw that coming?) When the prof realizes that three of the dates has not happened yet, he watches the 24-hour cable news cycle for breaking reports of catastrophe on the day when the present disaster is predicted. However, the disaster does not immediately present itself.

Running late picking up his son, the prof finds himself stuck in traffic at the exact coordinates of the disaster predicted for that day. Wondering how a simple traffic accident can produce 81 fatalities, he exits his vehicle just as a plane crash lands in the field next to the highway. Cage's character runs to the wreckage throwing blankets on survivors still in flames and performing CPR on some who are injured.

This brings me to why Knowing represents the motif of future determinism. No matter what the professor does, in the Knowing universe his actions can have no effect on the predetermined dates, coordinates, or number of causalities these disaster will produce. Though he takes desperate measures placing his own life in danger, he is ultimately impotent to prevent even a single person from dying. In the Knowing universe, there is a higher, transcendent power that knows precisely how these events will play out without contingency of any kind. Even though he receives "warning," he is still left to conclude he is powerless. All power of determination is left in the hands of the otherworldly transcendent power(s).

[Sidenote: Knowing goes to great lengths to present biblical faith as phenomenological mythology. Without giving too much away, I will say that biblical imagery/concepts are replaced by science fiction imagery/concepts. Whether or not the writers and/or producers intend to demean biblical faith is unclear, but skeptics and unbelievers will certainly have any preconception that 'Christians are simple' reinforced.]

In summary, the universe of Knowing is a closed one. What will be, will be. There is nothing human beings can do to effect the outcomes of the future. Ultimately, we are powerless and at the mercy of the transcendent power(s) that is/are controlling our lives. This, I submit, is also the conclusion of one prominent branch of Christian theology. Namely, it is that branch of Christian theology that has sought, since Augustine, to synthesize the biblical narrative with Greek (particularly Platonic) metaphysics. Calvin belongs to this tradition as well as the Reformed churches. This theological tradition accepts no future contingencies viewing the future instead as entirely certain, set, determined. Some within this tradition differ on precisely how and by whom the future is determined, but all agree that the future is not alterable nor populated by any real possibilities.

Push and Future Openness

Push stars Chris Evans, who is perhaps most famous for playing Johnny Storm in the 2005 live-action version of Fantastic Four, and Dakota Fanning, who is famous for starring in everything from Man on Fire opposite Denzel to the Charlotte's Web opposite a CGI-enhanced piglet. In the Push universe, there are people hidden among the general population endowed with extraordinary abilities a la X-men, Heroes, etc. etc. And just as in all other "special abilities" sci-fi franchises, there is of course the now obligatory, clandestine agency bent on either eliminating these 'supers' or exploiting their power.

The plot of Push isn't nearly as attention-keeping as Knowing's so I won't bore you with it's details. Suffice to say, while eluding capture by the sinister captain of the shadowy bureau (who is himself a super), the unlikely pair (Evans and Fanning) must find a syringe filled with a double-whammy drug concoction that either magnifies it's recipient's powers or kills them.

What I want to highlight instead of the this film's lackluster plot, is the way in which it depicts the nature of the future. Those supers with the ability to see the future, if only in glimpses, understand the future in a fundamentally different way from Knowing. For example, at the very beginning of the movie, Fanning's character says,

"Right now the future I see is not so great. The good news is, the future is always changing."

The sentiment that the future is composed at least in part of possibilities or contingencies, as opposed to unchangeable certainties, is an on-going theme in the film. As the characters track down the syringe, the choices they make effect the future outcomes "Watchers" see in their predictive visions. Each choice changes the future that could or could not happen.

I submit that the way in which Push depicts the future is more in line with the portrait of the future the bible paints. Scripture teaches that our choices have significance for future outcomes. What we choose today and tomorrow we grow to become. If we pray or not changes the future. If we share our witness with others changes the future. If we exercise faith or not changes the future. Scripture shows us that God has imparted significant responsibility to human beings to co-create the future with him. As his agents and co-laborers in the world, we shape the future for his kingdom purposes with our choices. A person doomed to destruction can be redeemed. There is hope when the future is not set in stone.