![]() ![]() He walks into the corn knowing he is going to his death, but fully embracing this as he is ready to move on to a different existence.He is in someway "embracing death", because he's embracing all the possibilities of life, whatever they may be (including the possibility of death) - as opposed to locking himself away from the world as he was originally doing. The experience of going into the corn is him embracing whatever lies in front of him. Ultimately, it doesn't matter where he goes, only that he is progressing and moving out of his reclusive shell. This is exactly what Kinsella intended when he wrote the character of Salinger (to give him a "second chance"), so it seems perfectly logical that this was his intention for the movie-only character of Mann. ![]() He talks like he may come back, but even if he doesn't, who says he can't write? Effectively, he's going to a new beginning, a new start. At the end, it's unclear exactly what has happened to Mann. Given the fact this whole character is actually Salinger, it was Kinsella (and the film creators) demonstrating the idea of a man stepping out of his reclusive shadow and embracing the endless possibilities the future holds.He also calls his father, so, unlike in The Sixth Sense where the protagonist never directly interacts with those around him, Mann is involved and participating in his surroundings. After all, his disappearance is reported in the media! Hardly what happens to ghosts. However, I don't want to go into any more details on it, purely because upon any close inspection it seems to fall apart. This is a fan-theory that's been around for years, that suggests he dies after being dropped off (perhaps a collision?) and that he spends most of the film dead. He had just been dropped off and suddenly appeared to undergo a personality of change of sorts and was desperate to see the field. Mann is dead most of the film - from the moment he stepped out in front of Ray's car.So in light of that, here are some theories: Kinsella and the film creators knew that his character was effectively J.D. So, anything Mann does in the novel, or any of his behaviour, has to be considered knowing all the above information. To handle this, the film creators made a brand new character, Terence Mann, with the exact same background as Salinger. He didn't have enough grounds for a legal case, but made it clear that if the book was ever adapted into other media, he would fiercely oppose it. Once Salinger discovered his involvement, he was furious. Despite this, Kinsella went ahead and included him in the book, as a reclusive author who is brought out of his safe place to fulfil his baseball dreams (an admitted desire of Salinger). Now, Salinger was very well known for being both reclusive and vehemently against the use of himself or his characters in the media. In fact, he was such a huge fan that he wanted to include Salinger in one of his novels. Basically, Kinsella, like many others, read and was fascinated by The Catcher in the Rye and became a huge Salinger fan. All the other characters are there, but not Terence Mann. I'll try and summarise it here:Įffectively Field of Dreams is based on a book called Shoeless Joe, by author W.P. If you'd like a longer description of this link, take a look at this article. Salinger, the American author most famous for writing the wonderful novel: The Catcher in the Rye. Or at least, who he is supposed to represent: J.D. Now, to truly answer this question, it's important to understand who Terence Mann is. There are logical arguments to suggest either side.įirstly, thank you for a wonderful question! ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |