Run Lola Run Analysis

Christian Dold
8 June 2015
Free Will and Determinism in Run Lola Run Perhaps one of the most pressing questions that philosophers have attempted to answer throughout the years is the debate between human free will and determinism. Free will is the idea that human action is unhindered by fate, and that the actions we take are directly responsible for our future. Conversely, determinism argues the opposite of this, that our actions are not free but are merely a result of preceding events. The film Run Lola Run attempts to explore these competing schools of logic by arguing that there are certain things humans can control and certain things humans cannot control. Through the film’s advocating of determinism, it makes the argument that one of
these things that humans cannot control is chance, and attempting to do so will result in unfavorable consequences. This essay will support the central claim of the film by putting it in context with two primary texts: Epictetus’ “Enchiridion” and the radical opposing view of Jean-Paul Sartre’s “Existentialism”. Before examining the main argument of the Run Lola Run, I will begin by discussing why the film advocates determinism as opposed to free will.
While we as humans like to think that are actions are solely that of our own, and are free from outside influence, many aspects of the film show us that in Lola’s world, this is far from the case. Perhaps the best example of this is the use of cut scenes by Tom Tykwer, the film’s director. Throughout the course of all three runs, we are shown how small actions taken by Lola and Manni have a drastic effect on the future of those around them. This is more commonly known as the butterfly effect. For example in all three runs, Lola encounters a woman who she either bumps into or nearly misses, and the variations in her actions have wildly different impacts on her future. In the first encounter, the woman’s future is filled with poverty, in the second, she wins the lottery and becomes rich, and in the third and final encounter she becomes religious. The use of these cut scenes throughout the course of the film leaves no doubt in the mind of the audience that the film is advocating a position of
determinism. In the first two runs, Lola attempts to affect things that are out of her control and yields unfavorable results, first by helping Manni rob a store, and then by robbing her father’s bank. Both of these actions ultimately result in the less than favorable ending of either Manni or Lola dying. Thanks to the video-game-like nature of the film that allows Lola to respawn after a “game over” scenario, the audience is invited to examine the outcome if things had been slightly different, which purports the theme of determinism, and helps define what we as human can and cannot control. In “Enchiridion”, Epictetus defines a number of things that we can and cannot control. Among these things that are in our control are “opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions” (1). Just as importantly, the things we cannot control are things that are free by nature, such as chance, and the actions of others. In the first two runs, Lola attempts to control that which she cannot, which ultimately results in unfavorable consequences. This outcome is heavily supported by Epictetus’ prediction of what happens when humans attempt to affect things that are not in our control. He states, “…if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men” (1). In this quote, Epictetus is making a claim that trying to affect things out of our control will end poorly. One objection to the claim that the film is making is the radical concept of unlimited free will outlined in Sartre’s “Existentialism”.
In his writing, Sartre makes the famous claim that “existence precedes essence” (13). There are many different applications of this quote, however for our purposes in relation to free will, it is saying that human beings have the power to make their own choices because there is no inherent quality that humans possess hindering us from doing so. Run Lola Run would disagree with this interpretation of human freedom. While it is easy to agree with the concept of free will because it is hard to cope with the idea that our actions are heavily influenced by other events, we must try to weigh both options objectively. In the film, small differences in the actions that Lola takes cause many peoples lives to take drastically different turns. It is incorrect to view Lola’s actions as merely a catalyst to the change in these peoples’ lives because regardless of the action she takes, it will affect all the future actions of the people around her whether they like it or not. Overall, in the context of the film, it is impossible to apply Sartre’s ideas because of the numerous times in the film that determinism reigns supreme over free
will. Ultimately, Lola is only able to win the game when doesn’t attempt to control that which she cannot. In the first two runs, she tries to force the actions of others, which Epictetus would tell us will only lead to turmoil, and it does. In the third run, she leaves chance out of her hands by playing roulette to get the 100,000 marks. Only by relinquishing control over the things which she cannot affect is she able to succeed. In today’s society, the status quo is that we need to control every aspect of our lives possible. Often times we see this in the form of trying to influence the actions of others for our own self-benefit, much like Lola did unsuccessfully. Run Lola Run is a call to act in the way that Epictetus outlines. In order to be free of lament, we must not attempt to control that which we cannot.

Word Count: 1,061
Works Cited
Epictetus. The Enchiridion. Trans. Elizabeth Carter. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism and Human Emotions. N.p.: Citadel, 1998. Print.