« Predictive Prophecy and Counterfactuals | Main | Vagueness »
June 25, 2004
Film
Mark, Since this was so long, I thought I would just post. Is that cool, or should it go in the comment thread? I�m not very good at blog etiquette. I do analytic metaphysics, but don't expect any serious arguments below: there just ramblings about film, I think. I've watched nearly 2,000 films (I know, my social life is a bit impoverished) and one of the great many things I've learned and am still learning (I watch about...well I shouldn't say) is this: there are no necessary and sufficient conditions for what constitutes a philosophical film as some may suggest.
For any film, a philosopher can find a philosophical element, given their philosophical background. People find existentialism in almost everything. Why? Because most people have some philosophical knowledge of that area: it�s kinda popular. But take for example, Mude Tod, Der (Between Two Worlds, Fritz Lang, 1921) ,an exploration of a possible world where every possibility is simultaneously actual, and whether or not that makes choice impossible -- or, the opposite. So we have some quantum stuff, modality, identity, freewill, dialetheism, etc. Had I not read that area of philosophy, I wouldn't have seen that stuff. My friend watching the film with me, a classics major, pointed out stoical non-assent aspects of the film. I didn't know that! What about the schizophrenic (and I mean clinical!) Frankfurt Cases in Hitchcock�s 1951 Strangers on a Train. Or Subiela�s 1986 film, Man Facing Southeast (where Disney despicably co-opted nearly every scene of that film for the production of KPAX), exploring the line between reality and delusion. (Yes, I am aware there�s a distinction between the concept of film and cinema, partly dependent on the functionality of the medium between the subject and the other -- but I�m not waxing that way.) The point I'm trying to make (if it is one) is that as one�s knowledge of philosophy grows so do the connections in film: this seems like an infinite process, since the domain of both seem endless. Every film has some philosophical content, so it seems futile to systematize. (This is not inconsistent with showing a film in class without some conditions of why it's philosophical -- see below. I do, however, think that philosophy of film classes have more of a problem about their justification, simply because s either doesn't know enough philosophy or s doesn't have clear topics to justify the showing x film under that topic, or both.) I find a film, play a few minutes here and there for my students, then ask, �What is the philosophical content in this film?� (I do this before and after we begin a section: I get interesting results.) Students are usually spot on! I've had several students tell me that they can't stop seeing some philosophical theory in x film (is that brainwashing?), even involving ancient paradoxes!; I�m not sure if that�s a good thing, but for those who know me that�s a victory. But I still need to find a film that involves semantic vagueness!!: that might be a foreign one.) I've always wanted to post a list of films, but thought it would take too much time, especially given my obsessive tendencies. But more importantly, writing a dissertation, teaching, and watching movies, leaves no time to write on movies.
Posted by kkukla at June 25, 2004 8:25 PM
Comments
I think you're right. I suspect that "philosophical films" is something like shorthand for "films that vividly illustrate issues that philosophers happen to care about" and when it's unpacked that way, we're not tempted into taking "philosophical films" as some sort of a natural kind.
Posted by: Dave H. at June 26, 2004 6:18 PM
What Dave H. said.
Posted by: Lindsay B. at June 28, 2004 10:43 PM
Hi Kev., Been seeing the folks for the last five days and so haven't checked the blog, which is why I didn't reply to the question. And, dunno exactly. I guess if the content stands-alone to a certain degree you can post it as a new post just so long as you refer to the post it is in reference to. If a post is, however, genuinely deeply parasitic on another, it is perhaps best to put it in the comment thread. Length is not really an issue, as the comment field will let in extremely long portions of text.
And, what Lindsay said.
Posted by: marksteen at June 29, 2004 12:08 PM
A film that at least touches on issues relating to semantic vagueness is 'The Englishman Who Went Up A Hill But Came Down A Mountain' starring Hugh Grant. The only problem is is that it's, well, shit.
Paul
Posted by: Paul at August 6, 2005 12:30 AM
I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $37672. Isn't that crazy!
Posted by: Betsy Markum at December 22, 2005 1:28 AM