ARTICLE OUTLINES
PHIL 395: Philosophy and Film
1/7/2012
BACKGROUND
Philosophy and film: the general connection between philosophy and film
Philosophy in (though) film
Philosophical issues raised in a film’s plotline or dialog
Pedagogical value in illustrating philosophical points
Well-chosen examples that reach the masses
Thought experiments
The Problem of Evil: Seventh Seal
Free Will: Gattaca, Minority Report
Appearance and reality: Matrix, Terminator
Personal identity: Heaven Can Wait, Memento
Moral relativism: Crimes and Misdemeanors
Conflicting moral obligation: Casablanca, The Music Box, The Third Man, Fail-Safe, The Seige
Individual vs. community: Antz
Dehumanization in modern society: Modern Times, The Trial
Philosophy of film
A branch of aesthetics, parallel to philosophy of literature, which investigates the essence of film
Philosophical questions raised by the medium of film itself
e.g., is film an art form, what is film, is there a cinematic author, why do we react emotionally to film, is there an implicit narrator in all films, can documentaries be a vehicle to objectivity
THOMAS WARTENBERG: “PHILOSOPHY AND FILM” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
1. The Idea of a Philosophy of Film
Contributors to discussions in philosophy and film
Includes non-philosophers
Includes writers in film theory (subset of film studies)
Justification for philosophical input on the subject: Anglo-Americans do not share the psychoanalytic assumptions of many film theorists, and thus think that they need to overhaul the discipline
Philosophers have always been interested in specific art forms (e.g., Aristotle’s poetics)
Cognitive film theory (Carrol): modeled on studies of natural sciences
Emphasizes viewers' conscious processing of films
This is opposed to a more humanistic approach, modeled on Wittgenstein
2. The Nature of Film
Whether film is an art form: two problems
Problem 1: films were originally vulgar entertainment (vaudeville, peepshows)
Problem 2: films borrow too much on other art forms (plays, music)
Classical film theorists on the essential nature of film (from Wartenberg)
Technical devices
Hugo Münsterberg (1916): technical features of films differentiate it from other art forms, e.g., flashbacks, closeups; these features are objectified mental functions that parallel what goes on in our own mind (closeups parallel paying close attention to something)
Capturing motion
Rudolph Arnheim (1957): sound movies are a decline from film’s original art form; its essential nature is capturing motion, and sound adds a new artistic medium
Realism
André Bazin (realism, 1967): film has its basis in photography, which captures the real world; film has an ability to present the world to us as frozen in time. (Draws on Wells and Renoir)
Emphasizes the long shot, rather than the close up
Kendall Walton (1984): transparency thesis: since film is based on photography, we actually see objects that appear on the screen
3. Film and Authorship
Auteur theory: the director of the film is the creative intelligence who shapes the entire film (similar to authors of literature)
Francois Truffaut: to be a work of art, the director must have complete control over the screenplay and direction of the actors
Criticism of Auteur theory
The auteur theory underestimates the impact that other contributors to a movie have (specifically, the actors, cinematographers, and editors)
Most major films are the product of established film industries, e.g., Hollywood
Post-modern “death of the author”: films are the products of social contexts
4. Emotional Engagement: why should we care about a film’s fictional characters
We identify with them, particularly as idealized characters
Crit: why do we care about characters that we don’t identify with
We imagine things taking place that we care about
Simulation theory: our emotional response is running offline, and thus we do not express our emotions as we normally do
Account of horror movies: we enjoy having the emotion while being safe in our offline environment
Crit: no clear explanation of what it means to be “off line”
Thought theory: our mere thoughts give us emotions
e.g., by imagining an injustice, we have emotions about the injustice
Crit: it’s not clear why we would have emotional reactions to mere thoughts, rather than stronger mental states such as belief
5. Film Narration
Problem of unreliable narrators: how does the audience come to know that the narrator has a distorted view of the world
Implicit narrators: whether, in narratorless narratives, an implicit narrator is needed to give the audience access to the film’s fictional world
Imagined seeing thesis: viewers are imagining to see photographically-derived images of the narrative, not the narrative itself
What viewers actually see is not a pure view of the narrative, but one affected by film editing; thus they imagine seeing something like a movie of the narrative
6. Film and Society
Oppression in traditional film narrative: popular Hollywood film narratives perpetuate an unrealistically positive view of society that obscures the reality of social domination
Socially conscious films: many films do critically portray the realities of class, race, gender, and sexuality (e.g., guess who’s coming to dinner)
7. Film as Philosophy
Film’s substantive contribution to philosophy
Film only have pedagogical value
Wartenberg: films provide valuable philosophical thought experiments
Stanley Cavell: many films portray philosophical skepticism
Minimalist avant garde films help show the necessary features of films
8. Conclusions and Prognosis
THORSTEN BOTZ-BORNSTEIN: “PHILOSOPHY OF FILM: CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVES” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy