Andre Bazin, Coplan, and Carroll's Film Philosophy - Assignment Example

Question One André Bazin was a French film critic who in 1958 published, before his untimely death, two of the four anticipated volumes of his work on film philosophy. He is well known for perpetuating the ontological perspective on cinema. Ontology is a field of philosophy traditionally grouped under metaphysics. It is defined as the study of reality—it seeks to ask and answer the questions: what is real? What are the different forms of reality? How do these realities relate with each other? (Petrov 2011). In his first volume, Bazin develops the theme of the cinematic ontological realism. In his very words, Bazin declares his discussion to be "in less philosophical terms: the cinema as the art of reality" demonstrating his view of cinema as reality made art, as opposed to the art of reality (Bazin & Gray 1960). In the 1960s, Bazin’s views gained more than their fair share of critics, the sharpest of whom was Noël Carroll—they begun to be seen as naïve and quaint. Carroll fully disagrees with Bazin when he proposes that film seeks to give the spectator the perfect illusion of reality, stating instead that cinematic power can be solely attributed to its employment of an erotetic narrative particularly through imagery. He stresses that films communicate their message through the raising of both micro and macro questions by the images and answering them in the course of the film (Brotter 2012). Carroll’s critique of realism/ medium essentialism is unjustified—he renders Bazin’s claims ridiculous by stripping them off their historical context. Moreover, it is less than convincing, as Carroll simply seeks to put forth his views and have them viewed as law or as superior to those of his predecessor. His criticism of Bazin’s theories do not refute the same, they only take a different tangent which is completely unrelated to the former. The theory on cinematic realism can and has been supported since their unveiling by other film critics and philosophers such as Duley Andrews (Brotter 2012). Those who support them do so by making sure to contextualize them in history, even though they don’t fully agree with Bazin’s claims. It is agreeable that cinema is reality made art, and art takes different forms and can be interpreted by both the creator and observer in different ways (Brotter 2012). Question Two Emotional contagion is defined the automatic mimicry of another’s emotions in the form of gestures, body language, and tone among others thereby creating what is known as “emotional convergence”. In simple terms, emotional contagion is basically the contagious/infectious nature of emotions (Coplan 2004). Coplan focuses on emotional contagion with regard to film. She points out that emotional contagion is different from the more “sophisticated” forms of emotion that have been brought light before for at least two reasons: one, that emotional contagion involves direct sensory engagement and processes which are automatic and is thus unique to the spectators’ experience of audiovisual as opposed to literally narratives; two, emotional contagion responses are predictable as they are automatic and involuntary thus can be expected to be identical. She stresses the unique nature of emotional contagion to the film spectators’ experience (Coplan 2004). Coplan’s theory on emotional contagion is nothing short of convincing. She speaks from a scientifically proven point of view which is empirically evidenced. She seeks to take advantage of processes already occurring automatically in order to create the exact film experience intended. Question Three Carroll’s and Plantinga’s accounts of sympathy versus antipathy in movies are somewhat similar to Coplan’s ideas on emotional contagion. These accounts argue that sympathy is not just an emotion of pity, but rather a type of emotional solidarity that the spectators of a film create for the protagonist. This solidarity then causes them to root for the protagonist so much so that they are able to feel his pain during his setbacks and celebrate with him in triumph. Antipathy works in much the same way as sympathy only the former invokes the opposite of solidarity in the spectators (usually for the villain of the film). It is what causes them to hate the villain prompting them to root for his plunder (Carroll 2001). Films thus have moral obligations to their spectators to create a “correct” idea of what is good and what is evil in the mind of the spectator. Being aware of the power at hand, film makers need to consider how they may use their power to perpetuate ideological positives and deter the negatives through influencing their spectators by tagging on the empathic strings within their minds (Carroll 2001). Question Four In recent times, the idea of doing philosophy through film has received lots of chatter, as always, with hordes of film critics on being for or against the concept. Philosophy through film may mean either using film as a resource for understanding and developing philosophical constructs or using film as actual philosophy. The phrase “Film as philosophy” means that film is literally to be understood as a medium through which we can philosophize—a more robust engagement with philosophy by film. There has been great debate concerning the extent to which film can contribute to the knowledge of philosophy or simply be philosophical. However, it is agreed by and large that many films ‘resonate in fruitful ways with traditional and contemporary philosophical issues’ (Falzon 2015). Paisley Livingston is of a different school of thought. He proposes that if film was to be able to philosophize, it would have to generate independent and innovative contributions which are significant to the field of philosophy by employing means and tools unique to cinema as a medium. For such contributions to be independent, Livingston says, they have to be inherently cinematic as opposed to those philosophies whose basis is formed on verbal articulation (Livingston & Plantinga 2009). His argument agrees that film can be used as an interesting resource on matters philosophical, but to state that is gores beyond that would be to overreach. Livingston rejects the ‘bold thesis’ of film as philosophy which he defines as the idea that films engages in creative thinking of the philosophical nature and forms new concepts in philosophy. He bases this rejection on the ‘problem of paraphrase’; that is either cinematic philosophical content can be paraphrased verbally which refutes the idea that it is unique to film or it cannot be paraphrased which brings to question its supposed existence (Falzon 2015). As certain philosophers have come out strongly in support of the bold thesis, so has Stephen Mulhall. He states that he does not view films as simply a resource for philosophy and its arguments (film through philosophy), rather he sees films as evaluating and reflecting philosophical arguments and views (Mulhall 2002). In his eyes, films seriously and systematically ponder about these in much the same way as is done by philosophers. They are therefore not simple ornamentation for philosophy, or its raw material, they are instead philosophizing—philosophy in action. In this way, a modified idea of film as philosophy can and has been supported in such movies as The Matrix- one of the most philosophically acclaimed movies. It presents ideas on the concept of free will, dissects them through visual phenomena (which are unique to film), and tests them from every angle just as a verbal philosophical work would do (Livingston & Plantinga 2009) Question Five The screenplay for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was written by Charlie Kauffman, an author of other films such as Being John Malkovich which have provoked the world of film philosophy. The movie under scrutiny unfolds backwards the relationship between Joel, a reserved and sensitive man and Clementine, a colorful and rash woman. The film begins as the two main characters meet (again), having all but erased each other from their memories through the help of Dr. Mierzwiak. It is a tortured love story of these two- most of which unfolds through flashback in the office of Dr. Mierzwiak. After reliving through their forgotten memories, they eventually decide, against the odds, to give the relationship another chance in contrast to their previous choices in the exact same situation (Plantinga 2010). One of the philosophical questions posed by the movie is are we just the sum total of our memoires (or the lack thereof) or is there more to us than just the coalition of our experiences gone by? Would it serve us or harm us to erase a detail from our micro-history? If so, would we still learn the lessons that our memories would have taught us? Is ignorance truly bliss? These among other questions bring to light and cause us to examine the issue of ethics- is it good or bad? It holds philosophical issues described by the likes of Stephen Mulhall (Plantinga 2010; Mulhall 2002). Question Six A philosophical analysis of Fight Club, a movie by David Fincher reveals that the film probes and examines our habits, obsessions, and phobias to reveal the ways in which the human species is often influenced and/or manipulated. It is of a disturbing nature which confronts its viewers with the radicalism of its philosophies by taking us back to our consciences—the very birth place of all philosophies. As the movie philosophizes and satisfies the criteria for film as philosophy, it is safe to say that Fight Club is a philosophical movie (Pate 2009). Three major themes that arise from this movie are anti-establishment, anti-authoritarianism and anarchy (the three A’s). The movie stands for all manner of opposition of authority and the status quo which such authority creates. Since politics equals governance and governance equals authority, politics opposes violence stipulating that it is bad and that all must submit to major corporations and just consume, consume, and consume (Smith & Wartenberg 2006). The three themes fuel Tyler Durden’s wrath and cause him to revolt against the authorities—he wants to release the world from the chains of authority. There are two possible interpretations of this film: that authority is good and without it chaos would rein supreme; or that the three A’s are the ultimate solution to the problems of the world. In true philosophical fashion, the choice is left to the observer. What do you believe is the film’s message? (Pate 2009). Question Seven Academy Award winning feature film for its visual effects and sound editing, The Matrix is among the most critically acclaimed sci-fi movies of the 20th century. The Matrix explores more than what meets the eye with its numerous philosophical interlinks. Grau (n.d), clarifies the connection between The Matrix Trilogy and philosophies by Plato, Descartes, Nozick, Berkeley and Putnam. What is real? How do you define real? Morpheus poses this question and the revelation continues throughout the events in this film. Would we be able to identify what was real if we encountered it? How can we differentiate from appearance and reality? These questions may seem crazy but on encountering the events in The Matrix it is clear for us to see just what skeptics may be driving at. The film is philosophical as it raises the questions such as the philosophy of mind where the idea of free will is put to the test. Experiences in the ‘matrix’ are possible because a person’s brain is plugged into the ‘matrix’. Is the mind the brain or is it an immortal soul of its own that can wander off from its very depths to create experiences? In one of the scenes, Neo finds himself in Mobile Avenue yet he is unplugged from the ‘matrix’. (Thematrix101.com 2015) This is a form of proof that he is not just his brain and his mind is just as powerful as the machine required for the matrix experience. Another type of philosophy brought up is social philosophy. Race and gender definitions in The Matrix are parallel to occurrences in our own world. Lawrence (2004) highlights that in the ‘matrix’ universe; the Agents, federal building guards and the Architect are all white men while the rebellious lot is comprised of people of color and women. Persephone, Morpheus, Seraph, Trinity, Ramakandra are all rebels begging the question, ‘What does it mean to be a woman or person of color? The Matrix choice of cast tells a story of how society is defined along these very lines. As if to say that people of prestige, with greater social status and commanding authority are white while the others are only present to be controlled and live within the rules that the white people create. References Bazin, A & Gray, H 1960, ‘The Ontology of the Photographic Image’, Film Quarterly, 13(4), pp.4-9. Brotter, C 2012, Lessons of Darkness in the Context of Carroll's Erotetic Narrative, [Blog] Student Pulse, Available at: http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/670/lessons-of-darkness-in-the-context-of-carrolls-erotetic-narrative [Accessed 23 Feb. 2015]. Carroll, N 2001, Beyond aesthetics, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Coplan, A 2004, ‘Empathic Engagement with Narrative Fictions’, J Aesth Art Crit, 62(2), pp.141-152. Falzon, C 2015, Philosophy through Film | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [online] Iep.utm.edu. Available at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/phi-film/ [Accessed 24 Feb. 2015]. Grau, C. n.d., Philosophers explore The Matrix Lawrence, M 2004, Like a splinter in your mind, Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Livingston, P & Plantinga, C 2009), The Routledge companion to philosophy and film, London: Routledge. Mulhall, S 2002, On film, London: Routledge. Pate, A. (2009), ‘Nietzsche, Ubermensch in the Hyperreal Flux: An Analysis of BladeRunner, Fight Club, and Miami Vice’, Master's Theses, Dissertations and Graduate Research Overview, Paper 15. Available at: http://digitalcommons.ric.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=etd [Accessed 24 Feb. 2015]. Petrov, V 2011, Ontological Landscapes, Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, p.137. Plantinga, C 2010, ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind edited by grau, christopher’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 68(4), pp.418-420. Smith, M. & Wartenberg, T 2006, Thinking through cinema, Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Thematrix101.com 2015, The MATRIX 101 - Understanding The Matrix Trilogy - Watching The Matrix Trilogy Philosophically by Matt Lawrence. [online] Available at: http://thematrix101.com/contrib/mlawrence_wtmtp.php [Accessed 12 Feb. 2015]. Read More

Coplan’s theory on emotional contagion is nothing short of convincing. She speaks from a scientifically proven point of view which is empirically evidenced. She seeks to take advantage of processes already occurring automatically in order to create the exact film experience intended. Question Three Carroll’s and Plantinga’s accounts of sympathy versus antipathy in movies are somewhat similar to Coplan’s ideas on emotional contagion. These accounts argue that sympathy is not just an emotion of pity, but rather a type of emotional solidarity that the spectators of a film create for the protagonist.

This solidarity then causes them to root for the protagonist so much so that they are able to feel his pain during his setbacks and celebrate with him in triumph. Antipathy works in much the same way as sympathy only the former invokes the opposite of solidarity in the spectators (usually for the villain of the film). It is what causes them to hate the villain prompting them to root for his plunder (Carroll 2001). Films thus have moral obligations to their spectators to create a “correct” idea of what is good and what is evil in the mind of the spectator.

Being aware of the power at hand, film makers need to consider how they may use their power to perpetuate ideological positives and deter the negatives through influencing their spectators by tagging on the empathic strings within their minds (Carroll 2001). Question Four In recent times, the idea of doing philosophy through film has received lots of chatter, as always, with hordes of film critics on being for or against the concept. Philosophy through film may mean either using film as a resource for understanding and developing philosophical constructs or using film as actual philosophy.

The phrase “Film as philosophy” means that film is literally to be understood as a medium through which we can philosophize—a more robust engagement with philosophy by film. There has been great debate concerning the extent to which film can contribute to the knowledge of philosophy or simply be philosophical. However, it is agreed by and large that many films ‘resonate in fruitful ways with traditional and contemporary philosophical issues’ (Falzon 2015). Paisley Livingston is of a different school of thought.

He proposes that if film was to be able to philosophize, it would have to generate independent and innovative contributions which are significant to the field of philosophy by employing means and tools unique to cinema as a medium. For such contributions to be independent, Livingston says, they have to be inherently cinematic as opposed to those philosophies whose basis is formed on verbal articulation (Livingston & Plantinga 2009). His argument agrees that film can be used as an interesting resource on matters philosophical, but to state that is gores beyond that would be to overreach.

Livingston rejects the ‘bold thesis’ of film as philosophy which he defines as the idea that films engages in creative thinking of the philosophical nature and forms new concepts in philosophy. He bases this rejection on the ‘problem of paraphrase’; that is either cinematic philosophical content can be paraphrased verbally which refutes the idea that it is unique to film or it cannot be paraphrased which brings to question its supposed existence (Falzon 2015). As certain philosophers have come out strongly in support of the bold thesis, so has Stephen Mulhall.

He states that he does not view films as simply a resource for philosophy and its arguments (film through philosophy), rather he sees films as evaluating and reflecting philosophical arguments and views (Mulhall 2002). In his eyes, films seriously and systematically ponder about these in much the same way as is done by philosophers. They are therefore not simple ornamentation for philosophy, or its raw material, they are instead philosophizing—philosophy in action. In this way, a modified idea of film as philosophy can and has been supported in such movies as The Matrix- one of the most philosophically acclaimed movies.

Read More