Xard wrote:Films are no place for anything intellectually worthwhile. Only some novels pass the test, and even then just barely
It seems like what all this boils down to is "film isn't philosophy so film shouldn't take inspiration from/dramatize philosophical concepts", which is such a bewilderingly stupid idea because then you can extend that same thought to ANY theme/subject that film addresses/dramatizes that's been written about extensively. You can't dramatize entire philosophical arguments, sure, but if philosophy has any actual connection with how people live their lives then it should be glaringly obvious that it's possible to dramatize it in plenty of intellectually substantial ways. Let's also consider that the change of medium from the written word to images in time would dictate a radical reapproach to how such ideas would be presented. You couldn't even begin to discuss how philosophy could/couldn't be substantially addressed in film unless you addressed those changes. To do otherwise would be no different than criticizing a synopsis of a philosophical movement when you've ignored the entire argument because it's written in a language you don't understand (or only partially understand).
It's pretty rare to see philosophy explored adequately on film. I can't think of any films that have done such a thing off the top of my head. I mean, philosophers wrote their thoughts down for a reason. It's easier just to read their works or read about their works than to watch some story weighed down by the pretenses of trying to characterize them
When you say that something like, eg, NGE just "states the obvious in a very rudimentary and heavy-handed way," it seems like you're just saying "If you reduce NGE down to its conclusion then it's all rudimentary and heavy-handed", which completely ignores the entire method of dramatizing and of expressing it through the language of its artistic medium. No work that's "rudimentary and heavy-handed" could possibly have provokes as many different reactions and interpretations as NGE, and if intellectually substantial analysis of its connections with philosophy through the context of its dramatization haven't been offered yet, then the failure is on us, not on the work itself. In fact, it strikes me that much the same could be said of all films, and I wonder if either of you have actually investigated any of the books written on the subject of philosophy in film, which has actually had its own mini-movement over the past several decades. Have either of you read Thinking Through Cinema? Because the problem could be with you rather than the films you're watching and thinking about.
I think that last point carries a lot of weight when you consider that film's existence as a medium of images in time is primarily one of extensions without explicit intensions, an ambiguity that language, particularly the kind used in arguments such as in philosophy, seek to eliminate. In one respect, the multitude of meanings, of "intellectually worthwhile" material such a medium can generate is largely an indicator of its intellectual substance. I don't think either of you are being honest with yourselves by lumping NGE in with Forrest Gump on anything other than a philosophical reductionist level, as there is no possible way to argue that the Gump's articulation of its themes through its medium and the meanings it engenders is anywhere close to the level of meanings that NGE's articulation engenders. If that were true, then you both still wouldn't be here.
Funnily enough, I don't think philosophers would agree with either of you as they've been as influenced by the arts as artists have been influenced by philosophers. FWIW, I think film has a lot more in the way of being able to substantially present philosophy in comparison to, say, opera (considering half of its art lies in the unrepresentational realm of music), yet Nietzsche was influenced by Wagner and Kierkegaard by Mozart's Don Giovanni, and do you really think if you reduced the themes of Wagner's works or Don Giovanni they'd offer anything that was superficially philosophically substantial? No. Yet I'd wager that most philosophers realize something neither of you do, and that's that art and drama's (including film's) ability to provoke us to think about such things far outweighs the superficialities of its reductive themes. If that was good enough for them, I'd think you two would no better than to get all ridiculously snobbish on this topic.
And just for a recommendation, Kubrick praised Kieslowski's Dekalog to high heaven precisely for his ability to dramatize complex themes without ever explicitly addressing them.
