John:
I disagree with your characterization of Crimes and Misdemeanors as pretty superficial. Indeed, I think it is one of the best of Woody's "serious" films, surpassed only by Another Woman, starring Gena Rowlands.
Perhaps it is a trifle didactic, but the choices are clear, and the irony of having the life-affirming philosopher Woody is making the documentary about commit suicide was delicious. As the special edition of Film and Philosophy on the films of Woody Allen highlighted, there is still a good deal of controversy generated by the film (most especially over the question of whether Judah realy overcomes his guilt over arranging the murder of his lover). And how many Hollywood films do you see where the evil prosper and the good suffer?
Could you expand on what you mean about Scorsese's films being "denser", perhaps with an example (how about "Gangs of New York")?
all the best
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: John M. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tue 7/29/2003 3:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Ethics and Film Plus HAPPY ENDING
In Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors the theme is explcitly about
the triumph of bad characters and the failure of the good one.
I think, however, the movie is philosphically pretty superficial just
because it is so obviously driven by a desire to illustrate the
philosophical theme. The most interesting ethically relevant movies are
thickly rather than thinly ethical, grappling with ethical stories from
within the narrative/style rather than than merely generating the
narrative out of a predetermined theme. Woody Allen probably paid more
attention to philosophy classes in his brief time at NYU than did
Scorsese, but I'd suggest that Scorsese's films, in part because they
are not generally mere illustrations of ethical or other ideas, are
philosophically more interesting. Of course they are also more complex,
ambiguous, maybe even at times incoherent, but as Aristotle says you can
only get as much precision as the subject matter allows.
John M.
|