on 28/3/03 8:47 PM, Kenneth Rufo at [log in to unmask] wrote:

"A few things.  First, I read your above post as saying (among other things)
something like: if folks not trained as philosophers can think
philosophically about a text, then the text itself does not produce serious
philosophy".  Am I incorrect about this, or the general elitist grounding
for such claims? "

You are wholly incorrect. As I wasn't clear, I re-arrange the idea:
I am not trained in philosophy at any formal level, yet I can quite happily
point to a number philosophical approaches to/in _The Matrix_. Whilst thiss
makes it rich in philosophical potential, I don't think that it makes it
academically special. (What mileage can an academic article make that I
can't?) What intrigues me is why this film seems special. Already we've had
a few good reasons posited.

"Second, isn't all film part and parcel of philosophy, and vice versa?  I
would think this is the basic lesson of Deleuze's work on film,
Baudrillard's constant anecdotal engagement with that medium, etc."

Partly yes, and partly no. I think film can be philosophical, or even
philosophy (or non-philosophy, to keep in with the Deleuze reference), but
not that that makes ALL film philosophy. To make the comment "film [is] part
and parcel of philosophy..." automatically includes any and all film,
whether its something by Duras or Welles (Deleuze's faves), or whether it's
_My Big Fat Greek Wedding_. Whilst Deleuze did in fact consider the
philosophy of popular forms (burlesque comedy, the musical etc.), he often
left out significant strands of cinema or didn't consider them worthy of
much comment (non-fiction, Lumieres). Furthermore, few Deleuzean
commentaries stray beyond canonical or avant-garde film.
Film can be philosophy, but I'm uncomfortable with the statement "film is
philosophical".

"Certainly film studies has a long tradition (at least from Metz onward) of
looking at film from a variety of perspectives that might be termed
philosophical.  It would seem that The Matrix merits some attention if only
for the grouping of cetain content and formal components, a grouping that I
cannot find treated together in another film.  You might be able to separate
out certain questions it raises, questions about the body, about technology,
about special effects and the spectacle, about Baudrillard, but I cannot
think of another film that so explicitly engages these factors together, and
allows for a thinking of what that intersection means."

It depends on how you're using the qualification "so explicitly", I suppose.
Sure, I can't think of too many films that do *all* that, but quite a few
come close: _Existenz_, _Suture_, _Total Recall_, _Hardware_, _Robocop_,
_Blade Runner_...


"Third, I don't have any problem with what you term co-opting.  Perhaps I'm
just missing your warrant?"


I find it disturbing that academic writing appears as part of the commercial
campaign for a film. It's not that this doesn't happen in academic writing
anyway - thousands of video tapes of Sirk, Cronenberg, or _Blade Runner_
must have been sold off the back of reams written by film scholars; film
academics (eg. Mark Kermode) have done sterling work in salvaging forgotten
or censored films - but academic writing surely should have the pretense to
objectivity. I feel much the same way about the 'critical writing' about
_Morvern Callar_ (Sight & Sound etc.) which constantly tried to tell me how
great it was. But that's another story...

Damian