JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for FILM-PHILOSOPHY Archives


FILM-PHILOSOPHY Archives

FILM-PHILOSOPHY Archives


FILM-PHILOSOPHY@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

FILM-PHILOSOPHY Home

FILM-PHILOSOPHY Home

FILM-PHILOSOPHY  2003

FILM-PHILOSOPHY 2003

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 31 Mar 2003 (#2003-97)

From:

Doug <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Film-Philosophy Salon <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:55:21 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (173 lines)

Moving away from the Matrix, what about the philosophy of women
reclaiming the romantic comedy/screwball comedy genre.  Do movies such
as Desperately Seeking Susan and Pretty Woman strike you as
particularly feminist?  Does this carry over to My Big Fat Greek
Wedding?

On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 12:00 PM, Automatic digest processor
wrote:

> There are 2 messages totalling 116 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
>   1. the matrix and why
>   2. Question
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:47:29 +0100
> From:    Damian Sutton <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: the matrix and why
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> I'm not bothered about your quoting, but I think there might be a
> netiquette
> rule about html. Anyway, here goes...
>
> Re: elitism. I don't know why you brought the elitism issue up - it's
> clearly a problem for you, since I didn't even try to hint it. (in
> actual
> fact, I agree with you) For the record (again), I'm interested in why
> the
> film *seems* to be new, innovative, or special. I might ask the
> question
> about Buffy or Angel for that matter. These aren't rhetorical
> questions, I'd
> just quite like to know.
>
>
> Re: Mileage and media ecology
>
> Well, you would defend academic writing on the film if you've got an
> article
> coming out, wouldn't you? I don't blame you. I would say something
> similar
> about _Band of Brothers_, _Gladiator_, or _Road to Perdition_ if I was
> similarly tested, since I'm 'working' on them at the moment.
> Personally, I
> have no doubt that there are many, many articles that can be written
> about
> _The Matrix_ and many, many philosophical approaches. However, that
> does not
> necessarily mean that many, many articles should be written about _The
> Matrix_: what you see as "robust (?) potential" I see as a hackneyed
> attempt
> to be all things to all people, whilst presenting itself as the only
> film to
> do so. That's a subjective response. I look forward to reading your
> article,
> mind.
>
> [snip]
> "Every edit, every montage, [of _My Big Fat Greek Wedding] is a
> philosophical discourse upon time, perspective, and narrative.  The
> medium
> matters, and the form remains philosophical, no matter how little we
> think
> of its content."
>
> I find it difficult to subscribe to this, and it's a subject which
> I've been
> working on extensively. I'm not convinced of the 'more or less'
> approach,
> and certainly not convinced of the idea that every edit of _Greek
> Wedding_
> [or, by implication, any film] "is a philosophical discourse upon time,
> perspective, and narrative". I suppose it depends on whether we see
> filmmaking as a self-consciously philosophical pursuit. I'd like to
> read
> arguments for and against the act of filmmaking as philosophical,
> self-consciously or otherwise. Here I think intention would be
> significant.
> I suppose also that it would hinge on whether all films were at some
> level
> 'about' film, filmmaking, or narrative beyond being a film, a piece of
> filmmaking, or narrative. My own personal view is that not all
> filmmaking is
> a philosophical pursuit, although there are films and filmmakers who
> engage
> in philosophy without explicitly referencing it. I think Deleuze is
> problematic because his view of cinema is as an art form, not as part
> of
> popular culture, but sometimes that's why I like to read him.
>
> Perhaps after all that's what irks me about _The Matrix_. It's so
> bleedin'
> obviously "philosophical". Now, if someone were to write a piece on the
> philosophy in _Python_, _Armageddon_, or _xXx_...
>
>
> [snip] "None of which do everything the Matrix does together."
>
> Hold on, isn't that what I said? Why are you arguing that point? I
> agree,
> _The Matrix_ is unique in the way it deals with all these issues at
> the same
> time. All I meant was "so what?" All films are unique, and deal with
> their
> issues in a unique way. I can't think of a film which does what _The
> Matrix_
> does. But that doesn't on its own suggest that what _The Matrix_ does
> is
> special, just unique.
>
>
> Re: disturbing objectivity
>
> Okay, okay. No, there's no such thing as objective. Perhaps I should
> have
> emphasised 'ethics' rather than objectivity. I find it ethically
> unsound
> that academic writing appears on the commercial website for a film. I
> suppose it's all about where one draws the line, and mine is right
> about
> there. It's a personal thing. For the record I don't think the
> employment of
> philosophical writing by the studio is altruistic.
>
> Re: co-option cul-de-sac
> [snip] "the Matrix has done quite well without needing that special
> academic
> branding."
>
> Yes, but it's a useful tool to ensure further unit sales. It'll
> support the
> idea that the film is important philosophically, even to the extent of
> socially ratifying it, despite a problematic narrative regarding
> ethics,
> gender, and race (what was that you were saying about examining texts
> as a
> whole?). Studios, like any other business, look for anything to expand
> or
> ensure a market. Pretensions to academia, or even just philosophical
> import,
> are not going to made scrupulously. I do see a difference between
> academic
> writing on the film published independently of it and writing published
> under the studio's editorial control.
>
>
> Damian
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:49:43 EST
> From:    Eric Willstaedt <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Question
>
> In a message dated 3/31/2003 7:36:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> << How would you film a Thought? >>
>
>
> same way I would film a one hand clap, Grasshopper...
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 31 Mar 2003 (#2003-97)
> ******************************************************
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager