Herbert raises an important point, which is to effectively ask whether it is necessary to read this or that philosopher in order to 'get' a film. For years film scholarship has included 'readings' of films through different theories or philosophies which necessarily preclude any others - I have read some phenomenally restrictive articles on Marienbad or Memento that seem to suggest that if one doesn't subscribe to the reading then one doesn't truly 'get it' (the film). With few exceptions (Malick, for example) we can't trace a line from a particular film to a particular philosophy, although a neat bit of film archeology often reveals a lot. Perhaps more damning is the fact that new readings of film rarely offer much more that former methods or philosophies - too often it is the philosophy that seems attractive to the writer, and films are shoe-horned into fitting that philosophy. Perhaps that's why it is perfectly possible to have Deleuzeian readings of films that once seemed only to lend themselves to psychoanalytical, um, analysis. I think the practuce of 'film-philosophy', if there is one, should be more of a detection of philosophical work in cinema, rather than a 'working over' of films. Some readings (and I'm guilty here too often) on reflection seem to be rather like the ugly sisters cutting off their toes in order to don the glass slipper.
Damian
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|