Dan wrote:
"But again, except for being films of which Deleuze would approve, what
is philosophical about his work? For example, is Lynch a
nihilist/absurdist? What is his view of human nature? of the limits of
Human knowledge? of the prospects for romantic love, etc? Or are these
simply the wrong questions to ask?"
I believe that these ARE the wrong questions to ask for two reasons:
they tread that nebulous territory where we slip into addressing Lynch
as a person rather than his films; and they seem to suggest that in
order to be of philosophical interest one must adhere to a single
philosophical view. Does it matter if a filmmaker has philosophical
views or not? If Lynch's films inspire philosophical thought in us,
isn't that enough? I don't believe that ascertaining a filmmaker's
personal views on a particular topic should be the goal of interpreting
his/her films. Nor do I believe that any one particular philosophical
stance should necessarily be ascertainable from any given film. Some
films, especially those of David Lynch, are free to wander through
myriad philosophical territories without taking a stand one way or the
other. In regards to my previous post concerning Lynch and sound
theory: after studying Lost Highway, do I know where Lynch, or the film
proper, stands on the issue of auditory fidelity? No, I don't. But I
sure do understand the concepts involved in the issue a lot better.
Thus it is a film that has inspired philosophical reflection in me.
That's seems like enough to discuss the film as being philosophical in
nature.
Randolph.
*
*
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.
**
|