 |
 |
THank you to all who offered suggestions about the Global Vision syllabus. I should perhaps add that I was originally seeking films with a kind of pan-optical vision, encompassing several continents and offering a kind of space-time compression (to use Harvey's term). "Baraka" and "Koyansquatsi" and "Night on Earth" and "Until the End of the World" fit that bill, but not many films can be found that do and this is probably at least partly a result of budget considerations - it costs a lot of money to shoot in several countries. Also, this type of universalizing discourse seems to be more the product of an aesthetic that could be said to border on the neo-colonial ... another reason why perhaps more US films than European seem inclined (however sincerely) towards this approach. I like the remark about waking up in different countries while watching Wenders' endless film "Until the End of the World." I actually saw that film for the first time at an open air cinema at the docks of Darwin, Australia - I think that experience and the soundtrack sort of rescued the film for me. Angelica Fenner -- ---------- >From: Automatic digest processor <[log in to unmask]> >To: Recipients of FILM-PHILOSOPHY digests <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 28 Mar 2003 (#2003-90) >Date: Fri, Mar 28, 2003, 12:00 PM > > There are 7 messages totalling 303 lines in this issue. > > Topics of the day: > > 1. the matrix and why (2) > 2. Neo-philia (2) > 3. the Matrix and here's why > 4. Seeking Films with Global Vision > 5. A different take on the Matrix > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:24:31 +0000 > From: Damian Sutton <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: the matrix and why > > on 28/3/03 5:40 AM, Nathan Andersen at [log in to unmask] wrote: > >> In any case, with >> respect to the Matrix, a number of philosophers have already made some >> effort to do more than "feel around blindly" for provocative material. >> Those who are still interested in this line of discussion might >> consider going to the film's website (I think it is >> "www.whatisthematrix.com") to check out a growing list of fairly >> interesting articles on the film, mostly by philosophers, and several of >> them fairly well-known philosophers. >> >> Nate > > Despite outward appearances, I'm not averse to philosophical analyses > applied to _The Matrix_: If philosophical approaches in general are to be > applied to aesthetics, or non-philosophy, such as cinema in general, then > they has to be equally applicable to _The Matrix_, both versions of > _Solaris_, or _Slap Her, She's French_. There are lots of philosophical > approaches one can bring to __The Matrix_, and I suppose that that is > interesting in itself. However, the fact that I myself, who didn't have a > formal philosophical training, can reel off a number of basic > phenomenological, sceptical, or ontological approaches is not to me > indicative of an incisive or 'special' philosophical point to the film. > > Also, am I the only one disturbed by the co-opting of academic writing onto > a commercial Hollywood site? > > Damian > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:36:20 -0500 > From: "Shaw, Dan" <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Neo-philia > > It is interesting how the discussion has bifurcated...is it not possible = > to recognize both The Matrix and Memento as rich intellectual ground to = > be mined, for different reasons. As the directors were self-consciously = > trying to include Gnostic themes, how is it intellectually suspicious to = > discuss them? Especially, as David Brottman points out in the latest = > issue of Film and Philosophy, when such themes have interesting links to = > the postmodern politics of suspicion. =20 > > As far as Memento is concerned, it is one of the best film-noirish = > puzzles in a long time, and its implications for notions of personal = > identity are fascinating (see the relatively recent Routledge book = > Philosophy Through Film edited by Mary Litch(sp?) for a nice chapter on = > it).. But a lot of folks, including such names as Herbert Dreyfuss, have = > taken The Matrix seriously as well. Perhaps there is a puritan guilt = > about enjoying an action picture so much that translates into a = > disapproval of wanting to read more into it. It becomes a kind of = > Rorschach test. > > It seemed to me a step in the right direction when the Matrix site = > actually featured some philosophical essays. Would we want rather be = > excluded from such popular discussions? > > All that having been said, there is some truth to the claim that = > philosophical writing about film needs to become more rigorous, with an = > academic integrity that characterizes much of the aesthetic and = > ideological discussions of the fine arts these days. On my part, there = > is also the desire to connect with artefacts that interest my students, = > to build cinematic bridges to the more sophisticated philosophical = > concepts (again, Litch's book comes to mind). Nietzsche could be right = > that here is one case where being too concerned with being a teacher = > makes me a less profound aesthetician...but maybe not. > > Dan Shaw =20 > > "For beauty is the beginning of terror that we are still able to bear, = > and why we love it so is because it so serenely disdains to destroy us." = > Rilke's First Elegy > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:47:29 -0800 > From: Kenneth Rufo <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: the matrix and why > > --------------090103050405040500030108 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >> >> >>Despite outward appearances, I'm not averse to philosophical analyses >>applied to _The Matrix_: If philosophical approaches in general are to be >>applied to aesthetics, or non-philosophy, such as cinema in general, then >>they has to be equally applicable to _The Matrix_, both versions of >>_Solaris_, or _Slap Her, She's French_. There are lots of philosophical >>approaches one can bring to __The Matrix_, and I suppose that that is >>interesting in itself. However, the fact that I myself, who didn't have a >>formal philosophical training, can reel off a number of basic >>phenomenological, sceptical, or ontological approaches is not to me >>indicative of an incisive or 'special' philosophical point to the film. >> >>Also, am I the only one disturbed by the co-opting of academic writing onto >>a commercial Hollywood site? >> >>Damian >> >> >> > 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? > > 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. > 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. > > Third, I don't have any problem with what you term co-opting. Perhaps > I'm just missing your warrant? > > Ken > > --------------090103050405040500030108 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> > <html> > <head> > <title></title> > </head> > <body> > <blockquote type="cite" > cite="[log in to unmask]"> > <pre wrap=""> > Despite outward appearances, I'm not averse to philosophical analyses > applied to _The Matrix_: If philosophical approaches in general are to be > applied to aesthetics, or non-philosophy, such as cinema in general, then > they has to be equally applicable to _The Matrix_, both versions of > _Solaris_, or _Slap Her, She's French_. There are lots of philosophical > approaches one can bring to __The Matrix_, and I suppose that that is > interesting in itself. However, the fact that I myself, who didn't have a > formal philosophical training, can reel off a number of basic > phenomenological, sceptical, or ontological approaches is not to me > indicative of an incisive or 'special' philosophical point to the film. > > Also, am I the only one disturbed by the co-opting of academic writing onto > a commercial Hollywood site? > > Damian > > </pre> > </blockquote> > 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? > <br> > <br> > 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. 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 <i>The Matrix</i> 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.<br> > <br> > Third, I don't have any problem with what you term co-opting. Perhaps I'm > just missing your warrant?<br> > <br> > Ken<br> > </body> > </html> > > --------------090103050405040500030108-- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:41:15 -0600 > From: Thomas Deane Tucker <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: the Matrix and here's why > > I'm not sure that I agree with this assessment of Memento. I show it in my > Intro to Philosophy course when we read the chapters in Locke's *Essays > Concerning Human Understanding* which deal with the concepts of the self and > personal identity (chs. 23 and 27). As you might recall Locke posits > consciousness, specifically memory, as the locus of personhood. I have > found that students respond very favorably to Memento, especially its > unusual structure, in this context. It has yielded some very fruitful class > discussion. > > Thomas Deane Tucker > >> >> >> I was being honest >> Memento in any measure was dull and boring.... >> you have to be able to get through it without falling asleep in order to talk >> about "philosophy"... it took three nights to get through this dog. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:08:14 -0800 > From: Greg Little <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Seeking Films with Global Vision > > Has anyone mentioned _My Own Private Idaho_ ? - The > bridging device of narcolepsy was brilliant, in that > (River Phoenix waking up in the piazza, in Rome, among > the rent-boys)... > > And how about _Mr. Arkadin_? > > - Greg Little > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! > http://platinum.yahoo.com > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:16:45 -0000 > From: Steve Welburn <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Neo-philia > >> Why is the fact that it is relatively recent (the mobile >> phones in _The Matrix_ now seem terribly outdated) significant? > > The significance is that most people involved in a discussion will have had > the chance to see it, as opposed to picking a 1960s film that no-one gets to > see in the cinema any more... > > Steve > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:43:44 +0000 > From: Daniel Coffeen <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: A different take on the Matrix > > The philosophic perspective of The Matrix has little to do with technology > or a dream/reality dichotomy. Don't listen to what the film says; watch > what the film does. It is a film not just *about* theft but *of* theft. > The film itself steals -- not in any pejorative sense whatsoever; I mean > theft as a tactic distinct from poaching (see Deleuze's Dialogues and de > Derteau's The Practice of Everyday Life) -- from the visual archives: The > Good, the Bad, and the Ugly; Point Break (the chase scene towards the end, > through the apartments); John Woo; video games such as Street Fighter; every > cop movie ever made; the entire history of martial arts films; and many I > don't catch. > > The Wachowskis don't quote these films: they take what they need and use it > for their own purposes, make it there own, within a continuous aesthetic > palate. And what is the film about? What is the battle between the > machines and the humans? They are fighting for the others' life: each wants > to steal the life force of the other in order to live themselves. See? > Just like the Wachowskis. > > What makes The Matrix so impressive -- in addition to its unbelievable > aesthetic -- is that it is film making as theft (and not homage, or > reference, or genre, or irony). > > My two sense.... > > -Daniel Coffeen > > ------------------------------ > > End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 28 Mar 2003 (#2003-90) > ****************************************************** >