Hello all...let me get my own two cents in here...one of the most striking things about the volume under discussion is how few original "Continental" philosophers are included in the mix. What I find most interesting is that in the U.S., most philosophers that write about film from an existential point of view draw upon the original "Continental" existentialists (like Kierkegaard, Sartre, Nietzsche, Heidegger etc.), while film-philosophers from the E.U. generally discuss films from the perspective of later thinkers they have strikingly influenced (like Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault, etc.)
Now I realize that my hasty generalization here does not do justice to folks like Stephen Mulhall (who goes straight to Heidegger), or to the extent to which phenomenologists like Merleau-Ponty have been given short shrift in the U.S. I am also aware that (other than some piquant comments by Sartre, and his intriguing treatment for John Huston's film Freud), these figures either didn't have the chance to experience films, or didn't have much that was important to say about them...
But, for heuristic purposes, let me pose my (admittedly simplistic) question again: In the U.S., while many film theorists attend to Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze etc., professional philosophers go to the original sources...I am very interested in what my fellow members of the salon think about why this is the case, and why it is so different in the E.U.
Professor of Philosophy and Film
Lock Haven University (570) 484-2052
Managing Editor, Film and Philosophy
"And remember you are more authentic the closer you are to the person you dreamed of being"
Pedro Almodovar's All About My Mother
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]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]