The Goal of This Study
The goal of this study is to establish cinema as a new platform for philosophy. It is a comprehensive analysis of the nature of philosophyâs need and potential to be manifested cinematically. This study, drawing on the realms of cinema, philosophy, and media studies, adds cinema to the traditional list of the ways in which philosophy can be created, concentrating on the potential of the cinematic platform to create philosophy. This project reveals that there are different possibilities for creating philosophical wisdom and that philosophy should not be confined to its traditional formats (in other words, the written and oral platforms). The cinematic platform, with its unprecedented potential for exploring uncharted new ideas, presents us with a radically new way of creating philosophy.
The central questions that have guided my research are as follows:
- Why is the relationship between film and philosophy so important to our era?
- What is it about philosophy that demands to be expressed cinematically?
- Why has philosophy always needed cinema?
- What can the cinematic platform offer philosophy that other platforms (whether verbal or written) cannot?
The Main Innovations Presented in This Book
I want to briefly mention here the main innovations presented in this book, as a way to orient the reader. Although the following paragraphs can only touch on each of these innovations, they will assist the reader in getting a clearer view of the contributions of this study.
Turning the Exploration of Film and Philosophy on Its Head
Instead of using the common methodology for establishing the relationship between film and philosophyâwhich consists of searching for philosophical evidence within individual moviesâI turn the exploration on its head by searching for cinematic evidence in the history of philosophy. This is an unprecedented move for the field of film and philosophy, and it provides an answer for why philosophy has always needed cinema. This is an important question, because if philosophy has always needed cinema, it establishes that the bond between film and philosophy is based on necessity. The necessary nature of this relationship has essential implications for the discipline of film and philosophy.
Cinematic Thought Experiments Offer Much More than Traditional Thought Experiments
My methodology differs from the usual methodology in film and philosophy, which argues that certain films could be considered to be thought experiments; what I stress, instead, is the dramatic difference between cinematic thought experiments and traditional ones. The technical possibility of manifesting thought experiments as onscreen experiences (rather than experiences that are confined to the mind or the imagination) creates a version of the thought experiment that is so transformed that it can no longer be considered a traditional thought experiment. By definition, thought experiments are experiments that happen in the mind or imagination. But cinematic thought experiments are essentially different in that they take place in a physical incarnationâon a screen. Therefore, I reexamine and redefine cinematic thought experiments and argue that because of their differences from traditional thought experiments, considering a film merely as a traditional thought experiment, an illustration, or a representation of a philosophical theory leads to a limited perception of the philosophical potential of the film.
The Philosophy within a Given Film Is Not Dependent on Traditional Philosophy
Unlike most theoreticians of film and philosophy, who try to show that a given film illustrates a particular philosophical reference, I show that a philosophical notion can be evoked by, and understood through, a film without any need for a theoretician to connect it to some âproperâ philosophical text or some reference from the history of philosophy. In other words, the comprehension of a philosophical idea that is evoked by a specific film is independent of the work of any theoretician. This further supports the idea that the cinematic platform can create valid philosophy, as valid as any other kind of philosophy.
A Radical New Potential for Creating Philosophy
The common view on film and philosophy is that, at best, certain films can illustrate or represent certain philosophical ideas; I argue, however, that the cinematic platform has an unprecedented potential to create a unique type of philosophyânamely, philosophical experience, rather than philosophical reflection. This is an unprecedented possibility for the discipline of philosophy: we are no longer limited to simply reflecting on or imagining philosophy, but can experience it.
The Dogma of Film and Philosophy
I uncover a dogma buried deep within the discipline of film and philosophy that holds, consciously or unconsciously, that the written text is the only proper platform for creating philosophy and that any other possibility for philosophy is degraded. Through many examples, going back to the birth of philosophy, I show that the written platform is not a pure or objective platform for philosophy and that philosophy can, should, and must be created in other platforms too.
Oral Philosophy, Written Philosophy, and Cinematic Philosophy
To replace the obvious and dogmatic separation between disciplines, with cinema at one pole and philosophy at the other, I call for an alternative disciplinary articulation, based on different platforms: oral philosophy, written philosophy, and cinematic philosophy. This redefines the boundaries between cinema and philosophy and shows that we are dealing not with two separate fields that are artificially connected, but with the possibility of creating philosophy in different platforms. Drawing on the Spinozistic spirit, we could describe this alternative division as being made up of different attributes that manifest a similar essence or substance through different expressions. Rather than dismissing a specific platform as degraded (as many theoreticians of film and philosophy do), I argue that each platform provides a different and unique access to philosophy, leading to different and unique types of philosophical works.
Methodological Considerations for the Analysis of Films Within the Context of Cinematic Philosophy
Since we are engaged with a new platform for philosophy, I stress, as I have already mentioned, that the philosophy that emerges from this new possibility will be radically different from what develops in traditional platforms (oral and written). The way in which any philosophical issue is expressed, used, and understood via the cinematic platform is very different from the way in which it is expressed, used, and understood via the written or oral platforms. However, because many theoreticians of film and philosophy judge these expressions, uses, and understandings by the parameters of traditional written and oral philosophy, it should come as no surprise that they see the use of cinema only as a degraded possibility for philosophy. What I do here, instead, is explore and articulate the different potential for creating philosophy that is offered by the cinematic platform, which then leads me to develop a different set of criteria forâand expectations fromâcinematic philosophy.
Grounding Philosophy in a Contemporary Context
Not only can cinematic philosophy cause us to experience philosophy, it also holds the potential to ground philosophical ideas within a contemporary context. Because of the unique composition of cinema from diverse elements, including plot, acting, cinematography, editing, sounds, music, special effects, lighting, mood, and colors, as well as the empathy it evokes for its characters and story, a specific film has the potential to construct a vivid journey, allowing the audience to place itself in a world that is oriented by a philosophical idea. No longer is philosophy an abstract idea that can only be imagined, one that is far distant from the audienceâs everyday life. It is now right there in front of the audience that gets sucked into the experience, which then leads to a deeper engagement with the philosophical idea. In this way, cinema can ground a philosophical idea as a tangible, plausible, contemporary experience that is relevant to the audienceâs everyday life.
Important Clarifications
Before I go on to summarize my argument and give an outline of the contents of this book, I want to offer a few important methodological and semantic clarifications.
Methodological Clarifications
This book offers many important new features; it is not just another book on film and philosophy based on case studies that identify or analyze philosophical references in movies. Although the analysis of movies is an important undertaking, I argue that while it can strengthen an already existing connection between film and philosophy, it cannot prove that existence. How many philosophical references within movies would it take to prove that the cinematic platform has the potential to create philosophy? 5? 50? 500? 5000? And how do we measure the quality of each analysis? Would one poor analysis be sufficient to disqualify cinema as a new platform for philosophy? In other words, how many and what kind of such analyses would it take to convince people that the cinematic platform itself possesses the potential to create philosophy?
Since I consider these questions to be unanswerable, I am less interested in analyzing specific films that might possess philosophical wisdom than I am in the question of whether the cinematic platform itself has the potential to create philosophy. I believe that the answer to this question is an emphatic Yes, but in order to arrive at this Yes, we need to examine philosophy itself, which entails a dramatically different methodological pathânamely, searching for cinematic evidence in the history of philosophy. Therefore, although I do, in fact, analyze many case studies that demonstrate the presence of philosophical wisdom in specific movies, this specific method is secondary to this project.
Semantic Clarifications
Cinema
There were other possibilities, but I have chosen to use the word cinema in this book because it comes from the Greek kinema, meaning motion or movement. Cinema best articulates what I want to describe since it expresses an idea that is experienced and understood through moving images and sounds, which is a key element in this study. It is not merely a visual possibility, since a visual possibility could be understood as a still image without sound and without movement. It is also not merely a narrative possibility, since a narrative possibility could be understood as something one imagines when reading a book, rather than something that one sees or experiences. Cinema, however, incorporates visual images and sounds as well as a story or an idea that is expressed through movement or motion.
Furthermore, here and now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, cinema resembles an octopus, morphing and expanding into different structures, formats, and possibilities. I understand and refer to the cinematic possibility as a phenomenon that includes a wide spectrum of forms and variations that can appear on different screens and in various manifestations, including the movie theater, television, videos, mobile phones, tablets, video games, 1 and computers. Although throughout this book, I use a variety of phrases, including cinema, movies, films, and videos, along with other variations, I consider all of these as included under the umbrella of the cinematic phenomenon. Having said this, I am aware, coming as I do from the discipline of media and communication, of the significant importance of the differences among all of these media. However, for the purposes of this study, I will not explore the different implications of experiencing cinema in the movie theater versus via a television set, a mobile phone, a tablet, or online videos. My goal is to examine the cinematic phenomenon as a metaconcept; therefore, I will consider all of these different variations to be part of the cinematic phenomenon.
The Important Distinction between Film Theory and Cinematic Philosophy
As the twenty-first century begins, philosophy and film have been variously juxtaposed to produce such categories as film and philosophy, film as philosophy, film-philosophy, the philosophy of film, film theory, and the philosophical theory of film. These are just some of the phrases in use, with overlapping attributes and meanings. The lack of semantic clarity creates unnecessary confusion.
With respect to the theory I will propose here, the most important semantic distinction to be made is between film theory 2 and what I refer to as cinematic philosophy. 3 In essence, film theory is theoretical reflection on film/cinema, on the same level as literary theory. It is where the analysis of content, structure, form, reflection, authorship, narrative, and genre is conducted, without necessarily being labeled as philosophy. (Although film theory and cinematic philosophy may sometimes overlap, not every theoretical reflection in a given disciplineâin this case, film/cinemaâshould be labeled as philosophy. The unnecessary use of the word philosophy creates a great deal of confusion.) Cinematic philosophy, on the contrary, concentrates on how philosophy can be created through cinema (in the same way that philosophy can be created, for instance, orally or through writing). Therefore, in essence, cinematic philosophy explores the possibility, potential, and limitations of creating philosophy via the cinematic medium.
There are many film-related studies and theories that refer to philosophy (or include âphilosophyâ in their titles), but do not deal with the potential of the cinematic medium to evoke philosophy. Such fields as cognitive film theory, psychoanalytic film theory, postmodernism, Marxist film ...