Film-Philosophy 2.

1 1998

Brian K. Aurand

Survey of a Field?

Philosophy and Film

Edited and with an Introduction by Cynthia A. Freeland and Thomas E. Wartenberg
New York and London: Routledge, 1995
ISBN 0-415-90921-X
258 pages

I would like to begin this review by setting its context in a narrative. My desire to
investigate Freeland and Wartenberg's collection was prompted by my interest in
teaching an introductory course on film and philosophy. My hope was that this book
would provide, if not a primary text for discussions in the class meetings, then at least
a secondary source to recommend to students as a survey of contemporary writings in
the field. In the end Philosophy and Film has sometimes satisfied but more often
disappointed me. This disappointment, however, may not be solely in response to the
book but to the field, if this book represents a serious survey of that field. Despite
my hopes of not sounding too adversarial, it is at this point of dissatisfaction that I
would begin any discussion with students or colleagues engaged with this book. It is
possibly for this reason that Philosophy and Film calls for engagement.

In their preface and introduction Freeland and Wartenberg cite their own interests in
'the philosophic study of film' (i) as the inspiration for this collection, the premise of
which is that philosophy 'has its own unique perspective to bring to the exploration of
film' (1). Actually this seems, in the long run, to be the major sticking point of
Philosophy and Film, for as much as the editors go on to assert that film can
'challenge philosophy to think of itself and its questions in new ways' (2), the return in
the majority of the essays is to see what philosophy can say about film and not what
film can say to philosophy.

Freeland and Wartenberg have drawn together essayists from several different
perspectives and schools of thought -- such as analytical, 'Continental', Marxist,
feminist, pragmatist, postmodern, anti-postmodern, cognitivist, and classical. They
have done well to present an introduction to the growing impact of cultural studies, as
well as issues surrounding race, class, and gender incorporated into philosophy. bell
hooks and Cornell West, in addition to Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva, Sigmund Freud,
and Jacques Lacan, speak alongside Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, and Heidegger.
This is, indeed, the book's strength, especially for the classroom, as Philosophy and
Film provides a view of the field as involved in a conversation with at least one end of
the table of film studies. What it achieves much less fully is to sit at the other end --
the end occupied by the films themselves, and close textual analyses of the visual and
audio elements that make film texts different from their novel or screenplay versions.
Too often the essays fall into discussions of films as novels or screenplays,
emphasizing narrative summaries (story and plot) and subordinating (or sometimes
completely avoiding) investigation of the relationships between formal elements and
their meanings, and the ways in which these elements make meaning.
Film-Philosophy 2.1 1998

The thirteen essays compiled in Philosophy and Film are divided into three sections:
General Perspectives, Genres and Tropes, and Specific Interpretations. Essays by
Stanley Cavell, Karen Hanson, George M. Wilson, and Noel Carroll make up the first
section. All of them are concerned with certain ontological questions, as well as
considerations of how films make meaning. They posit the worth of studying films
and make comparisons across genres to demonstrate film's aesthetic value. They
review in brief the formation of film theory and question the relationship between
theoretical debates and scientific approaches. They examine the narrative patterns and
structures of film, such as point-of-view and characterization, in order to ask about
spectatorship and epistemology. In short, this first section, very influenced by the
work of Cavell and Carroll, attempts to address the very nature of the moving image.

In the second section Naomi Scheman, Nicholas Pappas, Cynthia A. Freeland, Robert
Gooding-Williams, and Thomas E. Wartenberg work more with a focus toward film
categories and categorization. Their goal lies in describing and questioning film
genres and their significance. These essays apply genre descriptions to films and
question these descriptions by showing how certain films do not fall easily into
traditional genres for analysis. The essays focus on representational or ideological
concerns and practices as they assess larger patterns of film and film language. In this
section the essays move between reading films as illustrations or tests of philosophic
theories, and reading films through different philosophical approaches.

The final section of the book contains essays aimed most specifically at individual
films or directors with a concern for delineating ideological, psychological, gendered,
aesthetic, and moral patterns in their objects of study. Harvey Cormier, Douglas
Kellner, Julie Inness, and Kelly Oliver respectively contribute articles on: modernism
and 2001, Brechtian morality tales and Spike Lee, the trauma of passing in Europa,
Europa, and ideology and patriarchal economies in Persona.

When the essays engage philosophically with the possibility of a Marxist Kantian
aesthetic of Modernism, or of Hegelian thought in regard to identity and recognition,
they speak succinctly and clearly to an audience that may not be deeply familiar with
such issues. Thus, this collection would make a suitable introductory textbook for
discussions of such thinking. However, just as often the mention of a jump-cut or a
pan leads to no further discussion of the implications of such editing or
cinematography. Mise en scene, soundtrack, costuming, or character gesture -- the
meanings of which are at least as difficult to articulate as many recognized
philosophical concepts -- are too often left unaddressed. Thus, Philosophy and Film
would very often call for a supplementary text or discussion in the classroom.

In the context of my search for an introductory textbook, I found two essays in the
collection that best deal with film and philosophy. Such studies as Oliver's final
piece, which is a very well written explanation of the difference between a Hegel-
Lacan economy of identity of antagonism and a possible Kristeva-Irigaray counter
economy, and Cormier's essay, which provides a well-wrought and succinct
discussion of modernism and director Stanley Kubrick's difficult relationship with
non-representational aesthetics, go a very long way in their philosophical aspects.
However, although these and other essays are philosophically acute and well-stated,
the essays by Wilson and Freeland may best address both the philosophic and filmic
Film-Philosophy 2.1 1998

elements, showing how 'philosophers have interesting things to say about films, and
that films can be used as a means of addressing issues within philosophy' (10).

George M. Wilson's 'Morals for Method' concentrates on issues of narration,

spectatorship, and epistemology in trying to engage realist theories (especially Colin
MacCabe's 'classic realist text') in thinking further about 'the actual and potential
illusions of spectatorship at the cinema' (49). Concentrating on point-of-view as a
narrational device, Wilson points out the differences between literary point-of-view
and film point-of-view, questioning any quick adaptation of the former to the study of
the latter. Emphasizing that analyses of point-of-view in both literature and film are
crucial, Wilson warns that the issues surrounding each are in no way identical, 'since
verbal telling and cinematic showing are such very different narrational procedures'
(64). If point-of-view is taken seriously in film studies, then what must be further
discussed is the 'fictional activities of showing and their relations to the shown' (64).
Although Wilson does not indicate what such a close reading of this relationship
might look like (and I wish that he had), his argument is especially crucial in
considering that narrative summary alone will not suffice in discussion of film
because who is looking, showing, and seeing must always be put into question in
discussions of filmic texts.

'Realist Horror' is Cynthia A. Freeland's dialogue with Plato, Aristotle, and Carroll
about the ways in which classical theories of tragedy and horror will not suffice in
considerations of 'realist horror' (127). This genre (and her specific consideration of
the details of one example: Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer) lead her into
considerations of postmodern theories of representation and realist horror's possible
ability to 'lead audience members to question their own fascination with the
monstrousness of the serial killer and to query associated icons of male heroism'
(137). In this way Freeland's essay closely examines the tropes and icons of realist
horror in an ideological critique. Although a genre study, Freeland's piece does
provide examinations of shot arrangements, mise en scene, specific dialogue, and the
possible meaning of 'amateur camera' shots in the film (129), thus moving to a closer
reading of the details of at least one film. In fact, part of Freeland's essay is
specifically focused on the point that plot summary and narrative analysis of realist
horror may fail precisely due to the randomness and repetitive nature of serial killings
and films about them.

Overall, the issues raised by Philosophy and Film demand a certain recognition and
reconsideration. As these previously distant fields of inquiry come closer together it is
crucial, as regards my way of understanding interdisciplinary work, that neither side-
step the other along the way. Philosophy and film can teach each other a good deal;
each can act as gadfly or guide to the other in certain respects. However, in its present
state, as represented by this collection, there is very little film in philosophy and film.
Of course, this raises the question of what the target of such a critique might
ultimately become. If this collection provides a survey of the field (the question which
haunts my reading), then we in the field are forced to ask ourselves just what our
intentions are.

The essays in this collection could serve as a starting place from which to begin to
address just these concerns. As a textbook Philosophy and Film provides a good
range of approaches and films -- in short, readable essays. However, without further
Film-Philosophy 2.1 1998

dealing with the filmic aspects of film, the essays may leave students wondering why
they were asked to attend screenings or rent video tapes in the first place. There is a
certain leaving-behind of film here.

The good of film studies today is that it has begun to open-up the definition of
'cinema' to include consideration of reception theory, audience analysis, distribution
and exposition analysis, and new film history discussion. And this collection has
followed along these trajectories quite well. However, many of these broader moves
have led to the neglect of the audiovisual aspects of film texts -- a path this collection
has also walked down. My quest for a textbook leads me to search further for a
volume which might bring the two together.

University of Maryland at College Park, USA