1

PHL 151: The Examined Life

Film Review Cinema and television can give us another avenue by which to think through and reflect upon philosophical issues and arguments, whether drama, science fiction, fantasy, or documentary.

Philosophy engages with the concerns of life and film provides narratives about life, selecting various details and presenting meaningful patterns of development and events.

In this way, then, film – whether historical or fictional – can shed light on our own lives and the kinds of philosophical problems that human experience generates. Assignment: Select one of the following films and consider the relevant questions as you write your 2-3 page review and analysis, connecting the film with our readings.

Note: You do not have to answer all (or even any) of the questions about a particular film. They are meant to get you thinking & suggest directions to go in.

The Twilight Zone 1.28: “A Nice Place to Visit” 1960. Director: John Brahm. Writer: Charles Beaumont. Actors: Larry Blyden, Sebastian Cabot. Relevant texts: Aristotle, Boethius

A small-time crook gets shot and finds himself in an afterlife he didn’t expect. Explores issues of the nature of genuine happiness, varieties of false happiness, and what it means to be free.

[1] This is a simple story, but it deals with topics such as the nature of genuine happiness and the importance of authentic freedom. How do Rocky’s experiences after he dies illustrate and confirm Aristotle’s understanding that pleasure and happiness are distinct?

[2] In what way does the world that Rocky enters illustrate Boethius’ discussion of different kinds of false happiness? In what ways do his experiences lack self-sufficiency? Why is this not heaven (that is, participating in God and becoming god) as Boethius understands that?

[3] Aristotle unpacks freedom in terms of the power to deliberate among genuine options, where the outcome is up to us and uncertain. Boethius, moreover, says that:

…human souls are indeed at their freest when the preserve themselves intact within the contemplation of the divine mind; but they are less free when they fall away toward bodies, and still less free when they are tied to limbs of earthly matter. At their furthest remove there is slavery, when they have fallen away from the possession of the reason that belongs to them because they have surrendered themselves to vices. (Book V, Prose 2)

Is Rocky genuinely able to make choices in Aristotle’s sense? Is he at all free in Boethius’ sense?

Babette’s Feast (Babettes Gæstebud) 1987. Director: Gabriel Axel. Writer: Karen Blixen. Actors: S. Audran, B. Kjer, B. Federspiel. Relevant texts: Plato, Aristotle, Boethius, Pieper (Film in Danish with English subtitles)

Two daughters of a strict Lutheran pastor spurn the men who court them. When they are old, the one former suitor sends them a refugee chef and the other returns for a visit. Despite the sisters’

(Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime)

(Hulu, Amazon Prime)

2

worries, a lavish feast ensues that changes everything for their aging, fractured community. Explores issues of human meaning, happiness, regret, fate, and love.

[1] One theme of the film concerns choices we make in life and how they shape our destinies. As we grow older, we face regrets and question the choices we made when we were younger. We wonder if our lives will evidence any final meaningfulness. How can we be sure we’re making the right choices? What might Boethius say?

[2] The film also portrays how circumstances beyond our control—small accidents (the opera) or major events (war)—can profoundly affect the story of our lives. How does this intersect with discussion of fortune, meaning, & happiness in Aristotle and Boethius?

[3] The General, as a young man, concludes that “Fate is hard” and that “in this world there are things which are impossible.” He then goes on to pursue a life of wealth, reputation, and power, with much success, but also much regret. How does this connect with Aristotle and Plato’s discussions of genuine and false happiness/goods? With Boethius on happiness and fate?

[4] On the other hand, Martina & Phillipa’s father preaches salvation through self-denial, which resonates with Socrates’ view that a philosopher turns away from the body and its pleasures. But this spirituality devolves into a brittle & divisive piety after the death of the preacher, even while, like Socrates on his deathbed, they still sing of happiness, peace, mercy, justice, and bliss. Does this picture of renunciation and discipline undermine Plato’s position?

[5] How does the film portray self-centeredness? How do the characters break out of that and gain a new point of view? How does the film show that joy, risk, gift, and extravagance are central to human goodness? How does this intersect with Aristotle on the virtue of friendliness & the nature of genuine friendship? How does it reflect what Pieper says about the importance of feasting and celebration?

[6] How does the film portray Plato’s notion that material things participate in and have communion with the eternal and divine? How do the material things of life become sites for the inbreaking of grace and gift? The General says, “…grace is infinite…See! That which we have chosen is given us, and that which we have refused is, also and at the same time, granted us…” How might this connect with Boethius’ understanding of fortune, fate, and providence?

Gattaca 1997. Director & Writer: Andrew Niccol. Actors: Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman, Jude Law. Relevant texts: Plato, Aristotle, Boethius, Pieper

In a world where genetics is destiny, one young man – through a secret exchange and against all odds – exceeds his potential and launches to the heavens. Explores themes of destiny, potentiality, friendship, sacrifice, and the divine.

[1] Aristotle views human happiness or flourishing as fulfilling our “potential.” How does the notion of “potential” function within the world of Gattaca? How does it differ from Aristotle’s? Note this dialogue: Director Josef: “We have to ensure that people are meeting their potential.” Investigator: “Not exceeding it?” Josef: “No one exceeds his potential.” Investigator: “If he did?” Josef: “It means that we did not accurately gauge his potential in the first place.”

[2] Boethius argues that wrongdoing and goodness have to do with the ways in which we order our desires, where we look to for fulfillment and whether it is self-sufficient. What we desire is ultimately an expression of our freedom. How do we see these themes play out in Gattaca, particularly in the story-lines of Vincent, Irene, Jerome, Anton, and the Director?

(Hulu, Amazon Prime, Showtime)

3

[3] Saturn’s moon Titan is named after the primordial deities of Greek mythology, as serves as the heavenly goal of Vincent’s ambitions. In what ways might Gattaca suggest that divine transcendence and, indeed, grace are necessary components of human fulfillment (consider, e.g., the image of water or the role of Lamar)? How might this connect to Plato or Boethius on the divine and Pieper on worship?

[4] Eugene and Vincent are involved in an exchange. Vincent flourishes through receiving Eugene’s identity (including bits of his body and his blood), while Eugene receives a new perspective on life and dreams from Vincent. In what respects does their exchange express the kind of reciprocity and love that Aristotle sees as defining complete friendship?

[5] What do you make of the film’s ending? Why did Eugene act as he did? Visually his action connects to the Titan rocket launch. How might this connect to Pieper’s discussion of sacrifice?

Dekalog 1 1987 (broadcast on Polish TV in 1988). Director & Writer: Krzysztof Kieslowski. Relevant texts: Plato, Boethius, Descartes, Pieper (Film in Polish with English subtitles)

A scientifically-minded father remains closed to the possibility of transcendence until his rational calculations backfire and tragedy leaves him crying out to God. Explores problems posed by natural evils, bad fortune, transcendence, and the divine.

[1] Dekalog was made before the fall of the Berlin wall or the 1989 election victories of the Solidarność movement, when Poland was still under Communist rule within the Soviet bloc. Back then official atheism and scientific truth were tools of social control, claiming to give meaning or purpose. How does this context affect the film’s meaning? How might western capitalist structures exercise very different, yet analogous forms of control (think about Pieper on modern notions of work or Boethius on freedom) or claims to meaning?

[2] The little boy, Pawel, seems similar to his father, yet open to the religious influence of his aunt. The aunt sees ordinary things in life pointing to the divine – God is present in her hug, in good deeds. The film hints that God is even present in numbers and programming (i.e., the computer spontaneously stating “I am ready”). But the father sees only patterns of numbers & data. How does this connect to Socrates’ claims about how material things point to (copy, participate in) ultimate Reality? Or Boethius’ understanding of divine providence? What do you make of the computer weirdnesses or the broken ink bottle?

[3] In his university lecture the father speaks of language as irreducibly embedded within belief, culture, & social context, so communication across languages is exceedingly difficult. Yet he thinks a computer, rightly programmed, could learn to speak. Is there a tension in these views? How does this connect to Descartes’ points about language and reason (from Discourse on Method; see PowerPoint)? What might Socrates say, given his beliefs about knowledge, language, and the soul? How do communication barriers arise within the relationships in the film?

[4] At the end of the film, the father in his grief runs to a church and confronts an icon of the Madonna and Christ child. What does it say about his faith in science that, when that faith is shattered, he directs his anger toward God as revealed in Christ? How might this connect with Socrates’ contention that we are all aware of absolute Reality, but have forgotten it? Or with Boethius & Pieper’s idea that natural objects and human artifacts point toward God and heaven? What’s the significance of the father finding the holy water frozen solid when he reaches for it?

[5] The dripping on the icon at the end makes the icon appear to weep. What do you think is the significance of this moment? What might this suggest about the place of evil and suffering in a world created by a good and loving God? How does this intersect with Boethius’ suffering?

(DVD only – check your local library)

4

Doctor Who 5.7: “Amy’s Choice” 2010. Director: Catherine Morshead. Writer: Simon Nye. Actors: Matt Smith, K. Gillan, A. Darvill. Relevant text: Plato, Descartes

The series concerns a person named “The Doctor”—a Time Lord from another world who travels through space and time in a machine called the “TARDIS” (acronym for “Time and Relative Dimension in Space”), rescuing people and planets from trouble. He’s the fellow with the bow tie.

He typically has friends/companions he picks up along the way, who travel with him for a time. Among these are Amy and Rory, both in this episode. The back-story is that Amy ran off with the Doctor in his TARDIS the night before she was supposed to get married to Rory. After all, with a time machine, she can always get back in time for the wedding. Rory eventually joins the Doctor and Amy in their travels, but her running off with the Doctor has been a source of unease for Rory.

[1] This episode involves not only Amy’s choice, but the more general problem of distinguishing appearance from reality. Rene Descartes raises this problem in a similar way in his “Meditation 1”. Early in the Meditation he questions whether he would be able to tell if he were dreaming. He writes,

How often does my evening slumber persuade me of such ordinary things such as these: that I am here, clothed in my dressing gown, seated next to the fireplace—when in fact I am lying undressed in bed! But right now my eyes are certainly wide awake when I gaze upon this sheep of paper…Such things would not be so distinct for someone who is asleep. As if I did not recall having been deceived on other occasions even by similar thoughts in my dreams! As I consider these matters more carefully, I see so plainly that there are no definitive signs by which to distinguish being awake from being asleep.

How is this problem described by Descartes similar to the confusion experienced by the Doctor, Amy, and Rory on the TARDIS and in Upper Leadworth? What sorts of signs do they seek to distinguish deceptive dream from reality? If you were in that situation, how would you determine what is real? How do you know you aren’t dreaming right now?

[2] Later in the Meditation, Descartes moves beyond the possibility of dreaming, into an even more disturbing sense of doubt. He writes:

I will suppose [that there might be] …an evil genius, supremely powerful and clever, who has directed his entire effort at deceiving me. I will regard the heavens, the air, the earth, colors, shapes, sounds, and all external things as nothing but the bedeviling hoaxes of my dreams, with which he lays snares for my credulity. I will regard myself as not having [these] hands, or eyes, or flesh, or blood, or any senses, but as nevertheless falsely believing that I possess all these things. I will remain resolute and steadfast in this meditation, and even if it is not within my power to know anything true, it is certainly within my power to take care resolutely to withhold my assent to what is false, lest this deceiver, however powerful, however clever he may be, have any effect on me.

How is this possibility described by Descartes similar to the role of the Dream Lord in “Amy’s Choice”? How does the presence of the Dream Lord further complicate the epistemological situation?

[3] How might the issues raised by this episode connect with Plato’s understanding of recollection and genuine knowledge? Can we ever have a secure understanding of material things, known through the senses? Or it is only the eternal unchanging Forms – for instance, love – known in and through events and objects that can provide any certainty?

(Amazon Prime, BBC America)

5

Black Mirror 3.5: “Men Against Fire” 2016. Director: Jakob Verbruggen. Writer: Charlie Brooker. Actors: Malachi Kirby, Michael Kelly. Relevant texts: Aristotle, Descartes, Pieper

Black Mirror is a kind of techno-dystopian fiction, representing a future that, in many ways, seems only minutes away from reality. This episode involves the use of digital technology in the context of military action in order to distort reality and thus carry out a morally problematic program. Explores issues of knowledge, reality, perception, and deception.

[1] See the quotes from Descartes under the previous film (Doctor Who, “Amy’s Choice”). How is this problem described by Descartes similar to the confused and distorted perceptions experienced the soldier, Stripe, in “Men Against Fire”? What kinds of evidence leads Stripe to begin to question his experience of reality? If you were in his situation, how would you determine what is real? How do you know you aren’t being technologically misled right now?

[2] How does the possibility the powerful deceiver described by Descartes similar to the role of technology, the government, and the military in Black Mirror? How do the fact that Stripe and the other soldiers are being intentionally deceived complicate the epistemological situation? What kinds of analogues do we already experience today, for instance, in terms of how commercial and social media, including Russian bots and trolls, manipulate our perceptions?

[3] How might Aristotle’s discussion of intellectual virtues help Stripe (or us) better navigate a world where truth is distorted in service to political and economic agendas, or as expression of social vices (e.g. xenophobia)? Can his discussion help us at all?

[4] Pieper seems to suggest that our perceptions of reality have been distorted by the forces of the marketplace and cultural shifts around concepts of work, leisure, and humanity. Moreover, views of humanity that reduce us to our economic contribution to society tend to dehumanize and devalue those intrinsic good we share together – family, love, music, art, celebration. How might these trends that Pieper identifies – especially as he writes in the immediate aftermath of Nazi power in Germany – pave the way for the world “Men Against Fire” depicts? Do we already see such tendencies in place today?

(Netflix)