Our study of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance suggests that philosophers aren't the only people interested in philosophical issues. Can you think of another film that (upon a second or third viewing) explores some deeper philosophical issues? Identify the film and the issues it explores.
11 comments:
One movie that raises certain philosophical questions and is fairly recent is Crash, an academy award nominee. The entire movie has several main characters of different ages, races, and situations in the same city. They encounter each other and think nothing of it, but they are all connected to each other. This raises the philosophical question of fate and how all human contact affects one another and how "no man is an island". A big point this movie poses is about racism, and how this effects everyone's first impressions of the rest of the characters. Not only do many of the main characters kill, cheat, lie and judge, but in the end it gives hope to humanity. The once-car stealing cons end up helping naiive foriegners escape and find their way around the big city. This one situation gives hope to the world that even seemingly heartless characters have humane feelings and follow an inherent moral code.
There is a film called Fight club which I believe touches upon a few philosophical issues. First the main character begins going to meetings for people with issues such as cancer and pretends to have the condition. He does this as to assuage his conscience and is then able to sleep. Without these meetings he is an insomniac. Should he go to these meetings? Also a woman goes to these meetings she also pretends yet he hates her for it. Why should he hate someone for doing the same thing he is? Is that right or wrong.
One of my favorite directors, Alfred Hitchcock, directed several movies which explore ethics. North by Northwest, possibly one of my favorite movies of all time, alone, explores several issues.
One major issue it explores is honesty. From the start, Hitchcock introduces the issue of lying. As Cary Grant and his secretary walk down the street, he asks a man to give up his cab because he has a “very sick woman here,” when in fact, he just does not want to wait for another taxi to show up. He justifies his lie by telling his secretary that he made the man feel like “a good sumaritan.” He also justifies it by saying that, “In the world of advertising, there is no such thing as a lie, only expedient exaggeration.” A few scenes later Cary Grant is kidnapped by an organized crime group and is mistaken for another man known as Mr. Kaplan, when in fact his name is Roger Thornhill—a big-city advertising agent. Later in the movie, an FBI agent contacts Thornhill and tells him that he must continue to pretend to be Mr. Kaplan because the FBI needs to maintain the persona. Kaplan, the FBI agent, is not a real person, but the US government agency created the persona to gather information on the crime group. The mob group also lies to conceal their true identities and takes Cary Grant to Townsend’s estate despite the fact that Townsend is not a member of their group. As a result, everyone thinks that Cary Grant is lying about what happened to him and who he is, so he has to run from the law. A woman Thornhill meets on a train while escaping from the police, also lies to him. She pretends to be a normal passenger, but Grant eventually discovers that she is really the girlfriend of Phillip Vandamm, the leader of the organization. Later on, Thornhill discovers that Even Kendill is actually a double-agent, but she lied about her loyalties to keep her cover. Nearly everyone lies in Hitchcock’s thriller North by Northwest which raises the question of whether or not lying can be justifiable and if lying is ethical.
Additionally, North by Northwest explores justice. The organized crime group kills Townsend, a man with whom Thornhill wanted to speak with, at the United Nations, but when Thornhill pulls the knife out of the man’s back, reporters take photographs of him and dub him a murderer. However, Thornhill is no killer. Phillip Vandamm is the killer, at least indirectly; his men act out the crimes under his orders. Alternately, the FBI want to exact justice on Vandamm and his cronies for all the murders, thefts, etc. they have enacted. Meanwhile, the courts and newspapers believe they are exacting justice upon Cary Grant because he appears to be a murderer, a liar, a drunk, and a fool, but the FBI and Thornhill know the real facts and know where true justice lies.
The questions which North by Northwest raises are all based on perception. Vandamm believes that what he does is just and honest and a profitable business. Thornhill believes that his attempts to stay alive and keep out of jail for crimes he never committed are justifiable and honest and, above all, life-saving. The FBI reasons that lying about the identity of George Kaplan is just because it will bring about Vandamm’s capture and downfall and justify putting people’s lives in danger by using this reasoning. In addition, everyone’s identity in North by Northwest is based on perception. To Thornhill, Vandamm is initially Mr. Townsend, Eve Kendell is an average citizen turned girlfriend of Vandamm turned double-agent for the FBI, and the FBI is a lying, cheating, and manipulating government organization which justifies endangering people’s lives by bringing down a known criminal. To Vandamm, Roger Thornhill is George Kaplan. To the FBI, Roger Thornhill is an unfortunate victim of their plot to foil Vandamm’s organization, but reason that there must be sacrifices to make gains against criminals. No matter how many times I watch this movie, I seem to find something new each time!
If there is another film that explores philosophical issues, it has to be The Matrix.
In The Matrix, there is the issue of reality vs utopia. The character Neo chooses to get out of the matrix and into reality, where life is harsher and there is a ton of responsibility given to him. On the contrary, Cypher a character who prefers ignorance, as he would rather be in the matrix and live with no knowledge of the outside world. In the matrix, he would have what his heart desired, such as wealth, power, and a nice spouse. For him, he would rather subject himself to the rule of machines rather than live a life of hardship, whereas the rest of the crew chooses to fight for the reality.
The ethics in question is would you give up your freedom if you could live a perfect, happy life? Apparently, Cypher thinks so, whereas Neo and the rest of the crew do not. To them, the Matrix is an abomination, and even though they can live with so much power, happiness in the matrix, and yet they rather want to toil in hardship at the Earth's core.
Memento (2000), directed by Christopher Nolan, tells the story of a man with a severe mental handicap. After experiencing a grave head injury, Leonard has lost his short term memory. He cannot remember anything that has happened to him after the accident for more than about five minutes. Despite his disability, he searches for the man who raped and killed his wife on the night he was injured. He leaves himself clues as to his mission, in the form of tattoos and Polaroid photographs. By using this bizarre system, it appears that he is able to move forward. The film raises several important questions: Is justice a means or an end? Is it possible for the facts to lie? Why should we trust anyone (our selves included)?
Another film that explores some deeper philosophical values is Chocolat. In this movie a lady moves into a highly religious town and opens a chocolate store, that is even open on sundays (against the orthodox manner of the people). Not only that, she is also an atheist, and refuses offers to join the church. This film explores the issues of the individual versus the collective majority--should she stay individual and true to her beliefs, while suffering the consequences ( a boat burning, scorn for harboring a woman who left her husband) or conform to the society's wishes of practicality and religion? Her fraternization with the travelers (Johnny Depp) is shunned by most, but approved by a few. She also gives chocolate to a old woman with diabetes, and suffers the wrath of her daughter. Although she did not know about the diabetes for most of the film, when she finds out, she is conflicted. Should she comply to the woman's wishes and some final happiness at the end of her bitter life, further escalating her disease (and bringing her death), or refuse her, and leave her bitter and healthy?
V for Vendetta (2005) is a movie that brings up many philisophical questions. It is one of my favorite movies and the more times that I watch it, I realize new things. V for Vendetta is set in a future Great Britain which has turned fascist. V is a prisioner who escaped a prison after it burned down and was a secret government plan. He goes into hiding and uses terroistic actions to fight this terrible government. He ends up meeting a girl named Evey who later becomes his ally in overthrowing this terrible dictator who has taken over. The movie brings up many simialr topics that The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance does. Is it right to kill a man depending on the circumstances? Also, it questions the government and how much we can trust them. V for Vendetta is a very interesting movie that not only brings up important philisophical questions, but it is also very entertaining.
One film that raises philosophical issues and questions is an excellent tear-jerker called Freedom Writers. In this movie, a young woman starts of her new teaching career as an english teacher in a violent, gang killing society. The number of killings everyday in this society is astonishing, and absolutely nobody feels safe. The kids in her class hardley listen to her, and have kids in her school have the lowest grades over all in the country. This teacher finds this horrible, and herself dedicates everyday of her life and money to doing anything she can to help these harassed and poor kids. She is the only one on her side though, her husband calls her selfish in that she doesnt have time for him, and the principles in the school think it is wrong that she help them and not let them fight their own battles. If she is helping the lives of the kids, in what way could that be selfish? Even though its against school rules to use your own money to budget things such as informative trips and such, was it wrong for the teacher to still do this? In both cases, it seems she was putting the kids before herself, so wouldn't she be acting unselfishly? Also, how could heling them be wrong if it would benefit the entire society, the school, and the individual lives of the students?
The movie Donnie Darko is one of the greatest movies I've ever seen. This movie makes you think a lot. Donnie Darko who is played by Jake Gyllenhaal, is a teenager with some serious problems. One night he is led out of his room by an imaginary man dressed in a rabbit costume known as Frank. Frank leads him out of his room and tells him when the world is going to end. When Donnie goes back to his house, he finds it to be destroyed because an airplane engine crashed into his room. If it wasn't for Frank, he would have stayed in his room and been killed. Because he feels he owes Frank his life, he does everything Frank tells him to do. One of the main themes of the movies is determinism. Determinism is the belief that all events including decisions and choices made by humans have sufficient causes. I don't want to ruin the movie but in the end Donnie Darko has the choice of going back in time to sacrifice his life to save the world or watch the world end. There’s also a lot of free will involved and Donnie Darko plays almost a “God like” role in the film. The film also is a lot about time and time travel. I highly recommend this movie.
One movie that is philosophical is The Matrix. In the movie the oracle prophecies that a destined savior will come into the matrix to save everyone, and true enough the protagonist Neo does come and save his friends from the antagonist. This brings destiny into mind. Was Neo truly destined to save people? Did he really have a choice in whether he wanted to save Morpheus or not? Would all of his decisions and actions bring about the same outcome no matter what he did? The film also suggests that people are living in a some unreal place and that they were really fast asleep somewhere else and everything was a dream. What if our world was the same too? Who are we to say that this was just some weird movie theory that is there just to make the movie more interesting and not true at all? What if everything we did was not actually real, but some figment or our imagination?
This post is now closed.
Post a Comment