Film Literature and Philosophy 1

Esme Banks Marr 09819687

What, if anything, can Film offer to the body of philosophical knowledge and
understanding?

The question of whether or not there are elements of Philosophical thinking and discussion
that cannot be reached, without Film, is of paramount discussion in this essay. Could Cinema
be the latest development in the teaching of Philosophy? The idea of film as a means of
philosophy, must call upon mutual considerations, from both perspectives; philosophy
reflects upon film just as much as film teaches philosophy. This relationship is evident in
many filmic texts. Philosophy can be applied to almost any film, however, a film that can
teach the viewer philosophical arguments, or philosophical thinking, is different. I shall be
using two key case studies to aid in my argument that Cinema is a new phase, for the
understanding of philosophy.

Firstly, it is essential to state why Philosophy is important, and why it is studied. From the
viewpoint of Perspectivism, all human beings adjust their lives in order of what they view
actuality is, and this, evidently, directs them in how they think they should act. The life one
fulfils, along with the choices made, are a direct consequence of their own personal
philosophy.

Philosophy can be studied in various ways. The aim of this paper is to show how, and
explain why Film is not only a relevant, but valuable way of understanding philosophy.
Films might be seen as “themselves reflecting on and evaluating such view and arguments,
as thinking seriously and systematically about them in just the ways that philosophers do.”
(Mulhall, 2002:2) The principle among philosophers founded by Aristotle (c300 BC) of
‘peripatetic’s’, is the teaching method of essentially ‘walking and talking’. Whereby one will
do their greatest thinking and understanding, whilst engaging on such a walk. With the same
belief, Film can take a viewer on a journey, which one would seldom reach otherwise.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, a highly influential and momentous philosopher in the 20th century,
states that Language alone cannot express the nature of the world (Tractatus, 1921)
Therefore, it is undeniable, that in order to succumb to this belief, society requires something
further; potentially, that being, film. If Language fails to articulate the extensive nature of the
world, the visual relief of Film may be the method in which this could eventually be
achieved.

“Films may take as their subject matter particular philosophers, their lives and their thinking.
They may be adaptations of literary works with strong philosophical themes. Or they may
make an explicit reference to philosophical idea or positions, to the extent that they cite
philosophical claims, present or express philosophical questions and ideas, or explicitly
invoke philosophical issues in some form.” (Falzon, 2007: 7)

One can view a film on various cognitive levels, advancing limitlessly in terms of the
understanding of philosophy, in addition to adding to the corpus of philosophical knowledge.
“...cinema is primarily a visual medium, showing rather than telling its stories, but this does
not mean that it simply presents the story to us in a visual way. We see what is presented to
 Film Literature and Philosophy 2
Esme Banks Marr 09819687

us is profoundly shaped and manipulated by the filmmaker. Film does not merely record
events but guides us as to how to see them.” (Falzon, 2007:42)

Films guide us in how to think (not necessarily what to think) and influence our opinions and
consequently our philosophies. Through watching a film, the senses of sight and sound are
accomplished; therefore there is real experience in the watching of films. These senses can
be reacted to through film, as can the feelings, for example of empathy and fearfulness.

Images are a powerful means to communicating messages, arguably more so than spoken or
written literature. Memento (Nolan, 2000) is very much a philosophical text. It deals with
many philosophical theories, through its narrative and character development. The main
issue seems to be dealing with the philosophy of personal identity. Dealing with not one, but
many questions which arise through the idea of ‘being persons’. The main character Leonard
asks himself the most relevant of these interrogative questions regularly through the film,
usually after 5 minutes. Through Leonard seemingly questioning his own existence and
personal identity, whether consciously to himself or otherwise, the viewer is influenced into
philosophical ways of thinking and interpretation. Through Leonard’s mental state, and
having the ‘condition’ of retrograde amnesia, the viewer can ask the question as to whether
Leonard’s identity is the same, over time. In a quote from the film Teddy says to Leonard
“You don't know who you are anymore.” to which Leonard replies “Of course I do. I'm
Leonard Shelby. I'm from San Francisco.” Teddy replies “No, that's who you were. Maybe
it's time you started investigating yourself.” this could shine light on the director’s attitude
towards personal identity and existence, thus engaging the reader in a philosophical exercise.
Ones conscious memories, in Leonard’s case that of his existence before the accident,
amount to our identities. Memento demonstrates to the viewer personal identity, Nolan uses
philosophical questions to help plot the film, Leonard’s key question being “How can I heal
if I can’t feel time” If time does not pass for Leonard, and he cannot make new memories,
how could he possibly move on. Does he exist?

Dennett differentiates the concept of ‘person’ and ‘being’ and also, the theory of morals and
metaphysics, in his six conditions of personhood. To adequately come to a philosophical
conclusion as to whether Leonard ‘exists’ at all, and whether he is, or is not a person we can
use Dennett’s Conditions, it appears Leonards personhood has been diminished, his
condition leaves him deficient in the essential conditions of personhood (by Dennett’s
standards) the viewer can interpret this by seeking to answer whether he: ‘is a rational
being’, ‘has consciousness’, ‘a stance adopted to him’, ‘he can reciprocate this stance’, ‘can
verbally communicate’ and ‘is self conscious’.

The question as to whether Leonard should be viewed as a ‘being’ or whether he even exists
at all anymore is open to debate for the viewer. Consequently he is an allegory; his ‘body’ in
particular, a blank canvas with messages written all over it. His flesh can be interpreted as a
metaphor for his vulnerability from outside influence. Leonard in himself is the same; he has
continuity of body, of personality and of memory’s prior to the ‘accident’ involving his wife.
The viewing of Memento causes the audience to perceive how Leonard’s condition affects
him, and question how it would affect us. It teaches the viewer the subjective feeling of
 Film Literature and Philosophy 3
Esme Banks Marr 09819687

disintegration of self, the same as Leonard experiences daily, through its unusual narrative
structure. The task of viewing films such as Memento, are philosophical training.

The short story upon which the film is based, ‘Memento Mori’ translates in Latin to
‘remember you will die’, this is key to the theme and theories involved in the film. The
varieties of remembering and Plato’s theory of ‘unforgetting’. The Polaroid photographs,
which Leonard takes, to secure his facts and help his investigation are empirical knowledge,
when he burns them, and he states, he must burn them as it is the only way to delete them, he
is unforgetting. Natalie expresses to Leonard “Even if you get revenge, you’re not gonna
remember it. You’re not even gonna know it happened.” Leonard replies “My wife deserves
vengeance. It doesn't make any difference if I know about it. Just because there are things I
don't remember ... doesn't make my actions meaningless. The world doesn’t just disappear
when you close your eyes.” Nietzsche stated that ‘Some know how to muddle and abuse
their own memory in order to have their revenge at least against this only witness: Shame is
inventive.’ (1886)

Leonard’s personal code of ethics, his moral philosophy, can only be satisfied when John
G’s are killed. The film deals with Leonard’s desire for revenge and justice, not between
good and evil, although it appears he cannot decipher between these anyway. Everything
Leonard does in the film stimulates his aspiration for revenge; this is his will to power.

Many theories of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche are embodied in Leonard. In ‘The
Will to Power’ it is stated that ‘In a world that is essentially false, truthfulness would be an
anti-natural tendency’ (365). Leonard’s truths are indeed not truths “You’re a John G.? Fine,
then you can be my John G. Do I lie to myself to be happy? In your case, Teddy… yes I
will” Leonard’s constant manufacturing of his own life can be seen as leading towards a
truth, as it slowly uncovers the most important fabrication, of everything. ‘The will to logical
truth can be carried through only after a fundamental falsification of all events is assumed’
(Nietzsche, 1888:363). In addition to asking where truth can be found and what exactly it is,
Memento question whether it is even relevant. The many characters in the film influence
Leonard’s facts, his truth, to fit their own needs. The viewer needs to ask if the truth in itself
is even of significance in such a case as Leonard’s, before searching for the truth in the
narrative and to figure out exactly what happened.

The question of whether or not Leonard is responsible for the murders, discloses the matter
of relying on any aspect of Leonard’s memory, as the viewer. He describes himself as
unreliable and expresses his own attitude towards memory “Memory can change the shape of
a room; it can change the colour of a car. And memories can be distorted. They're just an
interpretation, they're not a record, and they're irrelevant if you have the facts.” He gives
many clues in his dialogue as to why we should not have confidence in his ‘facts’; “I have to
believe in a world outside my own mind. I have to believe that my actions still have
meaning, even if I can't remember them. I have to believe that when my eyes are closed, the
world's still there. Do I believe the world's still there? Is it still out there? ... Yeah. We all
need mirrors to remind ourselves who we are. I'm no different.”
 Film Literature and Philosophy 4
Esme Banks Marr 09819687

Litch (2000: 156) gives a viewpoint in to Leonards existence against his responsibility, ‘The
notion of moral responsibility falls apart, not because of hard determinism, but because there
is no person in the present to hold morally responsible. The person who killed Teddy has
ceased to exist. What should be done with Leonard if he is eventually caught for Teddy’s or
Jimmy’s murder? Would the state be justified in putting him in prison? He is clearly a
danger to others. He even recognizes his own dangerousness when he infers that the gun he
finds is not his, because people like him would not be allowed to have a gun.’

Cinema is an additional step in philosophy. Art on the screen, imitating perceptions of life,
so that we can better deal with the questions of philosophy, through seeing them and
experiencing them or experiencing what we cannot otherwise. This advance in the
understanding of philosophical theories and teachings is palpable in the filmic examples of
this essay.

The ending of Memento is left somewhat open, allowing different interpretations from the
viewer, depending on personal philosophies. Things that we cannot usually experience
through living, we can take part in experiencing in film, like the philosophical implications
of death and memory loss and the other themes and philosophical questions, by
voyeuristically learning and comprehending. Memento can offer the viewer, who is
intentionally seeking or not, the philosophical implications of memory loss and encourages
question on personal identity and existence, as well as moral philosophy. We, the viewer can
relate, through film the implications of having retrograde amnesia.

Hitchcock films can edify countless ideas about philosophy, however, residing with the
theme of paranoid crime films, the film Rope (1948) not only shares philosophical realistic
dialogue, but through visual elements and aspects it aids in understanding many, particularly
Nietzschean, theories and concepts. In addition to compelling the audience to perform
philosophical tasks whilst viewing.

The film is based on the idea that one might murder someone just to prove that one could.
Following Existential principles, two former students have killed a classmate. Although the
narrative follows the students and professor of existential philosophy, the film itself has an
anti existential message.

The first action in the film is murder, and it is carried out solely for the sake of ‘getting away
with it.’ Brandon and Phillip commit the perfect crime to show, what they believe to be, their
superiority. Nietzche’s idea of the ‘Supraman’, the bold creator of new morals, is of vast
significance to the film, and understanding the motives. ‘Nietzschian supermen create their
own moral rules, constrained by reality and the human condition rightly understood,
privileging such virtues as courage, power, boldness, and daring. And they live their lives as
artists.’ (Biderman & Jacobwitz, 2007:40) Murder is a theme close to the heart of Hitchcock;
many of his narratives reveal the human capacity for evil. The viewer can relate to the
human race as being an imperfect species, capable of doing awful things.

Rupert, the professor of existentialism, claims, before knowledge of the murder, that there
are some people who have superior intellect, and are exempt from normal rules of society.
 Film Literature and Philosophy 5
Esme Banks Marr 09819687

His students put his theories in to practice. Towards the end of the film Rupert asks Brandon
Rupert “By what right do you dare to say that there’s a superior few to which you belong?” It
is evident that Rupert preaches his views and philosophies, but he does not act on them, upon
discovering the act, he is horrified, literally. He denies responsibility, and refuses the
situation to be his fault. This could raise questions to the viewer of whether the notions were
already ingrained or even intuitive to the killers, is there such thing as good and evil, and
even a moral philosophy. One can ask who determines these.

“Nietzsche said that the only true test of a philosophy is whether we can live by it. Rupert
finds out that he can’t live by the philosophy he has been espousing. And, presumably,
Brandon wouldn’t be able to live that philosophy either. Though life itself can and should be
made a work of art, according to, it seems that murder cannot be. We must overcome the
self- imposed limitations of humanity, but this does not involve murder as a creative art
form.” (Biderman & Jacobwitz:44) Brandon claims “Good and evil, right and wrong were
invented for the ordinary average man, the inferior man, because he needs them.” The viewer
can learn by the end of the film, that right and wrong are down to personal moral
philosophies, by which opinion differ greatly.

Although Hitchcock is Anti utopian in his outlook, he is not Dystopian. Hitchcock appears to
believe Evil is deep rooted in the world and human creation, he reveals this in his characters,
who not only have potential to enact evil, but who have performed it.

Brandon and Philip cut themselves off from society, and consequently reality. They see
themselves as superior; their apartment is a separate world. Hitchcock is acting to oppose the
intent of the killers, by filming continuously, influencing the audience in questioning
whether they are wrong in having these thoughts. At the end of Rope, Rupert opens the
window and shoots the gun out, consequently the outside world is aware of the closed
apartment, in which, by what we perceive to be morality, has been shut out. What one
interprets as being ‘out there’ is a function of what is going on in our own psyche.

There is a certain Existentialist outlook of Hitchcock; the main individual is in a situation,

never from an outside stance. This reiterates the notion that we define ourselves by our
actions. The philosopher Emmanuel Kant believed one should never treat humanity as only a
means, not an end; you should treat others and an end. Rupert appears in moral terms to have
put Nietzsche aside, for Kant, by the end of the film.

We are making an assumption by watching these films, we objectify what we see, making an
abstract. The idea of learning and understanding philosophy through film, is the concept of
passive philosophy, viewers seldom realise that they are subconsciously part taking in
philosophical exercises, there are different levels of thinking and analysis to anything one
views. We continuously break down theories of what ‘could be’ and how people perceive
things based on the images, in this case, the films, which are shown and viewed.

Philosophy needs to continue to look at film, in order, not to progress, but rather to restate
and interpret philosophies. If art imitates (the perceptions of) life, therefore we are
 Film Literature and Philosophy 6
Esme Banks Marr 09819687

immediately and productively gaining knowledge on philosophy, and instructing ourselves

how to think, through watching films.

Jean Paul Sartre, an early 20th century philosopher said, in his novel ‘Nausea’ “All that I
know about my life, it seems, I have learned in books.” (1938). From a contemporary media
and cultural point of view, it seems a percentage of what we learn now, we learn from the
generation of media, and film. Language and Literature has got philosophers and students of
philosophy up to this point, in order to continue thinking, and thinking in innovative ways, it
must rely on other means, utilizing additional approaches, from contemporary resources, in
an attempt to advance.
 Film Literature and Philosophy 7
Esme Banks Marr 09819687

References [& Consulted Literature]

Books

Baggett, D. & Drummin, W. A eds. (2007) Hitchcock and Philosophy: Dial M for
Metaphysics. Carus Publishing: Illinois

Bersani, L. & Dutoit, U. (2004) Forms of Being: Cinema, Aesthetics, Subjectivity. London:
BFI

Biderman, S, & Jacobowitz, E. (2007) Rope: Nietzsche and the Art of Murder (chap. 3) in
Hitchcock and Philosophy

Curran, A & Wartenberg, T. Eds. (2005) The Philosophy of Film, introductory text and
readings. Blackwell: Oxford

Currie, G. (1995) Image and Mind: Film, Philosophy and Cognitive Science Cambridge
University Press

Dennett, D (1981) BRAINSTORMS Philosophical essays on mind and psychology. 2nd ed.
MIT press

Descartes, R. (1641) Meditations of the First Philosophy

Falzon, C. (2007) 2nd ed. Philosophy goes to the movies, an introduction to philosophy.
New York: Routledge

Fischer, J. M. (1994) The Metaphysics of Free Will, Oxford: Blackwell.

Hume, D. (1740) A Treatise of Human Nature

Jarvie, I (1987) PHILOSOPHY OF THE FILM Epitemology, ontology, aesthetics.

Routledge: New York

Litch, M. M (2002) Philosophy through Film. New York: Routledge

Mulhall, S. (2002) On Film. New York/London: Routledge

Torres M. A. B. (2008) The Story Behind Moral Philosophy: An Epistemological Approach.

Loyola University Press: Chicago

Nietzsche, F. (1872) The Birth of Tragedy

Nietzsche, F. (1873) “On Truth and Lying in an Extra-Moral Sense.” Ed. Rivkin,J. & Ryan,
M. p358-361.

Nietzsche F. (1886) Beyond good and evil

 Film Literature and Philosophy 8
Esme Banks Marr 09819687

Nietzsche, F. (1888) “The Will to Power.” Ed. Rivkin, J & Ryan, M. P.362-367.

Wittgenstein, L. (1921) Tractatus Logico Philosophicus (translated by) Pears, D.F. &
McGuinness, B.F. London: Routledge (1961)

Articles

Bell. J. A. (1997) Thinking with Cinema: Deleuze and Film Theory 'Gilles Deleuze,
Philosopher of Cinema' Special Issue ed, D. N. Rodowick Iris, no. 23 Film Philosophy
Journal 1 (1) p.1-6

Behan, D. (1979) ‘Locke on persons and personal identity’, Canadian Journal of

Philosophy 9 (1) p.53–75

Bragues, G. (2008) Memory and Morals in memento: Hume at the Movies. Film Philosophy
Journal 12 (2) p.62-82

Clark. A (2006) Memento’s Revenge: The Extended Mind, Extended.

Dennett, D. (1976) Conditions of personhood, In Amelie Oksenberg Rorty (ed.),The

Identities of Persons. University of California Press. Chapter 7

Fischer, J. M. (1982) “Responsibility and Control.” Journal of Philosophy, 79 (January): 24–

40.

Gargett, A. (2002) "Nolan's Memento, Memory, and Recognition" Comparative Literature

and Culture 4 (3) available: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/clcweb/vol4/iss3/3 Accessed: 25 April
2012

Locke, J. (1694) Essay concerning Human understanding

Nietzsche, F (1887) On the Genealogy of Morals: A polemical Tract, Second Essay: Guilt,
Bad Conscience, and Related Matters

Films

Memento, 2000 [Film] Directed by Christopher Nolan, USA: Newmarket Capital Group

Rope, 1948. [Film] Directed by Alfred Hitchcock, USA: Transatlantic Pictures