Philosophy at the Movies

How does this 2007 film, based on the 1954 Richard Matheson novel, depart from that book? How effective is the film in focusing on the isolation and loneliness of its protagonist, Neville? How does the dog, ‘Sam’ serve to illustrate that loneliness? What other devices are used to this end? How does the film engage the moral implications of Neville’s search for a cure for the virus that has turned human beings into savage vampiric beings? How does the film’s alternate ending, involving the ‘alpha-male’ leader of the ‘un-dead’ infected, and his mate, who Neville had captured, provide a twist, putting Neville in the role of ‘monster’ and the un-dead infected in role of victims? More generally, how do the novel and film reflect on the darker more savage side of human nature in the person of Neville and in the persons of the living infected, as both fight the almost perfectly savage un-dead infected? In the end, does Neville conclude that any continued efforts on his part in using infected human subjects to find a cure is in fact immoral, given that a large majority of human beings are infected, and that the project requires human trials with an attendant high probability of continued mortality? Is this why he leaves the city with Anna and Ethan, looking for a possible community of uninfected?

How does this 2000 film engage with and differ from Homer’s epic poem, the Odyssey, on which it is loosely based? How do various characters in the film, which is set in the deep South during the depression, reflect famous characters in that story? How does the film portray the role of popular music in racial integration during this period in American History? How does the film portray the relationship that existed between racial aspects of the prevailing political order and the opposed and organic growth of integration in popular culture? How does the opportunism of governor, Pappy O’Daniel, with regard to the integrated band formed by Ulysses, Tommy Johnson and the others illustrate? What does the film tell us about the power of recording technology and radio as drivers of social change in the depression era South, and what lessons can we derive concerning the modern media environment and its more positive potential?

What does this 2021 film premised on the notion of accelerated aging, attempt to tell us about the emotional and psychological impact such events would have on people suffering through it? How does the film portray the rapid onset of maturation in the children involved? How do the characters of the two parents, Prisca and Guy, show the mellowing of age and its power to overcome rifts, and also show the challenges posed for children as their parents age? How does it portray disease progression in the adults on the beach? Why does this medical testing facility, disguised as resort use the beach and the accelerated aging it causes, as a medical testing facility? What arguments are presented to justify the experimentation, and how thoroughly does the film explore these? How does the film compare with others, such as The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, which also engage the ethics of medical treatment and experimentation?

What does this film, which portrays the events of 9/11/2001 tell us about the responsibilities, training and level of professionalism of the air-traffic controllers involved? How does the film portray uncertainty and lack of information and its effect on the involved people? How does it show the difficulty involved in overcoming assumptions people bring with them as they come to terms with unique events unfolding in real time? How did knowledge of the history of airline hijackings prevent people from realizing these were going to be suicide attacks? What reaction to national tragedy do films such as this typify, and how do they contrast to other darker conspiratorial reactions? How does the portrayal of courage in the face of death play out in terms of the passengers and hijackers? How does this film compare with other films and documentaries that involve the events of 9/11?

What does this 2017 film, set during the 1975-1979 Khmer Rouge reign of terror in Cambodia tell us about the radical nature of the communist project of restructuring human society and psychology? Why did the Khmer Rouge resort to using children as soldiers and cadre? How did Pol Pot differ from Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh in his relative anonymity and refusal to create a personality cult around himself? How does the story of the young girl, Loung Ung, and her family illustrate the courage and compassion of that family unit? How do the actions of the mother and father ensure the survival of their children? What lessons should America and her allies draw from U.S. withdrawals from Cambodia, South Vietnam and Afghanistan?

How does this film’s use of the concept of reincarnation allow it to act as an exploration of human nature? Why do the snakes, a species of what are called “evils” in the film desire to become human? What is involved in the centuries-long training they are undergoing to attain reincarnation as human beings? Why does it take hundreds of years to accomplish this? How do the sisters, White snake and Green snake, exhibit their relative levels of progress in that training? How does the film contrast snake life with human life, and the difficulties of attempting the transformation? Do the films surreal and comedic aspects illustrate Buddhist beliefs with regard to Maya and the illusory nature of reality? How does the Monk Fat Hoi treat the snakes? Why is his treatment inconsistent, sometimes compassionate, sometimes harsh? He sees the snakes serving human beings as medics, sees them save their home village from a flood, and indeed helps them do this, yet wants to capture and banish them from the human world. Why? Is this a commentary on Buddhism? What do the cross-cultural symbolic uses of snakes and spiders tell us about the connection between morality and knowledge? What similarities does the story of White snake and Green snake have with the story of the snake in the Garden of Eden and the Amerindian myths of Kukulkan or Quetzalcoatl?

What does this 2003 film about disgraced New Republic reporter, Stephen Glass, tell us about sociopathic or narcissistic behavior? How does the film engage with matters of journalistic ethics, and illustrate the dangers or traps created by journalistic bias when it comes to exercising critical thought and editorial oversight? How does the film show competition between journals aiding or prodding the editorial and critical efforts that should have been in place at the New Republic? How does this film illustrate the corrosive effects of deception and lying? How does Glass abuse the presumption of veracity that we all bring to life and our interactions with others? How do Glass’s story pitches take advantage of his peers' political biases and their desire to engage in advocacy journalism? How does the case illustrate the risks taken on by journals and news media when they allow writers to use un-named sources?

What does the pair of films, Fitzcarraldo, and the documentary about the making of that film, Burden of Dreams, tell us about the similarity between the main character, and the film’s director/producer Werner Herzog? How do both illustrate Kant’s notion of the Categorical Imperative in their sometimes-reckless use of indigenous people? How do the indigenous people illustrate that same concept in their use of Fitzcarraldo and his boat? On a related note; how does the film typify the 1980s era in film-making, when some directors took dangerous measures in order to achieve their cinematic visions? How does the film and meta-narrative of the documentary resonate with the era of the rubber barons which it portrays? Why does Herzog repeatedly explore the theme of jungle overpowering man, and man overcoming nature in his films?

What does this 2021 film, based upon the true story of 2nd Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, a WWII Japanese Army intelligence officer who held out on the Philippine island of Lubang until 1974, tell us about his sense of duty? What does it tell us about the capacity of the human mind to render any evidence or experience consistent with strongly held beliefs? How can Onoda’s case be used to illustrate the notion of the non-falsifiable hypothesis? How does it relate to today’s notions of ‘fake news,’ and conspiracy theory? How does the film explore the differences between the ethos of the Japanese guerilla warfare officers and the more typical ‘fight till you die’ ethos of the Imperial Japanese Army? Did the Philippine government do the right thing in pardoning Onoda for his killings of its civilians during his 30 years on the island, actions that were war-crimes? Did the vast expanse of the Pacific theater almost ensure that some Japanese soldiers would be long-term holdouts, as was the case with Hiroo Onoda and several others?

What does this 1993 film, based upon the true story of C.S. (Jack) Lewis and his American wife, Joy Davidman, tell us about grief, suffering and love? How is it related to the “problem of evil,” often discussed in philosophical and theological settings? How does the film contrast Lewis’s speaking appearances, where he discusses the subject, with the first-person experience he has with his wife’s suffering? How do Joy’s challenges to Jack’s relatively comfortable and cloistered life as an academic foreshadow the starkly raw emotional experience he has with her suffering? What is the point of the contrast? Why does Lewis, while in the depths of grief, compare God to a vivisectionist? In light of that harsh accusation, why does he not lose his faith? How does the tragedy bring him closer to Douglas, Joy’s son? What does Lewis make of what he describes as ‘God’s silence,’ in the aftermath of tragedy? What is symbolized by the painting Jack has in his study of a place called “the Golden Valley,” and how does the film utilize that symbol in its imagery?