Philosophy at the Movies

What does this 1972 Russian film intend to convey about guilt, regret and moral injury? How does the film create ambiguity with regard to the motivation of the alien world, Solaris, in creating replicas of people about whom the main characters have strong regrets? How does the replica of Dr. Kelvin’s deceased wife Hari force the men on the space station to engage the question of whether or not she is a full person, or merely something like a robot? How does the contrast between Dr. Sartorius’s treatment of the replica Hari and that of Dr. Snaut and Kelvin illustrate? Is that replica Hari reflective only of Kelvin’s conceptions of his dead wife, and his guilt over her suicide, or is she actually Hari? Why does the replica Hari ask Snaut and Sartorius to destroy her? How does this choice reflect the suicide of Kelvin’s actual wife, and does it free him of guilt at having caused it? At the end of the film, does Kelvin make the morally correct choice in choosing to stay behind with Solaris’s replica of his father, who has probably passed on since Kelvin left Earth? Why does he choose to do this? Are there some psycho-therapeutic aspects to that choice that Kelvin subconsciously wants to engage, or is he choosing to avoid obligations?

What does this 2016 film, based upon the novel of the same name, tell us about the moral dilemmas faced by Christian missionaries in Japan during the late 1600s? Why does apostasy (carried out by stepping on a carved image of Christ) present such an agonizing choice if the people doing so remain Christian in their hearts? How do the contrasts between the characters Kichijiro, Fathers Rodrigues and Feirrara reflect differing levels of moral compromise? Who is the most cowardly of the three, and why? Does Rodrigues make the right choice in choosing to step on the image in order to save Japanese Christians, members of his flock, from being slowly bled to death? Is his experience of Jesus’s voice giving him permission to do so genuine? Who are the braver Christians in the film, the Europeans or the Japanese?

In this ‘double feature’ discussion, the moral challenges of the Afghan war are explored. How does The Outpost portray the tactically perilous position of the outpost, and the costs associated for the men? How do the two films portray the difficulties involved in attempting to convince local elders to not cooperate with the Taliban? How does the film portray the endemic nature of corruption, drug use, pedophilia, and what strain does this place on Americans trying to provide security and training for Afghan police forces? How does the case of Major Bill Steuber (USMC) illustrate the risks of moral injury that are taken on by American personnel tasked with such intractable missions involving corrupt, uncooperative and recalcitrant locals? What lessons are to be learned from the Afghan and Iraq wars with regard to attempts at state building? What comparisons can be made between these two wars and the US war in Vietnam? What hope, if any, can be distilled from the case of Hamid Kahn, the ANA commander and Northern Alliance aligned military leader presented in the film?

What does this 2012 film, based upon the UK comic book series Judge Dredd, tell us about its world’s form of government (the “Judge System”), a pared down police state which consolidates the powers traditionally vested in different elements of government? What does it tell us about the effects of extreme population pressure on Democratic governance in its post apocalyptic America? Why does a majority of this world’s United States population vote to consolidate and pare down governmental functions to the most basic core; provision of security? Why is the police force vested with the roles of judge, jury and executioner? Is it likely or unlikely that American governance will tend toward consolidation of powers in police forces as is portrayed in this dystopian film? How does the interplay between the two protagonists, Judge Dredd and Judge Anderson, provide commentary on the role that compassion has in meting out justice?

How does this 2022 film, based upon the relationship between Korean War aviators Ensign Jesse Brown and Lieutenant Tom Hudner, illustrate the level of camaraderie between these two men, their Fighter squadron (VF-32), and the state of racial integration in the US military at the time? In that regard, what is the import of Jesse’s discomfort with being singled out by the press while on board the Leyte with VF-32? How does the Yalu bridge episode illustrate the dangers faced by Jesse when Hudner files his after-action report on Brown’s decision? Why does Hudner choose to file the report, despite Jesse’s concern that it could curtail his career? How does Hudner attempt to mitigate the risks for Jesse? How does the relationship between the two men illustrate the differences in culture between sources of officer accession; the Naval Academy and NROTC? How does the film show the bonding that occurs due to the rigors of military training and combat, and the emotional impact wrought by loss of comrades in arms?

How does this 2022 comedy explore the concept of the ‘multi-verse’; the idea that there is an infinity of parallel universes each one of which is equally real or actual to those that inhabit it? What psychological and moral effects do the main characters undergo as a result of being able to “verse-jump” into the lives of their ‘twin selves’ in parallel universes? Why does Joy’s parallel universe twin “Jobu Tupaki” become depressed and nihilistic after having developed the ability to experience the lives of her ‘twins’ in all universes at the same? What prevents Evelyn, Joy's mother, from following her in in that nihilistic direction, even though she does flirt with it for a time? How does the love or care instantiated by Waymond, her husband, help her make this choice? How does this film flesh out the philosophical concept of ‘modal realism’? How do its comedic elements illustrate the absurdities that would be the case if the multi-verse is in fact constituted of a set of universes that, between them, instantiate all logically possible states of affairs? On the moral plane, how does the film instantiate the common ‘grass is always greener on the other side’ feeling we all have about our lives, and what does it tell us about the proper response to this feeling? Does the film intentionally reflect the ADHD of one of its producers?

What does this 1988 John Carpenter Sci Fi Horror send-up tell us about Carpenter’s political ideas at the time? How does the film illustrate a more general point about ideology and conspiracy mongering? Why does the film function so well as a sort of Rorschach ink blot that allows people across the political spectrum to see in it as commentary on the classes they consider to be controlling society? Why does it resonate so well with populism both left and right? How does the film resonate with leftist cinema of the 60s and science fiction films of the 1950s? How does the character of Nada reflect the zealousness of the true believer? How does the film reflect the phenomenon of multi-national corporations? Is there a symbolism of conspiracy theories’ tendency toward dehumanization in Carpenter’s decision to portray the aliens as monstrous in appearance?

How do these films illustrate the cross-cultural pollination between Japan and the United States, given they had similar relatively lawless “Wild West” phases in history? Why does it show us the high level of distrust for the Samurai or gunfighters on the part of the villagers that hire them? Is that distrust justified? Why, after the victories, do the leaders of the two bands of defenders both say that the farmers, who had hired them ‘always win’ while the Samurai or gunfighters ‘always lose’? How does the Seven Samurai illustrate the military and tactical professionalism of the band of Samurai as they plan the defense of the village? How does it present a meditation on the bravery of the villagers, as compared to that of their armed protectors, through the children's perceptions of the hired men? In what ways does the film stand as seminal for several now established tropes in Hollywood films? How does the film and its influence show the remarkably tight cultural ties that now exist between Japan and the United States?

What does this 1965 film, based upon a James Clavell novel of the same name, show us about Clavell’s own experiences in the Changi POW camp in Singapore from 1942 to 1945? How does the fact that escape is impossible affect the attitudes of the POWs in the camp? How does the main character, American corporal King, exercise power in the camp, even though he is an enlisted man? Why do the British, Australian and American officers fall into the corruption that is rife in the camp? What accounts for the dissension and hatred? Why do fellow prisoners work for and deal with King as he takes advantage of his fellow POWs? How does the film illustrate inadequacies of the Geneva Conventions regarding POW treatment and behavior, and the sorts of events that caused the US Government to form the US Fighting Man’s Code of Conduct? How does the Code discourage the sorts of self-interested behaviors we see and how does it help to prevent moral injury, such as that we see in Changi?

What does this 1966 film, detailing the conflict between King Henry VIII of England and Sir Thomas More tell us about the cause of the tension between Henry and the Catholic Church, and the conflicting loyalties of More, a devout Catholic? What does it tell us about European religious conflicts of the time period and the painful development of the Western world’s tolerance on matters of religion and state? What geopolitical lessons does it hold for us today in this regard? How does the dilemma Thomas faces illustrate the Stoic notion that each person is essentially a “moral purpose", and the costs of compromising with that status? How is his case like those of Socrates and people acting on religious conscience in our present day? How does the film illustrate the contrast between rule of law and rule of a tyrant? How is this film’s portrayal of Henry’s mental and emotional instability similar to films centering on mob bosses and organized crime?