Search

U radu se propituje odnos filma i filozofije, naročito u svjetlu Wittgensteinove filozofije i tvrdnje da (pokretna) slika predočuje svijet čak i bolje od jezika te da je u tom smislu posebno filozofski relevantna. Polazi se od čestog razlikovanja filma kao ilustracije filozofije, filma o filozofiji ili filozofima te filma kao filozofije. I dok se prva dva načina njihova odnošenja ne smatraju problematičnima, ali ni filozofski posebno relevantnima ili teorijski izazovnima, za treći se koncept pokazuje suprotno te mu se pristupa unutar Wittgensteinove filozofije. Naime, valja pokazati zašto je film kao pokretna slika za Wittgensteina uopće moguć kao filozofija, odnosno što točno omogućuje filmu da bude kao ta specifična ljudska aktivnost. Da bi se to pokazalo, analizira se Wittgensteinova filozofija s jasno naglašenom razlikom u njegovu ranom i kasnom filozofskom radu. No dva njegova djela, koja paradigmatski stoje iza dviju faza, pokazuju i određeni kontinuitet u razmatranju slika. Prije svega, tiče se to ideje o mogućnosti da upravo slika, a onda ekstenzijom i film kao nizanje slika, najbolje predočava svijet, odnosno da za njega stoji kao dvodimenzionalni model. Budući da je moguće utvrditi kako za Wittgensteina slika ne ovisi o jezičnoj interpretaciji, pokazuje se da je film kao filozofija moguć upravo, premda ne i isključivo, iz kuta Wittgensteinova filozofskog rada koji sliku tretira kao samostalnog nositelja značenja, a što u konačnici rezultira i shvaćanjem Wittgensteinove filozofije kao izravno suprotstavljene filozofskoj tradiciji Zapada. Stoga je jedno od tumačenja relevantnosti filma za filozofiju moguće utemeljiti upravo u Wittgensteinovu razumijevanju slike., This paper examines the relationship between film and philosophy, especially in the light of Wittgenstein’s philosophy and his claim that a (motion) picture represents the world better than the language itself and that, in that sense, it has philosophical relevance. It starts with an often made comparison of film illustrating philosophy, film about philosophy or philosophers, and film as philosophy. While the first two types are not particularly philosophically relevant or theoretically challenging and therefore not considered to be problematic, the third concept shows the opposite, and it is approached within Wittgenstein’s philosophy. Namely, it is necessary to show why film as motion picture would even be possible for Wittgenstein as philosophy, or more precisely, what it is exactly that enables the film to be like philosophy. To illustrate this, Wittgenstein’s philosophy is analysed, with an emphasis on the difference between the early and late phase of his work. Yet his two philosophical studies, paradigmatic for these phases, show a certain continuity in consideration of images. Foremostly, they supply the primary argument that image, and by extension film as a series of images, best represents the world, that is, that for Wittgenstein it stands as a two­dimensional model. Since it is possible to show that image for Wittgenstein does not depend on linguistic interpretation, it can be shown that film as philosophy is possible precisely but not exclusively from the angle of Wittgenstein’s philosophical work. This treats the image as an independent bearer of meaning, which ultimately results in understanding Wittgenstein’s philosophy as directly opposed to the Western philosophical tradition. Thus, one of the possible interpretations of film’s philosophical relevance is possible to find in Wittgenstein’s understanding of pictures.

International audience; On sait que l’un des problèmes les plus classiques de la philosophie du cinéma est celui de sa vocation, « réaliste » à la Lumière, ou « illusionniste » à la Méliès. Le dossier estival 2014 de la revue Implications philosophiques prend acte d’un progrès décisif en philosophie contemporaine du cinéma, à savoir le déplacement de ce problème par Stanley Cavell, lorsqu’il soutient que notre adhésion à ce que nous savons être illusoire – la projection du monde à l’écran –, nous apprend le peu de fondement de notre adhésion à la réalité et la puissance de nos dénis. Philosopher avec ou d’après le cinéma, c’est donc désormais tenir les films pour des objets de comparaison, c’est-à-dire des moyens d’éclairer les ressemblances et les différences d’avec notre expérience ordinaire et les concepts que nous utilisons pour l’avoir, en renonçant à tout assujettissement du cinéma par la philosophie, mais en nous préparant à voir bousculées nos certitudes relatives à nos expériences les plus ordinaires comme à ce que peut la philosophie.

Can a film be philosophical? The analytic philosophers of film agree that this question raises what Paisley Livingston calls “the problem of paraphrase,” an intractable dilemma for the adherents of the “bold thesis” according to which one can indeed engage philosophy through film. This article maintains that the courageous practice of Stanley Cavell, one who always sought to address philosophy through film, demonstrates the significance of a bulwark of authentic cinematographic conceptual analyses that would come to be known as “cinematographic ideas.” Highlighted below are some examples in Jean Vigo’s, Nicholas Ray’s, Robert Bresson’s and Eric Rohmer’s films thanks to the penetrating analysis of Stanley Cavell, Victor Perkins and Andrew Klevan. It follows that the so-called problem of paraphrase is ill-posed because of a reductionist and timid conception of philosophical analysis.", "Un film peut-il faire de la philosophie ? Les philosophes analytiques du cinéma s’accordent pour penser que cette question soulève ce que Paisley Livingston a appelé le « problème de la paraphrase », un dilemme auquel le partisan de la thèse « audacieuse » (bold thesis) selon laquelle on pourrait philosopher avec le cinéma ne saurait, selon lui, échapper. L’article soutient que la pratique courageuse de Stanley Cavell, qui a très tôt cherché à philosopher d’après le cinéma, a permis de mettre en évidence l’existence et l’importance de pensées des films qui proposent d’authentiques analyses conceptuelles cinématographiques, ce que l’on peut appeler des « idées de cinéma ». L’article en propose plusieurs exemples tels qu’on peut les trouver chez Jean Vigo, Nicholas Ray, Robert Bresson ou encore Éric Rohmer grâce aux analyses de Cavell, de Victor Perkins et d’Andrew Klevan et conclut que le problème de la paraphrase est mal posé parce qu’il dépend d’une conception réductrice et timorée de l’analyse philosophique.

The mission and function of this thesis is to generally explore the ways in which philosophy studies and investigates films. More specifically its aim is to examine the theories of Stephen Mulhall and Stanley Cavell, on how films could be regarded as philosophic in nature through philosophy, that films could indeed be independently seen as philosophical excercises in action, film as philosophizing. My goal is to clarify the connection between these two cultural, human endeavours by also having a look at a theory of worldmaking by Nelson Goodman, on how aesthetical art worlds are created and abated. I will try in my thesis to explain why the film as philosophy approach is problematic for philosophy and why on the other hand the theory holds great overall importance for the meaning and function that philosophy is left with related to film in the academic world. I am thus going to also define the border where philosophy stands in relation to film and how it is different from film studies and other such academic disciplines devoted to the study of cinema. The perspective of this thesis is obviously cricitcal and evaluative in nature and contrasting points of views are visibly reviewed, but I shall make it clear that I am in favour of treating movies as not just popular illustrations or handy views and arguments of certain philosophic theories. Instead they should be seen as making real contributions to the philosophical discipline. As such I strongly argue that different cinematic worlds can have philosophical proportions to them and can themselves not only utilize philosophical imagery, problems and questions but may also create new and scintillating answers or at least find new, meaningful philosophical questions and thus make definite contributions to such ongoing philosophical discourse – though the scope and validity of such claims can only be verified within each specific discursive context and dialogic debate. An understanding of different philosophical aspects of movies should accrue through critical interpretations of specific films and specific achievements of film. It does however remain that to argue that films make contributions to philosophy itself is something of a hard row to till and a tough argument to fill. The problematic nature of defining what philosophy is in the first place and what it means to do philosophy remains. To further explain and investigate the film as philosophy approach I will look at an 80´s science-fiction Hollywood movie Blade Runner and try to show the reader how philosophy can arguably be done in movies. It has to be noted that I am are here not giving agency to films, although I am saying that the people doing movies can be seen to ”screen” philosophical exercises. Moreover, I believe that Mulhall and Cavell are trying to show us not what philosophy is, but what is should or at least could be.

Films als filosofie Welke film maakt uw leven de moeite waard? Wat betekent voor u filmische hartstocht? Kunt u over schoonheid op het witte doek ook nog iets filosofisch vertellen, iets over (im)moraliteit, waarheid/ werkelijkheid en/of tijd/ruimte? Wat zijn voor u de filosofische kenmerken van overtuigend filmisch vertellen? Hoe kunnen klassiek en modern denken in film samengaan? Kan de hedendaagse film een remedie zijn tegen het nihilisme, het ontbreken aan geloof in deze wereld? Vindt u troost bij het witte doek? Deze en andere vragen legde filmwetenschapper Johan Swinnen voor aan zeven bekende hedendaagse filosofen: Hubert Dethier, Willem Elias, Anna Luyten, Ann Meskens, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Antoon Van den Braembussche en Etienne Vermeersch. Iedereen werkte enthousiast mee. Het idee van de filosofie die naar de bioscoop gaat maakte iets wakker. Hersens werden gekraakt in de grot van Plato. Het vertellen en verbeelden van verhalen in de vorm van een film was lang een onbekend en onderschat fenomeen, maar met de vragen als socratische uitnodiging gingen de filosofen rechtop zitten. Niet alleen om te antwoorden vanuit een wijsgerig perspectief maar ook om hun persoonlijke ervaringen te koppelen aan hun reflectie(s). Het resultaat is een inspirerend en verrassend boek waarin zeven al dan niet canonieke films aan bod komen met een onverwachte verscheidenheid aan onderwerpen: _ Etienne Vermeersch: Het zevende zegel (Det Sjunde Ingelet) (Ingmar Bergman, 1957) en het schaakspel met de dood; _ Ann Meskens: Play Time (Jacques Tati, 1967) en het visioen hoe de toekomstige wereld en niet uit moet zien; _ Antoon Van den Braembussche: Adaptation (Spike Jonze, 2002) met z?n waanzinnige plotwendingen; _ Anna Luyten: Magnolia (Paul Thomas Anderson, 1999) over spijt, berouw, zonde en de rol van het toeval; _ Hubert Dethier: L' Année Dernière à Marienbad (Alain Resnais, 1961) en de abstracte thriller, het liefdesverhaal en de filosofische puzzel; _ Jean Paul Van Bendegem: Drowning by Numbers (Peter Greenaway, 1988) en de rol van cijfers om de wereld te ordenen; _ Willem Elias: The Great Dictator (Charles Chaplin, 1940) en de satirische kijk op Hitler en parodie op Mussolini. Maar alle zeven films hebben ook iets gemeen in de ogen van de filosofen: ze zijn visionair. Reflecties. Film als filosofie maakt ons duidelijk hoe elke tijd behoefte heeft aan zijn eigen film(s). De waarde ervan blijkt niet afhankelijk van zijn esthetische kwaliteiten op zich, maar van de uitwerking op de kijker. Je kijkt (en leest) mee met de filosoof en dat leidt tot een verrassende essentie: de mogelijkheid van een verzoening met het leven door de troost van de filmische schoonheid. Zowaar een happy end, niet in de film, maar wel voor de denkers over filmbeelden.