Derek Jarman's film Wittgenstein

Do you think Derek Jarman's film Wittgenstein is a useful way to learn about his philosophy?

Wittgenstein is a 1993 film by the English director Derek Jarman, it is loosely based on the life story as well as the philosophical thinking of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Some may believe that the film is a useful way to learn about Wittgenstein’s philosophy as the film uses simple language that is easy to understand, this is reflected in Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language games because he believed to be able to be in the game, you had to understand the rules of the game to be able to talk about the game. Therefore, in order for people to talk about the film, language that is easy to understand needs to be used. The film also uses props which carry hidden meanings in order to portray Wittgenstein’s philosophy and certain parts of his life, in a way that may be easier for some people instead of too much description. 

However, many people may find the use of props to portray certain things about Wittgenstein’s life and philosophy confusing, it is hard to understand the hidden meaning of the props being used if you have not studied Wittgenstein and his theory prior to watching the film. The props may also be seen to be distracting, for example the alien that is used in the film, it is very difficult to understand what the alien actually represents and why he was used at all. The alien is not the only prop that was hard to understand, there were many others that were never explained in the film, you just had to know. 

Another reason why the film is not a useful way to learn about Wittgenstein’s philosophy is because the film is heavily based on biographical information and what was happening in Wittgenstein’s life. The film was also based a lot on the build up to Wittgenstein’s philosophy and how he got to his final ideas, not the actual theory of his philosophy. Also, when the film actually did explain Wittgenstein’s theory (when he was lecturing at Cambridge) the film made it very hard for not only the other characters to understand what Wittgenstein was talking about, but also the audience, this could have been done in a much clearer way so that the audience can learn from the film.

To conclude, we feel that the film is not at all a useful way to learn about Wittgenstein’s philosophy, as not only is the film based more on biographical information but the hidden messages and props used are too distracting for any audience to learn anything about his philosophy from the film.

EOF

The Green Mile

Death Row guards at a penitentiary, in the 1930's, have a moral dilemma with their job when they discover one of their prisoners, a convicted murderer, has a special gift...

The Green Mile, (1999) tells the story of various prisoners on death row; told from the perspective of an elderly man looking back on his times as a prison officer in the 1930’s. It is hard to understand why this film can be seen as displaying miracles, however once the audience come into contact with inmate John Coffey, the story soon unravels and bewilders all.

A miracle is commonly known as an event which breaks the laws of science, therefore many believe the only explanation behind such events is God. This is shown in the modern day with the prisoner John Coffey, who is an example that people are not always what they seem.

In a Louisiana nursing home in 1999, Paul Edgecomb (the elderly ex prison guard) begins to cry while watching the 1935 film 'Top Hat'. His elderly friend Elaine shows concern for him, and Paul tells her that the film reminded him of when he was a prison officer in charge of death row inmates at Cold Mountain Penitentiary during the summer of 1935. The scene shifts to 1935, where Paul works with fellow guards Brutus "Brutal" Howell, Harry Terwilliger, and Dean Stanton.

The brutal prison guards feel they are justified in their actions towards the inmates, displaying the hate they have for them for committing such atrocious crimes. However, one inmate is different from the rest. The audience certainly get the wrong impression of John Coffey at a first glance; a giant black man convicted of raping and killing two young white girls as he arrives on death row. However, he is shy, soft-spoken, and emotional, telling the prison officers that he must sleep with the light on as he is afraid of the dark.

It is soon discovered that John has amazing powers, first by strangely healing the prison guards urinary track infection, then continuing to resuscitate one of the inmates’ pet mouse, whom he cannot live without. The prison guards then realise John’s amazing gift and sneak him out of the prison to heal one of their friends’ wife who was terminally ill, which he does. So why would a man who performs such miracles be responsible for the cruel and heartless death of two young girls? After all, although John Coffey seems like a gentle giant who performs these amazing miracles to save others, he is on death row for murder. The audience’s suspicions that John may not be guilty of such a crime are confirmed with the introduction of, ‘Wild Bill’ a violent psychopathic prisoner. The moment in which John’s arm is seized by Bill, John senses that it is him who committed this crime.

As John took the illness away from the terminally ill wife, he gives this illness to ‘Wild Bill’, stating that he is punishing him himself for what he had done. The prison officer Paul then interrogates John, as it is thought that he has believed in his innocence all along. John takes Pauls hand to show him what really happened, as he gives Paul a part of himself.

The ultimate twist in the film is that John is innocent. He was found lying next to the girls’ bodies, clutching them tightly and crying; not because he killed them, but because he was trying to use his powers to save their lives after finding their bodies abandoned, however it was too late to save them.

Paul asks John what he should do; if he should open the door and let John walk away. John tells him that there is too much pain in the world, to which he is sensitive, and says he is "rightly tired of the pain" and is ready to rest. For his last request on the night before his execution, John watches the film Top Hat. When John is put in the electric chair, he asks Paul not to put the traditional black hood over his head because he is afraid of the dark. Paul agrees, shakes his hand, and John is executed.

One aspect of John’s amazing powers is that he can naturally live forever, therefore he is sick and tired of how the world is and accepts death for a crime that he did not do. At the end of the film however, we see Paul, (the elderly ex prison guard) taking long walks daily to an abandoned shed in the forest. The audience are then shown the very mouse that John Coffey saved and are also informed that Paul will live forever also, as John gave each of them a part of him due to the miracles he performed on each of them.

Overall, the film cleverly shows the common belief about miracles being mystical events that simply cannot be explained, whilst putting a twist by giving these powers to someone like John Coffey, who would not typically be seen as one who performs such miracles. I believe this shows that the belief in miracles still exists today as it is explored through the moral dilemmas in this film. 

K.F

My Sister's Keeper

Have you ever felt out of control in your life? Maybe in day to day situations where the stresses of your workplace/school make you feel like you’ve lost control of your future? Maybe you get angry sometimes and cannot control the emotion you feel and lash out when you don’t mean to? I’m sure, the majority of all of us have control over what we do with our lives but God has a role in this also – he has a plan for us which we must obey. However, in ‘My Sisters Keeper’ (2009), 11 year old Anna has no choice. She has no control over what she wants - over her body, her future, her whole life. She was born in order to save her older sister’s life and she was treated as a means to an end, rather than as a person in herself.

The film (starring Cameron Diaz as Anna’s mother and Abigail Breslin as Anna) follows Anna’s journey to try and take control of her own life by refusing to give any more of herself in order to save her sister, Kate, from terminal cancer. She is tired of being treated as unimportant compared to Kate and even realises herself, at such a young age, the reason why she was born: ‘I was engineered, born for a particular reason. A scientist hooked up my mother’s eggs and my father’s sperm to make a specific combination of genes. He did it to save my sister's life’. This leaves us wondering if this is ethical at all. Some may argue that genetic engineering in itself is wrong, however, does it make it better that Anna’s parents had a reason for doing it, or worse? Also, the issue of consent arises since Anna was a baby when she was tested on and these tests often gave her the most incredible discomfort. However, she could do nothing to stop it because that was her purpose on earth, her reason for her life - she was born in order to help another.

The catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that ‘human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his/her existence, a human being must be recognised as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life’. Taking this quote into consideration, is this what Anna has? Does she have a respected life or rights as a person? Surely, if she had rights as a person, she would not have been put through (or to put herself through) all the procedures carried out on her and would have been able to stop it at any time. Instead she had to result in bringing her own family to court because they will not let her stop helping her sister. She cannot have a good sanctity of life through this process; her life is not being respected and she is being treated as a means to an end. In order for someone to have a good sanctity of life, they must be treated as a person in themselves. This means no operations, tests or procedures should have been carried out on Anna without her consent in order to help her sister if she has a good sanctity of life. It can be argued that her parents are limiting this for her.

This film does leave us wondering whether doing this is ethical in anyway. Yes, Anna is doing a good thing; she is helping her sister by trying to save her despite her own discomfort. This is an incredibly brave thing to do and we see at the end of the film that Anna only stops helping because Kate has asked her to as she knows she will die and doesn’t want her sister to be treated as a means to an end any more. However, we cannot just focus on the family in this film, we must also look to the scientists who suggest the process of having a baby in order to save another child. This raises the issue of if they are ‘playing God’; is this what the scientists are doing? Some may argue they are doing ‘God’s will’ – trying their best in order to save a patient’s life like loving their neighbour as Jesus taught them. However, some will disagree. God may have wanted Kate to die for a reason; he may have had a plan for her but when doctors use genetic engineering, it results in the disposal of embryos which some would argue are already a human life. Therefore, although they are saving one person, they may be going against what God wants for them by ending human life in the process – is this ethical at all?

Taking all into account, even though the motives of the family were good (i.e. they acted out of love) the way in which they went about getting the result they wanted is seen as extremely unethical by many people. However, can we really judge this until we are in that situation? If your daughter was dying, could we really be absolute in saying we wouldn't go to the same extreme? How can we say our emotions would not influence our thinking when we have never been in the situation Anna’s parents were in? The film causes a lot of controversy and I would say everyone will have their own opinion on whether they think the actions in the film were done ethically or not. I would definitely recommend the film to anyone to get them really thinking about genetic engineering and stem cell research. It is a topic everyone is aware of, however, most do not know enough about it to have a valid opinion. It is a thought-provoking and moving film which can be enjoyed by people of all ages and beliefs.

Inception – A Philosophical Review

Have you ever been completely positive that you have woken up from a dream, but to only realise that you are in fact still asleep? A dream within a dream? Sometimes this happens to us and can certainly throw you off, and can really make you wonder if you are dreaming or is this reality. 

Inception, a Leonardo DiCaprio blockbuster hit the cinemas in 2010 with a bang. A film where DiCaprio’s character Cobb is described as a ‘thief of ideas’; he shares a dream with his target to capture the secrets of a person hidden in his subconscious. He goes further and further in and out of his conscious mind where he can hardly establish what is dreams and what is reality. This idea of dreams and reality has been touched by many philosophers in history, and this film really does grasp the concept.

This film is built on a classic argument called the ‘argument of the dream’. Nolan built his film idea as: ‘an individual can share the dream of another, or create any decor. And whether there is or is not in the dream of someone else, you must bring a totem, an object of known characteristics alone, the weight felt.’ The argument of the dream has been investigated by Plato, Aristotle and Descartes.

Descartes wanted to fully establish whether we can ever really know for certain if we are dreaming or not. He therefore considered the possibilities that he is crazy, dreaming, or even possessed? His ‘radical scepticism’ is tested as if we cannot even 100% tell if we are dreaming, how can we know for sure that the world we live in is real? He even came to the question if he were real! 

This is where it gets confusing - Descartes realised that even if he were mistaken about everything, then he must still be thinking, because he can’t be deceived unless he is thinking. Therefore if he is thinking then he must therefore exist, as there must be a ‘thinking thing’. And this idea sprouted his famous quote “I think, therefore I am”.

Descartes created an idea which resolves the blur between dreams and reality, and that being that “our memory can never connect our dreams with each other and with the course of life, in the way it is in the habit of doing with events that occur when we are awake.” Therefore to establish possibility that you might be dreaming, you need to be awake. This is a way to distinguish dreams from reality, therefore can provide evidence that you aren’t currently dreaming.

Therefore in the film Inception, Nolan bases the whole film on in fact rejecting Descartes solution. When Cobb goes into the dream state he is fully aware that he might be dreaming but might not. Therefore in the film it is impossible to tell if you are dreaming or not without having the ‘totem’ to confirm, whereas Descartes knew how to establish between dream and reality without such a thing as he was able to distinguish dreams from reality because it can’t occur to us within a dream that we might be dreaming. That’s why the film could only have ever ended with the doubt if Cobb was dreaming or not, even if the totem stopped spinning at the end of the film, it would still be impossible to tell if he was dreaming or not because even when he created the totem, that could have been a dream also. 

In conclusion, Inception as well as being a great film overall despite the philosophical point of view, it does create thought-provoking ideas about what are dreams and what is reality and how can we distinguish the difference? The film creates its own theory of this and definitely made me think, I recommend the film if you are looking for something to really get you thinking.

V,S

Dead Poets Society

The Dead Poets Society is a film which can really represent different moral and philosophical issues by following the films moto ‘Carpe Diem’. This is Latin for ‘seize the day’ which is shown through the courage of the students for standing up in favour of something, and doing their own thing. In this case, it’s the ability to become free-thinkers and enjoy poetry in life. The saying ‘carpe diem’ can even be linked back to biblical times, as there were many references in the Bible to living life to the full, and taking opportunities that may come our way. 

This is shown by the unconventional English teacher who challenges his students to question anything they have been taught before, such as standing on their desks and ripping out chapters of their text books. This is easily linked to any key Ancient Athenian key philosophers who have stated their opinion that we must learn to think for ourselves, and become rich within our own knowledge. As Socrates once said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Therefore, we must broaden our knowledge as much as we can, even if others around us don’t agree this is right. 

This can then easily be linked to an ethical issue that was also raised in the film, which was justice, law and punishment. Even though the film only lightly touches upon this particular ethical topic, it is still apparent throughout the whole film. The students don’t go as far as to break the law, but they are certainly going against the rules of the school, and so is their English teacher, who is pursuing this forward-thinking set of mind. The government and head teacher of the school believe that the students should be taught from the books, and everything has to be examined, to in turn form a conclusion, including poetry. However, their English teacher, Mr Keating, believes that the boys should be thinking for themselves and concentrates on the power of passion that poetry can contain. This leads to the boys creating a secret club that meet in the dead of night within a cave near the campus to discuss poetry. When they are found out, what means of punishment should be used for disobeying the rules of the school? In the film, the cane was used to punish one of the students, but could this ever be justified today? Is it too hard to decide what punishment would be appropriate for this type of rule breaking because there are too many opinions? Mr Keating, a man who obviously had a wide range of knowledge and was professional would have suggested otherwise. 

The main conflict in the whole of the film wasn’t actually between the students and their new-found love for poetry against the school rules, but actually between a student named Neil, who dreamed of becoming an actor, and his father, who commands him to become a doctor. Neil lacked the will to defy his father, and ends up committing suicide. This is yet another ethical topic raised in the film, life after death. Many people, both religious and non-religious, believe in life after death, and that there is Somewhere else to go once our bodies have moved on. However, some absolute Catholics may actually believe that because Neil committed suicide, he took his own life, and tried to play the role of God. Therefore, he will not be able to enter heaven, because we shouldn’t try and play the role of God, as we are only humans, and we cannot do such a thing.

The fact that Neil actually committed suicide also means that it is easy to look at the philosophical topic of conscience. Neil’s father is probably going to evermore wish he could have been more lenient and understanding with his wish to be on stage, as his grief was depicted so clearly. Is it fair that this is going to stay upon his conscience forever, because of the action that his son took? Or is conscience actually just a feeling that we made up in our own minds, and doesn’t really exist?

Overall, the Dead Poets Society was a really good film that touched upon many different ethical and philosophical topics and highlighted them in clever ways. However, I think the main message that was trying to be highlighted above all others was the idea of ‘carpe diem’ and living our lives to the full. The fact that the film ended with Neil committing suicide was a contrast to this message, as he ended his life. This could be because he didn’t feel like his life would be to the full without his love of acting being involved in some way. 

HL