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

Does Derrick Jarman’s film, Wittgenstein provide a useful insight into one of the twentieth century’s greatest philosophers and his theory of language games

Ludwig Wittgenstein is considered one of the greatest philosophers due to his work within philosophical language. Some of his most notable work was his belief in language games. Jarman’s film Wittgenstein touches upon both Wittgenstein and language games.

 

Jarman portrays Wittgenstein as a tortured genius. He is constantly tormented by his own brilliance and does yearn to have a relatively normal life; away from academia. In this way, Jarman does excellently showcase Wittgenstein’s sadness, in that he is always running away from his life; probably in a bid to forget the torment his work provides him with. Jarman also conveys excellently the ways in which Wittgenstein influences and affects others around him, especially the frustration and exasperation he causes Bertrand Russell. One of the biggest problems that Wittgenstein seems to possess in Jarman’s film is his idea of language games. He is shown not only to hate the fact that others did not understand language games, but also with the fact that whilst trying to understand language games himself, he started to believe that language had no real meaning. This started to drive him mad, and could be considered one of the reasons that he wanted to leave academia behind him.

 

Even though Jarman’s film does provide an excellent portrayal of Wittgenstein and his theory of language games in some ways, he can also be criticised for the way he portrays him in others. An example of this is the addition of the Martian and intermittence of the young Wittgenstein can be shown to undermine Wittgenstein’s work. A Martian can be seen as childish or fantastical, and may be viewed by some people as an odd thing to add to such a film. Another criticism of Wittgenstein is that it almost glazes over Wittgenstein’s work, and is more focused on his private life, so if you did not necessarily want to learn about Wittgenstein, but about his work as a philosopher, it could be misleading. Furthermore, the fact that the young Wittgenstein kept coming and going throughout the film could be considered to be confusing.

 

Overall, Jarman does provide a useful insight into Wittgenstein and his theory of language games. It shows that Wittgenstein as a tormented genius, who is able to understand hard philosophical concepts, yet he makes it so that ultimately, the audience feels sorry for him.

 

LL and SS

Wittgenstein film review

In his film, Wittgenstein, Derek Jarman attempts to tackle with the life and ideas of the vivid, tortured philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein.  

The film highlights the non-cognitive nature of religious language as Wittgenstein engages in philosophical dialogues questioning about basic concepts, how the earth exists and what it means to say we are ‘human’. The scenes with a deformed boy, Martin, establish, the way in which philosophy attempts to question even basic concepts, to start from no assumptions and work outwards from that empty space.


The film dramatizes the struggles Wittgenstein faced throughout his life; including becoming a school teacher, going to war and settling in at Cambridge as a professor, continuing to think all the while.


However, some may argue that the film does not provide a complete insight into Wittgenstein’s light as there is no sense of real time or narrative, only a sequence of incidents and characteristic reflexions on Wittgenstein's ever-changing thinking about the nature of the world and the way language is related to it.  This elimination of context puts the focus completely on Wittgenstein himself, his relationships, his thoughts, and his internal dramas.


Also, the film does not solely engage in Wittgenstein's ideas, it also attempts to deal with the philosopher's conflicted sexuality, which seems to have caused him as much anguish as his considerations of philosophical problems.  For this reason, the film does not provide a complete insight into Wittgenstein's philosophical work as significant sections of the film focus on his personal relationships.

In conclusion, Derek Jarman’s film is obviously a very complex and fascinating film, all the more so for the way in which it leaves such crucial questions unresolved. Although, more focus on his theory of Language Games may provide a further insight into his unique thought process.

Ellen and Melissa

Derrick Jarman's film: Wittgenstein

Derrick Jarman's film, Wittgenstein, illustrates the entire life of Ludwig Wittgenstein including all the major turning points in this significant philosopher’s life and the many struggles he faced during his lifetime. But the question has to be asked as to whether Jarman does Wittgenstein justice by demonstrating his revolutionary ideas of philosophy and developing our understanding why some consider him to be one of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century. 

After watching Jarman’s portrayal of Wittgenstein you immediately realise the troubled life he led. What is apparent is the frustration that he experienced in his attempts to find himself. You witness the doubts he has with himself and the usefulness of philosophy, and the various quests he undertakes, such as fighting in World War I and teaching in schools, in the hope that he will find answers. Jarman brilliantly conveys that Wittgenstein from a young age displayed the makings of a genius and many important philosophers of the time, such as Bertrand Russell, recognised his philosophical potential. But Wittgenstein had difficulties in meeting these expectations and the biggest problem was that he had such innovative ideas yet he could not express them in an appropriate way. Jarman provides useful insight as to why Wittgenstein was highly critical of himself and that he consequently experienced periodic depression and contemplated suicide. All of which is essential in gaining a full of appreciation of his contributions to philosophy and offers an explanation why he only published just one slim book, Tractatus. The film demonstrates how his ideas of language were completely ground-breaking and how at first some could not understand them and believed he was purely insane. Nonetheless, they too eventually grasped his brilliance. It shows how philosophy impacted his whole life and was not simply just his work.

Conversely, to gain a full comprehension of the film it demands a basic knowledge of Wittgenstein’s work. Additionally, it could be argued that some of Wittgenstein’s greatness is lost in the unique and quirky way the film was directed. By concentrating much of the film on the complex and unstable nature of Wittgenstein for some viewers his ideas may lose their impact and that is the depiction of Wittgenstein they are left with after the film has finished. Furthermore, Jarman could have delved deeper into the theories of Wittgenstein and their influence on various studies so that we gained a greater understanding of his significance.

Ultimately, we believe that Jarman’s film is an incredibly useful insight into the life of Ludwig Wittgenstein. It conveys the wisdom and greatness of Wittgenstein in a way that would attract a whole new audience and educate those who are unaware of his philosophical notions. It aids those who are studying his ideas to gain a greater understanding by having knowledge of his mentality. It condenses his whole life into a 70 minute film yet it provides a truthful portrayal of the life he led and his important theories.

 Beth and Danniella

Wittgenstein film review

This is certainly a shockingly playful biopic about one of the 20th century most intellectual, and fabulously gay, philosophers. Derek Jarman is able to captivate the audience throughout Wittgenstein’s journey to discover a true success.

 The film, 'Wittgenstein', is unbelievable. Whether unbelievable is seen as a positive description or a negative one, is up to you.

 The 70minutes production, which included theatrical elements, explores Wittgenstein's idea, the 'Language Game', a well-known principle which has been implicated and still used in the classroom today. Unfortunately, the philosopher’s theory came at a cost, as years of discovery and research into a whole ‘new world’ led to a series of mental issues developed later in his life.

The audience are able to follow his reasons and logic behind his theory. This gave the audience a lot to think about; though it is complicated to get through at first, it is certainly interesting once you get the hang of it.

Wittgenstein tried to solve all of philosophy's problems. He dismissed the idea that language is one way or another separate and equivalent to reality and argued that without understanding the concept of something, you opinions and definitions are meaningless.

Jarman portrays a very thin line from genius to absolute lunacy. The film is a direct echo of Wittgenstein’s personality. In some ways, the philosopher reminds me of the overly intellectual Physician, Sheldon Cooper, from the ‘Big Bang Theory’.

 

The performance has been praised and considered “remarkable” by his biographer, Ray Monk.

Personally, the film failed to provide me with a useful insight into one of the greatest philosophers and his theory of Language Games. Although, his revolutionary ideas affect disciplines as diverse as philosophy of mind, psychology, the natural sciences, linguistics, mathematics, logic and the arts, there were certain scenes I completely lost track in what was going on.

Don’t get me wrong, Jarman’s show on Wittgenstein is perfect in terms of understanding his childhood and adulthood as the writer seemed too focused on his psychological issues as oppose to his philosophical ideas. Even so, the film was performed by the characters superbly, which is good enough for me.

Bravo.

 

 

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Ludwig Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 – 29 April 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language. From 1939–1947, Wittgenstein taught at the University of Cambridge and Philosopher Bertrand Russell described him as "the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived; passionate, profound, intense, and dominating.”

The film directed by Derek Jarman provided an insightful portrayal of his life and story. We felt that the acting gave a realistic representation of how Wittgenstein would have discovered his ideas and theory, and showed the true human nature of his discoveries. Throughout the play it shows how his philosophical work had affected his various relationships which we feel shows a different aspect to his character and allows the audience to see how his work was perceived by many around him. It also realistically showed that Wittgenstein would have faced struggles and criticism in his work, even from those he valued as friends allowing the audience to see how he would have been constantly trying to justify his ideas.

However the play also had some negative aspects as we feel that it was very focused on his psychological state, which is portrayed as unstable at points, rather than his philosophical ideas and theories. This distracts from the essential points that he is trying to make which can make Wittgenstein seem less significant. Another choice by Jarman was to portray Wittgenstein’s character as erratic where this may not have been completely true and for many this may influence their view of Wittgenstein.

Overall the style of the play can seem rather distracting from the character of Wittgenstein, but the portrayal of the events of his life and his story provides an accurate account of Wittgenstein’s life.  

 

Emma and Ella