| Summary: | Over the past two decades the field of âphilosophy of filmâ has become increasingly concerned
with the self-reflective question of what constitutes the relationship between film and philosophy
itself. This study proposes and explores a unique âdeep-structureâ perspective on their
relationship. It engages particularly with the question of âphilosophy in filmâ â that is, the ability
of film to embody philosophical thought â from within the theoretical framework of Discourse
Archaeology (DA), a theoretical system researched and taught at the Department of Philosophy,
UFS. Certain assumptions that are at work within DA are explored in order to present an original
and illuminating ground-perspective on how film and philosophy meet. Detailed analyses will
illustrate how grounding concepts, identified by different sub-theories of DA, represent
constitutive deep-structure âspacesâ within which film and philosophy interact in a variety of
ways. While current approaches to this question tend to lack the meta-philosophical leverage
which this question requires, DAâs systematic theories of philosophical discourse (and by
implication philosophical âmomentsâ in any other discourse, like film) are illuminating âtoolsâ
which allow the film-philosopher to deal with these two kinds of discourse in the same unifying
terms.
The study is conducted through five extensive case studies of how different DA sub-theories
could be applied in probing the deep-structures that allow philosophy to be âinâ a film. The main
analyses are of The Man who shot Liberty Valance (John Ford 1962), Brokeback Mountain (Ang
Lee 2005), Modern Times (Charles Chaplin 1936), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michel
Gondry 2004) and The Matrix (Andy and Larry Wachowski 1999). The DA sub-theories that are
employed in analysis are Macro-motive theory, a theory of logosemantics (âKey theoryâ), a
figurative semiotics (or âMetaphor theoryâ), a theory of ethical âposturesâ and a theory of
ideology. In an attempt to investigate different theoretical avenues and possibilities, each chapter
of analysis examines a particular sub-theory and has its own unique exploratory aims and
procedures. Yet, to anchor this study in an active and ongoing debate, each of the analyses (apart
from that of Brokeback Mountain) also seeks to establish some form of dialogue with Thomas
Wartenbergâs analyses in Thinking on screen: Film as philosophy (2007). Apart from offering
new perspectives on âphilosophy in filmâ, four of the case-studies could therefore also be seen as
âDA-repliesâ to aspects of Wartenbergâs work on exactly the same films.
|
|---|
