Philosophy in movies

[MFD]

I noticed recently that there are a lot of philosophical undertones creeping into mainstream movies. That its not just restricted to little known artsy films.

For instance, in the Spider-man series, one could discuss the duality of Spider-man's identity, and how, only by balancing both identities can he be truly happy.

Also, the Matrix trilogy absolutely reeked of philosophy.

Any other movies worthy of discussion?

[BMHadoken]

Technically every film can be a hotbed of philosophy, you just have to pretend that the smallest insignificant thing can mean something far greater.

For example: In Babe (the pig movie) the fact that all animals talk can be seen as how we as humans have become so caught up in our superiority that we don't notice the sublime genius all around, even in pigs.

Or because animals talking is cutesy, either or really.

[Kain S. Branford]

Technically every film can be a hotbed of philosophy, you just have to pretend that the smallest insignificant thing can mean something far greater.

That's really a common thing people do whether it's with movies, or reading. In the case of things like Spider-Man, and the Matrix, it holds some validity. But I wouldn't give mainstream movies so much credit as to think they're philosophically deep or becoming so. Keep in mind the whole dichotomy of Spider-Man has been around prior to the movies, that's part of the ongoing spidey-story. The Matrix trilogy, if I recall correctly, had a lot of basis from Mayan philosophy; though the details of it escape me.

The reason mainstream movies are mainstream is simply due to the fact they're crammed with action, oodles of CGI stunts, and/or some over-inflated star. There are morals to be found in most of them, but nothing to really warrant a divine revelation.

Although I could be wrong. I mean, I could end up watching Catwoman and suddenly have a life-altering epiphany... or a seizure. Whichever comes first.

[Otaku Son]

Now see, I would post a reply here. But, since it's MFD's thread and, according to MFD, he has me on ignore, he would never see this post. So really, it would be pointless to write an answer that will never be seen to a question that was asked by the person who will never see my answer. So for all he knows, I could be writing "blah blah blah" here...

Anyway, for everyone else who doesn't have me on ignore, I thought the Matrix was meant to have Bilical references, not Mayan? But whatever the case may be, it's not just the movie medium that gets a batch of philosphical material; every media has its group of philosihpical art. I'm sure even Star Wars would have a philosophical meaning behind it.

[BMHadoken]

Otaku, just because you're still raw over MFD Ignoring you, doesn't give you reason to call him a jackhole. (this should test to see if he can read your stuff)

And Matrix definetly had bunches of Bible themes (the ONE e.g. Savior releasing us from the control of the devil...eer, machines). And cmon, Spidey, arms out saving a trainload of people through intense pain on his part...no crucifixtion reference at all.

Movies like Star Wars go by fantasy themes (I read somewhere it followed a code perfectly, Luke finding his enemy is close to him, getting help from nature=Ewoks, etc.)

[Otaku Son]

Movies like Star Wars go by fantasy themes (I read somewhere it followed a code perfectly, Luke finding his enemy is close to him, getting help from nature=Ewoks, etc.)
Yes, I know what you're talking about, because I remember we studied Star Wars like that for English in my senior year of high school. Of course me, being the SW geek I was at the time, was able to point out that there was one code that wasn't followed, because there was no one who fit the pre-requisite. But it follows everything else.

But actually, I was thinking more about the whole Force aspect of the movie. Learn yourself, people and nature are the same, etc.

[Kain S. Branford]

Maybe I'm just nitpicking here, but I have to say now things are slightly stepping from a philosophical point of view to a more religious tone with all these biblical references. I won't take away from what was said since--as stated earlier--perceptions such as these tend to be a matter of what one reads between the lines. Philosophy is essentially just opinion, irregardless how some may revere it.

The Star Wars movies do follow a very well reputed fantasy formula. Although even something as formulaic as Star Wars can still spark a measure of philosophical debate... even the prequels. That is, if you too much time on your hands.

[Otaku Son]

Archetypes! That's the term we're all looking for, for the formula Star Wars follows. And those were set back in the days of Romon Mythology, with The Illiad and The Odessy.

[Illuminatus]

The thing is, if you boil down any book or movie enough, it becomes a formula, or an archetype. There are very, very few original ideas left in the world. I learned this the hard way as an aspiring sci-fi writer. The key is how you change those core formulas, and that's where you can add your own spin or philosophy. Just because a movie follows an archetype doesn't mean that it's philisophical value should be undermined. There's also always the philisophical value inherent in the archetype itself.

And before someone goes off on me and says "That's not what I said/meant..." I know. I'm just throwing ideas out.

[BMHadoken]

Ya know, I've heard the "There's only 6 or 8 original ideas floating around" thing before, but nobody seems to want to elaborate on what those ideas are.

Anyways, philosophy in movies is either forced (Matrix) or realized later by movie watchers with way too much time to think about things (me with Back to the Future).

[Illuminatus]

Dunno about 6 or 8...but there's definitely a limited amount

[Kain S. Branford]

Well, not all original concepts in literature, theatrics, and film fit in the "needle in a haystack" category. It's just easy to get disillusioned since there are so many carbon copies. Even the most general plots had one point of origin.

But the question with mainstream movies is if the formula was just made to tell a story with possible profound notions to muse over or to get a hose into your wallet. Too much of cinema today falls into the latter, but not that a story that is told has to be riddled with things that make you think about your insignificant life in this vast, endless cosmos.

[Sithdarth]

See we live in a society were one of the biggest event is a Sports game that is in one wor violent. I'd have to say at least 80% of Americans could care less about characters talking. They want to see blood, guts, and CGI. As such movies with no deeper meaning the images can make a crap load of money. Personally some times that's all I want in a movie. If I wanted depth I'd go read a good book.

[Archbio]

I love movies with depth. If I wanted to see senseless motion I'd close my eyes and imagine something. And once there's depth in the plot or characters or anything, it's unavoidable that some philosophy slips in.

So as such I don't think philosophy in movies is a new thing (if you don't judge what kind of philosophy it is), and the original Matrix doesn't count as highly philosophical in any sense. I felt all they did was put some Socrates/Plato quote while the movie itself actually asked the question: "Does the One knows to kung-fu or what?"

[Thaumaturge]

On the matter of originality, did you know that the idea that a story plot must be original is fairly recent? The ancient Greeks re-worked the same stories many times, and seem to have been quite happy with this.

As to philosophy, some movies do include some overt philosophy, usually in the form of allegory. Most philosophy in movies (or any media), however, is not directly intended. Instead it comes from applicability. That is, the audience reads philosophy in it by applying the events in the movies.

One example of this is the Lord of the Rings (the books; I'm not commenting on the movies). Many have suggested that the story is an allegory for the second world war. Tolkein refuted this, indicating the changes that would need to be made to bring it in line with this. In fact, from what I can gather, Tolkein disliked allegory in all of it's forms. On the other hand, many people will be able to find applicability of many kinds within the Lord of the Rings.

[Martyr]

It's because philosophy is inherent in story telling. There never was a great story that was about nothing. Every story has an obvious side and then a non-obvious side. There's no use to an author is he has no opinions and doesn't add in those philosophical morals and underlying themes into his work.
I mean, all books are analyzed deeply because all authors have something to say. Sometimes it's religious, sometimes it's political, sometimes it's revolutionary, and a lot of time you're also reading a comedy about a blue giant and his strife over a human girl who cannot love him... And how he rampages on and destroys nations with his horrible face that has, by now, been so covered with zits that one cannot distinguish an eye from a blackhead.

Obviously, such philosophy will take place in movies too. Especially in our time because so many people watch movies instead of read books. Because the audience has turned to this new and more exciting method of storytelline, the stories in a screenplay must now include thise philosophical (Or what have you) aspects.
In fact, most written work that does not have a deeper meaning, or, at least, that does not have a conceivable deeper meaning, is considered garbage and is never released. I'd bet that even some garbage movie like Hellboy might have some deeper theme that could possibly be very interesting. (Yeah, yeah... So you don't think it's garbage. It's just me, okay)

Also, there are lots of theories on what the mimited types of stories are. The most popular theory is that there are 35. I don't have a link ready, so I'll go find out exactly what the name is (Because it's actually in a book. A book that I should have, but lent out and never received it back). And it fleshes out every type of story you can make a catagory for. From revenge to romance and all the subcatagories for them.

Somebody else said that there are only two types. Fiction and Non-Fiction.

And I believe that though there are a finite number of catagories to place a story under (If you really must make catagories), there are still an infinite amount of stories that can be created.

[Thaumaturge]

From what I have gathered (I seem to recall that it was a book about Tolkein's work), Tolkein did not consciously any philosophy into the Lord of the Rings. Certainly an author's (or screenwriter's) philosophies will affect the course of the story at a lower level. If you are looking at this level, then every art-form contains philosophy.

[Kain S. Branford]

There's no real difference between personal idealism and philosophy as far as I'm concerned. I agree with Thaumatage since my own ideals and notions influence the course of my works.

Another issue is the depth of the philosophical messages in each work. The point that sometimes the issue is only what one sees has already been made. One might interpret the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy to signify at the least that good men should act in the face of evil as quickly as possible or else no one ever will. Now of course such fantasy concepts use devices such as fate to further engineer this, but would it really hold true? Should man always fight an evil when one seems to appear because evil always tends to have absolute victories?

Now as far as Hellboy goes... sure there's philosophy! Actually it's more like a moral that says if you have one freakishly oversized hand, you'll be spending a lot of time by yourself. Or vice-versa.

[Illuminatus]

If I wanted depth I'd go read a good book.

My sentiments exactly.

[Lockeownzj00]

That is such a flawed statements. What the hell? Since when are movies only good for action? "If I wanted depth I'd go read a good book?" First of all, this implies:

a) that books are inherently deep and philosphical
b) that all movies are action movies.

While SithDarth and Ih8stupidppl obviously do not think this literally, they seem to think along these lines. This makes no sense. Why would you want movies to not have depth? I'm all for mindless romps--I love em--and action movies are good too. You don't even have to like in-depth movies--but they exist. There are tons of em. Just because 12 year olds like I, Robot more than Adaptation means nothing. Apparently you were trying to make some sort of 'definitive, end-all' statement, but you can't when it's as flawed as that.

False depth, like any of the sequel matrix movies, I agree, is bad. They just weren't good movies, so they tried to infuse philosophy in them to make them good.

Look--philosophy has no place in...say, James Bond. Depth is important for a movie to be good most of the time anyway, so I still don't see why you wouldn't want it. Prefer books? K. Prefer movies? K. But rather than just say "i'd take a book over a movie anyday," or "today's mainstream movies are pretty bad," you basically punched every film maker out there in the stomach--especially the independent ones.

[Illuminatus]

What I meant was, it's easier to find GOOD books with depth than movies with depth. Lets face it. Most "deep" movies are sleepers or tear-jerkers, neither of which interests me as entertainment. When I pick up a full length novel, unless the author is a big name, popular author, I can expect to have my mind exercised. I come away from a movie surprised if my mind is still functional.

Thus, I've come to rely on movies for less deep entertainment. That doesn't mean that I still don't enjoy deep movies, but I don't look for or expect them.

[Junn]

"I come away from a movie surprised if my mind is still functional." I love it.
As to the overly philosophical movies there are quite a few that replace good dialogue with soliloquies that shakespeare even would have hacked up his tea anc crumpets over.

Books by their very nature take more brain power to enjoy. The work of decoding the written word and assigning meaning is simply a higher function of the brain then responding to visual stimulus.

I used to work at a theatre and therfore the only time I will go to a theatre now is to see the special effects and sound ambiance. I rarely go to films; most films are garbage and it amazes me that someone forked out millions of dollars for most of the offal that rolls out of Hollywood.

Joe: I got an idea for a movie.
Producer: Tell me about it.
Joe: A woman in leathers and a whip she..
Producer: Shutup heres 10 million dollars.

[MFD]

As for not-thought-out movies, I dunno. I seem more satisfied when the movie is thought out, and I can think about what thias meant, like in Memento. Not precisely philosophy, but its still fun to think about, and watch more than once.

Superhero movies (since I haven't seen Hellboy) just seem better when I can grasp the motive, what drives the person to be a hero. Spider-man did this. Batman Forever and Batman and Robin didn't show any conflict between Bruce and Batman at all. Bruce should be dark and complex, not that smarmy George Clooney. (Like that trailer for Batman Begins, yo!)

And as for Otaku Son, just because you're on my ignore list doesn't mean I can't click on "View post." Jerk. The discussion is for everyone, not just answering me.

[Illuminatus]

Joe: I got an idea for a movie.
Producer: Tell me about it.
Joe: A woman in leathers and a whip she..
Producer: Shutup heres 10 million dollars.


Hilarious. Junn is my hero for today.

By the way, Memento is an example of how movies should be. THAT was a thinking movie.

[Sithdarth]

Didn't mean movies should throw out the script or anything. A good script and storyline can go a long way in helping a movie. The sad fact is over 80% of Americans deem effects and violence of greater importance than script. They would sit though 30 seconds to a minute of crap, equivalent to a commerical, to see a sex/violence scene. I can appreciate a well scripted movie, but if that's all it has going for it I'd rather read the book. Like I read the Van Helsing screen play instead of seeing the movie, because I was in the hospital at the time, and came away with a totaly different impression of the story than my friend that had watched the movie.

[MFD]

Van Helsing. Now that's a non-thinking movie. If you try to think about it too hard, your head hurts. I especially found the part where Frankenstein's monster swung from his tower to the antidote's tower, and managed to land IN the room ON TOP OF the bride, particularly thought provoking.

I enjoyed the movie, but some of those action scenes were a little thick with movie magic. Good movie, but it doesn't sound like a good read.

Another good thinking movie: Vanilla Sky.

[Mattias]

I wonder if this might be off topic, but how many people here have read and seen fight club (book and movie)? Personally I think its one of the movies that ended up being as good if not better then the book. I wonder if anyone feels the same way.

Books by their very nature take more brain power to enjoy. The work of decoding the written word and assigning meaning is simply a higher function of the brain then responding to visual stimulus.

I would have to disagree. Not completely, but I have read a couple novels that did nothing but made me fall asleep. There have also been very well done cinematic works that gave my brain a workout of the plot/charaters/scenery underline meanings were. Not to mention the occasional monkey wrench into what I believed the world was all about. Fight Club, Seven, Momento, Requiem for a Dream, Interview with the Vampire, and Boondock Saints to name a few.

p.s. sorry for being off topic somewhat, havent posted in awhile. (didnt see vanilla sky, but I think iI want to now.)