Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Film as Argument
•Thomas E. Wartenberg
Since I am a philosopher and I expect that many view that the author attributes to the film he is
of my readers will be film scholars, I shall begin considering is simplified – and perhaps even
by briefly setting the context that my discussion distorted – in order to assimilate it to the
presupposes. Recently, there has been a spate of ‘properly’ philosophic discussion of the issue at
philosophical activity focusing on film. But unlike hand.
earlier work by such philosophers of film as Noël In order to provide a corrective to this
Carroll and George Wilson, who approach film tendency, I have undertaken the project of
from the point of view of philosophical investigating whether films make a more integral
aesthetics, much of the current activity uses film contribution to philosophy than is apparent from
as a taking-off point for discussions of such treatments. This is the origin of my interest
philosophic issues without focusing primary in the question of whether films can be
attention upon film as an artistic medium.1 So, to arguments, for arguments have generally been
choose one popular example, The Matrix acknowledged as central to philosophy. Clarifying
(Wachowski Brothers, 1999) has become a exactly what makes something an argument is
virtual obsession among philosophers who itself an important topic in philosophy, but for
generally use it to introduce a discussion of our purposes it will do to stipulate that an
Cartesian skepticism, though other topics such as argument is a persuasive use of language that
the nature of pleasure are addressed as well.2 An attempts to convince an audience that a certain
additional reason why philosophers have been proposition, theory, or, to speak more loosely,
attracted to film is that film is a convenient view is true by means of logic rather than other
means for introducing students to the study of tactics such as an appeal to the emotions.
philosophy. At this moment, there are at least Although not all philosophy need take the form
five recent textbooks for introductory philosophy of an explicit argument from stated premises to a
courses that use films to launch discussions of stated conclusion, nor must the contribution of
philosophical issues, and this number can be film to philosophy be limited solely to its ability
expected to increase rapidly.3 to make arguments, if it can be shown that films
Although I am pleased that philosophers are can make arguments – and philosophical
beginning to pay more attention to film, there is arguments, specifically – this will establish one
one feature of this recent trend that gives me very important way in which films can contribute
pause: It has often resulted in films being treated to the discipline of philosophy.
only as pretexts for discussions of standard
philosophical issues and texts. Thus, a
I. Arguments in Narratives, Recordings, and
philosopher might summarize the plot of a film
Documentaries
like All of Me (Carl Reiner, 1984), only to quickly
turn to questions of personal identity and the Before developing this point, I want to consider
role of the body as a criterion for it, with the film an important objection to the idea that films can
being left in the dust. And, as often as not, the present arguments. This objection relies on the
Film as Argument •
fact that the films that I am concerned with here, rather than in the story of his ascent and
which have been of the most interest to recent descent. Even if we grant that Nietzsche’s
philosophers, involve fictional narratives. narrative has philosophical significance, his
Although there certainly are non-narrative films unique text would also seem to support the
that qualify as meriting philosophical interest, more general contention that philosophic
such as those in the structuralist tradition of argumentation stands at odds with narrative
avant-garde film,4 I am concerned primarily with structure. And while Sergei Eisenstein reportedly
narrative films – especially popular ones – and dreamt of making a film version of Marx’s Das
ask whether they can present arguments. The Kapital, it is hard to see how, for example, Marx’s
objection to this possibility relies on the fact that analysis of the nature of the commodity-form
the stories that such films present involve specific would make a compelling action movie.
individuals and circumstances. In so far as they Although in the later sections of Volume 1 Marx
do so, the objection maintains, they are does tell a narrative, that of primitive
incapable of employing the discursive form of an accumulation, it is still not clear how this story
argument, for arguments involve universal claims could be made the basis for a popular film.5
and narratives are inherently particular. So, for Despite the paucity of narratives in written
example, The Matrix tells the story of specific philosophy, recent analytic philosophy has begun
fictional inhabitants of the Earth in the year to acknowledge their philosophical significance.
2200. The film could certainly be used, the The recent emphasis on narrative began with
objection concedes, as an illustration of a Alasdair MacIntyre’s claim in After Virtue that
philosophical position such as Cartesian personal identity depends on narrative
skepticism: that there is no way to justify taking considerations.6 Previously, most accounts of this
my present experience to be veridical. However, notion pointed to some feature such as bodily
since The Matrix is a specific story, there is no continuity or the continuity of memory as the
way that it can result in our accepting on logical ground for our sense of ourselves as unified
grounds a general claim like the one put forward beings. MacIntyre argues that we see ourselves
by Cartesian skepticism. While our sympathy for as unified beings because of a story that we
the fates of certain characters might encourage narrate about ourselves that establishes the
us to accept a general truth, the objection necessary continuity.
concludes, this is not the same thing as acquiring Despite the introduction of the idea of
rational conviction through an argument. narrative into philosophy itself – and the idea has
In response, let me first admit that written flourished in a variety of quarters – it is
philosophy has only rarely employed a narrative important not to confuse the claim that narrative
structure. While it is true that Hegel’s is a newly discovered topic within philosophy
Phenomenology of Spirit is an extended with the assertion that philosophy itself can
narrative, it can be regarded as the exception proceed narratively. This latter claim receives no
that proves the rule, for its central character is support from the former and is widely rejected
consciousness – hardly the sort of entity one by philosophers. So despite attention paid in
would expect to be the star of a popular film – recent philosophy to the notion of narrative, the
and its story is of the tragic road consciousness fact that movies proceed narratively marks them
faces in attaining self-consciousness – not exactly as having a different structure from that
suitable material for the Hollywood dream necessary for philosophy itself.
machine. And though Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke To respond to the objection that films’
Zarathustra also tells a story – that of the mythic narrative character precludes argumentation, it is
Zarathustra’s trials and tribulations – it can be important to recognize that films can – and
maintained that its philosophy resides in the sometimes do – contain explicit arguments,
argument-like speeches that Zarathustra gives although this fact will prove less interesting to
about the eternal recurrence and other matters, our investigation than it might first seem. To see
• Film as Argument
why, consider a hypothetical film – perhaps just a Roundabout Theater Company of Moss Hart and
recording of a class or a lecture – that shows an George S. Kaufman’s play, The Man Who Came
actual philosopher making an argument. You to Dinner – the film here is not an independent
might think here of the late John Rawls, the work of art but only a means of transmitting the
influential twentieth-century social and political stage performance, the actual work, to a wider
philosopher, presenting a lecture in which he audience than was able to see it live on
argues that the difference principle would be Broadway. And just as the PBS recording of The
agreed upon by individuals in the original Man Who Came to Dinner is not an independent
position, that is, under the veil of ignorance.7 Let work of art but only a recording of one,
us call this film, Justifying Difference. Certainly Justifying Difference would not itself be making
films can, in virtue of their ability to record reality a screen version of a philosophical argument, but
– a fact made much of by the Bazinian tradition only recording a person actually making one at a
in film studies – present material like this. And, in specific place and time.9
so far as they record a philosopher making an I do not want to be taken as claiming here
argument, they might seem to themselves qualify that there is no way for a recording of a lecture
as instances of philosophy.8 (or a play) to become an independent work of
Now we could enter into a long debate about philosophy (or art). Were illustrations and new
whether such a film makes a philosophical points added, it might be possible to make a film
argument, but I do not think that is necessary. of a philosophy class or lecture that was itself a
The issue of whether films can present work of philosophy.10 My only point is that
arguments as I am raising it would not be merely recording a lecture on film, while it would
resolved by the existence of such a documentary, succeed in presenting philosophy, does not solve
even were we inclined to say that it should be the problem we began with of whether a film
counted as developing Rawls’ argument. The can make an argument that is philosophically
reason for this is that, in Justifying Difference, significant.
the film merely functions as a device for Our argument about fiction films presenting
recording Rawls’ talk. As far as capturing the philosophical arguments will be assisted by a
content of what he is saying, a tape recorder more general discussion of non-fiction or
would have done as well, and no one would documentary films. One might hold that such
assert that audiotapes have some special films provide one context in which it is possible
connection to philosophy. This is because in such to answer the question of whether films can
uses these media are simply means for recording present arguments in the affirmative, for such
work that is actually done in another medium. As films often do make explicit arguments by means
such, they do not themselves produce works that of their narratives. Consider Carl Plantinga’s
count as independent works, rather than simply claim that what distinguishes the non-fiction
functioning as records or duplicates of previously from the fiction film is precisely the assumption
existing works. So while Justifying Difference that non-fiction films are making assertions
does present the argument made by Rawls, its about the world. Even if not all non-fiction films
doing so does not qualify it itself making an involve explicit argumentation, there are many
argument, for it merely reproduces Rawls’ that do use their soundtracks in conjunction with
argument in a non-standard medium. their image tracks in order to present arguments.
We can find support for my assessment of this Plantinga cites the CBS Reports documentary
hypothetical film by turning to the actual case of Harvest of Shame (1960) as an example of such
a PBS Great Performances show in which an a film. He states that the film ‘documents the
actual stage play is broadcast. It is generally degrading plight [of] the nation’s migrant farm
agreed that, because the PBS show involves a workers, placing the blame squarely on the
recording of a specific performance of a stage landowners/farmers, and advocating specific
play – say, of the October 7, 2000, revival by the legislation to alleviate the problem’.11 If Plantinga
Film as Argument •
is right about this film – he points to a range of seem the polar opposite of philosophy, with its
different claims that the film justifies concern for eternal questions.
argumentatively to support his view – then we
have to admit that some films do present
II. Argument by Example and Counter-
arguments, even if not yet ones that are clearly
Example
philosophical in nature.
But this does not really settle the issue I began The crux of the issue facing us, then, is whether
with, which is whether fiction films can present a film can present a philosophical argument
arguments. Although the case of documentary through a fictional narrative that involves
films does show that the visual nature of film dialogue and images, a soundtrack and an image
does not preclude it from presenting an track.14 Some philosophers have taken the
argument, such films usually rely on the explicit obvious course and denied this possibility. For
linguistic statements, made in their soundtracks, example, Noël Carroll asserts quite baldly that
on intertitles, or in subtitles, to present at least ‘narrative films are not arguments’.15 And while I
some of the claims that constitute their would not disagree with the literal assertion
argument. Often the balance of the film, made by this claim, I want to affirm that
including much of the visual material, functions narrative films can, in addition to doing many
only as evidence for the claims that are explicitly other things, present arguments, a possibility
made linguistically. Carroll denies. Similarly, Seymour Chatman offers
The case of documentaries or non-fiction films little support for my case when he affirms that
thus leads us to another difficulty faced in film are only able to present arguments ‘in the
affirming the possibility that fiction films can loose sense’, while denying that they can present
present arguments, for the question is not the more formal arguments he identifies as
whether fiction films can present arguments of constitutive of philosophical texts.16
any type, but whether they can present We can, however, find support for my claim in
specifically philosophical arguments. In a unexpected quarters. In the very article in which
documentary like Harvest of Shame, parts of the he denies that narrative films are arguments,
film can be used to provide evidence for claims Carroll does affirm that films often attempt to
made about, for example, the awful working convince us of something, only the method they
conditions the laborers had to endure by use, he claims, is not that of a formal argument.
showing what those conditions actually were To establish that films exhibit this intention,
like. But philosophical arguments rarely if ever Carroll cites approvingly Andre Bazin’s claim that
involve empirical evidence that can be presented Citizen Kane (1941) establishes the universal
without verbal language. So the question of truth that ‘there is no profit in gaining the whole
whether films can present philosophical world if one has lost one’s own childhood’.17
arguments is not only not answered by an And while this is not specifically a philosophical
appeal of documentary films, but even made to claim, it does point in a direction that leads
seem less likely of receiving affirmation.12 towards our desired conclusion.
There is yet a further wrinkle to the issue, for Carroll’s discussion relies upon the view of
many of the films that have attracted argumentation Aristotle develops in his Rhetoric.
philosophers’ attention as sources of There, Aristotle is interested in explaining the
philosophical insight are popular narrative films, different ways in which language can be used to
like Ridley Scott’s 1982 sci-fi action film, Blade persuade people. The example which he
Runner, or Harold Ramis’ 1993 comedy, discusses that is relevant to Carroll’s and our
Groundhog Day.13 Such films are often deemed purposes is that of the fable. A fable is a made-
to be vehicles of popular entertainment, so it is up story, often featuring talking animals, that is
hard to see what could justify their being taken intended to establish a general conclusion or
to be works of philosophy. Such ‘ephemera’ moral that can, but need not be, explicitly stated.
• Film as Argument
Aesop’s well-known fable of the tortoise and the composition by assuming that the character of a
hare tells the story of a speedy but overconfident class of objects can be determined from an
hare who is literally caught napping by the examination of just one of them. While a
plodding tortoise who, despite his slowness, particular lion may be friendly – say one trained
perseveres and beats his flashy competitor to the for a circus – it would be a mistake to make an
finish line. The fable is intended to establish the inductive inference from the case of this one
moral truth, ‘Slow and steady wins the race,’ or, affectionate beast to the general claim that all
in less metaphorical terms, that perseverance and lions are friendly. In formal terms, this fallacy can
tenacity are moral virtues, while flashiness is not. be characterized as involving the following
And, indeed, the story provides an instance of invalid inference pattern:
this general truth.
A1 is F
Now, there are films that, at least on the
All A’s are F.
surface, conform to this model. One is Merian C.
Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack’s 1933 horror- This is an invalid inductive inference because
adventure film, King Kong. After the opening there is no guarantee that A1 might not just
credits, an intertitle displays what it claims to be happen to be F, so that there would be many
an ‘old Arabian proverb’: ‘And lo, the beast other things that are A’s while not being F’s. The
looked upon the face of beauty. And it stayed its friendly lion is a very special case of lionhood.
hand from killing. And from that day, it was as One would jeopardize one’s health, while also
one dead.’ The film presents itself as a fable that making a logical error, by generalizing about
will demonstrate the intertitle’s claim that beauty lions on the basis on the nature of this one, very
has the power to tame, and even kill, a beast. unusual beast.
And as if to ensure that we get the point, the At this point, even the most sympathetic of my
film concludes with Kong’s captor, Carl Denham readers might think that my attempt to show
(Robert Armstrong), reiterating this idea by that fictions films can present philosophical
saying that it was beauty, rather than bullets, arguments is doomed to failure. After all, in
that killed ‘the beast’.18 addition to the general arguments against this
However, neither Aristotle nor Carroll sees a possibility, hasn’t my examination of the
fable’s attempt to establish a moral as involving ‘argument by example’ definitively shown that
a legitimate form of argumentation, although fiction films cannot present arguments, let alone
both acknowledge its persuasive power. Carroll philosophical ones? Since fiction films generally
dubs it the argument by example, for a single present stories about specific individuals, as
instance – the story presented by the fable – is virtually any fiction film you can think of will
cited as evidence for the general truth it seeks to confirm, wouldn’t the attempt to move from a
vindicate. From a formal point of view, it is story about a particular character – such as
obvious why the argument by example is an Charles Foster Kane – to a general claim – such
invalid form of argumentation, one that as the one about childhood proffered by Bazin –
philosophers discuss under the rubric of involve just the sorts of illicit induction we have
inductive inference. Inductive inferences are ones seen in the case both of fables and the fallacious
in which one attempts to use empirical evidence reasoning about lions?
to justify a general conclusion. An example of a The burden of my argument is to show that
successful induction would be Kepler’s this is not so. And, indeed, there are a number of
presentation of his law about the orbits of the ways that one could attempt to argue that films,
planets – that they are elliptical – on the basis of despite their narrative structure, can present
extensive observation and data gathering. arguments. One strategy would be to show that
It is generally agreed that generalizing from a some films are enthymemes. An enthymeme is
single case to a universal proposition is invalid. an argument for which one of the premises is
To do so would be to commit the fallacy of missing, so that the audience must supply it. The
Film as Argument •
missing or implicit premises in an enthymeme are techniques for making philosophical arguments
usually of universal form and also part of the and posing the question of whether films can do
cultural background shared by people to whom that, rather than trying to solve the problem of
the enthymeme is addressed. A simple example whether film can present philosophical
of an enthymeme is: ‘Socrates is mortal because arguments globally. So let me turn to a
he is human.’ The reader must supply the philosophic technique that uses narrative as an
universal or major premise for this argument – element in developing an argument: the thought
‘All humans are mortal’ – and then see that experiment.19
‘Socrates is mortal’ follows from that statement A full discussion of thought experiments
plus the minor premise that he is human. In the would take us far afield, for thought experiments
case of a film, the audience might similarly be have recently become a subject of discussion in
called upon to supply a general claim that, philosophy.20 For our purposes, however, it will
together with the particular premise exhibited in be sufficient to focus on just one use of thought
the film, creates a valid argument. Although I experiments, namely that in which they function
think this is an important element of the solution to provide a counter-example to a philosophical
to our problem, I will leave my discussion of thesis, for this is a clear-cut example of a use of
enthymemes for the moment, though I will thought experiments in philosophy that we can
return to it towards the end of this paper. also find, I argue, in fiction films.21
A second option for showing that films can How exactly does a counter-example function
present arguments involves looking more in a philosophical argument? As we have seen,
carefully at what Carroll dubs the ‘argument by an important component in the articulation of a
example’. Despite the formal invalidity of this philosophic vision is the establishment of
mode of inductive inference, there is one case in universal claims or even definitions. Equally
which the inference is valid, namely when F is an important is the testing of those general
essential property of A’s. In that case, since assertions to see whether there are any situations
nothing could be an A without being an F, the or circumstances in which they do not hold. This
conclusion that all A’s are F could be inferred is where counter-examples come in. A counter-
from an examination of one example. If we example to a universal claim is a single instance
knew, for example, that having a heart was an in which it does not hold. Thus, to use a trite
essential property of mammals, we could philosophical example, if we asserted that all
conclude from examining one mammal and crows are black, the existence of an albino crow
discerning a heart that all mammals were so would be a counter-example to that general
endowed. claim, for it would show that there is at least one
The problem with this suggestion is that it crow that does not have the color specified by
appears to beg the question. How can the fact the generalization. Similarly, if I claim that all
that F is an essential property of A’s be politicians are liars and you can show me one
established? Doesn’t knowing that having a politician who always tells the truth, then that
heart is an essential property of all mammals unique politician functions as a counter-example
require that we have more than a passing to the general claim about politicians.
acquaintance with those creatures? Indeed, it Developing counter-examples to philosophical
even seems that justifying F to be an essential claims is an important aspect of philosophy, but,
property of A’s presupposes the very conclusion it since most philosophical claims are not empirical
was supposed to justify: All F’s are A. generalizations like those we have just
This suggests that we need a different strategy considered about crows and politicians, normally
if we want to justify the idea that films can philosophical counter-examples cannot employ
present arguments. The one I shall adopt in this actual examples of things that do not fit the
paper and that I have explored elsewhere I dub generalization. So instead of relying on actual
local, for it involves consideration of very specific exceptions to a proposed rule or definition –
• Film as Argument
such as that provided by the albino crow and the which involves deductive reasoning of the
honest politician – philosophical counter- following sort: Assume a general proposition of
examples are generally provided by thought the form, ‘All A’s are B’, is true, here ‘All acts in
experiments: imaginary narratives that present which one gives another his due are moral.’ The
cases that do not fit the principle in question. counter-example furnishes an imaginary case of
What a philosopher does is to present a story an A – an act of giving another his due, i.e., the
that she has invented and that she claims is a weapon – that is not an instance of B – a moral
counter-example to the proposed general truth. action. But this means that the general
To see the logic of this process, consider the proposition is false; that is, we deny that it is the
following well-known counter-example involving case that all acts in which one gives another his
a thought experiment from Plato’s The Republic. due are moral, so the proposed definition fails.
This dialogue concerns the concept of morality or Contemporary analytic philosophy is replete
justice.22 At this point in the dialogue, ‘giving with thought experiments that function in
each what he is due’ has been proposed as a philosophical arguments as counter-examples to
definition of justice or morality. In order to show universal claims. For example, John Rawls uses a
that this definition is inadequate, Socrates asks counter-example to expose the problems that he
his interlocutors to imagine the following sees in the conceptual foundation of
situation: Suppose someone has leant you a utilitarianism. Utilitarians take the principle of
weapon and subsequently, having lost his mind utility – the claim that a social institution is
and become a threat to himself and others, asks justified if it contributes more than any
you to return what you have borrowed. Certainly, alternative to the general welfare – to be the
although we all believe that we ought to return supreme principle of morality. Rawls believes
what we have borrowed, we also think it would utilitarians are mistaken and, to make his case,
be a mistake to give the weapon back to the he puts forward a thought experiment involving
insane menace. But this means that, in at least the hypothetical social institution of telishment.23
one case – that specified by the story of the
Try to imagine, then, an institution (which we may
insane weapon owner – the formula ‘give each
call ‘telishment’) which is such that the officials set
his due’ does not provide what is the right thing
up by it have authority to arrange a trial for the
to do, since that would require returning the gun
condemnation of an innocent man [sic.] whenever
to its now untrustworthy owner. So the
they are of the opinion that doing so would be in
proposed definition of justice or morality fails.
the best interests of society. The discretion of
And the reason it fails is that this imaginary case
officials is limited, however, by the rule that they
provides a counter-example to the general claim
may not condemn an innocent man to undergo such
that justice or morality (i.e., the right way to act)
an ordeal unless there is, at the time, a wave of
is simply giving people their due.
offenses similar to that with which they charge him
Despite the brevity of Socrates’ thought
and telish him for.24
experiment, only an extended analysis can
explain precisely how it functions as a counter- Telishment is designed to be exactly like our
example. There are two elements involved in a practice of punishment except that, in extreme
counter-example to a philosophical thesis. The circumstances of social unrest, it allows an
first is the counter-example proper: the albino innocent person to be penalized. The idea
crow, the honest politician, or, in the recent case behind making this exception is as follows: In
from The Republic, the imaginary case of the such extreme situations, such as when there is a
insane weapon owner. What is involved here is a series of violent crimes that has led to general
specific instance to which attention is called. But fear and anxiety, the social order will be served
equally important is the reasoning process that by ‘telishing’ an innocent person, for then
shows why this instance really is a counter- everyone else will be reassured that the threat
example to the general philosophical thesis, has been extinguished.
Film as Argument •
• Film as Argument
Film as Argument •
• Film as Argument
an issue that the filmmakers have invented whole Press, 1996) and George Wilson, Narration in
cloth. In fact, there is a growing debate about Light (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press,
1986).
memory erasure that involves the drug,
2 For example, see the various essays collected in The
Propranolol.27 The fanciful technology for Matrix and Philosophy, edited by William Erwin
memory erasure presented by the film can be (Chicago and LaSalle, Open Court, 2002).
thought of as an imaginative means for getting 3 Mary Litch, Philosophy Through Film (London,
Routledge, 2002); Dean A. Kowalski, Classic
audiences to think about a complex issue that is
Questions and Contemporary Film: An Introduction
becoming significant in the mental health field. to Philosophy (New York, McGraw Hill, 2004);
Is it too far fetched to think of the film as a Burton F. Porter, Philosophy Through Fiction and Film
timely intervention into the ethics of memory (Upper Saddle Rive, NJ, Pearson Education-Prentice
erasure? I think not. And for this reason, I think Hall, 2004); Christopher Falzon, Philosophy Goes to
the Movies (London, Routledge, 2002); and Nina
that it makes sense to see this film as, among
Rosenstand, The Moral of the Story: An
other things, contesting the validity of a Introduction to Ethics, 5th edn (New York: McGraw
utilitarian justification of the practice of memory Hill, 2006).
erasure that it sees as so problematic. 4 Structuralist films are a key group of avant-garde
films that are often taken to make philosophic
In conclusion, let me reiterate that my aim
claims about film’s nature. For example, Michael
here was neither to provide a complete analysis Snow’s film, Wavelength, has been seen as a
of Eternal Sunshine nor to develop a general philosophic ‘discussion’ of the zoom lens.
analysis of the relationship between philosophy 5 But see my account of Modern Times as an
and film, but a more modest one. I have illustration of Marx’s Theory of Alienation in
‘Beyond “Mere” Argument: How Films Can Be
attempted to show that, despite a range of
Philosophy,’ Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,
serious objections to the possibility that fiction 64:1 (2006), forthcoming.
films can present philosophical arguments, they 6 Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral
sometimes do just that. More specifically, I have Theory (South Bend, Ind., University of Notre Dame
shown that at least one film – Eternal Sunshine Press, 1981).
7 Rawls’ difference principle justifies departures from
of the Spotless Mind – presents a counter- equality and is to be found in his epoch making
example to the principle of utility and thus Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA, Belknap Press,
qualifies, on my view, as a work of philosophy, 1971).
though I have not argued for that latter claim 8 Although the hypothetical Justifying Difference is a
documentary, the case can be changed easily into a
here. I have only shown that the film presents a
fiction film by having actors play the various roles.
philosophical argument in the form of a counter- The same points can be made about the latter
example that involves a thought experiment. hypothetical film.
Although there is a lot more to be said both 9 It is interesting to note that, in his book The
about the example I have used and the more Photoplay (New York, D. Appleton and Company,
1916), Hugo Münsterberg worried that film might
general question of whether and how films can not be considered an independent artform precisely
present arguments, I hope to have convinced the because it was able to record performances of other
reader that, counter-intuitive as it might seem to works. For this reason, he emphasized the aspects
film scholars and philosophers alike, fiction films of film that distinguished it from other artforms
such as theater.
can present philosophical arguments through
10 In Coming to Terms: The Rhetoric of Narrative in
their narratives because they contain thought Fiction and Films (Ithaca, NY, Cornell University
experiments that play a crucial role in the Press, 1990), Seymour Chatman discusses an
presentation of counter-examples to interesting hybrid film, Alain Resnais’ Mon Oncle
philosophical theses.28 d’Amerique (1980), that contains both an explicit
argument and a narrative.
11 Carl Plantinga, Rhetoric and Representation in
Nonfiction Film (Cambridge, Cambridge University
Notes
Press, 1997), p. 70.
1 For example, see Noël Carroll, Theorizing the 12 The question of whether and, if so, how
Moving Image (Cambridge, Cambridge University documentary films can present philosophical
Film as Argument •
arguments is itself worth investigating. I cannot do 21 I discuss films as thought experiments in ‘Philosophy
so here for obvious reasons. Screened: Viewing The Matrix’, Midwest Studies in
13 Both of these films have received attention from Philosophy, 27:1 (2003), 139–152.
philosophers. Blade Runner is the subject of an 22 Traditionally, the Greeks treated ‘justice’ as a
interesting discussion by Stephen Mulhall, On Film disposition to treat others well. It was one of the
(London, Routledge, 2002), pp. 33–52, while four main virtues.
Joseph Kupfer discusses Groundhog Day in Visions 23 John Rawls, ‘Two Concepts of Rules’, Philosophical
of Virtue in Popular Film (Boulder, CO, Westview, Review, 64:1 (1955), 3–32.
1999), pp. 35–60. 24 Ibid., p. 11.
14 For purposes of this paper, I ignore non-discursive 25 My discussion of Eternal Sunshine draws on the
elements of the soundtrack such as music. insightful analysis of the film by Christopher Grau in
15 Noel Carroll, Theorizing the Moving Image, p. 281. his essay, ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
At the talk at which this paper was presented, and the Morality of Memory,’ Journal of Aesthetics
Carroll admitted to having changed his mind on this and Art Criticism, 64: 1 (Winter 2006), 119–33.
issue. For evidence of this, see his ‘Philosophizing 26 Mary’s (Kirsten Dunst) humiliation when she
Through the Moving Image: the Case of Serene discovers that she has undergone the process
Velocity’ in the Journal of Aesthetics and Art underscores the film’s assertion that the practice is
Criticism, 64: 1 and 2 (2006), forthcoming. not justifiable on utilitarian grounds. But note that
16 See Chatman, Coming to Terms. the reason she is told is that she once again
17 Carroll, Theorizing, p. 280. attempts to have an affair with Howard.
18 I have discussed the implications of this view of 27 See, for example, the Washington Post article by
beauty in my ‘Humanizing the Beast: King Kong and Rob Stein on October 4, 2004, ‘Is every memory
the Representation of Black Male Sexuality’ in Classic worth keeping? Pills to reduce mental trauma raise
Whiteness: Race and the Studio System, ed. Daniel controversy’, available at:
Bernardi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota http://www.ajc.com/news/content/health/1004/19m
Press, 2001), pp. 157–77. emory.html. Grau also discusses this issue in the
19 Noël Carroll discusses the use of thought appendix to his article cited in note 25.
experiments in fiction in ‘The Wheel of Virtue: Art, 28 This paper was first read at the 2004 meeting of the
Literature, and Moral Knowledge,’ The Journal of Center for the Cognitive Study of the Moving Image
Aesthetics and Art Criticism 60:1 (2002), 3–26. at Calvin College. It has benefited from comments
Oddly, Carroll appears to deny that films themselves received there as well as very helpful written
can present thought experiments while comments from Daniel Barratt, Jonathan Frome,
simultaneously holding that their scripts can. and Joseph Kupfer.
20 See, for example, Roy A. Sorenson, Thought
Experiments (New York, Oxford University Press,
1992).