A study of the ways in which film and philosophy overlap, using the Wachowski's 1999 blockbuster The Matrix as a case in point.
David Sorfa (2016) defines film-philosophy as “the way in which normal, non-academic film viewers think about film” (p. 4); by asking how and why films have an impact on our emotions, thoughts, experiences, and, ultimately, our lives. The Wachowski’s The Matrix (1999) is a film which, for many viewers, had a significant impact. Neo (Keanu Reeves) believes he is a computer programmer living in 1999, however he is awakened into a much bleaker reality; it is 2199, computers have won the war against humanity, and the entire human race is subject to a false reality system called The Matrix. In screening a world where the lines between reality and fiction are blurred, The Matrix offers viewers a number of philosophical questions about the nature of our own reality.
A view shared amongst many philosophers and film theorists alike is that, at the very least, film is capable of illustrating a philosophical argument. In order to understand whether films are capable of ‘carrying’ philosophy, we must first interrogate the way in which The Matrix is illustrating a philosophical argument. Litch and Karofsky (2014) state that film “can be used to present philosophical positions and arguments in a way that is both rigorous and entertaining” (p. 2). As a major Hollywood blockbuster, The Matrix is a perfect example of this; science fiction itself is perhaps the most philosophical genre of film as its very nature sets out questions which explore the otherworldly possibilities of humanity and its future. Deleuze (2014) argued that “a book of philosophy should be in part a very particular species of detective novel, in part a kind of science fiction”; therefore, we can argue that, in encapsulating the mysterious and puzzling nature of a detective novel into a science fiction film, The Matrix is an inherently philosophical film.
One such philosophical question that The Matrix can be seen to be portraying is Rene Descartes’ (1986) sceptical claim that we are unable to truly know the nature, or very existence, of our own ‘real’ world. In creating a universe where the characters are unaware of the conditions of their own reality, The Matrix creates an example of this “deception hypothesis” (Wartenberg, 2005, p. 276). As the film screens the possibility of the deception hypothesis in a fictional world, this leads the audience to believe, or at least question, the possibility that their own reality could be something other than the one they ‘know’. Litch and Karofsky (2014) claim that film is a “good vehicle” (p. 4) through which they can introduce students to philosophical concepts, however their use of language gives much more weight to philosophy than it does to film itself. In implying that philosophy is the valuable content, they render film a mere carrier - suggesting that there is little further overlap between film and philosophy. However, if The Matrix is able to not only introduce concepts of philosophy but encourage audiences to think about these concepts in relation to their own reality, I would argue that the relationship between film and philosophy must extend beyond film’s role as simply a ‘carrier’.
One way of understanding how The Matrix accomplishes more than an offering of philosophical content, is to consider how the film screens the real world in comparison to the fictional world created by the Matrix. Wartenberg (2005) offers an alternative film to consider, which he calls ‘The Matron’. It would be identical to The Matrix in every sense, except that the audience is aware of Neo’s fabricated reality. He argues that “The Matron would illustrate the deception hypothesis by showing the viewers a world in which it is true” (p. 280), whereas The Matrix involves its audience in a much more engaging manner; we are subject both to the illusion of the matrix, and its removal. Therefore, Neo’s journey of discovery is parallel to the audience’s journey of discovery. Another philosophical problem with which The Matrix shares similarities is Plato’s Allegory of the Cave (2017), wherein a prisoner, who has been chained within a cave his whole life seeing nothing but shadows on the wall, escapes and finds the real world outside, however on returning to tell others of the real world he becomes a subject of ridicule. Partridge (2005) parallels Neo’s experience with the experience of this prisoner, claiming that "the metaphysical differences between Plato and The Matrix do not prevent them from telling a roughly similar story about the epistemological unreliability of the senses and the need to abstract from the senses in order to gain genuine knowledge" (p. 251). If we both accept that the audience undergoes the same journey as Neo when watching The Matrix, and understand how Neo and the prisoner’s experiences overlap, we can understand how The Matrix allows the audience to experience philosophy in a more personal capacity, as they question their own reality. It is through this immersive experience of the film that I would suggest that instead of ‘carrying’ philosophy, The Matrix is actually doing philosophy. Wartenberg (2007) agrees with this assertion, however, he believes that while films can ‘do’ philosophy, the credit lies with the filmmakers (as it would with the author of a philosophical work), and not the film itself. The belief that film can do philosophy remains quite a conservative viewpoint as, for many like Wartenberg, it still relies on the interpretation of a philosopher for the film to carry true meaning. However, I believe that film-philosophy can exist beyond film’s ability to ‘carry’ or ‘do’ philosophy; I would argue rather that film, in some cases, is philosophy.
Daniel Frampton’s Filmosophy (2006) is a much more radical book which makes a case for film ‘as’ philosophy. While many film theorists believe that technical language is a barrier to understanding the deeper intricacies of a film’s content, Frampton argues that these technicalities are the very elements that give film significance. Frampton believes that the visual and narrative elements that are not present in philosophical texts are paramount to our experience of film – he calls this the ‘filmind’. He also introduces the concept of ‘film-thinking’, a theory of film form which gives credit to the filmind; “film-thinking is thus the action of film form in dramatizing the intention of the filmind” (p. 7). The audience views plot and characters the way the film wants us to see them; the filmind is able to change our perception, thereby offering a unique perspective of philosophical content that texts simply cannot reproduce. In one scene in The Matrix, where Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) offers Neo a choice between the red pill and the blue bill – a choice between enlightenment into reality and continued deception – framing plays a key role in how we understand Neo’s position. While Morpheus is shot so that we can see him and his surroundings, Neo is shot from behind Morpheus’ chair, leaving half the screen in the dark, paralleling the way in which both Neo and the audience are in the dark and emphasising that “[film… carries] more than dialogue and plot “ (Frampton, 2006, p. 10). If film form is crucial to the way in which the audience may perceive philosophical arguments, we should consider how we think about film, or rather, how film makes us think. "Something bizarre about the cinema struck me: its unexpected ability to show not only behaviour, but spiritual life [la vie spirituelle] as well (at the same time as aberrant behaviour)" (Deleuze, as cited in Flaxman, 2000, p. 366). Deleuze believed that what made cinema philosophical was its ability to create movement not only in picture, but in the human brain. He argued that in showing ‘spiritual life’, cinema mirrors the biological activities and movements of the brain; “the cinema is understood… as a system of re-presentation, one that calls upon the inherent conventions of the human mind” (Flaxman, 2000, p. 8). I would argue that if cinema can think and can also encourage the audience to think in a certain unique way, then cinema itself must be a philosophical language in its own right.
While Litch and Karofsky place a low value on film in their belief that it is a carrier of philosophy, there is no doubt that film is capable of carrying philosophical content. However, the worlds of film and philosophy overlap in many more significant ways; if we define philosophy as a “pursuit of wisdom” (“Philosophy,” n.d.) or knowledge, then it is clear that film and philosophy share a number of commonalities. In both its immersion of the audience and its engagement with old and new philosophical concepts and ideas, film’s very nature as a visual re-presentation of reality is one where new knowledge and thought is constantly pursued. I believe that in pursuing new realities, concepts and ideas through elements of both plot and film form, film opens up the minds of the audience to a unique, and otherwise unexplored collective (visual) consciousness. It is through this unique lens that film offers us a different perspective on philosophy. In fact, if film is capable of teaching us new thoughts, and modes of thought, then film is not only capable of challenging our perspectives on philosophy, it is capable of being philosophy.
Bibliography
Carel, H., & Tuck, G. (2011). New Takes in Film-Philosophy. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Deleuze, G. (2014). Difference and repetition. London: Bloomsbury.
Descartes, R., Cottingham, J., & Williams, B. (1986). Meditations on first philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Flaxman, G. (2000). The brain is the screen. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Frampton, D. (2006). Filmosophy. London: Wallflower.
Lawrence, M. (2010). Like a splinter in your mind. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Litch, M., & Karofsky, A. (2014). Philosophy through film (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
The Matrix. (1999). [DVD] Directed by L. Wachowski and L. Wachowski. USA: Warner Bros.
Partridge, J. (2005). Plato's Cave and The Matrix. In: C. Grau, ed., Philosophers Explore The Matrix. New York: Oxford University Press, p.251.
Philosophy. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosophy
Pisters, P. (2003). The matrix of visual culture. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Plato. and Jowett, B. (2017). The allegory of the cave. [Place of publication not identified]: Enhanced Media.
Sorfa, D. (2016). What is Film-Philosophy?. Film-Philosophy, [online] 20(1), pp.1-5. Available at: https://www-euppublishing-com.ezproxy-s1.stir.ac.uk/doi/pdfplus/10.3366/film.2016.0001.
Wartenberg, T. (2007). Thinking on screen: Film as Philosophy. London: Routledge.
Wartenberg, T., & Curran, A. (2005). The philosophy of film. Malden, MA: Blackwell.