What makes a film unhappy? Is there even such a factor as a tragic film?
These are the questions college students explored throughout a gathering of sophistication 24.213 (Philosophy of Movie), an MIT course supplied this spring by affiliate professor of philosophy Justin Khoo.
On this specific afternoon, the case research was “Everlasting Sunshine of the Spotless Thoughts,” a 2003 movie starring Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet during which the characters are in a position to erase the painful recollections of their relationship.
Rising senior Quincy Cantu, a pc science and engineering main, argued that whether or not a film like “Everlasting Sunshine” is unhappy depends upon one’s particular person expertise.
“Having a tough breakup is a really common expertise. It’s a state of affairs lots of people can relate to, which is why for a majority of individuals, it’s a unhappy film,” Quincy stated.
Khoo expanded on Cantu’s perspective.
“So based mostly on that view, there actually isn’t such a factor as a tragic film, proper?” requested Khoo. “As a result of a film could be unhappy for X. It’s unhappy for you, however not for me.”
Cameron White, additionally a rising senior in pc science and engineering, supplied a counter argument, saying there are particular motion pictures the place feeling unhappiness is important to the emotional payoff.
“Each film has a central message, and people central messages have feelings related to them,” White stated.
“That’s good,” Khoo stated. “One other mind-set about it’s that it is all in regards to the creator. The creator intends for the viewer to have a sure expertise by watching the movie. That’s what makes it unhappy, so long as a tragic expertise is meant.”
movie from all angles
These are the varieties of philosophical debates Khoo envisioned when he designed his new model of the course.
“What I am making an attempt to do is have the scholars concurrently interact with the philosophical matters, but in addition simply interact with the movie by itself and attempt to articulate what they’re serious about the movie,” he says. “What is going on on, whether or not they prefer it, and the alternatives which are being made.”
Khoo’s main space of analysis is in philosophy of language, and that’s been his focus since arriving at MIT in 2013. He earned tenure in 2021, and revealed his ebook “The Which means of If” in 2022.
Khoo additionally has a love for motion pictures and movie evaluation. He co-hosts the podcast “Cows within the Discipline,” along with his spouse Laura, the place they dive into dialog about one movie in every episode, from “Encino Man” to “The Exorcist.”
“I at all times felt that if I might convey these two passions collectively, I ought to do it,” he says.
Khoo spent final summer season drafting a syllabus for Philosophy of Movie, which hadn’t been taught at MIT since 2007. Khoo took a totally new strategy to the topic, and divided the course into six totally different areas.
“Our start line is outdated however helpful: the query whether or not there is usually a distinctive artwork of movie,” says Khoo. “Which is a form of puzzling query to us, I feel, as a result of we expect, clearly, movie is an artwork type. However there’s truly fascinating challenges to that, certainly one of which comes from thinker Roger Scruton, which is mainly that movie is simply images. And images is only a mechanical replica of one thing. And a mechanical replica of one thing cannot be artwork.”
College students mentioned movie and film-viewing from a number of angles: the movie itself, the story of the movie, the narrator, the viewers, the critics, and the shoppers.
Within the part of the course centered on critics, college students had been assigned to observe “Twilight” and “Battlefield Earth,” movies usually panned by critics, and likewise learn “Why It’s OK To Love Unhealthy Motion pictures” by Matthew Strohl, a professor of philosophy on the College of Montana.
“We focus on how there’s worth to participating positively with motion pictures which have fairly a little bit of typical badness to them,” says Khoo. “A part of what makes these unhealthy motion pictures in the end good, in line with Strohl, is that they violate these typical norms in fascinating methods.”
When administrators trigger hurt, what ought to the viewers do?
At a gathering of the course later within the semester, college students mentioned how one can strategy movies produced by artists with troubled pasts. Their case research had been Woody Allen and Bryan Singer, each acclaimed administrators, and each accused of sexual assault.
For this dialogue, college students learn “Why We Ought to Keep away from Artists Who Trigger Hurt,” by Bradley Elicker, a philosophy professor at Rowan College.
“Elicker’s thesis is that if you publicly or financially help somebody who has been credibly accused of utilizing their wealth and affect to have interaction in dangerous conduct, you danger enabling them to have interaction in that dangerous conduct by contributing to their wealth and affect,” Khoo informed the scholars.
Khoo introduced numerous moral dilemmas to the scholars, serving as analogies to the idea of particular person actions — like paying to see a film by a director accused of doing hurt — contributing to dangerous conduct.
“In every case, there’s a very low danger of your particular person motion being the tipping level of really enabling the hurt, however by doing that motion, you might have a excessive probability of taking part in a collective motion of enabling hurt,” Khoo stated.
In a single situation, 10 vehicles had been related to a web holding up a boulder over an individual; if a sure variety of vehicles drove away, the boulder fell on the particular person.
“You’re on this state of affairs the place your motion makes it barely extra doubtless that you’ll be enabling hurt,” Khoo stated. “Though it’s unlikely that your driving away would be the tipping level, if it’s doubtless that others may even drive away then you definitely danger taking part in a collective motion that results in the particular person being crushed by the boulder.”
Within the subsequent class, college students mentioned a counter argument, utilizing Weber State College philosophy professor Mary Beth Willard’s ebook “Why It’s OK To Get pleasure from The Work Of Immoral Artists” as their immediate.
Willard argues that aesthetic worth is non-fungible, that means that (in contrast to cash, for instance) you’ll be able to’t make up for what you lose in not watching a film you like by watching another film you like. Because of this there are critical aesthetic prices to refraining from participating with the work of immoral artists.
As a part of the course, college students additionally needed to write a 500-1,000 phrase paper critically discussing a movie within the course, meant for a basic viewers, together with a closing 3,000-word paper.
Cameron White, who can also be minoring in philosophy, signed up for the course as a result of he’s at all times cherished motion pictures. He says it’s been a enjoyable atmosphere to suppose critically about movies.
“And quite a lot of this connects to pc science, the place it’s important to take into consideration summary concepts. And arguments are a giant a part of pc science,” he says.
Anna S. Bair ’23, a chemistry main who graduated this spring, had taken philosophy programs up to now and loved them, and was intrigued by a category that centered on motion pictures.
“It actually applies to my research, particularly once we’re speaking loads about emotional enchantment and objectivity. And it helps with communication expertise if you’re making an attempt to convey your science,” she says.
On the shut of the semester, Khoo mirrored on the course’s inaugural run.
“Educating the course for the primary time was a difficult expertise, partially as a result of we had been all studying this materials collectively. However the college students had been actually engaged with the fabric, and I realized a lot from our interactions at school. I’m excited to attempt new methods of instructing it sooner or later.”