A friend sent me a book about movies published in
2005, Movies
and the Meaning of Life
, edited by Kimberly A. Blessing and Paul Tudico
(302 pp., including the Index). After discharging myriad other writing chores,
I finally made time to read it, taking a break from my “Islamophobia,” with a
tentative eye to reviewing it. It is a collection of essays by college
professors on the “meaning of life” as they interpret some nineteen recent –
that is, modern – movies. All of the movies were produced and released in the
1990’s or later.
Modern movies that purport to dramatize the
“meaning of life” – unless it’s a comedy (such as Monty
Python and the Meaning of Life
) — whether or not the directors or casts
have a conscious, fixed idée about
it, leave me cold. Many of the movies featured in Blessing’s collection I have
seen. Others I have not because their subject matter repelled me or produced
body-shaking yawns. Some of them I’d never heard of until now.
The nineteen movies are arranged under such topics
as:
What
is reality and how can I know it? (Contact,
The
Truman Show
, Waking Life)
How
can I find my true identity? (Boys Don’t Cry, Being John Mallkovich,
Fight Club, Memento)
What’s
the significance of my interactions with others? (Chasing Amy, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Shadowlands)
How
ought I to live my life? (Groundhog Day, Minority Report, Pleasantville, Pulp Fiction, Spider-Man 1 & 2)
In large part, the essays are written from a
Critical Theory standpoint, or as Post-Deconstructionist
textual jigsaw puzzles. These terms have “traditionally” been applied to
examining the printed word in fiction and nonfiction, but branched out into
“film theory,” and their presence in these essays demonstrates that they can be
applied to cinema, as well. Critical Theory, notes Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy
:
Critical Theory has a narrow and a
broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences.
“Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German
philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition
known as the Frankfurt School…. Critical Theory when capitalized refers only to
the Frankfurt School….
Deconstruction,
form of philosophical and literary analysis, derived mainly from work begun
in the 1960s by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida,
that questions the fundamental conceptual
distinctions, or “oppositions,” in Western philosophy
through a close examination of the language and logic of philosophical and
literary texts. In the 1970s the term was applied to work by Derrida, Paul de Man, J. Hillis Miller,
and Barbara Johnson, among other scholars. In the 1980s it designated more
loosely a range of radical theoretical enterprises in diverse areas of
the humanities and
social sciences, including—in addition to philosophy and
literature—law, psychoanalysis, architecture, anthropology, theology, feminism,
gay and lesbian studies, political theory, historiography, and film theory. In polemical
discussions about intellectual
trends of the late 20th-century, deconstruction was sometimes used
pejoratively to suggest nihilism
and frivolous
skepticism.
In popular usage the term has come to mean a critical dismantling of tradition
and traditional modes of thought.
PBS discusses deconstructionism
as  applied to “postmodernism.”

Deconstructionism


A term tied very closely to postmodernism,
deconstructionism is a challenge to the
attempt to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in a text
. Basing
itself in language analysis, it seeks to “deconstruct” the
ideological biases (gender, racial, economic, political, cultural) and
traditional assumptions that infect all histories, as well as philosophical and
religious “truths.” Deconstructionism
is based on the premise that much of human history, in trying to understand,
and then define, reality has led to various forms of domination – of nature, of
people of color, of the poor, of homosexuals, etc.
Like postmodernism, deconstructionism finds concrete
experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth. In other words, the
multiplicities and contingencies of human experience necessarily bring
knowledge down to the local and specific level, and challenge the tendency to
centralize power through the claims of an ultimate truth which must be accepted
or obeyed by all. [Bold mine]
A
general and wide-ranging term which is applied to literature, art, philosophy,
architecture, fiction, and cultural and literary criticism, among others.
Postmodernism is largely a reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or
objective, efforts to explain reality. In essence, it stems from a recognition
that reality is not simply mirrored in
human understanding of it, but rather, is constructed as the mind tries to
understand its own particular and personal reality
. For this reason,
postmodernism is highly skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for
all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative
truths of each person. In the postmodern understanding, interpretation is
everything; reality only comes into
being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually.

Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles, knowing
always that the outcome of one’s own experience will necessarily be fallible
and relative, rather than certain and universal
. [Bold,mine]

 

Postmodernism

 Postmodernism is “post” because it denies the existence of any ultimate
principles, and it lacks the optimism of there being a scientific,
philosophical, or religious truth which will explain everything for everybody

– a characteristic of the so-called “modern” mind. The paradox of the
postmodern position is that, in placing all principles under the scrutiny of
its skepticism, it must realize that even its own principles are not beyond
questioning. As the philosopher Richard Tarnas states, postmodernism
“cannot on its own principles ultimately justify itself any more than can
the various metaphysical
overviews against which the postmodern mind has defined itself.” [Bold,mine]
Enough said, for the purposes of this article. If
it’s Marxist – and Marxist interpretations of any realm of art, in the printed
word, in the visual arts or sculpture, or in film – it’s automatically suspect
because it is root, branch, and twig divorced from an objective, rational
perspective. In short, reality is a creation of the mind, and reality can be
anything one wishes to make of it, governed by one’s own personal experiences
and subjective prejudices. Critical Theory and Deconstruction both work to
unplug one’s mind from reality, and lure one into a critic’s universe via the hypnotic
appeal of a degree holder’s “authority.”
My own idea of “critical theory” has been limited
to showing how filmmakers can alter, falsify, or misrepresent historical fact, by
divorcing their productions from reality and recorded history, as in “Amadeus: A Pinnacle of Cultural Corruption
from 2010. That essay focuses on
the characterization of Mozart, Antonio Salieri, and the chief figures in their
lives in the 18th century, and also how the whole period has been reduced to glossy
National Enquirer status,
discouraging in the viewer any attempt at critical analysis, skepticism, any doubt
beyond facile gullibility, or any suggestion that the viewer should question the
accuracy concerning the truth. So that article, and others I’ve written in the
past (such as “Lawrence
of Arabia”: A Reappraisal
,” from 2014), are not so much instances of
“critical theory” as they are exposés.
In most
instances, in Blessing’s Movies, the
essayists provide brief teasers of concrete actions in a film, and then
extrapolate them into their own exercises in creating (not recreating; art
being the selective recreation of reality as defined by Ayn Rand;
Art is a selective
re-creation
of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical
value-judgments. Man’s profound need of art lies in the fact that his cognitive
faculty is conceptual, i.e., that he acquires knowledge by means of
abstractions, and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions
into his immediate, perceptual awareness . .
 .) the reality of each film’s philosophical or
moral meaning. The essayists’ exercises in interpreting the “meaning of life”
in any film typically go beyond any definition of rational observation; we are
only presented with their unsupportable assertions.
Indeed, the
chief aim of Critical Theory and Deconstruction (and of their subsidiary
schools) is to inculcate a disbelief in objectivity, in reality, in values.
Based essentially on Immanuel Kant’s theory of reality and his denial of man’s
capacity to know it, to infect his mind with a tenacious almost religious doubt
or denigration of the evidence of his senses. In his 2009 posting, “Kant
and the Creation of Reality
,”Jeff Carreira writes:
The
American Philosophers
from the Transcendentalists
to the Pragmatists
were all following in the footsteps of the great German Idealist Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804). This isn’t too surprising because all
of Western Philosophy follows in the footsteps of Kant. In 1781 Kant published The Critique of
Pure Reason
and rocked the world of philosophy. What Kant
articulated and what later generations of philosophers picked up on was that
reality as we perceive it is not purely objective – it is at least partly
subjective….
We can’t know reality directly. We don’t
perceive of things in themselves. What we perceive as reality is in part created
by our minds. And this creation of reality isn’t only the unconscious work of
the mind as a machine, as some before Kant had believed, the creative process
that constructs reality as we see it is also influenced by us. Of all of the
infinite sensations, physical, emotional and conceptual that we experience at
any given time we are only aware of a small percentage. The rest we ignore, but
those that we attend to are compiled into reality as we see it….

What Kant did for Western
Philosophy
was make human beings part of the creative process of reality as
we see it. In this he dealt a blow to both religion and science. To religion he insisted that we can’t perceive of God
directly because our perception of God will also be partly of our own
construction. To science likewise he takes away the ruse of objectivity because
everything we observe will always be influenced by us.
So, it’s deuces wild. Reality, or films, can be
anything you wish, can mean anything you wish, and the essayists prove their
Kantian roots and predilections paragraph after paragraph. If reality can’t be
known, then one’s true identity (whatever that might mean) can’t be known,
there is no significance in one’s interactions with others, there is no point
to one’s life, and one’s life should be lived according to one’s subjective creative
process, and if you reach a conclusion, such as identifying a pencil on one’s
desk, Kant says you can’t validate it, because even logic is subjective and
your senses are naturally haywire and untrustworthy.
I won’t examine each essay or film discussed by the
professors in Part I because it would require a book-length treatment. I’ll try
to sample a few essays in the next post.