On Film (Thinking in Action) [Kindle Edition]

Stephen Mulhall's excellent little book on film is not really a comprehensive account of the nature of film or of film studies (though it does address in important ways a number of issues that are highly relevant to the field of film studies), but a consideration of film from the standpoint of a philosopher and a reflection upon the way in which films carry and explore ideas.

The Matrix proved that even in a blockbuster film, ideas can be as important to its ability to captivate and entertain as the action. What made that film work was not just style and special effects, but the fact it played with philosophical and theological concerns -- from free will and skepticism, to the nature of fallenness and of enlightenment. Ideas are so important to the Matrix series that there are several books out now outlining the backdrop to the philosophical questions contained there; and a commentary disk on the new Matrix collection focuses primarily on its philosophical content.

What Mulhall does in "On Film" is consider another popular set of science fiction films from the perspective of philosophy. This time, however, the films are deliberately chosen as ones that do not explicitly raise philosophical themes, or advertise themselves as "philosophical," but where (he contends, admirably) making sense of their plot and making sense of the films as a series requires one to think about them as if they were, in their own right, philosophical "texts". As it turns out, there is much to say about these films, both on their own, and as a series, from the perspective of philosophy. For Mulhall, however, this doesn't just mean that one should look to the films (as one does to the Matrix) as illustrations of philosophical themes that have been discussed elsewhere, but that one can look to these films as philosophical in their own right: as raising questions of the type that interest philosophers and presenting evidence that is in its own way compelling for thinking about these questions.

It's a great read, and I would strongly disagree with the other reviewer who dismisses the writing as being merely clever but without substance. It is, however, not an easy read, and that may account for the reviewer's concerns: contrary to what might be expected from the title this is not pitched as an introduction to thinking about film. I wouldn't necessarily recommend it for someone who doesn't have at least some background in literary or film criticism or philosophy (preferably in hermeneutics or phenomenology or critical theory -- since A.J. Ayer and the like won't be much help here). The main prerequisite is that one be willing, as Mulhall requires, to consider the possibility that philosophy can appear directly in film and literature and art and not only in the form of explicit argumentation. (But one must admit this possibility even to read Plato intelligently).

But I guess I would recommend it for a serious fan of the series (or of their directors, whose work beyond the Alien series is also considered), who might not be as worried about the overall thesis of the book about the relation of film and philosophy. Even for such a reader, it offers a very illuminating account of the four films that addresses a number of interesting questions about the series: why the Alien is so horrifying, what about Ripley's character makes her a perfect protagonist for such an antagonist, why the fourth film was composed as it was and why it is not simply a failure, etc. As film criticism, it is pitched more or less at the level of a journal like Cineaste of Film Comment. I found it to be an excellent read, with ideas that I go back to on a regular basis in my own thinking about film and about philosophy.

On Film is really about the Alien series, and it tries to establish some links between the films and directors and how they deal with the theme(s) in each phase of development. There were times when the book faultered or digressed, but a lot of it was simply facinating. For instance, there is a consideration of pregnacy as a metaphor within the films --- the aliens make humans (all of us especially men) into wombs which I thought was pretty clever. Also, Mulhall talks a lot about Ripley as Virgin-Wife-Mother in and interesting way. All in all, I found it to be a good book and a quick one only a night's reading (maybe two or three tops). It is a little "academic" but the guys a professor -- what do you expect? It will certainly give you some food for thought. and if you like film, science fiction, philosophy (or any combination thereof) you stand a pretty good chance of liking it. I know I did.

Unfortunately I have this book in front of me. Trying to find some good in this, I decided to write a review to warn potential readers.

Seems philosophers have lost their dignity and all they have to resort to now is being clever and this book is a good lesson in that (and little else). One would think that if a book on film were to be written, by a philosopher, then the philosopher would have good skills in plotting, characters and reach for deeper lessons in life through these building blocks of film. Well, this philosopher clearly has no strong literary background and as for his deeper lessons, they come by way of the Alien trilogy - go figure. So cleverness will be needed.

There's an endless supply too. Since Mulhall is not adept at proper forms of literary criticism that deal with the text - here the movie - directly, he constantly tries to show the reader what the director is driving at; what his intentions are in conveying the story as he does. It's rather depressing. Rather than acknowledging these lackluster screenplays for what they are, Mulhall desperately strives to show how each subsequent director aimed for his own vision of how to build on the Alien format without any need to feel like building on the direct success (or lack there of) of the previous installments. What his evidence amounts to is hitting on snippets of each film that figuratively show how there is a taking apart of the old and development of the new. Every time, Mulhall uses very inflated language to get his point across and makes his desperation ring louder. For instance, in discussing Alien 3 he tries to draw out significance in an autopsy scene and relate it to destroying the previous Alien film. Unfortunately, Mulhall doesn't spend much time trying to draw out family resemblances between the two, if indeed there are any such strong resemblances(additionally revealing his inability to work in literary forms) and instead praises how brilliant(!) this is. Hardly.

His novice voice carries over to bringing out the significance of the story which has him reading much more into these weak storylines than is there, which ultimately makes things meaningless. For instance, based on theological implications of Mulhall's devising, he ignorantly says that characters then attempt to 'live' in relation to such doctrines, again in Alien 3. Again, hardly. To say this is really to mock what is entailed in stories where 'living' is vividly portrayed. (Not a focus in Alien movies.) Indeed, to address a film where such living takes place - contra Aliens - and then spend much time discussing it would be a very worthy way to approach a book on film. Instead, Mulhall opts for his learning in Hedeigerrian hogwash to cover over poor plotting and find significance in little things when the big picture is entirely hollow. (How significant can the little things even be when that's the case?)