Article Abstract: “Film Art, Argument, and Ambiguity”

Smith, Murray. “Film Art, Argument, and Ambiguity.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 64.1 (2006): 33-42. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 5 Mar. 2010.

This essay is a response to the book by Stephen Mulhall, On Film, which argues that popular narrative film can be philosophy (or rather, philosophy in action). Smith finds narrative film to be a poor substitute for philosophical writings, and supports his case through dialectical inquiry. Smith reacts to Mulhall’s argument by re-analyzing the ways in which a narrative film could substantiate the territory of human self-reflection in the same way as a philosophical text. The essay explores the ways in which philosophy may be aligned with film through Mulhall’s use of the reductive strategy, which Smith finds unsatisfactory, as the analogy between narrative and argument is weak. Next, Smith expands on Mulhall’s research by exploring the expansive strategy through the comparison of Bernard William’s thought experiment in personal identity to Carl Reiner’s 1984 film, All Of Me, which tells the story of displaced personality. While the two have similarities, the thought experiment’s primary focus is the philosophical concept, while the film is dualistic and sets the philosophical focus as secondary to the comedic focus. Smith concludes that narrative film may have philosophical concepts, but as it ranks the philosophical concept lower and develops the primary focus (which is usually entertainment), it does not create an understanding of the philosophical concept and subsequent human self-reflection in the same way that written philosophy does.