Favorites Of 1993

[Chris Knipp]

I don't think I liked it but I'll take another look at it. I take Wittgenstein too seriously to see him as a campy spectacle. I do like Jarman but not unreservedly; I do value his originality and his splendid images and atmosphere.

[oscar jubis]

Trust me, I also take him seriously and understand his importance. This is a really good film in my opinion, it gives a sense of the trajectory of his life and explains the arguments and claims that continue to be so influential to this day.

[cinemabon]

While Wittgenstein had an influence on the subject of philosophy, the film attempts to convey most of that complex thought process through a series of short scenes or vignettes that are performed in less of a film modality and more as if this was a stage show in the theater. Actors move about on sets that are singularly lit and the acting is often nothing but reading lines to the air. While colorful at times, this kind of "art" film becomes something of a bore as we jump around Wittgenstein's life told in various stages by a little boy or an adult actor.

Here is a link to see the entire film on You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WzqyO-wIMI

Here is another link to hear a lecture on the life of Wittgenstein: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNaBRR-XeAs

Wittgenstein was a protégé of Bertrand Russell - here is a link to a Russell interview where he mentions Wittgenstein: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bZv3pSaLtY

I am a bigger fan of William James than I am of Wittgenstein.

[Chris Knipp]

I did rewatch Jarmon's WITTGENSTEIN to consider Oscar's statement that it's his best film. It is good, very intelligent, and I like the schematic, Brechtian presentation. It seems like something that might be presented on a very much more intelligent kind of television than one gets in the USA. Cinematically I still prefer Caravaggio, though. I don't so much see that he has a "best film." Caravaggio is the best known one, the one that got the most commercial distribution, and books about its making. And its making is fascinating, a feverish, inventive process Jarmon chronicled in notebooks.

Yes indeed Wittgenstein was a protege of Bertrand Russell. But he surpassed him and has become in pure philosophy now a more famous figure than Russell. Russell was a great man though, and crusader for just causes, particularly pacifism, who was hugely important in his time.

One should bear in mind that one of the important reasons why Derek Jarmon chose to make a film about Wittgenstein was the man's homosexuality, which was something that had not been talked about widely during W's lifetime or immediately after.. This is also a reason why Jarmon made a film about Shakespeare's sonnets, and about Caravaggio; Satint Sebastian, Edward II. He was all about gayness. He likes flamboyant figures like Caravaggio and Edward II. Wittgestein is so un-flamboyant, Jarmon has go focus on other characters in his story who ARE flamboyant.

[oscar jubis]

Caravaggio is great, no doubt. There is a long and fecund tradition of self-conscious use of stylization and theatricality in cinema and Jarman is a major exponent.

I think Chris is absolutely right about Russell and Wittgenstein.

Wittgenstein is easy to discuss because there are only two very different major works, colloquially referred as "the Tractatus" and "the Investigations" released decades apart. It's Investigations that has had a monumental impact on our culture. I have been hugely affected by it. It has changed my understanding of the kind of truth and knowledge we derive from non-scientific methods (like criticism), and the way I view the concept of "genre" which is so important to a film enthusiast. One of his major ideas is that there is no essence to things like words and actions, that the meaning of a word is its usages in ordinary language, and that there are no rules that can help us understand the meaning of an action, that each instance is unique because of context, circumstance, etc. so that everything must be interpreted. Everybody who is involved in any kind of "criticism" owes him a lot because no one has argued with such conviction and authority about its importance and significance.

[cinemabon]

Haven't I said that all along? (tongue in cheek, of course)

[Chris Knipp]

(A year later:) Interesting comment, Oscar, that I missed earlier. Wasn't really aware Wittgenstein was thought of as providing a model for film and art criticism though perhaps that should be obvious. Indeed I find there's a recent essay collection on this edited by Richard Allen of NYU and Malcolm Turvey of Sarah Lawrence, both professors of film. Very academic and too expensive to buy though. Wittgenstein liked to go to the movies, but only for distraction.

PS. On your best English-language 1993 list: Boys of St. Vincent is a shocking film. I like Jarman. Name of the Father isn't much. Can't remember It's All True. I hated Naked. I don't like Tim Burton. I don't like Jane Campion. I can't stand Atom Agoyan. Schindler's List is sentimental and manipulative, but has an incredibly powerful sequence. Shortcuts is a great film, vintage Altman.

This was also the year of True Romance and What's Eating Gilbert Grape.

There are some excellent films in your "foreign" list.