The rich possibilities for describing difficult philosophical ideas through interplay and comparison with the narratives of a film genre are fully realised in this excellent collection of 13 essays, all written by academics, mostly either professors or assistant professors of Philosophy from various American universities.
The credentials of the contributors, outlined in the Contributors pages, are impressive, but more impressive are the effort they have made to be understandable outside of academia, as the editor says in the Introduction, “The essays are written in nontechnical language and require no knowledge of philosophy to appreciate or understand.”
To describe all the essays would take too long, but if I had to pick one as exemplary it would be “Blade Runner and Sartre: The Boundaries of Humanity” by Judith Barad, a professor of philosophy and women’s studies at Indiana State University. Barad employs a close reading of the narrative of Blade Runner to delineate the ideas of Sartre.
The correlation of Sartre’s ideas to the narrative of the film enriched both my comprehension of Sartre and my appreciation of a film I already loved very much. It’s not difficult to comprehend ideas such as the following: “Sartre counsels us that, when we choose, we should restrict our efforts to what is under our immediate control… Rather than focussing our energy on things beyond our control, we concentrate on what we can do. Deckard [the hero of Blade Runner] can’t save his society by himself, but it is within his power to save an individual.” (p.26).
As with the other essays in this book, Barad’s close reading of, and respect for, the film’s narrative leads to some fascinating correlations. She notes, for example, in relation to Sartre’s “In order to get any truth about myself, I must have contact with another person” that, “Ironically, it’s only the replicants, who, through most of the film, display intersubjectivity by caring about each other. All the humans… live alone, without any apparent intimate relationship to anyone else.” (p.29).
Elsewhere there is a very interesting categorising of Neo-Noir into three types- past, present and future – by Jerold J. Abrams, with a focus on identity, and the essays also look at some now almost forgotten Neo-Noir films (Dark City, A Simple Plan), exploring them from a philosophical framework. In some cases I enjoyed the essays more than the films they were about.
If you generally enjoy Neo-Noir films and feel that in some way they are offering more than simple entertainment but an invitation to consider the meaning of one’s existence, then this is a book you will relate to and enjoy. It’s also a useful introduction to some important ideas in modern Philosophy – or an enjoyable road back to forgotten studies – as well as a good overview of some of the most interesting films in the Neo-Noir genre. (Jason Clifton, 17/1/13)