Examined Life

I'm surprised this movie is rated so highly. I thought any movie that tried to make you think would start at 5 and go down from there. While it's encouraging that that's not the case, it's unfortunate that this has to be the movie to hold up as an example.

There is nothing profound here. There is no coherent theme or narration to tie everything together. It is just a collection of people discussing their new-agey ideas seemingly off the top of their head. I would have much preferred a scripted lecture where every sentence was thought out in advance.

I was hoping to learn something here or at least say "hmm, that's interesting". But that didn't happen once. Maybe philosophy will always require a book to appreciate and will never lend itself to a good movie. I actually do think it is possible, this movie just doesn't deliver.

In "Examined Life", filmmaker Astra Taylor accompanies some of today's most influential thinkers on a series of unique excursions through places and spaces that hold particular resonance for them and their ideas.

As a former philosophy major (and current part-time philosopher), this documentary grabbed me by the throat and pulled me in. Philosophy is "a critical disposition of wrestling with desire in the face of death," according to Cornel West, who identifies himself as a pleasure-loving Christian. (West spends much of his time rambling about things that seem to have little connection to each other... all while being driven across town by the director.)

Avital Ronell, whom I never heard of, comes across as completely bizarre. She is both full of herself, yet approachable and almost humorous. "I am very suspicious intellectually and historically of the idea of meaning," she says, saying that meaning has tended to be in the hands of the powerful. The "craving for meaning" is "devastating". Ronell is very verbose, and throws around Greek words and Heidegger casually, which will not make her welcome for most viewers (and may lead to people turning the film off early).

Peter Singer, someone I admit to being a big fan of, presents his argument that there is a moral obligation for the rich to assist the poor. In the global sense, Americans should help the third world. (This is a socialist view, though Singer himself does not label it as "socialist", which is smart on his part.) He also talks of his conversion to veganism and the idea that eating meat is not justified (a concept I am sympathetic with, but not in agreement with). Those who know Singer's work will find no surprises here (and I would recommend you watch the video of Singer and Dawkins talking... that is a real mind-blower).

Kwame Anthony Appiah of Princeton talks about the juxtaposition of evolution, ethics and the idea of the cosmopolitan. He presents the concept that we are very good at caring about close friends and family, but society today presents us the challenge: can we, as citizens of the world, care about others? Should we care about people who are not our blood? If not, why is blood more important? And further, is blood important in the first place? Why should I care about my own kid if I do not care about yours? These are interesting questions and perhaps not so obvious as they first appear. Elsewhere, to promote the idea of the cosmopolitan, Appiah says, "See one movie with subtitles a month." I do. Do you?

Michael Hardt, whose political works are complex but fascinating, talks of his time in Central America and how he was advised to go into the mountains and wage armed revolution against Ronald Reagan! The most interesting part of his talk is the idea that many debates have been on the pointless discussion of whether human nature is inherently good or bad. I have had that pointless discussion (I picked bad). Hardt argues the whole debate is stupid because nature is changeable, and therefore constructing a theory on this static foundation is going to inevitably fail. And, you know, he is probably right...

Martha Nussbaum later complained that although Examined Life displays "a keen visual imagination and a vivid sense of atmosphere and place" it nonetheless "presents a portrait of philosophy that is ... a betrayal of the tradition of philosophizing that began, in Europe, with the life of Socrates".

The film has one obvious flaw: those who know little about philosophy or have little interest are going to be bored, confused or upset. I would not recommend this film to most of my friends. But, at the same time, there are a select group of friends who I would highly recommend this film to. If you like philosophy, even a little bit, rent this or watch it on the Netflix... was a great way to wind down my day and keep my brain from going mushy.

I really like the concept of this film: take philosophy off the page and put it back in the mouth of philosophers. Although each thinker only gets ten minutes, it is a great summary of their work. Visually it is interesting, as the director puts each philosopher in a different setting: walking in a park, rowing a boat, riding in the back of a cab, etc. (I don't understand the other reviewer who didn't like the cinematography.) Zizek, of course, was filmed amidst mounds of modern garbage.

When you have to read these guys in school, you are treated the way I suppose a young Talmudic student is, who has to accept the great thought or go to hell.* But listening to them here, seeing their personality, their vulnerability and their quirks, it stimulated me greatly, and made me feel I could enter the conversation.

This movie helps democratize philosophy, and I think there will be a lot more: digital cameras are so abundant and my guess is philosophers are like poets, they work for cheap. Thanks for reading.

*(you can, in school, of course, challenge the ideas, but it is much much much easier to go along with the program.)

Pretty frustating camera work, and direction.

For some reason, the film-makers decided that to keep the philosophers time and make them run around and make them talk in the ambient noise and in lack of focus.

Hard to focus on what the person is saying because of the stupid direction of forcing them to run around in order to talk.

Was so excited about this one, the entire thing was butchered by the director.

I think what makes this movie good is because of two things: first it introduces you to some contemporary great thinkers, second, as it is also the task of philosophy, makes you wonder and question some of the most important philosophical questions. This movie is not at all an extensive view of philosophy, nor any chronology of history of philosophy, it is just a movie about how thinkers would like to discuss some issues with the audience in a form of monologues.