In order to explain Cavell's account of what makes movies so magical, this article will offer a chronological survey of his major writings on film, beginning with the first edition of The World Viewed (1971), where he poses an intriguing theoretical hypothesis about what distinguishes the movies from the other major art forms. The survey will continue by considering the expanded edition of The World Viewed (1979), Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage (1984), and Contesting Tears: The Hollywood (...) Melodrama of the Unknown Woman (1997), and will conclude with an analysis of Cavell's discussion of Emersonian perfectionism in Cities of Words (2005). Throughout, I show how the specific film interpretations he proposes serve as archetypal examples of crucial features of his philosophy. Cavell's general thesis, I take it, is that films can pose particularly satisfying responses to the skepticism we all harbour about our most deeply held values. In a nutshell, the movies are magical because they tell us myths that allow us to see our lives as worth living, helping to restore our faith in the wellsprings of human value: romantic love, individual autonomy, nonconformity, and the search for self-improvement. (shrink)

A common critique directed at many philosophical readings of films is that they fall short of paying careful attention to film aesthetics. The film-philosopher Robert Sinnerbrink, who defends what he has dubbed ‘romantic film-philosophy’, is a notable exception on this score. Taking his cues from Stanley Cavell's writings on film, Sinnerbrink has developed and argued for a notion of philosophical criticism that takes aesthetic qualities of film into consideration. This paper attempts to relate Sinnerbrink's notion of philosophical criticism to recent (...) conversations about the differences between academic writing on film and film criticism. I argue that some aspects of Sinnerbrink's approach make it natural to compare it with traditional film criticism. There are also elements of his approach that are comparable to the use of films to support and develop theoretical perspectives in some academic writings. Next, I consider whether Sinnerbrink succeeds in challenging the traditional hierarchy of philosophy over film and art. I argue that interpreting film with attention to how it contributes philosophically, as he recommends, doesn't entirely escape the philosophical disenfranchisement of film. In the final part of the paper, I argue that if we want to re-enfranchise film, we should pay more attention to what film and other art forms offer us that we do not find in philosophy. In my discussion, I make use of André Bazin's notion of film criticism and Simone de Beauvoir's view on the metaphysical novel. (shrink)

RESUMO Neste ensaio analiso as diferentes modalidades de pensamento que ocorrem entre a filosofia e as imagens em movimento partindo da distinção metafilosófica elaborada por Gilles Deleuze entre “pensar” e “filosofar”. Esta é uma distinção fundamental para a possível elaboração de uma filosofia do cinema, ou, pelo menos, para afirmar que “o cinema filosofa”, uma tese atualmente imersa num certo equívoco. Neste sentido, como possível resolução para tal mal-entendido, sugiro uma adequada designação deleuziana de “pensar com conceitos” e “pensar com (...) imagens”, num processo recíproco fundamental entre o campo filosófico e o não filosófico das artes. Começando com uma introdução à noologia em Deleuze e uma descrição dessas ideias e do seu valor estético, prossigo com uma análise mais detalhada sobre imagens em movimento, metáforas e adaptação cinematográfica de modo a, dentro de uma abordagem pós-continental e pós-analítica, questionar se o cinema filosofa. ABSTRACT In this essay I analyse the different modalities of thought that occur between philosophy and moving images, beginning with Gilles Deleuze’s metaphilosophical distinction between “thinking” and “philosophizing”. This is an essential distinction for the possible elaboration of a film philosophy, or at least one which claims that “film philosophizes,” a thesis that is nowadays immerged in a certain misconstruction. In this sense, I suggest, as a conceivable resolution to this misunderstanding, a more proper Deleuzian designation of “thinking with concepts” and “thinking with images,” in a fundamental reciprocal process between the philosophical and non-philosophical fields of the arts. Starting with an introduction to Deleuze’s noology and a description of these ideas and their aesthetic value, I proceed with a closer analysis of moving images, metaphors, and film adaptation in order to question, within a post-continental-analytic approach, whether film philosophizes. (shrink)