Philosophy at the Movies: Recent Episodes
Stockdale Center - Shaun Baker, PhD.
Have you ever thought about the philosophical concepts inherent in contemporary movies? Join us for intriguing discussions linking film and philosophy.
What does this 2017 film, set during the 1975-1979 Khmer Rouge reign of terror in Cambodia tell us about the radical nature of the communist project of restructuring human society and psychology? Why did the Khmer Rouge resort to using children as soldiers and cadre? How did Pol Pot differ from Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh in his relative anonymity and refusal to create a personality cult around himself? How does the story of the young girl, Loung Ung, and her family illustrate the courage and compassion of that family unit? How do the actions of the mother and father ensure the survival of their children? What lessons should America and her allies draw from U.S. withdrawals from Cambodia, South Vietnam and Afghanistan?
How does this film’s use of the concept of reincarnation allow it to act as an exploration of human nature? Why do the snakes, a species of what are called “evils” in the film desire to become human? What is involved in the centuries-long training they are undergoing to attain reincarnation as human beings? Why does it take hundreds of years to accomplish this? How do the sisters, White snake and Green snake, exhibit their relative levels of progress in that training? How does the film contrast snake life with human life, and the difficulties of attempting the transformation? Do the films surreal and comedic aspects illustrate Buddhist beliefs with regard to Maya and the illusory nature of reality? How does the Monk Fat Hoi treat the snakes? Why is his treatment inconsistent, sometimes compassionate, sometimes harsh? He sees the snakes serving human beings as medics, sees them save their home village from a flood, and indeed helps them do this, yet wants to capture and banish them from the human world. Why? Is this a commentary on Buddhism? What do the cross-cultural symbolic uses of snakes and spiders tell us about the connection between morality and knowledge? What similarities does the story of White snake and Green snake have with the story of the snake in the Garden of Eden and the Amerindian myths of Kukulkan or Quetzalcoatl?
What does this 2003 film about disgraced New Republic reporter, Stephen Glass, tell us about sociopathic or narcissistic behavior? How does the film engage with matters of journalistic ethics, and illustrate the dangers or traps created by journalistic bias when it comes to exercising critical thought and editorial oversight? How does the film show competition between journals aiding or prodding the editorial and critical efforts that should have been in place at the New Republic? How does this film illustrate the corrosive effects of deception and lying? How does Glass abuse the presumption of veracity that we all bring to life and our interactions with others? How do Glass’s story pitches take advantage of his peers' political biases and their desire to engage in advocacy journalism? How does the case illustrate the risks taken on by journals and news media when they allow writers to use un-named sources?
What does the pair of films, Fitzcarraldo, and the documentary about the making of that film, Burden of Dreams, tell us about the similarity between the main character, and the film’s director/producer Werner Herzog? How do both illustrate Kant’s notion of the Categorical Imperative in their sometimes-reckless use of indigenous people? How do the indigenous people illustrate that same concept in their use of Fitzcarraldo and his boat? On a related note; how does the film typify the 1980s era in film-making, when some directors took dangerous measures in order to achieve their cinematic visions? How does the film and meta-narrative of the documentary resonate with the era of the rubber barons which it portrays? Why does Herzog repeatedly explore the theme of jungle overpowering man, and man overcoming nature in his films?
What does this 2021 film, based upon the true story of 2nd Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, a WWII Japanese Army intelligence officer who held out on the Philippine island of Lubang until 1974, tell us about his sense of duty? What does it tell us about the capacity of the human mind to render any evidence or experience consistent with strongly held beliefs? How can Onoda’s case be used to illustrate the notion of the non-falsifiable hypothesis? How does it relate to today’s notions of ‘fake news,’ and conspiracy theory? How does the film explore the differences between the ethos of the Japanese guerilla warfare officers and the more typical ‘fight till you die’ ethos of the Imperial Japanese Army? Did the Philippine government do the right thing in pardoning Onoda for his killings of its civilians during his 30 years on the island, actions that were war-crimes? Did the vast expanse of the Pacific theater almost ensure that some Japanese soldiers would be long-term holdouts, as was the case with Hiroo Onoda and several others?
What does this 1966 film, detailing the conflict between King Henry VIII of England and Sir Thomas More tell us about the cause of the tension between Henry and the Catholic Church, and the conflicting loyalties of More, a devout Catholic? What does it tell us about European religious conflicts of the time period and the painful development of the Western world’s tolerance on matters of religion and state? What geopolitical lessons does it hold for us today in this regard? How does the dilemma Thomas faces illustrate the Stoic notion that each person is essentially a “moral purpose", and the costs of compromising with that status? How is his case like those of Socrates and people acting on religious conscience in our present day? How does the film illustrate the contrast between rule of law and rule of a tyrant? How is this film’s portrayal of Henry’s mental and emotional instability similar to films centering on mob bosses and organized crime?
This 1984 BBC television film, set in England during and after a major global nuclear war, asks us to consider the likelihood of a near total breakdown of governance, public order, morality and civilization in such a circumstance. How does the film portray the social impact of an extended nuclear winter? How and why does the film portray the breakdown by having the second-generation characters speaking a degraded, almost childish form of the English language? The bleak nature of the film was deeply shocking to British audiences of the time. How does it reflect Cold War realities of the 1980s? How does it compare to the prospects of nuclear war in the present day? How does the film’s depiction of social breakdown compare to historical episodes of such large-scale warfare involving civilian populations, such as the Blitz and Allied bombing of Germany and Japan at the end of WWII? Why did those populations not dissolve into a Hobbesian ‘war of all against all’ when under this extreme emergency? Is the film too alarmist in portraying an utter breakdown of compassion and morality? Does that alarmism serve a purpose? How does the film contrast with points made by Sebastian Junger, in his book Tribes, regarding how human populations band together in times of extreme duress?
What does this groundbreaking 1920 German expressionist film tell us about political movements and environments like that which was prevalent in Post World War I Germany? What commentary does it provide about the rise of charismatic, messianic and utopian movements on the left and right? What aspects of the German body politic do Cesare and Dr. Caligari represent? How does the film portray bureaucratic powers and cynicism about them? How does it portray police forces? How does the film portray the psychosis of the main character, Francis? What does it tell us about delusion, and what lessons can we take away from it with regard to the fact that we necessarily come at our lives from a subjective perspective imposing interpretations on things we experience?
What does this film, which tells the story of Anna a so called ‘savior child,’ conceived expressly for the purpose of saving her older sister’s life via stem cell and organ donations, tell us about the conflicted nature of parental obligations in such situations? How does it illustrate Kantian strictures against using people merely as means? How does the case of Kate and Anna compare with historically significant cases such as that of Terry Schiavo and Ramon Sampedro? What roles do such stories play in the world of young adult literature, and introducing teens to difficult ethical issues? Do such works of fiction cross moral lines in capitalizing on such situations?
What does this 1956 film tell us about the treatment of POWs during the Korean War by Chinese and North Koreans? What does it tell us about the effectiveness of isolation as contrasted with torture in attempts to force POWs into collaborating by making propaganda or soliciting fellow POWs to aid the enemy or make confessions? How do Captain Hall’s actions while in captivity support the charge of treason? Do any actions of his militate against this judgment? How does the film illustrate the conditions and actions that led to the formulation and promulgation of the American Fighting Man’s Code of Conduct? How does the film lead us to consider the importance of precedence in sentencing cases of collaboration? What is the point of the contrast between Captains Hall and Miller, with regard to how they responded to mistreatment and torture? What does the conversation between them tell us about guilt, ‘breaking’ and choice?
What does this latest (2022) iteration of the Batman franchise tell us about the dangers of cynicism in people whose profession it is to protect and serve? How does the film force the question of cynicism or retreat from duty or moral obligation in light of the apparently irredeemable nature of Gotham City? Do Catwoman and Batman represent two different answers to that question? How do Gordon and Alfred force Bruce Wayne to consider it? How does the Riddler’s movement resemble radical underground movements on the right and left in modern America? How does the film reflect activities of such groups in the dark web? How does the contrast between Batman and the Riddler illustrate the difference between vengeance and justice? How does the film differ from other films in its portrayal of Bruce Wayne as a brooding hermit, and why does it make the choice to present him in this fashion?
What does this 1969 film based upon Joseph Kessel's 1943 novel of the same name, tell us about the moral stresses involved in being operatives in the French Resistance during Nazi occupation? How does it illustrate the psychological, emotional and moral costs involved in making mortal choices in service of protecting that resistance effort? How does the film use the fate of resistance leader Mathilde to illustrate the utilitarian strategic decisions that had to be made when members were arrested and coerced for information? How does it illustrate the moral harm involved in killing human beings ‘up close’? How did the contemporary political climate in late 60s France influence the reception of this film? Did the film lionize Charles De-Gaulle as some critics maintained?
What does this 1981 German film, set in autumn 1941 during the period of most success for the German U-boats in the Atlantic, tell us about the leadership abilities of the ship’s captain, life in the submarine services during that war, and the rigors of that life? How does the Captain deal with the crew’s behavior before deployment, and why does he take the approach he does? How and why does the film contrast the anxious tedium and utter boredom over long periods of the deployment with the intense terror and action of the periods of combat? How does the film portray the thoughts of the German crew regarding their own Nazi government and their British foe? How does it portray the relative importance of ideology and camaraderie as motivators in the crew? How is the film reflective of Germany’s attitude toward its past, and efforts toward moral reparation?
What does this 1949 film, set in post-WWII Vienna, tell us about the black market in post war Europe? How does the story of Anna’s plight reflect the fate of citizens of East European countries occupied by Soviet forces? Why does Anna persist in her loyalty to black marketer Harry Lime even after being informed that his activities caused children who had contracted Meningitis to die after being given diluted penicillin? Why does Harry's old friend Holly Martins vacillate in that regard, even after having seen the harm first hand? Is it loyalty to Harry, or compassion for Anna? How does the charisma of the sociopathic Harry account for this moral blindness on the part of these two main characters? How does this movie cause us to consider the connection between physical, psychological or emotional distance and the capacity for inhuman behavior? Is it a cautionary tale for all of us?
What does this 1998 Japanese film, set in a way-station between life on Earth and an afterlife, intend to tell us about the connection between personal identity and memory? The recently deceased are assigned a sort of social worker who, over the course of one week, helps them pick one memory from their lives that they will recreate as a short film, and which they will carry into the afterlife as their only memory. Some of the characters in the film are unable to choose a single such memory, or do not want to do so, because they will also forget everything else about their lives. Is this a reasonable response to the program? Do they have a legitimate concern that they would be losing their identities, dying in a way, at the onset of the almost perfect amnesia? How does the film relate to other films, like Blade Runner, Nine Days, Here Comes Mr. Jordan and Heaven Can Wait, which also play with the connection between memory and personal identity, or work with the notion of souls being selected for embodiment in particular individual humans in particular circumstances, while having particular capacities? How does this genre of film present us with variations on political philosopher John Rawls’ “original position” thought experiment? Would that thought experiment serve as the basis of an engaging film itself?
What does this 2021 film based on Jim Dent’s book of the same title, tell us about the life changing influence of Coach Rusty Russell on the boys in Forth Worth’s Masonic Home and School during the Depression? How does the film contrast his coaching philosophy with others? How does the film use the story of eventual NFL standout Hardy Brown to illustrate Coach Russell’s impact on their lives? Did Coach Russell and Doc save him from a violent and possibly criminal life? How does the film illustrate the nature of camaraderie in teams, how it developed within this team, and between the team and coaches? How does it portray Coach Russell’s creativity in coaching the undersized Mites? Does the telescoping of Russell’s 14 year career into one year detract from the film’s plausibility and appeal?
What does this 2013 film, taking place during a drive, involving the driver in a series of phone calls as he attempts to oversee a very important project while dealing with a personal crisis brought on by his own infidelity, tell us about Ivan Locke’s moral character? Did Ivan make the correct choice in leaving the major project, a concrete pour in order to be present for Bethan during birthing of his child? What can we say about his efforts to satisfy moral obligations toward both and his determination to tell his wife the truth? Did he make the right choice to not personally attend and manage the pour? What does this film teach us about making our best efforts toward being cognizant of the potential for unwanted ramifications in our behaviors? Why did Ivan Locke give inadequate consideration to the possible professional and personal ramifications of the one night stand? Does Ivan Locke redeem his moral integrity by the end of the film, and if so, to what degree?
This groundbreaking 1994 documentary a ‘longitudinal’ documentary following two young men through four years of high school after being recruited to play basketball for a prominent private school in the Chicago area, tell us about the transactional nature of recruitment for athletics at prestige institutions? How is the high school recruiting experience similar to the college experience? What does the film tell us about the way the involved parties negotiate and navigate this transactional relationship during a school career? Are the players, their families, the schools, their donors and boosters all on a level morally speaking? Are all of them using each other in ways that are acceptable or not? Is there a disparity of power in the relationships?
How does this 2012 film, the last in the Chris Nolan Batman Trilogy, reflect contemporary concerns with national security measures such as the Patriot Act? How does nemesis Bane’s takeover of Gotham City reflect revolutionary rhetoric and its rationalization of violence and injustice? How does it mirror the rhetoric that appeared in the French Revolution and other periods of history? How does it force audiences to consider similar rhetoric behind the contemporaneous “Occupy Wall Street” movements of the time? How is it that the film garnered controversy at both ends of the political spectrum? How does the film’s treatment of Batman’s ultimate fate explore the notion of founding myths and their connections with the maintenance of civil order? How does this mythology function in Gotham with regard to Harvey Dent, and now, Batman?
What does this film, set during the Roman conquest of Britain, tell us about the effects of reciprocal barbarity between the Roman and British tribal kingdoms during wartime? How does the story of Etain, the Pict scout illustrate? How does the film attempt to fill in the historical blank with regard to the “Lost Ninth Legion” of Rome? How does the film fare in its portrayal of small unit dynamics in its development of the story of the small group of Roman soldiers lost behind enemy lines? How does it illustrate, in the fate of the character Marcos, the great risks taken by those that break trust in such situations? Why does the film largely pass on exploring the question of the tradeoff between the civilizing influence of empire and the often cruel means of forming or maintaining empire? Does this question of ‘civilizational warts’ explain the ongoing fascination American and British film-makers have with telling stories set during the Roman period?
What does this 1991 Frank Oz comedy tell us about neuroses, narcissism and careerism? How are the personalities of the two main characters, Bob Wiley and Dr. Leo Marvin similar? How does the film show us the impacts of Marvin’s narcissism and careerism on his family relations? How does Bob’s taking on of a father’s role with the two kids, Sigmund and Anna, show Marvin’s lack in this regard? How does the film contrast the narcissism of the two characters as they battle? How do Bob’s manipulations of others reflect Leo’s manipulations? Does the film serve as a commentary on the faddish nature of psychotherapeutic trends in American pop-culture? What advice can we garner from the film, not only for would-be patients, but for therapists? How does the dissolution of Leo illustrate Stoic doctrine with regard to getting clear about what is and is not under our ultimate control? How does Leo’s luck in life lead him to think he has much more control than he does? How does Bob function in teaching him in that lesson? How does the ‘baby-steps’ philosophy, advocated by Marvin in his best-selling book, reflect good common sense?
What does this 1962 film, centering on the request by a Ronin (a wandering and un-employed Samurai) to be allowed a Hari Kiri ceremony on the grounds of a Samurai clan, teach us about the Samurai concept of honor? How does the main character’s quest for revenge serve as a commentary on two faces of Bushido code, one gentle and aimed to one’s own, the other cruel and aimed toward outsiders? What is Tsugumo’s intent in hunting down the three Samurai who had humiliated his son in law, Chijiwa and forced him to commit suicide? Why did he choose to cut off their top-knots instead of killing them? What significance does it have that none of the three are present during the Hari Kiri ceremony when Tsugumo requests they be his ‘seconds’ in the ritual? How does the cruelty shown by these three toward Chijiwa show they have failed in their stewardship responsibilities toward fellow Samurai? Are Tsugumo’s actions primarily motivated by a desire for revenge or search for justice? How does the film trade on an ambiguity in the term “honor,” one meaning tying honor to public perception, the other tying it up with the question of whether the clan actually behaved in a moral way?
What does this film, which plays with the idea of a shared virtual gaming world somewhat like a “meta-verse,” tell us about the tensions between the creator of that virtual world and those that would monetize the creation? How does the film contrast the bleak real world of the gamers with the excitement and sense of mission that exists in the simulated world, OASIS? Why does the film choose to scratch the surface of the risk of escapism that comes with such technology? What are we to make of the film’s focus on the creator’s retreat from the risk involved in confessing his love for a love interest? What purpose does this backstory serve with regard to the main character? Why does the film not seriously explore the question of whether or not the OASIS is a good thing for humanity, given the apparent misery of the real world? Does the film in some way encourage such escapism even for those that are in less than dire circumstances? Why are the majority of people in the world of Ready Player One willing to spend so much of their biological lives playing in OASIS? Is this neglect of the real world why the situation on Earth has so seriously deteriorated? Why does the film so heavily indulge in in nostalgic reference to pop-culture of the 1970s and 1980s? What should we take away from this celebration of ‘nerd culture?’
What does this 2012 film based on the science fiction of Edgar Rice Burroughs, show us about his ability extrapolate from scientific and historical fact to features of Carter’s experiences on Mars, and the races with which he interacts? How do the psychological and moral characteristics of the Thark civilization reflect reptilian life on Earth? How do the Therns, an immortal race, resemble the gods of Greek mythology in their treatment of the other races and civilizations on Mars? Why does the film choose to underplay the complex political motivations of the different Martian races as they try to cope severally and collectively with the scarcity of resources on their dying planet? This feature of the source material, (Burroughs’ John Carter of Mars series), is left undeveloped in favor of creating a straightforward adventure film. How does the film parallel Carter’s experiences with Apache, and the initial challenges of interacting with an alien culture, the Thark, and his eventual adoption of that culture as his own? How does the film modernize princess Dejah Thoris and Carter himself? Does this work? Why or why not?
What does this 2017 South Korean film, loosely based on the true story of the Hashima Island coal mines off Nagasaki, tell us about the motivations of so called ‘revisionist’ films centering on nations or ethnicities that were victims of WWII atrocities? How does the history of the island and Japanese treatment of Koreans, as well as the subsequent controversies over this past, reflect Japanese reticence to come to terms with the deeds of Imperial Japan? Why did the Korean producers decide to create a fictional prisoner escape and climactic battle between the desperate prisoners and the Japanese and collaborating Koreans? How does this film resonate with other revisionist films like 'Inglorious Basterds'? Do the black comedy aspects of such films do any sort of disservice to victims of atrocity? How does the film illustrate, in the person of the main character and his daughter, what seems to be a common human tendency, during times of extreme adversity, to act for the good of the group instead of being motivated by more narrow interests?
What does the 2019 animated film, which presents an original retelling of the origins of the Santa Claus myth, tell us about mixed motivations when it comes to moral behavior? How does the character arc of Jesper as well as the children of the town of Smeerensburg, show that self-interest not only can incentivize moral behavior, but reap deeper change of moral character? How does the story illustrate the connections between historical events and personages and mythos? How does it illustrate this, using the comically mundane aspects of the efforts made by Klaus and Jesper to deliver toys to the children of Smeerensburg? How do these episodes function as origination points for elements of the Santa Claus mythos? How does the spirit of Klaus’s deceased wife work against his character’s centrifugal tendency and desire to live the life of a loner? How does the film contrast the relatively open attitudes of the children of the opposing clans, as opposed to the set ways of adults?
What does this Japanese animated film, set during the Christmas season, tell us about family? How does the character arc of the ersatz family of homeless individuals who have found an abandoned infant illustrate the sometimes highly frictional dynamics of family interaction, and the respect and love that families also instantiate? What message about family and society is contained in the story of their discovery and the search for the parents of the child? How does each character’s reunification with their own biological families figure into the message? How does the film capitalize on setting the story in the Christmas season in order to lead the viewer into meditation on the distinction between merely meaningful coincidence and deliberate arrangement of meaningful events? How can you use the film to illustrate the difference between two concepts in information theory; so called ‘Shannon information’ and ‘specified complexity’? How does the film make use of theistic implications in the latter, by setting things in the Christmas season? How does the film work with the conception of redemption for flawed dysfunctional humanity by way of moral service to others? How does it raise questions about the power of extended family and community?
What does this 2001 film, concerning a complex military operation to take two lieutenants of a Somali warlord, tell us about the complexities of peace-keeping operations and military operations in heavily populated urban environments? What does it tell us about state-building efforts that the UN took upon itself in Somalia in the 1990s? How does it presage similar efforts in the Post 9/11 world? What lessons should be learned from the substance or results of such efforts? How does it illustrate the level of complexity that is often involved in command and control in military operations, and the moral pressures that command and operators might feel when planning and executing such missions? How does it illustrate the tension that exists between humanitarian imperatives and stewardship responsibilities civilian command has with regard to forces they insert for high risk humanitarian missions?
What does this 2021 film adaptation of the 1965 Frank Herbert novel attempt to portray in terms of the predestination of Paul Atreides and his evolving attitude toward the leadership role toward which he is being groomed? Do Paul’s visions of his own future raise moral questions for him as to whether he should take on the leadership role he is apparently destined to take? How does the story capitalize on the “block theory of time” in the person of Paul? How does the story serve as a cautionary tale for charismatic political leaders? Does the story in some way support fascism? How does the story of Paul resemble the story of T.E. Lawrence? Does the weight of the novel’s political setting overburden both it and the film with exposition? What historical inspirations did Herbert have in mind when writing the novel? How does the film remind us of Saudi Arabia’s history and relations with the United States, Britain, or the USSR? How do the Fremen reflect the stresses of environmental factors upon human populations as they attempt to survive in harsh climates?
What does this story, set in 1957 Detroit tell us about the efforts of Ted Lindsey to unionize the players of the 'original six' teams of the NHL? How does the monopoly power over US teams, such as the Redwings and Blackhawks held by the Norris family illustrate points raised by Plato in his famous Ring of Gyges thought experiment? How does the insulation provided by great wealth and political connections mirror the magical powers of that ring? What does this thought experiment drive home about the relationship between morality and self-interest? How does the early history of the NHL ownership group, as portrayed in this film, also illustrate Plato’s point? How does the film illustrate the dangers of paternalistic rationalizations with regard to the players’ pension fund? How does the film’s portrayal of Gordy Howe’s relationship with Ted Lindsey illustrate the conflicting motivations, loves or loyalties of the players that made up the league in those days?
How does this 2005 Steven Spielberg film attempt to update the basic storyline from the H.G. Welles novel? What thematic elements does it leave out and why? Does the imagery, reminiscent of news coverage of the 9/11 attacks, convey any important message about that event? How does the film attempt to portray Welles’ meditations on empire or human relations to non-human animals we exploit for food or other purposes? Does it fail to reflect the aspects of the novel that engage the ‘problem of evil?’ How does the history of adaptations of the novel reflect a desire to update the basic storyline with contemporary interests or issues in mind? Does the family dynamic portrayed in the film work? Does the story of the son, Robbie, leave us dangling with his largely unexplained reappearance after having run into a raging battle between Martian tripod machines and US military?
What does this film, a sequel to the famous 1973 film, tell us about the problem of evil? How does the friendship between police Lt. Kinderman and Father Ryan allow the film to explore the issues raised for belief in God posed by the occurrence of gratuitous evil of the nature portrayed in the film? How does the film raise the question with regard to Satan’s evil? Does it imply that evil is something that cannot be eliminated, even by God? How does the dialog between Kinderman and the spirit of the Gemini Killer explore the challenges faced by traditional dualistic views as to mind body interaction, via the premise of spiritual possessions? How do films like this contribute to the debate over whether such portrayals of shocking evil should be presented? How does the film, in the persons of police investigator Kinderman and Father Ryan, illustrate the moral injury burnout or exhaustion that can occur in certain professions?
What does this animated Batman film, based upon a graphic novel, tell us about Hobbesian views with regard to self-interest, social mores, legal codes and social contract? How does Batman’s motivation differ from the crime families portrayed in this film? How is he similar? Do his actions give support to Hobbes’ view as to man’s essentially selfish nature? Why do he, Gotham DA Harvey Dent and police Capt. Gordon agree to bend, but not break the rules as they attempt to take down the Falconi crime family? Does the Batman story serve as a reminder for Americans of how lucky we are to live in a society where the rule of law is respected, instead of one riven with tribal or familial conflicts and motivations? How is Gotham like Afghanistan or Iraq? How do the characters of Dent, and his wife Gilda, lead us to consider the relationship of revenge to justice? Is Gotham beyond saving? If so, what should be done? Do Batman films need to be so serious and bleak?
What does this film, based upon Ken Feinberg’s account of his work as Special Master of the 9/11 Victim’s Compensation Fund, tell us about the tension that exists between efforts to economically quantify the impact of the loss of human life and the sense of loss felt by surviving loved ones? What light does it shed on the uniqueness of individual human lives as the staff go about the process of interviewing survivors? How do the cases of Nick Donato and Graham Morris reflect the moral complexities involved in determining who gets compensated? How does the case illustrate the difficult work that goes into striking a workable balance between utility and justice? How do the interactions between Charles Wolf and Ken Feinberg show their sincere motivations, as contrasted with the cynical Lee Quinn?
What does this film, based upon the Jim Dent book of the same name, tell us about football coaching philosophies that were common in the 1950s and 1960s? Does Paul (Bear) Bryant come to the conclusion that he went too far in his efforts to break the lackadaisical culture at Texas A&M? What positive results did his hard tactics have with regard to character formation of players, many of whom went on to successful careers not only in football, but in other arenas of life? Why did the men come to appreciate the experience, even if it was an exercise in excess, and, at times endangered the lives of players? How can you use cases like that of Bear Bryant to illustrate Aristotle’s concept of the mean? How does the film portray Bryant’s guilt at having run such a harsh camp, and the players’ forgiveness and appreciation of Bryant? How does the film allow us to contrast differing coaching philosophies? How can you morally contrast military training, and life endangering risks contained therein with athletic competition and training? Can harsh athletic experience prepare one for the rigors of military life?
What does this film, set in 2000 Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, tell us about the misogyny at the heart of Taliban governance? How does the bully character Idrees instantiate this? How does the film's portrayal of Parvana and her father show they have values and goals that are in conflict with this world-view? How does Parvana’s disguising herself as her deceased brother show not only her bravery, creativity and moral courage, but the degree to which the society is retarded in its development due to its treatment of women and girls? How does Parvana’s choice to take on the role of a boy illustrate Stoic battle doctrine, or strategic advice as she adopts to what she cannot control, while taking on the role of male breadwinner for the sake of her family? How does the older, more sympathetic male Taliban character Razaq help her, yet illustrate the lack of moral courage and bet-hedging behavior in the male population of Afghanistan? Does this tentative and self-protective behavior on the part of most Afghan men doom any tentative steps toward progress or liberalization of the culture?
How do two films, one produced in 1996 the other in 1932, based upon the H.G. Welles novel explore the ethical challenges posed by genetic engineering? What sort of commentary does it provide concerning the slide into morally dubious actions that can be brought about by scientific fascination with following a trail of research? How do the original book’s anti-vivisectionist roots explain elements of the story? How do the book and films provide commentary on the eugenics movement, popular at the time of the writing of the novel? How do the ‘ape man’ hybridization experiments undertaken by Soviet Russia in the 1920s illustrate these concerns, and show real world parallels with this work of fiction? How does the story connect thematically with Joseph Conrad’s story Heart of Darkness, and presuppositions at the root of colonialism of the day? Do the works of H.G. Welles fail to make the transition to successful film adaptations? If so, why is this?
What does this 1992 Clint Eastwood film tell us about mythologizing of cruel figures in the so called ‘Wild West’? How does the character “English Bob” reflect the sanitizing fictions that were circulated in the press and popular culture in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? How does the film illustrate the real emotional and moral impact of killing? How do the differing reactions of Munny, Ned Logan and the ‘Schofield Kid’ illustrate the moral deadening and injurious effects of a lifetime as killer and outlaw? How does the character Munny illustrate that in lawless circumstances, in order to exact justice or retribution, or provide security, society often employs hard men, but then tends to push them aside when the emergency has passed? How does the treatment of the women in the film illustrate the morally shocking nature and misogyny of brothels? The victim of a viscious attack is treated merely as property that had been damaged. How do the women respond when they find they will not be protected by Little Bill, the sheriff? How does the film illustrate arguments in favor of legalizing such work which eventually carried the day in Nevada? How does the parasitical nature of the writer W.W. Beauchamp, and his desire to latch on to the three main characters illustrate the moral risks and harmful consequences of ‘yellow journalism?’
What does this 2017 Film about the origins of the HELA cell line used in biomedical research, and the family of ‘donor’ Henrietta Lacks, show us about the ramifying effects of the loss of Henrietta on her children and extended family? Would it have been more true to the rich source material (a best-selling book on this family's experiences) to have created a mini-series instead of a single film? How does the story highlight the ethical problems involved with taking samples from patients, propagating, distributing and using them for research without informing them or gaining their consent? What are the arguments against requiring fully informed consent for potential research purposes when samples are taken, and do they carry the water in cases like the HELA cell line? How does the film illustrate the stark contrast in medical care typically afforded black Americans in the 1950s, as opposed to white Americans? How does the fate of Elsie Lacks, Henrietta’s disabled daughter, who died at the Crownsville Hospital for the Negro Insane of Maryland, illustrate systematic racism in place at the time?
What does this 2011 Science Fiction film, premised on the technological possibility of reliving the last few minutes of a person’s life by soul-jumping into their bodies in parallel universes, tell us about ethical issues that would arise in using such technology? Does the program director, Dr. Rutledge, believe that Source Code is merely a simulation, or does he think Colter Stevens is actually sent into alternate universes, occupying each universe’s Sean Fentress? How does Capt. Goodwin’s choice to honor Stevens’ request to take him off life support jeopardize the Source Code program? If Stevens is the only person capable of being used in Source Code, should she have acquiesced in Rutledge’s order to conduct the ‘mind wipe’ of Stevens? At first, Stevens is not aware that he was terminally injured, and is being held on life-support and a part of the Source Code program. Is the wrong inflicted upon him in this lack of fully informed consent offset by the millions of lives he saves? Would there be a way to more ethically conduct this program using mortally wounded soldiers like Stevens? Is it ethically similar to real world programs such the MK Ultra and Edgewood Arsenal studies? What happens to Sean Fentress at the end of the film? Is he killed, as Stevens’ soul takes up residence in his body? Should Stevens (now in Fentress’s body) tell Christina, Fentress’s girlfriend? Should he tell the Fentress family? He calls ‘his’ father, posing as an army friend, relaying Stevens’ dying words. Should he reconsider, and seek out ‘his’ father in that universe? Would that be morally and emotionally traumatic for the father, given there will now be two Colters in that universe?
What does this 1962 Orson Welles film, based upon the incomplete Franz Kafka novel, tell us in its utilization of a nightmarish story? How does the illogic of transitions mimic nightmares? Do any of the characters surrounding and including protaganist Joseph K, truly know what is going on? Are they all in the same uncomprehending state with regard to their places in the world? How does Joseph K’s ‘throwness’ into his world reflect our own status, according to existentialist thought? How does this 1914 novel forecast elements of the legal systems of later 20th century totalitarian states in Germany and Soviet Russia? What does the fable of the man sitting in front of the doorway asking for entrance to ‘the Law’ represent? Does the Law represent God? Does the film present us with a meditation on the problem of evil, pain and suffering being allowed by God, and man’s inability to find justification or rationale for it? How does Welles symbolize human ignorance in the closing of the film, using the parable of the man at the gates of the Law watching the door close forbidding his entrance as he dies?
How does this 1972 film, based on the Second Continental Congress’ deliberations on Independence, reflect the times of its production, as well as the actual events surrounding the adoption of the Declaration? Does the effort to make the founding fathers more human work? Does the film accurately reflect the motivations of men like John Dickenson? Why does it simplistically portray some of them as primarily wanting to protect their wealth or land holdings? How does the film dramatize the debate over and excision of Thomas Jefferson’s section on slavery, and the rationale for that deletion? How does the language of the preamble of the Declaration illustrate the longer term strategy of Jefferson and others in regard to eliminating the slave trade? How does the story of Jack Warner’s and President Nixon’s concerns about one song illustrate the politics of the early 1970s? How did this musical film inspire Lin-Manuel Miranda to create the play Hamilton?
What does this miniseries, based upon the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster and its aftermath, tell us about the contribution made to the disaster by the closed Soviet system, and its Marxist/Leninist ideology? How important was international media to the eventual clean-up and averting of an even worse disaster? How do the film-makers portray the heroism of ordinary citizens in the cleanup operation? How does the miniseries show the cynicism of ordinary citizens and party functionaries in the face of the failures of the Soviet system? How does it show the ordinary person’s courage and willingness to sacrifice their lives? How does this invidiual heroism contrast with the willingness of communist states to indulge in crude utilitarian calculus when it comes to mass sacrifice of human life? Should the Russian government have allowed people to return to live in the exclusion zone? Should people be allowed to visit the area? What level of respect to those who died should be shown by such visitors, and how has social media illustrated this? What books should one read in concert with watching this miniseries? Is the film intended to be anti-nuclear power?
How does this 1951 film set during the contemporaneous Korean War explore racially connected issues in the U.S.? How does it go against type for so called “B” movies in its exploration of these issues? How does it reflect the communist world’s awareness of America’s faults and attempts to exploit the existence of racial bigotry? How does the director, Samuel Fuller’s, military experience lend credence to his portrayal of small unit climate and dynamics? How does the relationship of the relatively green Lt. Driscoll and experienced Sgt. Zack reflect the realities of these dynamics? Why did the Army react negatively to this film’s portrayal of the shooting of a POW? Why is there a relative dearth of films dealing with the Korean War, as compared with WWII and the Vietnam War? Does the ambiguous outcome of that conflict account for this?
How does this film’s attempt at a realistic or plausible variation on the theme of superheroes work as compared with more mainstream films in that genre? How does Elijah Price’s disease, and his mother’s attempts to counter his fear, lead him to believe comic books contain a kernel of truth with regard to people that are physically impervious to harm, and how does this lead him to discover David Dunn? How does Elijah attempt to convince Dunn that he needs to play the role of protector? What was Elijah’s ultimate purpose in causing catastrophic incidents, including the train derailment that opens the action for Dunn? How does the scene at the train station, where Dunn intuits or sees various crimes illustrate a more realistic or down-to-earth superhero theme, in that he must conduct a sort of triage before he acts? How effective is the effort to place the super-hero theme in a more restrained and realistic environment, and how does it motivate the dilemmas the characters face? How does Shyamalan work with the comic book genre’s notion of a fatal weakness in order to ground and make plausible Dunn’s superior abilities?
How does this noire film, which contrasts a barely noticeable wallflower of a main character with a set of boisterous ‘BS-ing’ characters, use this contrast, and for what purpose? How is Ed’s position in this ‘big wide world of yakity-yak’ like ours? How does Ed’s passivity illustrate points made by existential philosophers, with regard to alienation and 'authentic' existence? How does the introduction of aliens and UFOs symbolize Ed’s passivity with regard to his own life? How does Ed's defense attorney make use of an argument about the ‘plight of modern man’ to argue that Ed was incapable of the crime with which he was charged? How does Ed’s arc of development, as contrasted with those of other more active characters in classic noire films, illustrate the dark underlayment lurking in the existentialist notion of authenticity, when combined with its peculiar aesthetic view of morality or values? How does Ed’s desire to help Birdy start a musical career show his concern for not having led a meaningful life? Why is he shocked at Birdy’s tawdry response?
What does this 1963 film, based upon an actual escape attempt from a German POW camp, tell us about the high levels of creativity within the aviator POW community? Were the Germans wise in collecting their most accomplished aviator escapees into one camp? How does the relationship between the Camp Commander, Luftwaffe Colonel Von Luger, and POW CO Roger (Big X) Bartlett exemplify professional respect between officers, and the attendant expectation that escape attempts will be made? How does the film contrast the immoral and unprofessional SS and Gestapo with Von Luger in this connection? How does this all reflect on the spirit of the Geneva Conventions? How does the film portray the POW’s sense of honor, code of conduct, and belief that they were very much still ‘in the fight’? How do the actions of the Germans fail to fit the description of ‘benevolent quarantine?’ Do attempts to use POWs toward war efforts oblige those POWs to resist? Do prisoners still have an obligation to escape even when given benevolent quarantine? How does the case of Blyth, who loses his eyesight, illustrate the dilemmas involved with escape attempts when prisoners are physically disabled?
What does this film, set in the waning days of the Indian wars, tell us about forgiveness between two of the main characters, Captain Blocker and Chief Yellow Hawk, who had fought each other during the wars? Do they, in the end forgive, or come to a respectful understanding of each other? How does the fact that they are both warriors motivate the character arc of Blocker? How does the film-maker use the fact that Blocker is reading Julius Caesar’s history of the Gallic Wars? Is this supposed to bring to mind similar politics in American History, viz native tribes? What is the message sent about PTSD and reconciliation that is expressed in the story of the third main character, Rosalie Quaid? How do the differing reactions of the various characters illustrate the difference between moral injury and PTSD? What facilitates the moral healing between Blocker and Yellow Hawk? How does the relationship between Block and his men illustrate the racial integration that occurred in the West, and the role of shared adversity in forging the brotherhood of warriors? How does recognition of this bond also facilitate respect and reconciliation within Yellow Hawk? How does Sergeant Metz illustrate debilitating moral injury, guilt and remorse, with regard to atrocities? Why does he commit suicide, while Blocker and Yellow Hawk reconcile not only with each other, but with their own past atrocities?
What does this film’s combination of rich symbolism, a Christ-like character, and his retelling of the story of the Ark intend to communicate with regard to the passage of time, and its impact on faith? How does the male character’s portrayal of forgetfulness develop the theme of God becoming human? How do both characters represent the fact that we find ourselves ‘thrown’ into the world, not knowing a great deal about who we are, and how we got here? How does the spaceship-like craft that opens and closes the action represent God’s knowledge of the history of the universe? How does the film reflect the director, Mamoru Oshii ’s, own struggle with faith? How does the symbolism of the fossilized remains seen in the film reflect the immensity of the time scale of the universe, and its impacts on faith? What do the fishermen, who pursue shadows of long extinct fish, represent? How does the final shot, showing this world to be located on what appears to be the keel of an immense overturned ark, hearken back to the theme of forgetfulness in the man’s version of the story of the ark, while also giving expression to hope and faith?
What does this film, about the early stages of a 90 year journey on an interstellar starship, tell us about the moral status of the actions of its main character, Jim, who, in order to alleviate his own loneliness, awakens another passenger, Aurora? Is Aurora’s arc, from justifiable revulsion at Jim’s actions in waking her, to ultimately forgiving, and falling in love with him a second time, plausible? Would Aurora be able to forgive Jim if she truly believed he had no intention of telling her that he woke her? How does the film portray the misery of loneliness or isolation? Does it plumb the depths of that experience, or merely scratch the surface? How does Jim’s early decision to peruse the biographical information of other passengers, including Aurora’s, illustrate the desperation for human contact that occurs when people are alone and isolated? Does Aurora fall into Stockholm Syndrome? Would stories such as this be useful in preparing for the rigors of extended space travel? Does this movie do a good job of exploring the ethics of such voyages?
What are the metaphysical presuppositions of this horror film? What would have to be true about the world in order for the efforts toward manifestation of the “Empty Man” to actually succeed? How might one explain the possibility of such success on the basis of the analogous phenomenon of trauma induced multiple personality disorder? How might this analogy, in combination with a ‘panpsychist’ metaphysics account for members of the Pontifex Institute being able to call “tulpas,” semi-autonomous persons, into being? How does the notion of a tulpa (and the story’s main character, James, a tulpa himself), instantiate a thought experiment of Bertrand Russell’s, the so called ‘five minute hypothesis?’ Is there a way to tell which portions of the story are supposed to be actual events, and which are implanted memories?
What does this film, about two spouses who come to realize that their spouses are carrying on an affair, tell us about the effects of abandonment and betrayal? What does it tell us about the impact such affairs have, even in societies that tacitly accept such behavior? Why do the two main characters attempt to reconstruct or act out meetings or conversations between their cheating spouses? What do the rehearsals of confrontations with their spouses show us about the kinds of soul searching or self-examinations that often happen when spouses are betrayed? How does the film convey the fact that Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan are hemmed in by their neighbors as they try to keep their growing relationship and love secret? Why is it so important for them to ‘not be like’ their cheating spouses? Why do Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan not reconnect after both have left their spouses? Who is the father of the child we see with the former Mrs. Chan at the end of the film? Does the storyline indicate the director is making a claim about the deleterious effects of tacitly accepted infidelity or polygamy? Do such relationships typically end in emotional turmoil, misery, regret and guilt, because it is against human nature to live this way? How does the atmospherics of the film reflect the tenuous nature of Hong Kong’s status, vis-à-vis China? Why does the sequel, which follows the after-story of Mr. Chow, not ring true?
What does this film, about the 1919 ‘Black Sox’ scandal, tell us about the Kantian stricture that we should not treat people merely as means to our own ends? How does the team ownership, in the person of Charles Comiskey, illustrate? How do the gamblers illustrate? How does their taking advantage of the illegality of the arrangement, to break promises to the players, illustrate? How does the film contrast Comiskey’s ‘talk’ and his ‘walk’ when it comes to respect for his players? In 1919 the White Sox players lived among their fan base, and interacted with them daily. What implications does this carry for the connections between players and fans? How do the admiring children reflect this in the film? How does the film capture the equally close relationship between sports writers and the players, and the level of betrayal felt by the former, after they found out players had lied about the collusion? How did the formation of players’ unions improve the lives of players? Do unions insulate modern players from legal consequences for cheating? Should Shoeless Joe Jackson be allowed into the Hall of Fame after so much time has passed since the events portrayed in the film?
What does this film’s bleak story relay to us about the problem of pain and suffering and mankind’s relationship with God? How does the interaction between the atheistic characters Ottway and Diaz reflect the loss of belief or anger and sense of divine injustice people will often experience in the face of repeated tragedies in life? How does the film connect with, and tap into the themes raised in the Biblical story of Job? Did the character Ottway retain his faith? Does the ending of the film indicate that he has come to some sort of amends with God? Did he survive the final battle with the Alpha male wolf? Does the parallelism between Otway’s leadership of the group of crash survivors, and the alpha male wolf’s behavior with regard to his pack, extend to God’s relationship with Otway, and what does it say about our place in the cosmos? Is God challenging us, purposefully making the world a difficult violent, bloody and deadly place? If so, what is the purpose? What relevance does the symbolic conflict between alphas have to this question? What is at stake as we face off with God? What message does this film send us about our own fragility and dependence upon technology?
What does this story, premised upon the possibility of transferring a person from body to body, tell us about the moral implications of such technology, should it ever become available? Does the fact that Mark voluntarily sold his body in order to raise funds that save his daughter’s life make it the case that there is no grounds for moral qualms? Does the film miss an opportunity to explore this moral crisis in the characters Mark and his friend Martin, both parents of seriously ill children, who are ‘saved’ via this technology? How does the film reflect upon ongoing debates about incentivizing organ donation? Does the story address the moral costs of using such technology to save influential or powerful people? How might such technology be used or abused by military organizations? Is there a missed opportunity to explore what it would be like to be a hybrid of two persons?
What does this film, based upon the true story of Jesse James’ death, tell us about celebrity, and the lionization of criminals in American popular culture? How does the formation of Robin Hood myths around figures like Jesse James reflect upon America’s image of itself? How did the fact that Missouri was a border state play into this myth making in Southern press of the day? Why did the popular portrayal of Jesse, and his brother Frank underplay their roles in anti-Union terrorism during the war, and savagery in their criminal careers? How do the lives of the criminals in this film illustrate things Plato says about the paranoia of tyrants and narcisistic sociopaths, and the personal consequences of living outside of (or in spite of) morality or legality? How does the use of James’ corpse for profit comment upon the ongoing morally problematic celebration and notoriety of killers in popular culture? How did Brad Pitt’s own celebrity prepare him for playing Jesse James?
What does this pair of films, one a documentary about POW Dieter Dengler, the other a drama based upon his story, tell us about the moral obligations film makers have toward the subjects of their films? How does the treatment of Eugene DeBruin in Rescue Dawn illustrate director Werner Herzog’s failure in regard to these obligations? How did Dieter Dengler’s early life in Post War Germany prepare him for enduring the horrors of captivity, and the rigors of the escape undertaken by his group? How does the movie illustrate the common tendency in Hollywood to underplay the challenges veterans face as they return from war? Does this indicate a cultural discomfort with these issues? What commentary does this provide on the broader American society's stewardship responsibilities toward those who serve, and experience the rigors of war?
What does this film tell us about the difficulties encountered by WWII veterans as the re-entered civilian life? How does the film show the uncomprehending nature of those that did not serve, and how best to bridge that experiential divide? What must veterans do to ease anxieties of family, friends a colleagues? What must family, friends and colleagues do to ease anxieties or PTS in veterans? How does this film show that the Lion’s share of this burden, arguably something owed veterans by the US government, is nevertheless unavoidably shouldered by families? How does the Stephenson family illustrate the social or emotional intelligence necessary to pull this off? How does Fred Derry’s story illustrate the difficulties in finding meaningful employment encountered by some returning veterans? How does the arc of his story contrast the attitudes of his wife with the attitude of Peggy, Al Stephenson’s daughter? What lesson does that contrast impart to us?
What does this dystopian film tell us about connection between feelings or emotions and evil? Does the fact that the film is derivative of several films and works of literature dilute its message or its entertainment value? How does the society's social control technique, (chemical deadening of emotions and feelings, as a preventative for warfare and inhumanity), bring about the very things it attempts to prevent? What historical parallels are there in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan and Soviet Russia? More generally, what does this film tell us about the duality of human nature and cultural accomplishment? Do we attain cultural heights at inevitable moral costs? What exactly is the message with regard to controlling and disciplining our negative emotional tendencies? What connection does this message have with Plato’s thoughts on the dangers of art and literature? What does the Father and son story in the film tell us about past and present totalitarian societies’ efforts to censor, and their concomitant efforts to encourage their citizens to monitor and report each other?
What does this film tell us as it contrasts the busy stressful lives of its two main characters in modern Japan and the idyllic life of the remote Chinese village they visit? How does it the film portray the diluting impact of modern technology and culture on unique indigenous cultures? How do the villagers instantiate conflicting interests that remote villages might have in trading with and interacting modern societies? How does the film construct the contrast between modern and primitive lifestyles during the trek to the remote Chinese village? The crash landing of a British airmen contributed to the beliefs of these villagers in regard to flying like birds. He lived out the balance of his life with the isolated group. His grand-daughter inherited the ‘flight school,’ that had formed and the semi-religious beliefs that grew up around this cross-cultural contact. How is this fictional story similar to so-called “cargo cults” of the mid-to-late 20th Century in Melanesia, (some of which survive to this day)? How does the film illustrate the conceptual challenges that primitive societies have when trying to make sense of their interactions with technologically advanced civilizations? How does the film illustrate the formation of deep empathy or value that anthropologists or missionaries often form with remote indigenous groups or cultures they study or visit?
What does this film, set in 1984 East Germany, tell us about the role of culture ministries in closed and authoritarian communist countries? What does it indicate about the role of fear and self-preservation in the exertion of control in such totalitarian systems of government? Is manipulation of such fear an engine of betrayal? How does day to day surveillance of private life affect Stasi agent Gerd Wiesler as he undertakes the task he so eagerly recommended to his superiors? How does the intimacy, and the literature and music he is exposed to as he watches writer Georg Dreyman and his girlfriend, actress Christa Sieland, drive the change in Wiesler from committed functionary to compassionate secret ally? How does the title reflect Wiesler’s lack of a personal life, and what message does that send us with regard to balancing career and life? How does the film cause us to reflect on parallel cases in the West, such as that of Edward Snowden? How much of an indictment of communism is this film, and how applicable is its lesson in the case of 21st Century communist China?
What does this 1964 film tell us about the state of the Cold War in the early 60s? How does it illustrate the unique nature of the American constitutional order, as compared to other governments of the world, where extra-constitutional military coups, overthrowing elected governments, often occur? How does the film reflect upon contemporaneous conspiracy theories of its day, and those of today? How does the film hold up as a prediction of what the near future, the 1970s, held for international relations? What lessons can be learned about civil military relations that can be extended to present day challenges and present foreign policy? How does the film portray the media environment of its day, and cause us to reflect on changes that have occurred since?
What does this film tell us about the role of alcohol in Danish culture, in particular, youth as they navigate the milestones of academic life? How does it illustrate the dual nature of alcohol use for purposes of lighting creativity or buoying self confidence or verve for life? How do the middle aged teachers that are the main characters illustrate the risks and rewards of using alcohol for this purpose? Is alcohol both a genie of the magic lamp, and a Pandora's box of risk? What exactly does it mean to describe alcohol as "liquid courage"? Does the loss of inhibition that comes with imbibing serve as an adequate substitute for the virtue courage, or is it a crutch or substitute to which it is dangerously easy to resort? Is this substitution role the door to addiction and the chemical dependency of alcoholism and attendant tragedies? Does the moderate drinker still run an unacceptable risk of falling into this trap? How does the story arch of the film answer these questions?
What does this film, (premised upon the notion that time travel is possible, and there is only one possible world - our own - the events of which are fixed), tell us about how much influence such time travelling agents would actually have in their attempts to alter outcomes? What does it tell us about the author's intent with regard to designed complexity of the plot line? Is this film a case of an overly ambitious and complex film that works at cross purposes with itself as a vehicle of entertainment, which attempts to draw audiences in for multiple viewings? Are the prospects of figuring out the chronology of events presented in the story too slight to encourage those multiple viewings? How does the film illustrate and comment upon paradoxes that exist with regard to travel backward in time? Does the grandfather paradox show that such time travel is impossible? Did the release of this film in theaters (threatened with obsolescence, during the COVID pandemic), show a lack of responsibility with regard to risks to audiences that would show up for multiple viewings?
What does this 1968 film portray with regard to the possible interplay between intelligent guidance and evolutionary processes in the origins of humanity? What resonances does its story have with religious traditions on this subject? How does it reflect pop-cultural trends on that same question? How does it illustrate, in the 'person' of the HAL-9000 computer, the potentials and pitfalls of artificial intelligence? What does it tell us about the possible trajectory of human to post-human or post-biological development? How does the film reflect Cold War relations between the United States and Soviet Russia in the 1960s?
What does this classic film suggest to us about travel between the actual and possible worlds? What does it suggest about invariance of character traits of individuals across possible worlds? Are Potter and George Bailey such invariant characters, the former always depraved, the latter always good? What was Clarence's purpose in showing George a particularly bleak alternate history of his town, one dominated by Potter's influence? How does the story reflect the wartime experiences of director Frank Capra, and star Jimmy Stewart? Is there a parallel between the life story of Jesus Christ and that of George Bailey? What lesson should each of us take away from the film?
What does the film, based loosely upon the Robert Heinlein novel, tell us about director, Paul Verhoeven's opinion of the novel? What is the message the film and novel transmits concerning civil/military relations today? What is the role for philosophical and ethical education in Heinlein's vision of secondary and post secondary education? What does he have us consider with regard to the notion of voluntary national service being a pre-condition for exercise of the franchise? What does the vision of the future, in the film and novel, tell us about the ideal of the military as a merit based organization? What is his vision with regard to gender and racial identity in the military?
What does this film tell us about the range of responses we can have toward aspects of our lives that are outside our complete control? How does Charles Foster Kane exemplify, through failure, Aristotle's views on virtues, his doctrine of the mean, and his views on happiness or flourishing? How does he exemplify, through failure, Stoic Doctrine? How does Kane's life parallel Welles's own life, and his character traits? What can we infer as to authorship with regard to the collaborative nature of his work on film and radio?
What does this film tell us about the potential to bio-engineer characteristics that would suit human beings for roles that require use of violence, such as bounty hunters or military combatants? What does it tell us about the ongoing project of creating AI that has an ability to perfectly mimic human emotional reactions? What does the ambiguous interpretation of Joi's actions indicate about this? What does the film tell us about the potential for neuro-engineers to customize and edit memories? Finally, what does it tell us about sexual objectification?
What does this documentary series tell us about the sense of duty and service to country that was felt by five directors from the golden age of Hollywood (John Ford, John Huston, Frank Capra, George Stevens and William Wyler)? What does it tell us about sterwardship responsibilities, with regard to US troops that was shouldered by General George C. Marshall and civilian leadership, during WWII? What does it tell us about the obligation to inform servicemen and women that were going into harm's way? How does the film show contemporary efforts to treat PTSD in servicemen? How do these directors' later films reflect their wartime experiences?
What does this movie, based upon a Phillip Roth novel, tell us about cancel culture on campus? What does it tell us about the difficult choice made by the main character, Coleman Silk, who disowned his African American family in order to pursue success in his careers passing as a white Jewish man? Does the film attempt too much by cursorily including too many of the novel's narrative threads? Should it have more exclusively focused on one or other of these story lines? How does the casting work to lessen the plausibility of the story of Silk's later life?
What does this 1973 film tell us about post Hays-Code Hollywood and the ethics of using child actors in roles such as that of the possessed daughter, Regan? What does it tell us about the interaction between the MPAA and film producers/distributors? What does the film make us consider with regard to the problem of the existence of evil and God? Why would God allow a perfectly malignant demon to exist? What do Fathers Karras and Merrin teach us about duty and self sacrifice? How does the film's setting at Georgetown University illustrate the role of religious belief in a more secular age? How do the characters' reactions to Regan's behavior instantiate these two 'realms'?
What does this retelling of the Godzilla story tell us about the responsibilities of governments in handling emergency situations? How does it reflect contemporary Japanese bureaucracy and does it provide a window into how the Japanese conscience feels about WWII era lmperial leadership in the terminal stages of that war? The film's first half is dark satire, while the later half portrays international cooperation to defeat the threat, efforts led by an up and coming young minister. What does this tell us about keeping governments responsive and resiliant in a global age?
How does this horror/suspense film engage with recent philosophical thought experiments having to do with brain transplants and issues of personal identity? How does producer/director Jordan Peele utilize awkwardness in white/black relations to build suspense and foreboding in his audience? What did he intend to tell us regarding the challenges that young black males face when interacting with law enforcement? How do the several alternate endings he filmed reveal his own views and hopes on the subject?
What does this film tell us about the human proclivity to use fellow human beings as mere means to larger ends, such as corporate gain or climate change mitigation? Is it realistic to assume a corporation, its employees or society would treat cloned humans as less than human? How does the AI robot, GERTY, illustrate codes of ethics for AI human interaction? What evidence is there that GERTY is simply following an algorithm to protect Sam? What evidence is there that GERTY actually has compassion for Sam, and a moral sense?
What does this film, about the court-martial of a black cavalryman who is accused of rape and murder of a white woman, tell us about justice, fairness, and bigotry in the post-bellum U.S. Army? What message does John Ford wish to send his audience of 1960? Does he presage elements of the looming civil rights battles of that decade? Does he intend to show us that the military led the way in regard to integrating black Americans?
What does this story, based on the early days of American involvement in the air war over Germany, tell us about the tensions that exist for commanders when they try to balance mission accomplishment with their stewardship responsibilities they have for the well-being of their people? How does the film contrast with later Vietnam era films, with regard to cynicism and combat exhaustion?
What does the film tell us about circumstances where it becomes necessary to act with 'dirty hands' in order to preserve civilization? How does John Ford use the character of the black man Pompey as an object lesson in the inconsistencies between American ideals and practice in regard to civil rights?
What are the concepts of the natural lottery and moral luck, and how are they represented in the film? Is it fair of Capt. Miller to demand, with his last words, that Ryan “earn it” as he dies after defending the bridge? Is this final demand from Miller representative of a message from members of US armed services to the country they serve?
What does this 1952 Japanese film, about a bureaucrat who discovers he has terminal cancer, tell us about choice, direction in life, and living authentically? What does it tell us about the focus and hard questions that often happen when confronted with one's own mortality? What does it say about the compromises with reality or necessity that most people must make when it comes to the ability to make a living or provide for family, and what does it tell us with regard to obligations of sons and daughters to parents?
What does this film tell us about the benefits and risks associated with reviving long extinct life forms? What is the interplay between scientific inquiry and entrepreneurial efforts in the film? What are the competing motivations in such cases? Do such projects as the real-world enterprise "Pleistocene Park" run similar risks while offering their possible benefits? If so, how might they be mitigated? Is it, in principle, impossible to predict consequences of playing with complex systems, such as eco-systems? If so, should we abstain from doing so?
What does this 1996 film, about nerve regeneration research, tell us about utilitarian thought and the role of consent in medical research using human subjects? What lessons can be learned for medical research by comparing and contrasting this fictional story with actual historical episodes?
What does this film about Jesuit missionaries in Algonquin territory during the 1600s tell us about rationality and religious beliefs? How does it illustrate the conceptual difficulties that can occur when we attempt to understand cultures whose experiences and outlooks are foreign to us in fundamental ways?
What does W.E.B Dubois' concept of 'double consciousness' tell us about the main character Starr Carter, and life as a black American? What does it tell us about recent police shootings of unarmed black men? What does THUGLIFE mean? Is the message of The Hate U Give one of despair or hope when it comes to race relations? How do these themes connect with other recent films and the comedy of Key and Peele and Dave Chapell? These, and other questions are explored.
What does Blade Runner tell us about the role of empathy in morality? How are memories connected with personal identity? What connection is there between the capacity for cruelty and moral agency? Is there religious significance or commentary in this film and in the book upon which it is based? These, and other questions are explored.
What does the 2016 film Arrival tell us about time, and our relationship to it? If you knew your future and could choose, would you live it exactly as it is to unfold? Does foreknowledge of the future course of our lives imply that there is no free will? Would it be wrong to inform loved ones of the tragedies you see for them? Would it be wrong to enter into relationships that you know will end in tragedy? These and other questions are explored in this film.