Month: October 2018

The film Arrival has various correlations with Gadamer’s concepts of “play” and “genuine dialogue”. Throughout the film the protagonist, a language expert named Louise and a physicist named Ian are the only characters willing to engage in genuine dialogue with the Heptapods (the mysterious aliens of the film). At the beginning of the film there is an important exchange between Louise and Ian debating the cornerstone of civilization. Louise believes language is the cornerstone of civilization- while Ian believes its science; it could be argued that without language our ability to engage scientific endeavors would be hindered or halted all together. There are various factors throughout the film that that disrupt Louise and Ian’s ability to engage in genuine dialogue with the Heptapods. For a more direct comparison between the course materials, the Heptapods could be easily considered as the “other”. The armies’ job is protecting its citizens; unfortunately, they are under immense pressure to act once there is even the slightest notion of danger; we can see these tensions at various times throughout the film; and despite being rational to a degree the army without a doubt disrupts Louise and Ian’s ability to engage in this genuine dialogue.  The media also plays a role in channeling fear into the citizens; which also increases pressure for the army, which further disrupts our protagonist’s ability. Gadamer’s notion of “play” is also vividly represented at one main point of the film. After Louise is struggling to gain any progress in communicating with the “other” she decides to take of her safety suit; risking contamination hoping to gain progress in a more creative and bold way. By taking off her suit she is able to progressively impact her relationship with the “other” by leaving herself open and vulnerable.

 

At first, I struggled to understand how the film was going to affect my various tutorial proposals. However, one notion that was expressed throughout the film that I realized could definitely impact my proposals can be called “outside factors”.  These outside factors can be viewed as any sort of disruption that affects my ability to successfully perform my tutorial. In the film, the outside factors that disrupt Louise and Ian’s ability to engage in genuine dialogue is the army and media tensions. Although there may not be something as specific that may disrupt my tutorials there is always different type of disruption that can get in the way of any specific project. The outside factors I might face in my tutorials could be financial constraints and competition from other writers. Another way this film could help my progress in tutorials is by changing the way I view language as more than just a tool of communication. When script writing it’s important to carefully choose the words and expressions as cleverly and effectively as you can. This type of careful measure can correlate nicely to Gadamer’s notion of “play”; if we allow ourselves room for error we can progress our material in a more creative way, similar to how Banks was able to see the “other” in a new way and open up a new world.

In order for me to adapt to the new material discovered in Arrival I need to anticipate possible disruptions that I may face when attempting my tutorials before I may have to approach them. Financial constraints and a high degree of competition from rival writers may not be as severe as military protocol and media pressure faced by the doctors in the film; however, from my perspective they could be just as challenging. By anticipating and preparing for various disruptions, I have the ability to plan out strategies on how to deal with them well before I encounter them. When dealing with competition, learning about Gadamer’s notion of “play” I well attempt to progressively complete my product as uniquely and effectively as I can- to separate myself from various competitors.

There were a few common themes I realized between Vilhauer’s paper and Ruspoli’s film on various philosophers/professionals. The most striking similarity is when flamingo master and poet Manuel Molina is referring to his guitar. He claims that playing a guitar is more like have authentic dialogue with it; which is a major part of Vilhauer’s paper when considering the works of Gadamer, “being a participant in genuine dialogue-play with the other is crucial for what it means to be a human being, or to live a fully human life” (Vilhauer, 82-83). The were also notions of “dominance and conquering” which perhaps contrasted from the film and book. When considering Plato’s dialogue for conquering in which we must objectify the other, the writer claims that this isn’t genuine dialogue. However, in the film we see conquerors throughout history and their help towards human progress. There are also various notions of existentialism and living an authentic human life in both works. The film had a lot of mention of Heidegger; who is a huge figure in the existential theme; Gardener in the story uses very similar phrases and writing style to Heidegger, at times the “other” in the paper can be seen similarly “Dasein” in some of Heidegger’s works. In the film, Molina refers to how technology and life are created by different materials; this is another existential theme in which various philosophers criticize the current human’s obsession with technology. Gadamer’s reflection of “play” can be compared greatly by the various philosophers in the film. When referring to athletes who of course play within confided rules of their respective sport, those who see things in a proficient and creative way usually are able to dominate and change the landscape of the game. We can see these reconstructive and creative process throughout various facets of life including music, art, film, and even various sciences/social sciences alike.

In terms of how the paper reflects upon my own future fields of research: existentialism teaches us the importance of a human’s progress as well as our purpose in life. A lot of people work jobs in order to secure their lives; however, a lot of people spend their money on materialistic endeavors which I believe Heidegger would view as inauthentic. I believe it would be most satisfying to work in a field that you are truly passionate about, it’s one of the best ways to motivate yourself into truly accomplishing your life goals. If you’re passionate about the field you work in and study, it would be easier to work within an open dialogue with that field; similar to the way Gadamer states we must have open dialogue with the “other”. Heidegger refers to objects as having existence (used for a purpose), while humans have essence (something with and indispensable or abstract property). In terms of my own specific proposals, Gadamer’s notion of “play” which can be interpreted as the room one needs to carry their task in an audacious fashion; to be unafraid in committing errors for the sake of aggressive and creative endeavor. Those who “see” things differently (quoting back to Berger) have the ability to drastically the change the landscape in their respective field of expertise. During my tutorials I can use this bold notion of fearless research and creative film making to vastly separate myself from the various competitors in my field. Whether or not I succeed in a professional setting may be my ability to differentiate myself, and at the very least be unique in my efforts of trying to create my own project. It would be critically important to state that Vilhauer’s interpretation of Gadamer’s genuine dialogue and Ruspoli’s film of being in the world are not only tools to help guide me in my various tutorial projects but to also cement the importance of being a genuine human being who truly wants to make a difference in their respective field

.

Linked to this post is a paper containing my fields on interest. The most noteworthy fields would be comedic writing/screenwriting, teaching abroad, and working with the mentally ill. I talk about various extra curricular experiences, various courses taken that have impacted my interests, and a few signature pieces of my university work that I believe best highlight my abilities and interests. Towards the end of the paper I suggest a few proposals that I would be interested in using in a tutorial, clarifying the details of each proposal as well as mentioning the faculty that I would like to do each tutorial with.

Fields of Interest

Berger’s first chapter in Way of Seeing includes various political, religious, and meta-physical themes that express the importance of an individual’s relationship with authentic imagery. The meta-physical aspect of Berger’s expression is how highly he regards an individual’s subjective experience with sight, “It is seeing which establishes our place in the surrounding world; we explain that world with words, but words can never undo the fact that we are surrounded by it” (Berger, 7). The political and religious factors Berger is alluding to have to do with the reproduction of authentic images. The reproduction of images takes the photo away from its original context, resurfacing in multiple different expressions (film, other forms of medias) which makes the original viewed in a different context to the viewer in sort of a cult fashion; which Berger believes is bogus.

Imagery as well as data-collection can really strengthen research from the individual’s perspective. The two proposals in my field of interest can correlate to Berger’s ideology about and individuals experience with imagery and seeing. My first proposal was to do with the ethical repercussions of current conscription methods used during modern warfare. In North America conscription is no longer a widely used practice; most war theorist would say this due to the fact that conscription not only undermines just war theories original objective “to protect a state’s citizens” but would also point back at the historical fact that conscripted soldiers tended to incredible ineffective. However, there still are countries in the world who use conscription, which results in that nations courts to be filled with legal actions buy those conscripted. I would use various methods of research to back up my arguments- which could include interviews with people who have previously dealt with conscription first hand; as well as data that observes how effective conscripted soldiers are towards the war practice. I could also use various images that show the destructive and terrible reality of war; as well as propaganda which has been reproduced (most famously the American slogan known as “I want you”).

My second proposal was to attempt to write and film a screenplay revolving around characters which you can not only hear the dialogue but also their inner thoughts throughout the film. Berger believes that certain experiences of sight can have different meanings not only to different people but throughout different times. There are various methods in film that capture hidden meanings beyond the eye of the viewer that can be captured by subtle details. Lighting on the film set can create different moods for the watcher; point of view experiences when the viewer can have an inside view from a character’s perspective. For further research on these filming tactics I could search for data corresponding to various writing and filming strategies used in modern and historical filmography. Compared to photography; filming brings more rapid content to the viewer and doesn’t allow the individual to explore the meaning in the same way that they may be able to with photographs. However, filming tactics such as camera angles, point of view experiences, and lighting have the ability to expose the viewer to hidden meanings.