Pikkukuvaa napsauttamalla pääset Google Booksiin.
Ladataan... Babette's Feast (BFI Film Classics)Tekijä: Julian Baggini
- Ladataan...
Kirjaudu LibraryThingiin nähdäksesi, pidätkö tästä kirjasta vai et. Ei tämänhetkisiä Keskustelu-viestiketjuja tästä kirjasta. ei arvosteluja | lisää arvostelu
Kuuluu näihin sarjoihin
"On the face of it, Gabriel Axel's Babette's Feast (1989) is a film in which the eyes - and mouths - of religious zealots are opened to the glories of the sensual world. It is a critique of what Nietzsche called life-denying religion in favour of life-affirming sensuality. But to view the film in that way is to get it profoundly wrong. In his study of the film, Julian Baggini argues that Babette's Feast is not about the battle between religiosity and secularity but a deep examination of how the two can come together. Baggini's analysis focuses on themes of love, pleasure, artisty and grace, to provide a rich philosophical reading of this most sensual of films."-- Kirjastojen kuvailuja ei löytynyt. |
Current Discussions-
Google Books — Ladataan... LajityypitMelvil Decimal System (DDC)839.81372Literature German literature and literatures of related languages Other Germanic literatures Danish and Norwegian literatures Danish Danish fiction 1900–2000 Early 20th century 1900–1945Kongressin kirjaston luokitusArvio (tähdet)Keskiarvo:
Oletko sinä tämä henkilö? |
The first time I saw this film was simply as a film goer, in a small theater. The second time was in a film studies class where we were more concerned with filmmaking than film meaning, though the two are not completely separate. The third time was in a film and philosophy course where our guest speaker was another professor who also happened to be a Lutheran pastor. So this particular book brought all of these ways of viewing and understanding the film into one coherent work. I would have liked to have had more of Kierkegaard used but that is mainly because of personal preference. Baggini cites him often and many of the arguments are derived from Kierkegaard, so he is there. My preference is because of my work on Kierkegaard and Walker Percy's novels.
In the sections (mostly at the beginning and the end) where Baggini wants to view this film as "doing" philosophy or "being" a philosophical text versus illustrating or illuminating other philosophical thinking, I thought of the book Foucault at the Movies which was released a couple of years ago. There are a couple of excellent essays that address Foucault's interest primarily in films that he perceives as doing philosophy rather than simply being philosophical in nature. Foucault and the essayists there use, I think, a narrower idea of what a philosophical text is than what Baggini invokes here. While Baggini makes a strong case that this is more than just a film that references ideas, I don't believe it reaches the level of an actual original philosophical text. That doesn't take away from either the argument here or the film, just a matter of how narrowly or broadly one defines "doing" philosophy. You'll see many people, and I had some of them as students, who think as undergraduates they were doing philosophy when what they were doing was pretending to do philosophy. If you don't take your undergraduate years to learn, truly understand, those who came before, then you can stand on your tiptoes and not even reach their pant cuffs, but if you stand on their shoulders you can reach significantly higher. But these people need to sound like they are special when, in fact, almost every philosophy undergrad, myself included at the time, thought we were doing philosophy as well as learning it. To still believe it years later, well, Trump believes he was a good student at Wharton too. Doesn't make it so.
Probably the area where Baggini falls the flattest is when he presumes to speak for atheists and tell us what we think and how we think it. The level of arrogance there, coupled with blatantly ignorant claims, detracts from what was otherwise a wonderful interpretation and explication. But he has his beliefs and part of that is his belief, apparently, that he can tell the rest of us where our thinking is and where it falls short. Not just some, but for all of us. Yeah, not gonna happen. It just shows how flawed even the most attentive minds can be when they work in their blind spots.
I highly recommend this and think that it will offer wonderful insights into the film regardless of how you currently understand the film.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley. ( )