[영문 에세이] 영화와 철학의 관계

Werner Herzog의 다큐를 통한 영화와 철학의 연결고리 

에세이 주제: When evaluating a film for its philosophical value, to what extent do we need to consider the author’s intentions?

While the term ‘film-philosophy’ refers to the form of philosophising that takes place on film (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2015), where this philosophising takes place continues to be a contested debate. While each audience is prone to subjectively impose philosophical values onto films through their interpretations, Wartenberg’s imposition objection condemns such interpretations to be insufficiently motivated “in the absence of evidence pertaining to the film-maker’s actual sources and attitudes” (Livingston, 2009:91). Responding to Wartenberg, Livingston’s partial intentionalism holds that “intentions determine some, but not all, of the semantic properties of at least some works of art” (Livingston, 2009:93). Not only does this view allow room for audiences to determine some of the semantic properties of a film but it also overcomes the imposition objection; for Livingston, when the external evidences (information related to the film and the author) are coherent with the internal evidences (cinematic features in the film), the external evidences are deemed relevant. Thus, by acknowledging the significance of the audiences’ interpretations while also examining how the authorial intentions can affect these interpretations, Livingston arguably provides a more holistic way to evaluate a film’s philosophical value. 

Building on partial intentionalism, this essay will argue that while it is necessary to take into account the audience’s interpretations, it is also crucial to consider the author’s intentions when evaluating a film’s philosophical value. The reason for this thesis is twofold. Firstly, the author’s intentions can provide clarity on how to best approach a film by specifying the reasons behind the making of a film. Such advances in clarity thereby guides the audiences to better evaluate a film by having a greater depth in their understanding of a film. Secondly, the author’s intentions are apparent in the very structure of the film. This inseparable link between the author’s intentions and the cinematic features within a film makes it apparent that the authorial intentions are imperative for an accurate evaluation of a film’s philosophical value. By exploring these arguments with Werner Herzog’s film Encounters at the End of the World (Encounters), this essay aims to show why the central thesis holds and how it overcomes the imposition objection.

Let us first consider the effect of the author’s intentions on providing clarity for a better comprehension and evaluation of a film. By focusing on such intentions, the audiences are able to narrow the scope of their interpretations accordingly. As such, it is possible to minimise the risk of misinterpreting the cinematic features within a film and the reason behind the making of a film. By tightening this scope, the audiences are then able to directly focus on the author’s intended key aspects of a film, thereby improving the accuracy of their evaluation of a film’s philosophical value. This intuition is apparent in Encounters and to show Herzog’s intention behind making films, this essay borrows from his interview with the Telegraph: 

“You have to know the heart of men. More than anything, I’m trying to look very deep into our human condition, into the deep recesses of our soul.” (Shone, 2012). 

By considering this statement from Herzog, it becomes clear that human exploration is an overarching purpose for his films and by relating this purpose to Encounters, we are able to see that Herzog intends to explore our human condition in a manner that is akin to post-humanism: placing the essence of man outside the mind and the body; and instead levelling our human nature with all things such as the environment, animals and our relationships to other dwellers (Steinbach, 2016). Considering such intention, the audiences are led to join Herzog in approaching Encounters as a tool to look deep into the “recesses of our soul” (Shone, 2012). Therefore, the authorial intentions not only provide clarity on why a film has been made and how to approach a film, but also encourage a more in-depth understanding of a film, ensuring a better-informed evaluation of a film’s philosophical value. 

Herzog’s intention, mentioned in the interview above, is coherently showcased with the internal evidences from Encounters where he directs the audiences to focus on a deranged penguin (Figure 1). 

Figure 1. (Herzog 2007, 01:14:29)

The scene involves a self-isolated penguin walking towards the vast empty landscape where it is heading towards a “certain death” (Herzog 2007, 01:15:29). As explained by Herzog’s narration, even if the penguin was brought back to its colony, it would simply head back towards the mountains into its own death. Although the penguin’s walk appears to be tragic, its seemingly determined persistence on its own fate is also presented as a triumphant narrative (Steingröver, 2012) and this creates a paradox. This paradox, together with the inexplicability of the penguin’s walk incites Herzog to ask, “but why?” (Herzog 2007, 01:14:38). Therefore, Herzog is drawn to the deranged penguin exactly because it is beyond his interpretations. As such, it seems clear, with this example, that Herzog intends to seek answers for certain unexplained phenomena with a post-humanist approach. By considering this intention, the audiences are also led to join Herzog in re-evaluating their relation to the world (Fredriksson, 2018), which in turn may aid us to explore newly-encountered aspects of humanity. The coherence of this penguin sequence with Herzog’s interview thus shows how, by considering Herzog’s intentions, we are able to receive clarity on how to best approach Encounters. 

Contrary to placing emphasis on the auteur’s intentions, one may evaluate the argument above to be one-sided which fails to assign the audiences with the capability of exploring the key aspects of a film by themselves. This imbalance constrains the audiences’ contribution to a film’s philosophical value without the consideration of the author’s intentions. Levinson acknowledges this limitation through his unpromising strategy which contends that “there are intentions that do not range over the intending agent’s own future actions” (Livingston, 2009:85) and given “their crucial role in art-making” (Levinson, 2007:303), the audiences’ interpretations should not be neglected. This may be true for the deranged penguin sequence: Herzog’s question is not followed by an answer which means that the audiences are led to intrinsically suggest a possible explanation for the penguin’s derangement. By doing so, they are able to impose differentiated philosophical values to Encounters. 

However, it is Herzog’s intended-question that brings about the audiences’ impositions. In other words, the author’s intentions serve as the source for the range of possible audience interpretations for a film. This means that while Herzog’s post-humanism seems to narrow the scope for the audiences’ approach to Encounters, it is this very approach that also broadens the range of further in-depth audience interpretations. Therefore, by considering the authorial intentions, it is possible to not only establish clarity on which interpretations are relevant but one may also improve the depth of their understanding of a film; ultimately overcoming the imposition objection.   

The second reason for this essay’s thesis holds that the author’s intentions are evident in the structure of a film. As shown by the deranged penguin sequence, the author’s intentions seem to have a bearing on the cinematic work as they have causal relations to their executions. This is acknowledged by Livingston who identifies “intentions as an executive attitude towards a plan regarding the intending party’s own future actions” (Livingston, 2009:85). Therefore, it appears plausible that the specific aesthetic cinematic mediums, employed by the auteur, are the end-products of the auteur’s intentions. Such binary relationships not only help audiences to better appreciate internal components of the film but they also make it imperative to consider the author’s intentions when we evaluate a film’s philosophical value. 

Throughout Encounters, Herzog frequently shows the underwater footages of life under the Ross Sea, together with the tracks of orchestral score and Russian Orthodox Church Choirs (Kasson, 2008). 

Figure 2. (Herzog 2007, 00:50:44)

In particular, the final footage of the film also combines the sounds of seal calls (Figure 2). As an audience, our visual and aural perceptions are layered with images and sounds that are both complementary and contradictory: while the natural images and the seal calls are organic and symbolic of the natural world, the orchestra sounds also parallel organic sounds yet are symbolic of the man-made artificial world. Such connection is coherent with Herzog’s post-humanist approach on exploring mankind as here, Herzog appears to be levelling humans with the environment and the animals. Therefore, by considering Herzog’s intention in this final sequence, the audiences are able to appreciate the overlapping of the human and the natural worlds as an intersection between two distinct subjectivities that allow us to evaluate our human conditions. In fact, the seal calls are explained to “sound like Pink Floyd” (Herzog 2007, 00:31:27) and as acknowledged by Steinbach, the way in which the animal sounds here are compared to sounds produced by human’s art and technology arguably collapses “the distance between our tools and fellow beings” (Steinbach, 2016:9). Thus, by layering our visual and aural perceptions with these cinematic means, it seems apparent that Herzog’s intention to draw a parallel between the nature and the humans is realised through the aesthetic features in Encounters. Such display of Herzog’s intention on the very structure of Encounters shows how the audiences are able to better appreciate what is internal to the work by considering the author’s intentions and thus, overcome the imposition objection upon evaluating a film’s philosophical value. 

Recall, now, that partial intentionalism allows the audiences to determine some of the semantic properties of a film by bringing in external evidences that are coherent with the internal from the film. This may impose limitations on the necessity of the author’s intentions for appreciating what is internal in the film, as long as the audiences are able to bring in coherent external evidences. In support of this counter-argument, Eaton explains that the audiences “represent, experience, and value the world in ways that reflect their particular social situations” (Eaton, 2008:874). Therefore, the audiences may bring in their own situations to a film which may then affect the representation of a film. 

Consider, again, the underwater footage with the overlapping sounds. Jacques Attali suggests that “the noises of a society are in advance of its images and material conflicts. Our music foretells our future” (Steinbach, 2016:10). By relating Attali’s notion on sounds to Encounters, the audiences are able to appreciate the aesthetic mediums of the underwater footage as a representation of a complex future with blended subjectivities. Such appreciation may appear coherent with what Herzog intends to realise in Encounters and thus, may seem to overcome the imposition objection without considering Herzog’s intentions. It is also worth noting that Attali’s excerpt could be used by an audience to advocate for a different understanding of the underwater footage; one that may be more abstract and broader than established by Herzog.

Nevertheless, there are flaws in this counter-argument. Contrary to Attali’s emphasis on the sound’s ability to predict our future, Herzog’s intention places greater emphasis on allowing the audiences to question the identities of mankind with respect to our external surroundings. Therefore, while the audiences may eventually reach a similar conclusion to that of Attali’s, Attali prescribes an outcome whereas Herzog stimulates the audiences to exploit the process of human exploration. The latter arguably encourages more depth in both the understanding of ourselves and the appreciation of a film’s philosophical value; while also overcoming the imposition objection. This also shows how even if the audiences advocate a broader understanding of a film by using relevant external evidences, more cognitive values can be gained for the audiences with authorial intentions. Thus, while partial intentionalism allows the audiences to bring in coherent external evidences when evaluating a film’s philosophical value, this alone is conceivably incomplete without considering the auteur’s intentions per se. Perhaps a compromise argument between partial intentionalism and Wartenberg’s creator-orientated interpretation (where only the auteur’s intended philosophical content can justify a film to be philosophical (Livingston, 2009)) may be advocated for a further investigation of how we can better evaluate a film’s philosophical value. While both arguments coincide in accentuating the auteur’s intentions, they also dispel each other’s own flaws by broadening the range of their applications to the audiences while maintaining focus on the auteur’s intentions. 

To conclude, it is vital to consider the author’s intentions when evaluating a film’s philosophical value, and with the application of partial intentionalism to the analysis of Encounters, this essay has shown the significance of such intentions while also acknowledging the importance of the audiences’ interpretations. By considering the author’s intentions, the audiences are able to receive greater clarity on how to best approach a film and reduce the risks of misinterpretation. The audiences may also better appreciate the cinematic mediums that are internal in the film whilst noting that the direct relationship between the author’s intentions and its application to the structure of the film makes it difficult to neglect the authorial intentions when doing so. As such, a compromise argument between partial intentionalism and creator-orientated interpretation may be advocated to further extend from this essay’s central thesis. Nevertheless, there appears to be a necessity to refer to the author’s intentions to improve the audiences’ interpretations. Through this, we are able to overcome the imposition objection and develop an accurate evaluation of a film’s philosophical value. 

Bibliography

Eaton, A. W. (2008) Feminist Philosophy of Art. Philosophy Compass. 3/5: 873–893

Fredriksson, A. (2018) The Art of Attention in Documentary Film and Werner Herzog. Film-Philosophy 22, (2018): 60-75.  

Herzog, W. (2007) Encounters at the End of the World.  

Kasson, E. G. (2008) Ecstasy on Ice: Werner Herzog's 'Encounters at the End of the World'. [online] Available from: https://www.documentary.org/online-feature/ecstasy-ice-werner-herzogs-encounters-end-world  (Accessed 16 April 2019).

Levinson, J. (2007) Review: Artful Intentions: Paisley Livingston, Art and Intention: A Philosophical Study. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 65 (3): 299-305.  

Livingston, P. (2009) Partial Intentionalism. In: Cinema, Philosophy, Bergman: On Film as Philosophy. Oxford Scholarship Online: 84-121.

Shone, T. (2012) Werner Herzog: fearless odysseys into the abyss. [online] Available from: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmmakersonfilm/9149413/Werner-Herzog-fearless-odysseys-into-the-abyss.html (Accessed 16 April 2019). 

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2015) Philosophy of Film. [online] Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/film/  (Accessed 21 April 2019).

Steinbach, K. (2016) Werner Herzog and the Posthuman in encounters at the end of the world and cave of forgotten dreams. Studies in Documentary Film, 11(1): 16-27.

Steingröver, R. (2012) Encountering Werner Herzog at the End of the World. In: Prager, B. eds. A Companion to Werner Herzog. Blackwell Publishing: 466-484.