Philosophy of Film (Spring 2013) - Second Exam

Philosophy of Film (S13) - Second Exam

Before you begin writing, read this entire document.

Answer four (4) questions. All key terms, theories, and named objections must be explained. You have 3,600 words. (There is a 2,400 word minimum.)

I. Answer one question from 1-4. (Documentary)

1. Evaluate Currie's theory of documentary.

(This question requires evaluation. Explain his theory. Then raise an objection or two.)

2. Evaluate Currie's claim that "photographs seem to have an affective capacity that handmade pictures lack" (p.145).

(This question requires evaluation. You also might want to consider Bazin's similar comments in the ontology essay. What exactly is Currie's claim? Why does he think it? Is it a true generalization?)

3. Evaluate the biopic objection to Carroll's theory of documentary.

(This question requires evaluation. Explain Carroll's theory. Then raise the biopic objection. Does Carroll have a plausible reply?)

*4. Evaluate the "Alien Autopsy" objection to the claim that documentaries are a species of non-fiction.

(This question requires evaluation. You should also consider the fact that we classifying largely accurate historical novels as works of fiction. And we consider history books that contain lots of errors to be non-fiction. So what should we say about putatively documentary films such as "Alien Autopsy"? Are they fiction or non-fiction? Are they documentaries? *This is probably the most interesting and the most difficult question in part I of the exam.)

II. Answer one question from 5-6. (Narrators)

5. Evaluate the Analytic Argument (aka "the a priori argument") for the claim that fictional narrators are ubiquitous in film. The argument has two parts. You should evaluate both. Make sure to evaluate Kania's defense of the the first part of the argument, the argument for the first sub-conclusion that narration entails a narrator.

(This question requires evaluation. Explain the argument. The second part is clearly invalid. Say why. Then explain Kania's defense of the first part. Does his argument work?)

6. Evaluate the indeterminacy defence of the Mediated Version of the Fictional Showing Hypothesis (MV-FSH).

(This question requires evaluation. You should explain what a fictional showing is. You should explain how the mediated version gets around the problems of the Face-To-Face version. Then you should consider the indeterminacy defense against the appropriate objection. You might want to consider if the defense undermines the support for any version of the FSH.)

III. Answer one question from 7-8. (Unreliable Narrators and The Ontological Gap)

7. Evaluate Currie's theory of unreliable narration. Consider the details of the theory. Can his specific account explain what we find in common examples, such as "Fight Club"?

(This question requires evaluation. You should explain Currie's theory and why he thinks that we need not appeal to implicit narrators. Then you should evaluate his theory. The potential problems are in the details.)

8. Evaluate Kania's comment in note #36 that Thackeray cannot be an unreliable narrator since he created the world of the fiction. It is unclear whether Kania means to generalize this to all unreliable narration, or just cases like Vanity Fair. But, for the sake of argument assume that he means to defend the claim that authors cannot be the source of unreliable narration. Is this true? Why or why not?

(This question requires evaluation. You should make a case for the claim. Can Shakspeare be wrong that Hamlet is the prince of Denmark? Could he be wrong that Hamlet is 30 years old in Act V? Why or why not? Then evaluate the claim that no author can be an unreliable narrator.)

IV. Answer one question from 9-10. (The Paradox of Fiction)

9. Evaluate Radford's reply to the Fourth Solution (eg., The objection featuring the mother who reads about a bus accident elsewhere and grabs her children in relief when they return from school). Is crying at movie closer to Radford's other example, that of the man who is saddened by the thought that his sister would have been unhappy had she never had children? If not, why not? If so, is this clearly irrational, as Radford claims?

(This question requires evaluation. Explain Radford's argument. Explain how the Fourth Solution is an objection. Explain Radford's reply and evaluate it. Since Carroll defends what looks like Radford's Fourth Solution, you might want to consider Carroll's argument in your evaluation, but this isn't required.)

10. Evaluate Carroll's defense of the rationality of typical emotional responses to fiction.