I’ve just happened upon a “piece in Guardian on the difficulties of televising philosophy”:http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/artsandhumanities/story/0,12241,1077474,00.html . It is full of interesting anecdotes about the attempts that have been made.
bq. The director took him to Richard Rogers’ Lloyd’s Building in London and filmed him going up and down the escalators while he expatiated about Plato. When I met Rorty recently, I asked why they shot him there. “I have no idea,” he said. “It had nothing to do with what I was talking about so far as I could tell.”
If Rorty warranted a hi-tech setting, something more mundane was appropriate for one of the objects of his admiration:
bq. When there was a film about Derrida recently … there was a good deal of footage of him listening to the radio while he made toast.
Jeffries rightly states that the two best TV treatments of philosophy in recent years have been Bryan Magee’s _The Great Philosophers_ and _Men of Ideas_ . And he’s also right in saying that two men in chairs talking are not going to appeal to network controllers these days. There have been more dramatic treatments that have worked, though. Most notably Derek Jarman’s film about Wittgenstein which featured an improbable dwarf space alien. On the other hand, don’t get me started about Alain de Botton’s appalling _Consolations of Philosophy_ series.
Jeffries comments that
bq. there is often an inverse relationship between the importance of a philosopher’s thought and the life he or she led.
Indeed. Freddie Ayer’s thought was of almost no importance whatsoever, but you could make a great film about him (assuming the stories he told about himself were true). I especially like the one from “Ben Rogers’s biography of him”:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099536811/junius-20 where he persuades Mike Tyson not to force himself on Naomi Campbell
bq. TYSON: Do you know who the F*** I am. I’m the heavyweight champion of the world.
bq. AYER: And I am the former Wykeham Professor of Logic. We are both pre-eminent in our field. I suggest we talk about this like rational men.
{ 24 comments }
David 11.12.03 at 4:43 pm
Did they mention “No Dogs or Philosophers Allowed”, a long running t.v. show dedicated to philosophy?
Here’s a link to their webpage:
http://www.nodogs.org/index.html
duncan 11.12.03 at 5:16 pm
That film about Wittgenstein is terrible! It might entertain some people but it hardly works as philosophy of any kind. I’m amazed you seem to think otherwise.
Chris Bertram 11.12.03 at 5:24 pm
Well, it is a long time since I watched it, so my judgement is probably more than usually fallible … I know it greatly upset a Wittgensteinian true believer of my acquaintance but that is probably a point in its favour.
chuck 11.12.03 at 7:16 pm
It seems to me that TV and philosophy aren’t compatible, in large part because of TV’s status as a visual medium, a status that isn’t well understood (as this entry suggests).
The interesting question to me is the compatibility of TV and philosophy. Deleuze implies that film (obviously not TV, but close enough for this point) and philosophy are incompatible because they (or their practitioners) “think” differently: filmmakers in chunks of time and space and philosophers in concepts. He implies, though, in a few locations that TV, because it is so completely in the present (even if the show is a re-run), cannot think.
I think Deleuze is not entirely right about TV, however. TV wouldn’t think in the same way as film (or philosophy for that matter), and because of his focus on how film “thinks” he’s blind to the possibility for televisual thought. It would be a different kind of thought than film or philosophy (one based on “switching” rather than cinematic montage or philosophical argument, perhaps).
will 11.12.03 at 7:37 pm
Didn’t Terry Eagleton have a hand in the Wittgenstein script?
duncan 11.12.03 at 8:24 pm
I think he wrote it. I’m a bit of a true believer myself, so perhaps that’s the problem. As I remember it though the film made no sense and the script consisted of quotations seemingly chosen at random and some Hawkwindy stuff about quark, strangeness, and/or charm. There was some crude caricature of posh people too I think. Maybe I’m only remembering the bad bits. It ought to be possible to make a good film about Wittgenstein though, and it certainly wouldn’t have to be flattering (embarrassing his friends, hitting kids, etc.).
Judson 11.12.03 at 9:38 pm
Yes. A dramatization of ‘The Duty of Genius’ w/good script and good acting would be interesting.
David 11.12.03 at 9:44 pm
What I want to see is a t.v. version of that “confrontation” between Karl Popper, a poker, and Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Now THAT would be philosophical REALITY TV.
Shai 11.12.03 at 10:07 pm
I’ve watched all of the Magee great philosophers videos; there’s actually two series, one from ~1977, one from ~1987 or 1988. A lot of them are quite good; Peter Singer on Hegel, Putnam on Philosophy of Science, Dworkin on justice, Bernard Williams on Descartes, AJ Ayer on logical positivism, Burnyeat on Plato, JP stern on Nietzsche (maybe not the best interpretation of Nietzsche, but excellent presentation. the language is almost poetic). some of the others, such as Searle on Wittgenstein, Charles Taylor on Marx, the ones on Kant are spotty interpretation, or less comprehensive and organized as they could have been (or not. it’s hard to compress the thought of some thinkers into an hour or so). I converted the good ones to mp3 and listened to them a 10-15 times. But they really are just a very well put together pre-prepared dialogue between Magee and the guest.
The Nietzsche video from BBC is lacking in philosophical content, but it has style, although it is a little too melodramatic in my opinion (listen to some audio samples I made from it, here, but the audio doesnt do the video justice, as it has a lot of visual content)
(I don’t think either of them are available to end users, or they are priced for library use, anyway. I rented mine from the University Audiovisual library)
enthymeme 11.12.03 at 10:14 pm
It seems to me that TV and philosophy aren’t compatible, in large part because of TV’s status as a visual medium . . .
This was precisely the point that Magee addressed in his memoir. Apparently the execs at the BBC did not think that a pair of “talking heads” in Men of Ideas could sustain the interest of a TV viewing audience for an hour. But in fact it did, and they were bowled over by its success.
A recent Guardian article opines:
Right. Why has TV dumbed down? Probably for the same reason that the BBC was initially sceptical about Magee’s talking heads – the reason being the presumption that it would be a ‘waste’ of the medium to have something on air that is visually non-exciting at best, positively unappealing at worst. There’s probably also the suspicion that such programmes may be too high brow for a supposedly undiscerning lay audience.
In my view, these two mistaken notions are the reason why TV more often insults the intelligence than challenges it.
IIRC, Magee believes the former presumption to be wrong. There is, he supposes, a certain fascination with watching talking heads talk: the speakers’ mannerly quirks, the body language, the thrill of the ex tempore style of exchange (even though much of the materiel was prepared beforehand), and so on. This is all the more fascinating, I’d venture, if the participants were intellectuals of some repute.
So I don’t agree that the visual medium is badly cut for this sorta thing. Back home, there used to be a segment after the evening news that featured a panel of journalists and pundits on various issues du jour. I remember watching one particular episode in which some of the panelists were highly critical of the white paper prepared by the (Singapore) Government’s Censorship Review Committee. Among them was a former theatre critic (I can’t remember his name) who was formidably articulate and had me nodding away to much of what he said.
It was refreshing to see something like that on television (Singapore TV is for the most part brainless and boring – choose between the two). Not just because it’s novel; but because the whole concept of televised debate is captivating in itself. And yet, despite having the technology and an arsenal of media that avails us the opportunity to record for posterity the intellectual disputes of the day, none of it is being exploited. What would you have given to see a Socratic dialogue, ‘live’? A Hegel-Schopenhauer debate? Gellner vs Ryle on linguistic philosophy? Or Popper vs Wittgenstein sans poker?
enthymeme 11.12.03 at 10:21 pm
The good sir above would like to have seen the poker confrontation!! Wittgenstein would have been nonplussed at being handled a mock poker. You know, like a prop.
enthymeme 11.12.03 at 10:21 pm
handed
Shai 11.12.03 at 10:32 pm
enthymeme:
right, but i’d add, they have this sort of thing on the radio. (eg NPR’s “the connection” before current events dominated the program, and soon “philosophy talk” in january). In the case of radio there’s always a host, but I’m in favor of a strong host after listening to some egregious programs where the sit in host couldnt control the guests (the worst philosophical one was a discussion about pragmatism on an npr sister station between rorty, putnam, and james conant where they trailed off into ideas no one but themself would find interesting, which is why no one called in)
drapetomaniac 11.12.03 at 10:37 pm
Apparently the execs at the BBC did not think that a pair of “talking heads” in Men of Ideas could sustain the interest of a TV viewing audience for an hour.
It’s such a bizarro view considering the popularity of everything from Crossfire to Oprah. People are riveted by talking heads all the time.
Perhaps the difficulty of ideas would be a deterrent to some but it isn’t because they are verbalized by talking heads, it’s because they’re hard to follow without the proper intellectual background.
Kes 11.12.03 at 11:30 pm
I watched a programme about the mind, presented by John Searle, a few years back. Can’t remember exactly why, but I am left with the feeling that it was extremely bizarre.
Anyway, this is an amusing anecdote from yesterday’s Independent:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=462694
My Greatest Mistake: Mark Lawson, presenter, ‘Front Row’, BBC Radio 4
11 November 2003
Although I have never been any kind of shock jock, my worst moment on live television involved an apparent foul-mouthed outburst. My error was not to have known that the philosopher Immanuel Kant’s surname is habitually pronounced by academics to rhyme with “punt”.
And so it was that, one night on Late Review, I heard Professor Germaine Greer declare, during a discussion of a new book by Roger Scruton: “The problem with Scruton is that he tries to write about cunt but he knows absolutely nothing about cunt.”
Apart from my ignorance of German phonetics, I blame the misunderstanding on the fact that this was a perfectly plausible critique of the limitations of Scruton’s world-view and expressed in terms that Professor Greer would not necessarily consider extreme for television.
Nor was I the only one to be confused. The producer was screaming through my earpiece: “Just apologise!”
The panellist to my right, Tony Parsons, was fighting hysterical laughter, which, once started, as fans of cricket radio commentary know, tends to spread.
I was drafting an apology in my head – “Germaine is known for her robust language, but I’m sorry if anyone found that below the belt…” – when the foul-mouthed Professor suddenly referred to “Cunt’s Critique of Pure Reason”.
I realised what had happened and changed the apology to express a hope that the correct academic pronunciation hadn’t confused anyone. But that remains the closest I’ve come to being unable to complete a link through giggling.
Many years later, listening to a late-night Radio 3 arts programme in the car, I almost had to pull off the M40 when a punctiliously pronouncing philosopher revealed that he had “devoted my whole life to Kant but am always finding new things hidden there”.
kez 11.13.03 at 12:46 am
a modern philosopher claims that the study of human being cannot be adequately expressed on film – i think that says a lot about modern philosophy..
for what it’s worth, i enjoyed Jarman’s Wittgenstein, despite being philosophically and biographically inaccurate..
there was a joke i overheard on tv last night that described how people continue reading the fine print on contracts, despite not understanding a word.. perhaps that is the same as laymen watching philosophy shows..
oh, and for anyone interested, both ‘Men of Ideas’ and ‘The Great Philosophers’ have been transcribed and published by Oxford University Press. they’re a great introduction to philosophy..
PF 11.13.03 at 7:12 am
Terry Eagleton sez:
I shall omit the usual self-regarding narrative of how my screenplay was ripped to shreds by the director. Suffice it to say that at one point my agent instructed me to remove my name from the credits, whereupon the British Film Institute took fright and persuaded me to keep it on.
Quoted here, where Eagleton’s work is called
Overall quite a successful and entertaining script. Certainly worthwhile.
Personally I couldn’t watch more than half an hour of Jarman’s film, but I was a freshman in college, and a friend of mine who knows Wittgenstein far better than I do really enjoyed it. So there you are. Don’t they have a lot of French thinker-types sitting around and talking all the time on French TV? Or have I just picked all the wrong times to watch?
zizka 11.13.03 at 6:05 pm
Decades ago I took a poetry class from a major poet who relied on films a lot because he didn’t believe poetry could be taught. I saw filmed interviews with 5 or 10 poets, every one of whom I now remember as having looked absolutely fatuous. Above all, Ezra Pound.
rea 11.13.03 at 6:24 pm
“every one of whom I now remember as having looked absolutely fatuous. Above all, Ezra Pound.”
But Zizka, of course Ezra Pound WAS fatuous.
Docg 11.13.03 at 7:32 pm
I’m impressed that anyone made a film about Richard Rorty. American philosophers are now so absent from popular culture as to be virtually invisible. A sharp contrast from the days of William James, when people would attend his philosophy lectures *for fun*.
BTW, I think Rorty’s “Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature” ought to be required reading for grad students in any of humanities disciplines.
DocG
nnyhav 11.13.03 at 7:41 pm
“When there was a film about Derrida recently … there was a good deal of footage of him listening to the radio while he made toast.”
Lovely, this. Though there seems some mistranslation of The Burning Bread. Evoked Beyond the Fringe‘s treatment of BRussell on da Beeb (with the throwaway footnote at the end: “… next week’s lecture, ‘Is this a dagger I see before me?”)
nnyhav 11.13.03 at 10:59 pm
Here we are (via JLSperanza):
Miller also has the exchange between Moore and Russell as representatives, respectively of the modernists (Russell) and the neo-traditionalists (Moore), although – like all the Beyond The Fringe Group (the Footlights) it is CAMBRIDGE based rather than Oxford. I will try and transcribe the ‘Apples in the basket’ skit from Angel CD ZDM 0777 7 64771 21. The monologue is titled, “Portrait from Memory”, and is by Miller. The note reads, “The British philosopher Bertrand Russell was reminiscing on television a great deal in those days”.
Presenter: This is the BBC Third Programme. We have in the studio Bertrand Russell, who talks to us in the series, “Sense, Perception, & Nonsense, Number Seven: Is this a *dagger* I see before me?”. Bertrand Russell.
Bertrand Russell: One of the advantages of living in Great Court, Trinity, I seem to recall, was the fact that one could pop across, at any time of the day or night, into trap of the then young G. E. Moore, into a logical falsehood, by means of a cunning semantic subterfuge. I recall one occasion with particular vividness. I had popped across and have knocked upon his door. “Come in,” he said. I decided to wait a while, in order to test the validity of his proposition. “Come in,” he said once again. “Very well,” I replied, “if that is in fact truly what you wish.” I opened the door accordingly, and went it. And there was Moore, seated by the fire, with a basket upon his knees. “Moore,” I said, “Do you have any apples in that basket?”. “No,” he replied, and smiled seraphically, as was his wont. I decided to try a different logical tack. “Moore,” I said, “do you, then, have SOME apples in that basket?”. “No,” he replied, leaving me in a logical cleft stick from which I had but one way out. “Moore,” I said, “do you, then, have APPLES in that basket?”. “Yes,” he replied. And, from that day forth, we remained the very closest of friends. (c) Jonathan Miller.
enthymeme 11.14.03 at 1:41 am
Shai,
right, but i’d add, they have this sort of thing on the radio.
Yeah, Magee set the standard for radio philosophy back in the day.
John Holbo and Chris Bertram in his previous incarnation have blogged about a shitty Radio Singapore International attempt at radio philosophy. If you read the transcripts, it just isn’t really well done. It’s too short, the host is terrible – he just acts as a signpost and doesn’t do anything to engage or explicate or simplify whatever is being said. The interviewee pretty much ends up delivering a monologue-ish lecture, and that’s just boring. The whole point is not to make it just a lecture but something more resembling an exchange or a dialogue.
I’m in favor of a strong host after listening to some egregious programs where the sit in host couldnt control the guests . . .
. . . or effectively act as mediator and interlocutor.
Drapetomaniac,
It’s such a bizarro view considering the popularity of everything from Crossfire to Oprah. People are riveted by talking heads all the time.
Perhaps the difficulty of ideas would be a deterrent to some but it isn’t because they are verbalized by talking heads, it’s because they’re hard to follow without the proper intellectual background.
Yep. But the way I see it, adding nice visuals and MTV-izing Rorty is just silly. It isn’t going to make the content of what Rorty says any more interesting. If a person wasn’t interested in the first place, the visuals are not likely to keep him glued to the screen while Rorty is insidiously injected into his system. Of course, there’s a difference between tastefully done visuals that relate to Rorty and/or his philosophy and crass affectations to hipness (nice escalators, duh).
Kenneth 11.20.03 at 5:25 am
Don’t know if this will ever be seen. I just came across this today — a few days late.
Anyway, “Philosophy Talk” John Perry’s and my new show is now officially a go for January. We’ll be on Tuesdays at noon, starting January 6th. Right now we only have enough money for six months, but we’re still in fund raising mode.
I hope we can do real philosophy in a way that’s entertaining, accessible but still has some depth.
We’ll see. It’s a grand experiment and we’re going to give it a helluva try.
Comments on this entry are closed.