Sunday, November 5, 2017

Role of Technology in Education

Education today, therefore, has a far greater responsibility than it had ever before. It has to meet the demands of a dynamic world which change its character every day. Contemporary education has to be more comprehensive and complete than it was ever before. The role of the various agencies of education like home, society, community etc. has consequently increased, so has the role of the mass media like television, radio, cinema, newspaper increased. 

Today, throughout the world, social and technological changes are taking place rapidly due to expanding world of information. So there is explosion of knowledge and opening day by day and the horizon of human knowledge and understanding is expanding very fast.
With the explosion of knowledge there is also population explosion; student population is immensely increasing year by year due to the growth of population and democratization of education with varying levels of motivation and aspiration. The problem of population explosion is more serious in the developing countries than the developed one. Ethiopia is facing serious difficulties in population explosion not in technology.
For solving the problems successfully, educational technology consisting of various media of mass communication is essentially required. Both qualitative improvement and quantitative expansion of education can be facilitated and accelerated with the help of this mass media under educational technology. So the mass media has come to our rescue to tackle this problem.
The success of education will be able to play its role by making the students creative, active and efficient. There are a good number of technologies for mass communication such as radio, Television (plasma TV), newspapers, films, computers, tablet computers, internet, mobiles, and etc.
This medium is the message, which is of greater importance. Because, the same piece of information when conveyed on a printed page or over the telephone by radio or television will appear different and have entirely a different effect on us. Hence the effectiveness of a piece of information depends upon the medium through which it is imparted. Thus, the mass-media are not only the messages, but also the massage.
The main purpose of Technology in education is to benefit more students with fewer teachers or to obtain quality education.
Importance of Technology in maintaining quality of education:
1. Technological education has provided information to the mass within a less time.
2. It takes a wide coverage of information regarding anything that is happening in any comer of the world.
3. It brings the entire world to the individual or to the classroom. Children spend hours together sitting in front of the television and can visualize, hear and acquire knowledge about the world.
4. These media easily reach groups, allow repeated use, give more reality, influence attitudes, show cause and effect relationships and ultimately motivate the audience.
5. It sends information to remote places and helps in distant learning.
6. It helps in modification of attitudes, inculcation of desirable values and acquaintance with cultural heritage.
7. Technological education are useful for reinforcing group dynamics and interpersonal communication.
8. Mass media as means of communication make ideas clear to children and help them to acquire correct knowledge. They help in simplifying and in giving vividness to explanation.
9. Mass Media make the instruction concrete and stimulate interest and excite curiosity in things.
The role of some important mass media is discussed below:
A) Radio:
Radio is a scientific device that functions as an effective auditory instrument for communication that plays an important role in education not only to informs, but also to inspire human being for learning more and more. It is also a very important source of entertainment. Every day, we listen various talks, discussions and debates from radio. These are extremely important and useful for the students. Especially for the purpose of teaching, many programmes are broadcast over the radio. So radio acts as a great recreational and education force. It broadcasts scientific and cultural facts. The radio has proved a valuable supplement to class teaching and learning Educational broad-casting is comparatively a new experiment and is catching on well. Through school broadcasts, expert leaching in such diverse fields of science, social studies, art, music, languages, politics, current affairs and other areas, can provide information and enrichment for pupils and for the teacher.
The educational programmes are broadcasting by the expect teachers with effective methods which demonstrate new ideas and approaches to classroom procedures. Programmes are especially designed in-collaboration with the experts for different age groups in the schools.


The advantages of using radio as mass media in education:

1. Educational radio broadcasts provide “listening participation” In current history:
In radio the emphasis is on sound, rather than on picture. So many programmes especially for the purpose of teaching are broadcast over the radio and special events and (occurrences in the world are brought from the source immediately into the classroom.
As a part of classroom teaching, an educational programme may be preceded by an introduction by the class teacher and followed by long discussion among students on the subject-matter under the broadcast discussion. A talented teacher may teach through radio for the benefit of the students. So important happenings, elections, inventions, political developments in other countries and other current topics may be heard and discussed in the classroom.
2. Educational radio broadcasts are effective means of presenting music, drama and appreciation:
Radio is also a very important source of entertainment. Various talks, debates & discussions held over the radio are extremely informative and useful. For the school children, different items of the school subjects can be presented in the form of dramatized programmes.
Educational radio has excellence through dramatization, dialogue, musical features and other creative programmes which are not possible in day-to-day classroom teaching. Besides these, school concerts, folk and classical music, drama and discussion programmes of school, local and from other states are sometimes broadcast for listening in by other schools in India.
3. Educational radio broadcasts are team-teaching demonstrations:
The radio also provides opportunity for student participation in various programmes such as quiz competitions, travel talks, plays, stories, development of lessons, projects and work programmes in the form of team teaching demonstrations. This is being arranged by the combined efforts of the best resources in consultation with the specialists and some other subject experts. Subject content, curriculum validity, suitability for age groups and teaching methods are all kept in mind while accomplishing the programme.
4. Educational radio broadcasts enlist the participation of local teachers and pupils:
Well-planned radio broadcasts are presented in such a way as to engage the active participation of the local teachers and pupils. So there should be preliminary study and discussion on the topic before broadcast time. The class may be encouraged through broadcast suggestions to carry on follow-up discussion, projects or creative activities.
The teachers and the pupils both should prepare material thoroughly before presenting the programme. They should utilise all resources possible to make the programme of a very high quality and worth-listening into from the point of view of content, speech, style, audibility and present ability.
5. Educational radio broadcast helps in the long run, to make learning an open system:
Educational radio can offer corrective programmes for self-learning by the individuals. It can reach the participants while at work, at play, at drawing room, at recreational centres breaking all boundaries and constraints of formal education. Being an expensive medium, it has reached villages and is now available in very comer of the society.
 There are also special programmes for teachers and teacher-education in most of the stations. These are intended to familiarize methods of teaching. This service has been more necessitated in recent years on account of large changes in school curriculum and methodology particularly in subjects like science, mathematics, social studies and English.

B) Television/plasma
Television is an audio-visual and sophisticated scientific device. It telecasts programs from far and wide areas of the country and abroad. It has an important role to play for entertainment and education of people all over the world. Today, television has become an extremely popular source of entertainment among youngsters. We listen and see the instruction of the speaker from the television. So the whole personality of the child is engaged in the task. Hence, it has become the most important and powerful agency of mass communication. In television, news items are not only read out but the events are shown.
Educational television is the most recent audio-visual media for class instruction. There are programmes on the television especially for the school children. These programmes are aimed at educating the school children and they instill good moral values. Television can give a very good idea of the history of the country through dances, short-films on historical places, museums etc. Thus television plays a vital role as a means of mass media in educating the masses.
Role of television is neither fixed nor easily tangible and measurable. The role is directly related to the question of how the planners are serious and determined to use television.  The role could either be enormous or, on the contrary very meager depending upon the specific tasks and available resources.  Generally television can help to achieve the following objectives:
Ø  Social quality in education
Ø  Enhance quality in education
Ø   Reduce dependency on verbal teaching and teachers
Ø   Provide flexibility of time and space in learning.
Ø   Stimulates learning
Ø  Provide mass education opportunities.
Advantages of Educational Television:
The advantages of educational television are many. The young people watching the television can get a very good idea of how it really happened. For example the nuclear explosions of the launching of rockets are programmes of extreme educational value.
The students can see for themselves how science has advanced:
(1) Educational television is capable of making available many needed and so far inaccessible learning experiences.
(2) Educational television brings about continuing co-operative planning by teachers, supervisors, learning materials exports and skilful production teams.
(3) Good and effective educational television broadcasts result from the outgrowth of curriculum planning, of content analysis and of the selection of this most appropriate instructional media
(4) It can use a variety of audio-visual aids, motion pictures, film-strips, slides, recordings, drawings, maps and other projected and non-projected aids can be demonstrated through Television. Video-tapes and recordings on television bring us the launching of space rockets, of political and social events.
(5) Educational television brings us a new kind of teaching team into existence.
(6) It can acquaint the children with past culture,history and social life.
(7) It can motivate both children and adults,because not only it is educative but also entertaining.
(8) The televised-lectures are more thrilling as they bring to the listeners not only verbal information and the instruction of the speaker but also the whole of his personality engaged in the task.
(9) National problems like those of population and poverty and illiteracy are often highlighted and discussed over the television.
(10) It plays an important role to play in educating the children on the history and culture of our country. It gives a very good idea of the history of the country by telecasting various programmes through dances, short films on historical places, museums etc.
(c) The Press/soft and hard copy
The Press covers the entire printed matter. These printed matters are books, magazines, journals or newspapers. Reading matter has vast potentialities. It exerts good influence on the individuals. It acts on the intelligence and emotions of the individuals in shaping out attitudes and philosophies of life.
An educated individual one who has an open mind, a general awareness and knowledge of the world around him. His field of knowledge is vast and varied.
The press is an important service that can render to education by imparting knowledge of current affairs to children. The child must be aware of what is happening in the world.
The pupil’s limited knowledge of history may be elaborated and enhanced by this press. So the press is to serve as one of the important medium of education and instruction.
(d) The motion Pictures:
The motion pictures exercise a great influence on human mind very skilfully. They help to create lasting values in the pupils. There is also wider use of films in education. Educational films are coming into the field to meet the challenge of commercial pictures, to supplement them and to explore new avenues of educating children and adults. These films can give more reality, influence attitudes, show cause and effect relation and motivate the students., Thus these motion pictures have great instructional force which can be used intelligently in the class­room.
There are many areas of learning which can be properly dealt with the help of films. For example, in teaching of geography or science, we can use these motion-pictures. Rivers of Ethiopia, climate of Ethiopia etc. can also be taught effectively with the help of the motion pictures.
Advantages of Motion Pictures:
1. The educational films make the concept more clear, durable and realistic.
2. Motion pictures arouse interest in children and satisfy their emotions.
3. They can present abstract and abstruse problems of life and nature in concrete reality illuminate the hidden meanings of events and mysteries of nature, reconstruct history in a short mirror of life.
4. Motion pictures bring the past, the distant to the class room. It can bring the whole world to the classroom.
5. Events which occur over-days can be made to appear in seconds. So Motion pictures can also be replayed many number of times when and where required.
6. Motion pictures can best be used for demonstration of skills and experiments.
7. Motion pictures can serve the purpose better, if they are made for specific age and ability groups, if they can be fitted into the school syllabus, if the commentary is simple and straight forward.
8. Motion pictures can be of great service in teaching the backward children, because they do act on the imagination of children.
Principles of using Mass Media/technology
The teacher should make all necessary arrangements for using the mass media/technology very effectively. He/She should select the mass media according to the age level of the students.
1. Organisation: Mass media should be organised as integral part of the educational programmes. They should not be separated from other curricular activities.
2. Selection: Mass media should be properly selected and coordinated by the teacher. An experienced and trained teacher can select the mass media according to the needs of the students.
3. Planning: Mass media should be available according to the need of the instructional programme. The teachers should possess skill in the use of mass media. They should have special training in their preparation. So they should be properly planned.
4. Experience: Mass media should be related to pupil’s experience.
5. Preparation: There should be adequate preparation on the part of pupils. The teacher should prepare himself before using it. He should know what the mass media teach and where they fit into his plan of teaching. Adequate preparation should be followed by proper presentation and an adequate follow-up.
6. Evaluation:
Mass media should be evaluated at regular intervals in regards to their use, effect on learning and their functions.

E. Role of computers in enhancing Education


Computers have changed the way we work, be it any profession. Therefore, it is only natural that the role of computers in education has been given a lot of importance in recent years. Computers play a vital role in every field. They aid industrial processes, they find application in medicine; they are the reason why software industries developed and flourished and they play an important role in education. This is also why the education system has made computer education a part of school curriculum. Considering the use of computer technology is almost every sphere of life, it is important for everyone to have at least the basic knowledge of using computers. Let's look at what role computer technology plays in the education sector.
Computers in Education
Computer technology has had a deep impact on the education sector. Thanks to computers, imparting education has become easier and much more interesting than before. Owing to memory capacities of computers, large chunks of data can be stored in them. They enable quick processing of data with very less or no chances of errors in processing. Networked computers aid quick communication and enable web access. Storing documents on computers in the form of soft copies instead of hard ones, helps save paper.
The advantages of computers in education primarily include:
Ø  Storage of information
Ø  Quick data processing
Ø  Audio-visual aids in teaching
Ø  Better presentation of information
Ø  Access to the Internet
Ø  Quick communication between students, teachers and parents
Computer teaching plays a key role in the modern education system. Students find it easier to refer to the Internet than searching for information in fat books. The process of learning has gone beyond learning from prescribed textbooks. Internet is a much larger and easier-to-access storehouse of information. When it comes to storing retrieved information, it is easier done on computers than maintaining hand-written notes.
The Importance of computers in education
1. Computers are a brilliant aid in teaching.
Online education has revolutionized the education industry. Computer technology has made the dream of distance learning, a reality. Education is no longer limited to classrooms. It has reached far and wide, thanks to computers. Physically distant locations have come closer due to Internet accessibility. So, even if students and teachers are not in the same premises, they can very well communicate with one another. There are many online educational courses, whereby students are not required to attend classes or be physically present for lectures. They can learn from the comfort of their homes and adjust timings as per their convenience.
2. Computers have given impetus to distance education.
Computers facilitate effective presentation of information. Presentation software like PowerPoint and animation software like Flash among others can be of great help to teachers while delivering lectures. Computers facilitate audio-visual representation of information, thus making the process of learning interactive and interesting. Computer-aided teaching adds a fun element to education. Teachers hardly use chalk and board today. They bring presentations on a flash drive, plug it into a computer in the classroom, and the teaching begins. There's color, there's sound, there's movement - the same old information comes forth in a different way and learning becomes fun. The otherwise not-so-interesting lessons become interesting due to audio-visual effects. Due to the visual aid, difficult subjects can be explained in better ways.
3. Computer software helps better presentation of information.
Internet can play an important role in education. As it is an enormous information base, it can be harnessed for retrieval of information on a variety of subjects. The Internet can be used to refer to information on different subjects. Both teachers and students benefit from the Internet. Teachers can refer to it for additional information and references on the topics to be taught. Students can refer to web sources for additional information on subjects of their interest. The Internet helps teachers set test papers, frame questions for home assignments and decide project topics. And not just academics, teachers can use web sources for ideas on sports competitions, extracurricular activities, picnics, parties and more.
4. Computers enable access to the Internet which has information on literally everything.
Computers enable storage of data in the electronic format, thereby saving paper. Memory capacities of computer storage devices are in gigabytes. This enables them to store huge chunks of data. Moreover, these devices are compact. They occupy very less space, yet store large amounts of data. Both teachers and students benefit from the use of computer technology. Presentations, notes and test papers can be stored and transferred easily over computer storage devices. Similarly, students can submit homework and assignments as soft copies. The process becomes paperless, thus saving paper. Plus, the electronic format makes data storage more durable. Electronically erasable memory devices can be used repeatedly. They offer robust storage of data and reliable data retrieval.
5. Computer, hard drives and storage devices are an excellent way to store data.
This was about the role of computers in education. But we know, it's not just the education sector which computers have impacted. They are of great use in every field. Today, a life without computers is unimaginable. This underlines the importance of computer education. Knowledge of computers can propel one's career in the right direction. Computers are a part of almost every industry today. They are no longer limited any specific field. They are used in networking, for information access and data storage and also in the processing and presentation of information. Computers should be introduced early in education. I don't think I am making an overstatement in saying that computer education is as fundamental as learning English. Yes, it is

F.THE ROLE OF ICT IN EDUCATION SECTOR


 The role of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), especially internet in the education sector plays an important role, especially in the process of empowering the technology into the educational activities. Education sector can be the most effective sector to anticipate and eliminate the negative impact of ICT. Technology (internet) in another side can be the most effective way to increase the student’s knowledge.
Being aware of the significant role of ICT (internet) in our life, especially in the educational activities, education authorities should be wise enough in implementing the strategies to empower ICT in supporting the teaching and learning process in the classroom. ICT is not just the bloom of the educational activities, but also it will be the secondary option to improve the effective and meaningful educational process.
The main purpose of the Strategy for Information and Communication Technology Implementation in Education is to provide the prospects and trends of integrating information and communication technology (ICT) into the general educational activities.
There are some unavoidable facts in the modern education; first, the ICT has been developing very rapidly nowadays. Therefore, in order to balance it, the whole educational system should be reformed and ICT should be integrated into educational activities.
Second, the influence of ICT, especially internet (open source tool) cannot be ignored in our student’s lives. So, the learning activities should be reoriented and reformulated, from the manual source centered to the open source ones. In this case the widely use of internet access has been an unavoidable policy that should be anticipated by schools authorities.
 A lot of Weblog providers are free to the users, such as Word Press. In their blogs, the students can create and write something, like an article, poem, news, short stories, features, or they can also express their opinion by an online forum provided in the internet. They are able to share experiences throughout their blogs to others from all over the world. I think it will be an interesting activity for them, and it will lessen their time to visit the negative or porn sites existed.
The followings are the aim and objectives of ICT implementation in education:
Ø  To implement the principle of life-long learning / education.
Ø   To increase a variety of educational services and medium / method.
Ø  To promote equal opportunities to obtain education and information.
Ø  To develop a system of collecting and disseminating educational information.
Ø  To promote technology literacy of all citizens, especially for students.
Ø  To develop distance education with national contents.
Ø   To promote the culture of learning at school (development of learning skills, expansion of optional education, open source of education, etc.)
Ø  To support schools in sharing experience and information with others.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Rules for Writing Short Films


A short film script can be a great calling card for a writer.

1. The Shorter the Better
A short film can be anything from fifteen seconds to forty five minutes in length. Make your short film script as short as possible because the shorter the short, the less costly it will be to produce. Of course, digital technology frees up filmmakers, yet time still costs money, so does feeding a hungry crew, and if you shoot too fast your short film might end up looking amateurish. It has to be cheap but shouldn’t LOOK cheap! Plus, if you want to get your short into a festival, then keep it to no more than ten minutes, which is usually 7-8 pages maximum. Why? Because if your short film is longer, it will eat up a longer slot and festivals love to play as many shorts as possible! You can also create real emotion in just a few minutes.

2. Keep the Practicalities of Writing in Mind
The great thing about shorts is that they can be anything since you don!’ have studio execs on your tail. However, don’t discard the practicalities of writing your script. I have read scripts with pages of chase-action scenes and car crashes, and many writers seem not to realize how time consuming it would be to actually shoot. In fact, see the writing of a short as an opportunity to become more aware of what each line you put down on paper implies and costs.

3. Make It Visual
“Film is a visual medium”. “Show, don’t tell.”
Those are the golden rules of screenwriting the gurus keep telling us. Yet it’s astonishing to see how talky most scripts are. Film is about telling stories in pictures, which is the most economical way of telling a story and when you make a short film, economy is everything. Create visual backstories for your characters. Externalize through visual images their temperament, their profession, their status, etc.

4. Find Single Moments
The best short films are often a single moment that is played out, but one that has a story at its heart. What do I mean by story? I mean a conflict that has to be resolved, where there’s a dilemma at stake and a choice that the protagonist has to make. Strive to add a deadline, or ticking clock. It is not necessary but it will add some tension to your short film.

5. Tell a Story
You should always try to tell a compelling story. Beware of ideas that are concept-driven or just aim at breaking all the rules for the sake of breaking rules. Short films are a great opportunity to push the boundaries of what cinematic storytelling can do, yet they must still engage your audience emotionally.
As a rule of thumb, unless it is extremely brief a short film should have a hero with a goal and an obstacle/antagonist in the way.

6. Engage the Reader
Since you have so little time to make an impression the impact of page one is crucial, just as it is crucial to hook the reader in the first 10 pages of a feature length script. What is the world of the film? Do we root for the main character? Does the world and story of the film feel authentic? The ending is also essential as it’s rare to truly feel moved at the end of a short, so work towards a meaningful, satisfying ending.

7. Beware of Cliches
There are many clichés in short films, and much navel gazing. Avoid stereotypes unless you have a fresh slant on them. That’s what The Descendent does. Write what you’re familiar with and what resonates with you rather than writing something you borrowed from other films.

Screenplay Plot In Five Steps


Here are five steps that will help you work out your plot:

1: Write a two-sentence summary of the story.
The first sentence should include the protagonist and the conflict .Normally this is the extent of a log-line. For this purpose I suggest adding a sentence that gives more information about the conflict and reveals the outcome.
2: Brainstorm about all the key elements of your summary.
You can put your thoughts into a mind map or onto index cards.
• What ideas come up about your protagonist? What is his background? What is his life like now?
• What’s the nature of the opposition the gang? What makes him or her tick?
• What are some possible escalations of the conflict?

3. Winnow.
Go through all the raw ideas you came up with in step two and cross out or put aside the ones that won’t work or are too familiar.
4: Use the remaining elements to construct a rough outline.
It may be useful to employ a simple three-act structure: beginning, middle, end.

5: Start writing when you’re happy with the outline.
Writers like to go from a very rough outline to starting to write the script. Others prefer to refine the outline until they have all the building blocks in place.
start writing with only a very rough outline, until get about a quarter of the way through the script and then stop to outline the rest of the story in greater detail.
Experiment with what works best for you, and use this method of breaking down the process into small steps to help you keep going.

Thursday, September 7, 2017

Philosophy of Film

First published Wed Aug 18, 2004; substantive revision Thu Jul 30, 2015
The philosophy of film is now a firmly established subfield of contemporary philosophy of art. Although philosophers were among the first academics to publish studies of the new artform in the early decades of the twentieth century, the field did not experience significant growth until the 1980's when a renaissance occurred. There are many reasons for the field's recent growth. Suffice it to say here that changes in both academic philosophy and the cultural role of the movies in general made it imperative for philosophers to take film seriously as an artform on a par with the more traditional ones like theater, dance, and painting. As a result of this surge in interest in film as a subject for philosophical reflection, the philosophy of film has become an important area of research in aesthetics.
This entry is organized around a number of issues that are central to the philosophy of film. They explore different aspect of film as an artistic medium, illustrating the range of concerns addressed within the philosophy of film.

1. The Idea of a Philosophy of Film

There are two features of the philosophy of film that need to be discussed before delving into more specific issues. The first is that film scholars who are not professional philosophers have made many contributions to the field. (See, for example, Chatman (1990) and Smith (1995).) This differentiates this area from many other philosophical disciplines. While physicists often write about the philosophy of science, the academic discipline of the philosophy of physics is dominated by professional philosophers. Not so in the philosophy of film. As a result, my use of the term “philosopher of film” will be broad, intended to include all of those interested in theoretical issues about the cinema.
The second peculiarity is that within film studies—itself an institutionalized area of academic study—there is a sub-field of film theory that has significant overlap with the philosophy of film even though the majority of its practitioners operate on significantly different philosophical assumptions than Anglo-American philosophers of film. In the balance of this entry, I shall include both of these areas under the rubric of the philosophy of film, although my primary emphasis is on the contributions of Anglo-American theorists and I will occasionally distinguish this field from film theory as practiced within the area of film studies. One of the characteristics of philosophy as a discipline is its questioning of its own nature and basis. The philosophy of film shares this characteristic with the field in general. Indeed, a first issue that the philosophy of film must address is the grounds for its own existence. This involves not only the question of what the field should look like, but also that of whether it has any reason to exist at all.
Is there any need for a separate philosophic discipline devoted to film in addition to more empirical studies of film undertaken under the aegis of film studies itself? Although this question has not always received the attention it deserves from philosophers, it is actually a pressing one, for it asks philosophers to justify their newly found interest in film as more than an opportunistic incorporation of a highly popular form of popular culture into their domain.
In one sense, however, philosophers need not justify their interest in film, for philosophical aesthetics has always had a concern not just with art in general but with specific art forms. Beginning with Aristotle's Poetics—a work devoted to explaining the nature of Greek tragedy—philosophers have sought to explain the specific characteristics of each significant art form of their culture. From this point of view, there is no more reason to question the existence of a philosophy of film than there is that of a philosophy of music or a philosophy of painting, two fields that are well accepted as components of aesthetics. Since film is a significant artform in our contemporary world, philosophy might even be judged to have a responsibility to investigate its nature.
Still, there are some reasons why it might seem problematic for there to be a separate academic field of the philosophy of film. Because the study of film is already institutionalized within academia in the discipline of film studies, and because that field includes a separate sub-field of film theory, it might seem that, unlike literature and music, say, film is already well-served by this institutional base. From this point of view, the philosophy of film is redundant, occupying a space that has already been carved out by an alternative discipline.
The problem is that the sub-field of film theory within film studies has been dominated by a range of theoretical commitments that many Anglo-American philosophers do not share. Many such philosophers have therefore felt a need not just to make minor revisions in the field and its understanding of film but rather to make a new beginning in the study of film that does not share the problematic assumptions of film theory itself. For this reason, as well as the earlier-cited view of film as a legitimate topic within aesthetics, they have felt it important to develop a philosophically informed mode of thinking about film.
But once the philosophy of film is granted autonomy as a separate sub-field of aesthetics, the question arises as to its form. That is, philosophers are concerned with the issue of how the philosophy of film should be constituted as a field of study. What role is there for film interpretation in the field? How do studies of particular films relate to more theoretical studies of the medium as such? And what about philosophy in film, a popular mode of philosophic thinking about film? Is there a unified model that can be employed to characterize this newly vitalized domain of philosophic inquiry?
An increasingly popular way of thinking about the philosophy of film is to model it on scientific theorizing. Although there is disagreement on the precise details of such a proposal, its adherents urge that the study of film be treated as a scientific discipline with an appropriate relationship between theory and evidence. For some, this means having an empirical body of film interpretations that gives rise to wider theoretical generalizations. For others, it means developing a set of small scale theories that attempt to explain different aspect of films and our experience of them. The emphasis here is on developing models or theories of various features of films.
This idea of modeling the discipline of the philosophy of film on the natural sciences has been prominent among cognitive film theorists (Bordwell and Carroll 1996; Currie 1995). This rapidly developing approach emphasizes viewers' conscious processing of films, as opposed to the emphasis within traditional film theory on unconscious processes. In general, these theorists lean towards seeing the study of film as a scientific undertaking.
The idea that the philosophy of film should model itself upon a scientific model has been contested from a variety of points of view. Some philosophers, relying on the writings of pragmatists like William James, have questioned the idea that natural science provides a useful way to think about what philosophers are doing in their reflections on film. Here, there is an emphasis on the particularity of films as works of art in contrast the to the urge to move to a general theory of film. Others, making use of later Wittgenstein as well as the tradition of hermeneutics, also question such a natural scientific orientation for philosophic reflections on film. This camp sees the study of film as a humanistic discipline that is misunderstood when it is assimilated to a natural science.
The debates about what the philosophy of film should look like are really just being joined. This is because it is only recently that a scientific conception of the philosophy of film has emerged as a competitor. But despite the increasing popularity of a cognitive approach to film, there are fundamental issues about the structure of the philosophy of film that remain to be settled.
One fundamental issue is what mediums are to be included under the term "film." Although "film" initially referred to the celluloid stock on which movies were recorded, restricting the term to just celluloid-based works would be unduly restrictive. After all, many of the films we watch today are either recorded digitally or projected digitally or both. Such works are clearly part of the same art form as celluloid-based films, so the referent of the term "film" has to be taken to include works made on both mediums.
And then is television. Although many film scholars and philosophers of film has a disparaging view of television, the emergence of such shows as The Sopranos and The Wire established television as a medium for making valuable works of art. As a result, it makes sense to include such shows under the rubric of films.
This stretching of the concept "film" to include both non-celluloid movies and television and other related mediums has led some philosophers of film to suggest replacing the term "film" with a broader category, such as moving picture or moving image. So far, such suggestions have not yet changed the way in which the field is designated, so I retain the term "philosophy of film" throughout this entry.

2. The Nature of Film

The question that dominated early philosophical inquiry into film was whether the cinema—a term that emphasizes the institutional structure within which films were produced, distributed, and viewed—could be regarded as an artform. There were two reasons why cinema did not seem worthy of the honorific designation of an art. The first was that early contexts for the exhibition of films included such venues as the vaudeville peep show and the circus side show. As a popular cultural form, film seemed to have a vulgarity that made it an unsuitable companion to theater, painting, opera, and the other fine arts. A second problem was that film seemed to borrow too much from other art forms. To many, early films seemed little more than recordings of either theatrical performances or everyday life. The rationale for the former was that they could be disseminated to a wider audience than that which could see a live performance. But film then only seems to be a means of access to art and not an independent art form on its own. The latter, on the other hand, seemed too direct a reproduction of life to qualify as art, for there seemed little mediation by any guiding consciousness.
In order to justify the claim that film deserves to be considered an independent art form, philosophers investigated the ontological structure of film. The hope was to develop a conception of film that made it clear that it differed in significant ways from the other fine arts. For this reason, the question of film's nature was a crucial one for theorists of film during what we might call the classic period.
Hugo Münsterberg, the first philosopher to write a monograph about the new art form, sought to distinguish film by means of the technical devices that it employed in presenting its narratives (Münsterberg 1916). Flashbacks, close-ups, and edits are some examples of the technical means that filmmakers employ to present their narratives that theater lacks. For Münsterberg, the use of these devices distinguished film from the theater as an artform.
Münsterberg went on to ask how viewers are able to understand the role that these technical devices play in the articulation of cinematic narratives. His answer is that these devices are all objectifications of mental processes. A close-up, for example, presents in visual form a correlate to the mental act of paying attention to something. Viewers naturally understand how such cinematic devices function because they are familiar with the workings of their own minds and can recognize these objectified mental functions when they see them. Although this aspect of Münsterberg's theory links him to contemporary cognitive philosophers of film, he does not explain how viewers know that what they are looking at are objectified mental functions.
Münsterberg was writing during the silent era. The development of the simultaneous sound track—the “talkie”—changed film forever. It is not surprising that this important innovation spawned interesting theoretical reflections.
The well-known psychologist of art, Rudolph Arnheim, made the surprising claim that the talkie represented a decline from the highpoint of silent cinema. (Arnheim 1957) Relying on the idea that, in order to be a unique artform, film had to be true to its own specific medium, Arnheim denigrates the sound film as a mixture of two distinct artistic media that do not constitute a satisfying whole.
For Arnheim, the silent film had achieved artistic status by focusing on its ability to present moving bodies. Indeed, for him, the artistic aspect of cinema consisted in its ability to present abstractions, an ability completely lost when films began to employ simultaneous soundtracks. Writing near the dawn of the talkie, Arnheim could only see what we now recognize as a natural development of the artform as a decline from a previously attained height.
André Bazin, though not a professional philosopher or even an academic, countered Arnheim's assessment in a series of articles that still exert an important influence on the field. (Bazin 1967; 1971) For Bazin, the important dichotomy is not that between the sound and the silent film but rather between films that focus on the image and those that emphasize reality. Although editing had emerged for many such as Sergei Eisenstein as the distinctive aspect of film, Bazin returns to the silent era to demonstrate the presence of an alternative means of achieving film art, namely an interest in allowing the camera to reveal the actual nature of the world. Relying on a conception of film as having a realist character because of its basis in photography, Bazin argues that the future of cinema as an artform depends on its development of this capacity to present the world to us “frozen in time.”
In making his argument, Bazin valorizes the film style he dubs realism, characterized by extended shots and deep focus. Jean Renoir, Orson Welles, and the Italian neo-Realists are the filmmakers whom Bazin sees as culminating this imagist tradition of filmmaking that has realized the true potential of the medium.
In his pathbreaking study of what he called “classical film theory,” Noël Carroll (1988) argued that there were many illicit presuppositions at play in the classical theorists' attempts to define film's nature. In particular, he accused them of confusing particular styles of filmmaking with more abstract claims about the nature of the medium itself. His accusations seemed to spell the end of such attempts to justify film styles by their grounding in the medium's nature.
Recently, however, Bazin's claim about film's realism has received new life, albeit without the extravagances of Bazin's own writing. Kendall Walton, in an extremely influential paper (1984), argued that film, because of its basis in photography, was a realistic medium that allowed viewers to actually see the objects that appear on screen. The transparency thesis has been the subject of a great deal of debate among philosophers and aestheticians. Gregory Currie, for example, rejects the transparency thesis while still defending a form of realism. He argues that film's realism is the result of the fact that objects depicted on screen trigger the same recognitional capacities that are used to identify real objects.
The discussion of the realist character of film continues to be a topic of heated debate among philosophers of film. Most recently, the emergence of digital technologies for fashioning the image raise very basic questions about the plausibility of this view.

3. Film and Authorship

Films are the product of many individuals working together. This is apparent when one watches the credits at the end of any recent Hollywood film and sees the myriad names that come scrolling by. To coin a phrase, it takes a village to make a movie.
It might therefore seem surprising that there is a significant tendency among film scholars to treat films as the product of a single individual, its auteur or author. On this line of interpretation, the director of the film is the creative intelligence who shapes the entire film in a manner parallel to how we think of, say, literary works being authored.
The idea of the director as auteur was first suggested by Francois Truffaut—later to become one of the central directors in the French New Wave. Truffaut used the term polemically to denigrate the then dominant mode of filmmaking that emphasized the adaptation of great works of literature to the screen. In the attempt to valorize a different style of filmmaking, Truffaut argued that the only films that deserved to be designated art were those in which the director had complete control over its production by writing the screenplay as well as actually directing the actors. Only films made in this way deserved to be given the status of works of art.
The well-known American film scholar and reviewer, Andrew Sarris, adopted Truffaut's theory in order to legitimate film studies as an academic discipline. For Sarris, the auteur theory was a theory of film evaluation, for it suggested to him that the works of great directors were the only significant ones. In his somewhat idiosyncratic use of the idea, he even argued that the flawed works of major directors were artistically better than masterpieces made by minor ones. A more defensible aspect of his ideas was the emphasis on the entire ouvre of a director. Within film studies, the emphasis on synoptic studies of individual directors is derived from Sarris' version of the auteur theory.
A negative consequence of the influence of auterism is the relative neglect of other important contributors to the making of a film. Actors, cinematographers, screenwriters, composers, and art directors all make significant contributions to films that the auteur theory underestimates. While Truffaut introduced the term polemically to support a new style of filmmaking, subsequent theorists have tended to ignore the context of his remarks.
As a general theory of the cinema, then, the auteur theory is clearly flawed. Not all films—not even all great ones—can be attributed to the control of the director. Actors are the clearest examples of individuals who may have such a significant impact on the making of a specific film that the film has to be seen as attributable to them even more importantly than the director. Although films like Truffaut's own may be (mostly) the product of his authoring, a Clint Eastwood film owes a great deal of its success to that actor's presence. It is a mistake to treat all films as if they were simply the product of one crucial individual, the director. Still, old habits die slowly, and films are still referenced by means of their directors.
A more general criticism of the auteur theory is its emphasis on individuals. Most of the great directors studied by film theorists worked within well-defined institutional settings, the most famous of which is Hollywood. To attempt to understand films without placing them within their broader context of production has been seen as a real shortcoming of the theory.
This sort of criticism of auterism has received a more theoretical formulation within postmodernism, with its famous (or infamous) declaration of the death of the author. What this self-consciously rhetorical gesture asserts is that works of art, including films, should not be seen as the product of a single controlling intelligence, but have to seen as products of their times and social contexts. The goal of the critic should not be to reconstruct the intentions of the author but to display the various different contexts that explain the production of the work as well as its limitations.
While the general institutional context is certainly crucial for understanding a film, the auteur theory does nonetheless provide a useful focus for some efforts in the scholarly study of film: an exploration of the work of individual directors. But even here, there has been worry that the theory overemphasizes the contribution of the director at the expense of other people—actors, directors of photography, screenwriters—whose contributions may be equally important to the making of at least some films.

4. Emotional Engagement

Philosophic discussion of viewer involvement with films starts out with a puzzle that has been raised about many artforms: Why should we care what happens to fictional characters? After all, since they are fictional, their fates shouldn't matter to us in the way that the fates of real people do. But, of course, we do get involved in the destinies of these imaginary beings. The question is why. Because so many films that attract our interest are fictional, this question is an important one for philosophers of film to answer.
One answer, common in the film theory tradition, is that the reason that we care about what happens to some fictional characters is because we identify with them. Although or, perhaps, because these characters are highly idealized—they are more beautiful, brave, resourceful, etc. than any actual human being could be—viewers identify with them, thereby also taking themselves to be correlates of these ideal beings. But once we see the characters as versions of ourselves, their fates matter to us, for we see ourselves as wrapped up in their stories. In the hands of feminist theorists, this idea was used to explain how films use their viewers' pleasures to support a sexist society. Male viewers of film, it was held, identify with their idealized screen counterparts and enjoy the objectification of women through both screen images that they view with pleasure and also narratives in which the male characters with whom they identify come to possess the sought after female character.
Philosophers of film have argued that identification is too crude a tool to use to explain our emotional engagement with characters, for there is a wide variety of attitudes that we take to the fictional characters we see projected on the screen. (See, for example, Smith (1995).) And even if we did identify with some characters, this would not explain why we had any emotional reactions to characters with whom we did not identify. Clearly, a more general account of viewer involvement with cinematic characters and the films in which they appear is required.
The general outline of the answer philosophers of film have provided to the question of our emotional involvement with films is that we care about what happens in films because films get us to imagine things taking place, things that we do care about. Because how we imagine things working out does affect our emotions, fiction films have an emotional impact upon us.
There are two basic accounts that philosophers have put forward to explain the effects that the imagination has upon us. Simulation theory employs a computer analogy, saying that imagining something involves one having one's usual emotional response to situations and people, only the emotions are running off-line. What this means is that, when I have an emotional response like anger to an imagined situation, I feel the same emotion that I would normally feel only I am not inclined to act on this emotion, say, by yelling or responding in an angry way, as I would be if the emotion was a full-fledged emotion.
What this explains, then, is a seemingly paradoxical feature of our film-going experience: that we seem to enjoy watching things on the screen that we would hate seeing in real life. The most obvious context for this is horror films, for we may enjoy seeing horrific events and beings that we would strongly desire not to witness in real life. The last thing I would want to see more of in real life is a rampaging giant ape, yet I am fascinated to watch its screen expoits. The simulation theorist says that the reason for this is that, when we experience an emotion off-line that would be distressing in real life, we may actually enjoy having that emotion in the safety of the off-line situation.
One problem facing the simulation theorist is explaining what it means for an emotion to be off-line. While this is an intriguing metaphor, it is not clear that the simulation theorist can provide an adequate account of how we are to cash it out.
An alternative account of our emotional response to imagined scenarios has been dubbed the thought theory. The idea here is that we can have emotional responses to mere thoughts. When I am told that a junior colleague of mine was unjustly denied reappointment, the thought of this injustice is sufficient to make me experience anger. Similarly, when I imagine such a scenario in relation to someone, the mere thought of them being treated in this way can occasion my anger. Mere thought can bring about real emotion.
What the thought theory claims about our emotional response to films is that our emotions are brought about by the thoughts that occur to us as we are watching a film. When we see the dastardly villain tying the innocent heroine to the tracks, we are both concerned and outraged by the very thought that he is acting in this way and that she is therefore in danger. Yet all the time we are aware that this is a merely fictional situation, so there is no temptation to yield to a desire to save her. We are always aware that no one is really in danger. As a result, there is no need, says the thought theorist, for the complexities of simulation theory in order to explain why we are moved by the movies.
There are some problems with thought theory as well. Why should a mere thought, as opposed to a belief, be something that occasions an emotional response from us? If I believe that you were wronged, that's one thing. But the thought of your being wronged is another. Since we can't have full-fledged beliefs about the fictional characters in films, the thought theory needs to explain why we are so moved by their fates. (See Plantinga and Smith (1999) for more discussion of this issue.)

5. Film Narration

Fiction films tell stories. Unlike literary media such as novels, they do so with images and sound—including both words and music. Clearly, some films have narrators. These narrators are generally character narrators, narrators who are characters within the fictional world of the film. They tell us the film's stories and, supposedly, show us the images that we see. Sometimes, however, a voice-over narration presents us with an apparently objective view of the situation of the characters, as if it originated from outside of the film world. In addition, there are fiction films, films that tell stories, in which there is no clear agent who is doing the telling. These facts have given rise to a number of puzzles about film narration that have been discussed by philosophers of film. (See Chatman (1990) and Gaut (2004).)
One central issue that has been a subject of controversy among philosophers is unreliable narration. There are films in which the audience comes to see that the character narrator of the film has a limited or misguided view of the film world. One example is Max Ophuls' Letter from an Unknown Woman (1948), a film that has been discussed by a number of different philosophers. The majority of the film is a voice-over narration by Lisa Berndle, the unknown woman of the film's title, who recites the words of the letter she sends to her lover, Max Brand, shortly before her death. The audience comes to see that Lisa has a distorted view of the events she narrates, most clearly in her misestimation of the character of Brand. This raises the question of how the audience can come to know that Lisa's view is distorted, since what we hear and see is narrated (or shown) by her. George Wilson (1986) has argued that unreliable narratives such as this require the positing of an implicit narrator of the film, while Gregory Currie (1995) has argued that an implied filmmaker suffices. This question has become very relevant with the increased popularity of filmmaking styles involving unreliable narration. Bryan Singer's The Usual Suspects (1995) touched off a flurry of films whose narrators were unreliable in one way or another.
A related issue concerning narrative that has been a focus of debate is whether all films have narrators, including those without explicit ones. Initially, it was argued that the idea of a narratorless narrative did not make sense, that narration required an agent doing the narrating, who was the film's narrator. In cases where there were no explicit narrators, an implicit narrator needed to be posited to make sense of how viewers gained access to the fictional world of the film. Opponents responded that the narrator in the sense of the agent who gave film audiences access to a film's fictional world could be the filmmaker(s), so there was no need to posit such a dubious entity as an implicit narrator of a film.
There is, however, an even deeper problem in regard to film narration over what has been called the “Imagined Seeing Thesis” (Wilson 1997). According to this Thesis, viewers of mainstream fiction films imagine themselves to be looking into the world of the story and seeing segments of the narrative action from a series of definite visual perspectives. In its traditional version, viewers are taken to imagine the movie screen as a kind of window that allows them to watch the unfolding of the story on the “other side.” However, it is hard for this view to account for what is being imagined when, for example, the camera moves, or there is an edit to a shot that incorporates a different perspective on a scene, etc. As a result, an alternative view has been suggested, namely that viewers imagine themselves to be seeing motion picture images that have been photographically derived, in some indeterminate way, from within the fictional world itself. But this position runs into problems, since it is normally part of the film's fiction that no camera was present in the fictional space of the narrative. The resulting debate is over whether to reject as incoherent the Imagined Seeing Thesis or whether it is possible to develop an acceptable version of this Thesis. Philosophers remain sharply divided on this fundamental issue.
The topic of film narration thus continues to be a subject of intense philosophical discussion and investigation. Various attempts to explain its nature remain hotly debated. As new and more complex styles of film narration become popular, it is likely that the subject of film narration will continue to receive attention from philosophers and aestheticians.

6. Film and Society

The best way to understand the innovations made by philosophers in our understanding of how films relate to society is to look at the view that was dominant in film theory some years ago. According to that view, popular narrative films—especially those produced by “Hollywood,” a term that referred to the entertainment industry located in Hollywood, California, but also included popular narrative films produced on a similar model—inevitably supported social oppression by denying, in one way or another, its existence. Such films were taken to present nothing but fairytales that used the realistic character of the medium to present those imaginary stories as if they were accurate pictures of reality. In this way, the actual character of the social domination assumed by such a view to be rampant in contemporary society was obscured in favor of a rosy picture of the realities of human social existence.
As part of their argument, these film theorists have gone beyond examining individual films themselves and have argued that the very structure of the narrative film functions to assist in the maintenance of social domination. From this point of view, an overcoming of narrativity itself is required for films to be genuinely progressive.
In opposition to such a negative view of film's relationship to society, philosophers of film have argued that popular films need not support social domination but can even give expression to socially critical attitudes. In making this argument, they have corrected film theory's tendency to make broad generalizations about the relationship between film and society that are not grounded in careful analysis of individual films. They have instead concentrated upon presenting detailed interpretations of films that show how their narratives present critical takes on various social practices and institutions. Class, race, gender, and sexuality are among the different social arenas in which philosophers of film have seen films make socially conscious, critical interventions in public debates.
One interesting example of films that develop political stances that are not merely supportive of existing modes of social domination are those that involve interracial couples. So Stanley Kramer's 1967 film, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, investigates the plausibility of racial integration as a solution to the problems of anti-black racism in America through its portrayal of the problems facing an interracial couple. Nearly 25 years later, Spike Lee's Jungle Fever argues against the earlier film's political agenda, once again using an interracial couple that encounters racism. Only this time, the film asserts that the intransigent racism of White Americans undermines integration as a panacea to the ills of this racist society (Wartenberg 1999). And many other films employ this narrative figure to investigate other aspects of racism and possibilities for its overcoming.
Similarly, philosophers have looked outside of Hollywood to the films of progressive filmmakers like John Sayles to illustrate their belief that narrative films can make sophisticated political statements. A film like Matewan is shown to involve a sophisticated investigation of the relationship between class and race as sites of social domination.
In general, then, we can say that philosophers have resisted a monolithic condemnation of films as socially regressive and explored the different means that filmmakers have used to present critical perspectives on areas of social concern. While they have not ignored the ways in which standard Hollywood narratives undermine critical social awareness, they have shown that narrative film is an important vehicle for communal reflection on important social issues of the day.

7. Film as Philosophy

Ever since Plato banished poets from his ideal city in The Republic, hostility towards the arts has been endemic to philosophy. To a large extent, this is because philosophy and the various artforms were perceived to be competing sources of knowledge and belief. Philosophers concerned to maintain the exclusivity of their claim to truth have dismissed the arts as poor pretenders to the title of purveyors of truth.
Philosophers of film have generally opposed this view, seeing film as a source of knowledge and, even, as potential contributor to philosophy itself. This view was forcefully articulated by Stanley Cavell, whose interest in the philosophy of film helped spark the field's development. For Cavell, philosophy is inherently concerned with skepticism and the different ways that it can be overcome. In his many books and articles, Cavell has argued that film shares this concern with philosophy and can even provide philosophic insights of its own (Cavell 1981; 1996; 2004).
Until recently, there have been few adherents to the idea that films can make a philosophical contribution. (But see Kupfer (1999) and Freeland (2000) for counterinstances.) In part, this is because Cavell's linking of film to skepticism seems inadequately grounded, while his account of skepticism as a live option for contemporary philosophy is based on a highly idiosyncratic reading of the history of modern philosophy. Nonetheless, Cavell's interpretations of individual films' encounter with skepticism are highly suggestive and have influenced many philosophers and film scholars with the seriousness with which they take film. (For one example, see Mulhall (2001).)
Now, however, there is an ongoing debate about the philosophical capacity of film. In opposition to views like that of Cavell, a number of philosophers have argued that films can have at most a heuristic or pedagogic function in relation to philosophy. Others have asserted that there are clear limits to what films can accomplish philosophically. Both of these types of views regard the narrative character of fiction films as disqualifying them from genuinely being or doing philosophy.
Opponents to this point of view have pointed to a number of different ways in which films can do philosophy. Foremost among these is the thought experiment. Thought experiments involve imaginary scenarios in which readers are asked to imagine what things would be like if such-and-such were the case. Those who think that films can actually do philosophy point out that fiction films can function as philosophical thought experiments and thus qualify as philosophical (See Wartenberg 2007). Many films have been suggested as candidates for doing philosophy, including the Wachowski Brothers' 1999 hit The Matrix, a film that has engendered more philosophical discussion than any other film, Memento (2000), and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004).
Philosophers have also begun to pay attention to a strand of avant-garde filmmaking known as structural films. These films are analogues to minimalism in the other arts and thus give rise to the question of whether they are not actual experiments that seek to show necessary criteria for something being a film. If this view is accepted, then these films—examples include The Flicker(1995) and Serene Velocity (1970)—could be seen as making a contribution to philosophy by identifying such putative necessary features of films. This view, while adopted by Nöel Carroll (See Carroll and Choi 2006; Thomas Wartenberg 2007), has also been criticized on similar grounds to those used to deny the philosophical potential of fiction films, namely that films cannot actually do the “hard work” of philosophy.
Philosophers working in the Continental tradition have advocated a more sweeping account of film's contribution to philosophy. Indeed, the term "film-philosophy" has been introduced to refer to the allegedly new form of philosophizing that takes place on film. (See Sinnerbrink 2011 for a discussion of this idea.)
Whatever position one takes on the possibility of “cinematic philosophy,” it is clear that the philosophical relevance of film has been recognized by philosophers. Even those who deny that films can actually do philosophy have to acknowledge that films provide audiences with access to philosophical questions and issues. Indeed, the success of the book series entitled “Philosophy and X,” where one can substitute any film or television show for X, indicates that films are bringing philosophical issues to the attention of wide audiences. There can be no doubt that this is a healthy development for philosophy itself.

8. Conclusions and Prognosis

The philosophy of film has become a significant area for philosophical and aesthetic research. Philosophers have concentrated both on aesthetic issues about film as an artistic medium — the philosophy of film — and questions about the philosophical content of films — films as philosophy. The sophistication and quantity of contributions in both of these areas continue to increase, as more philosophers have taken film seriously as a subject for philosophical investigation.
As film and its related digital media continue to expand in their influence upon the lives of human beings, the philosophy of film can be expected to become an even more vital area for philosophic investigation. In the coming years, we can look forward to new and innovative contributions to this exciting area of philosophical research.

Bibliography

  • Allen, Richard, and Murray Smith (eds.), 1997. Film Theory and Philosophy, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Andersen, Nathan, 2014. Shadow Philosophy: Plato's Cave and Cinema, Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
  • Arnheim, Rudolf, 1957. Film as Art, Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Badiou, Alain, 2013. Film Fables, Cambridge: Polity.
  • Bazin, André, 1967 and 1971. What is Cinema?, 2 volumes, Hugh Grey (tr.), Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Bordwell, David, and Nöell Carroll. 1996. Post-Theory: Reconstructing Film Studies, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Carel, Havi, and Greg Tuck, 2011. New Takes in Film-Philosophy, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Carroll, Nöel, 1988. Philosophical Problems of Classical Film Theory, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • –––, 1990. The Philosophy of Horror, or Paradoxes of the Heart, New York: Routledge.
  • –––, 1996. Theorizing the Moving Image, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • –––, 2008. The Philosophy of Motion Pictures, Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • Carroll, Nöel and Jinhee Choi, 2005. The Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures: An Anthology, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
  • Carroll, Nöel, et al., 1998. “Film,” in Encyclopedia of Aesthetics, Michael Kelly (ed.), New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Volume 2, 185–206.
  • Cavell, Stanley. 1979. The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film, enlarged edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • –––, 1981. Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • –––, 1996. Contesting Tears: The Hollywood Melodrama of the Unknown Woman, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • –––, 2004. Cities of Words: Pedagogical Letters on a Register of the Moral Life, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Chatman, Seymour, 1990. Coming to Terms: The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and Film, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • Cox, Damian, and Michael Levine, 2011. Thinking through Film: Doing Philosophy, Watching Movies, Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Currie, Gregory, 1995. Image and Mind: Film, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Eisenstein, Sergei, 1969. Film Form: Essays in Film Theory, New York: Harcourt.
  • Falzon, Christopher, 2014. Philosophy Goes to the Movies: An Introduction to Philosophy, 3rd Edition, Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
  • Frampton, Daniel, 2006. Filmospohy, London: Wallflower Press.
  • Freeland, Cynthia A., and Thomas E. Wartenberg, 1995. Philosophy and Film, New York: Routledge.
  • Freeland, Cynthia A., 2000. The Naked and the Undead: Evil and the Appeal of Horror, Boulder: Westview Press.
  • Gaut, Berys, 2003. “Film,” in The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics, Jerrold Levinson (ed.), New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 627–643.
  • –––, 2004. “The Philosophy of the Movies: Cinematic Narration,” in The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics, Peter Kivy (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 230–253.
  • –––, 2010. A Philosophy of Cinematic Art, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Jarvie, Ian, 1987. Philosophy of the Film, New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • Krakauer, Siegfried, 1960. Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality, New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kupfer, Joseph H., 1999. Visions of Virtue in Popular Film, Boulder: Westview Press.
  • Litch, Mary, and Amy D. Karofsky, Philosophy Through Film, 3rd Edition, Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
  • Livingston, Paisley, 2009. Cinema, Philosophy, Bergman: On Film as Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Livingston, Paisley, and Carl Plantinga, 2008. The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Film, Abingdon: UK: Routledge.
  • Mulhall, Stephen, 2001. On Film, London: Routledge.
  • Münsterberg, Hugo, 1916. The Photoplay: A Psychological Study, New York: D. Appleton and Company.
  • Plantinga, Carl, and Grey M. Smith (eds.), 1999. Passionate Views: Film, Cognition, and Emotion, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Ranciere, Jacques, 2006. Film Fables (Talking Images), London: Bloomsbury Academic.
  • Read, Rupert, and Jerry Goodenough, 2005. Film as Philosophy: Essays on Cinema After Wittgenstein and Cavell, London: Palgrave-MacMillan.
  • Scruton, Roger, 1981. “Photography and Representation” Critical Inquiry, 7(3): 577–603.
  • Sesonske, Alexander, 1974. “Aesthetics of Film, or A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Movies,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 33(1): 51–7.
  • Singer, Irving, 2010. Cinematic Mythmaking: Philosophy in Film, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Sinnerbrink, Robert, 2011. New Philosophies of Film: Thinking Images, London: Continuum.
  • –––, 2015, forthcoming. Cinematic Ethics, London: Routledge.
  • Smith, Murray, 1995. Engaging Characters: Fiction, Emotion, and the Cinema, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • –––, 2001. “Film,” The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, Berys Gaut and Dominic McIver Lopes (eds.), London: Routledge.
  • Smith, Murray, and Thomas E. Wartenberg, 2006. Thinking Through Cinema: Film as Philosophy, Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • Tan, Ed S., 1995. Emotion and the Structure of Narrative Film: Film As An Emotion Machine, London: Routledge.
  • Thomson-Jones, Kathryn, 2008. Aesthetics and Film, London: Continuum.
  • Thomson-Jones, Kathryn (ed.), 2016, forthcoming. Current Controversies in Philosophy of Film, New York: Routledge.
  • Walton, Kendall, 1984. “Transparent Pictures: On the Nature of Photographic Realism,” Critical Inquiry, 11: 246–77.
  • Wartenberg, Thomas E., 1999. Unlikely Couples: Movie Romance as Social Criticism, Boulder: Westview Press.
  • –––, 2007. Thinking On Screen: Film as Philosophy, London: Routledge.
  • Wartenberg, Thomas E. and Angela Curran, 2005. The Philosphy of Film: Introductory Text and Readings, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
  • Wilson, George M., 1986. Narration in Light: Studies in Cinematic Point of View, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
  • –––, 1997. “Le Grand Imagier Steps Out: The Primitive Basis of Film Narration,” Philosophical Topics, 25: 295–318.
  • –––, 2011. Seeing Fictions in Film: The Epistemology of Movies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.