A Philosopher Biopic

Just recently I saw a French film  (Cezanne et moi), and the whole film is, more or less, a whole dialogue between  Gide and Cezanne, and a lot of it is just talky stuff that very few Americans will ever sit through or care to figure out what it is all about ... and in the end, the story gives it to you with a slap in the face (just a sentence or two at the end of the film), which leaves you hanging ... so he wasn't a jerk ... this is what he saw and decided to do, but the guy had to live with all the criticisms, almost non-stop ... and this is hard for everyone concerned, not to mention the artist, even Picasso was known to close the doors and disappear for a while, as did many other 20th century folks ... but (even here!) we are enamored with the social aspect of the art and its fame, mostly, and the rest ... be damned.

Sometimes there is no philosophy, and it becomes one. Even Picasso said that Cezanne was the father of modern art! (At the time, I'm sure!) ... but to us here, it means nothing. And the same thing for philosophy, and even literature that challenged your philosophy, because you believe in a religion or in a democratic this or that, or something else ... or like here, in a commercially viable bunch of likes and dislikes, because you don't want to not be appreciated by all the other folks here.

I review a lot of film, and some that I like to do the most is always the film about the artist, whoever he/she is, and the worst thing in almost all of the films is the "acceptance" of what is being done, and ... as usual ... not a single attempt to understand anything ... up to one of the saddest of them ... writing a symphony for your wife and she still leaves for a bigger ____ you could say!

Philosophy, would be tough, very tough in a film, but there are probably some films on it and I will see if I can make a list of them ... and the ones I would like to see would be French because they have a lot of respect for the arts and its details, where places like America do not!

One philosophy that stands out, BTW, would be Buddhism, as it features in a lot of film, although in a simplified formula, and there are some examples around, but even then, they are not as good at explaining a heck of a lot instead of making you think that some small this or that, or thought is important ... and you can see that in Hesse's story that has been done into film a couple of times, and it is not boring, but it has to go slow, so you have a chance to think and catch up with it ... but you really think a top ten person that can only discuss hits and their favorites is going to stop to appreciate one of these films ... the mid boggles!

Peter Brook's film, is ... fantastic, but I doubt that many folks will enjoy it, and find in it, what the main character did, for example, and be able to make sense of the beginning versus the end .... and essentially, there is no connection, and that is really hard for us to work with and deal with.

The film is, in some ways, a documentary, since so much of it was written and designed with folks that were connected to Gurdjieff himself, and with Peter Brook, which gives it a nice touch. Seeing the ending is nice ... but connecting it to the start of the story/film ... is a problem unless the philosophy makes it clear there is no connection at all ... and that is one side of the "spiritual" thing that we have a hard time dealing with!

Few people you will EVER meet, talk and appreciate Peter Brook, any more than I do.

AND, if you really want to see a "philosophy" at work ... watch the film made of one of his studies and rehearsals ... THE TIGHTROPE ... and in the end, you end up wondering if this is a philosophy, or acting ... and you really don't have an answer, but it sure enhances the quality of acting!

SIDEBAR: There are bits and pieces of this philosophy that appear to have their source/link to performance, and specific to forms of ritual, of which the theater and film finally came alive from. Peter Brook, has been, since his start, an experimental director in both film and specially theater ... and his studies are legendary with the actors he worked with and clearly seen in his films. One of the strongest statements in all this, btw, was how the lack of communication could still create communication. THE MAHABHARATTA featured actors from many countries and they could not even talk with each other very well, and yet, when you see the performances on film ... you ... huhhhhh ... you ... yeah ... have no words for it whatsoever.

SIDEBAR2: I have always written and wished that musicians could put their craft and ego aside to try some of these things ... creativity would jump and break all the meters available ... but most of them, do not have a concept or idea beyond the notes and the sound ... there is much more ... a lot more!

Actually there is a lot more about this, that is not discussed directly, but is a part of their rehearsing and then playing together. The rehearsal "structure" is designed to find the moments that can change things and incur a new moment, which is one of the valuable parts of meditation and the studies in "improvisation" in theater and film, which musicians think is not applicable for the most part ... and yet, folks like RF use it every day and few folks get it, or understand it. 

On another thread on PA I discussed this in much more detail, and I think it was about RF and KC, if I remember correctly, but in many ways, the whole crux of the matter was about a rehearsal technique based on a time limit, that helps break down and dispose of the habits that you have of being dependent on a scale, and not listening/seeing what is happening around you. The point of the meditation/exercise, just like the clarity in the end of the film, is the end result ... the folks involved, have a stronger sense of working together than just notes or melodies ... it goes into an internal are of yourself that many of us do not have words for it ... besides, why ruin it with a word ... just love and enjoy the result!

And, unfortunately, this is the part of it all that is difficult to ascertain and explain. Even folks like Aleister Crowley was experimenting with meditation and music and dancing, and sex, to see how far these things could go and how close, they were to a lot of the magick world that he was familiar with ... his Autobiography details some of it, but sadly a lot of it is kinda left behind, and I think it is because people will misunderstand the sex connection, as just an orgy of satisfaction, not something else. You just about could go back to the Marquis de Sade to find similar thoughts and ideas.