Top 10

I recently read this: http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2009/06/top-10-existential-movies-of-all-time.html

It’s a list of the top 10 existential movies ever made. I’ve never really seen existentialism as a genre of film, but no matter. While the list is pretty decent, I decided to make my own list from the “genre”. The rankings are based on my personal connection to these individual films, nothing else.

1. Lost in Translation: Far and beyond, my favorite film of all time. All of the character subtleties and nuances still move me. I’ve never wanted to get married, but if Charlotte existed and I met her, it would be over.

2. Before Sunset/Before Sunrise: I know these are two movies, but I can’t separate them. There is not one cliche in these films. Romance films on top of their game.

3. Up In The Air: One of the few movies on this list that I got to see in theaters. I felt such a strong connection to George Clooney’s character that the movie still upsets me when I think about it.

4. Memento: I have a theory that it’s impossible to dislike this movie. To this day it’s still the biggest mind-fuck I’ve ever experienced in cinema. If you only see one movie from this list, see this one.

5.Apocalypse Now: Outstanding film in every way. Coppola’s finest.

6. Wall-E: Probably my my favorite Pixar film, and I love Pixar. The future here is an absolute existential nightmare.

7. Mulholland Drive: I loathed this movie for a long time, and passed it off to be some pretentious drivel, but for some reason I kept revisiting it. Over and over I would leave mad, not knowing what the hell I just saw. Then one day… it all clicked. My favorite from Lynch.

8. Children of Men: Gorgeous film with a lot to say. The scene where Clive Owen is carrying that baby through all of that gunfire and explosions, followed by that ceasefire and silence where the soldiers from both sides just stare at the baby in awe… WOW. It’s the most beautiful scene I’ve ever watched in any film.

9. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: A film with many complexities and layers. It strongly illustrates human nature’s undying hopefulness. Tragic… or is it?

10. The Truman Show: Once in awhile, I feel as paranoid as Jim Carrey does near the end of the film. An incredible movie that one can watch no matter what type of mood they’re in. 

11. The Matrix: This movie defined my childhood and made me want to pursue acting. I was blown away by all of the special effects and the martial arts, but fortunately as I grew up, this movie grew with me. And boy, did it grow fast. It’s always interesting to catch yourself watching a movie for totally different reasons than you used to.

12. Groundhog Day: Surprisingly stocked full of existential questions and dilemma’s. This movie asks a lot of very important questions, and attempts to solve them as best as it can. As with Memento, I don’t think there’s anyone that can dislike this movie. Funny, charming, and challenging, if you want it to be.

13. Fight Club: Grimy, brutal, and oh so relevant (still) to modern day culture. This movie has not aged a day. If anything it’s more relevant now than ever.

14. Magnolia: Great ensemble cast (including Tom Cruise’s best work to date). Beautiful moments all over. Although we only have a limited time with each person in the film, there’s more than enough time to make you care about each of them.

15. 2001: A Space Odyssey: The scope of this film is enormous. To say that this film has a lot to say would be overstating the obvious. I plan to revisit this film many more times to truly get a better sense of what Kubrick was saying. 

Honorable mentions:

-Almost anything Jon-Luc Godard has directed. I could have made a list of just this. Breathless is my favorite. (Same goes for Truffaut’s films - 400 Blows)
-Being John Malkovich
-American Beauty
-Waking Life
-Donnie Darko
-Moon

Truth

To really understand Nietzsche’s philosophy regarding the status of truth, one must first understand his positions on perspectivism, consciousness and morality. As a moral relativist (to an extent), Nietzsche wishes to point out the plurality of ways truth can be made manifest.

Nietzsche was strongly behind the philosophical view of perspectivism, meaning that he believed that all thoughts and beliefs are taken from particular perspectives. This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes in which the judgment of truth of value can be made. Nietzsche really drills this idea in The Genealogy of Morals, making it clear that he does not believe in any sorts of ultimate truths. (This however does not entail that all perspectives are equally valid!) Nietzsche does not believe in ethical absolutes, this is evident because he says that the “truth” is formalized as a whole and that it is created by integrating different vantage points together. These vantage points (“truths”) are made for and by individuals and people. In the Will to Power, Nietzsche states, “It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their for and against. Every drive is a kind of lust to rule: each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm.” Nietzsche’s idolized man that he uses in an example invents his or her own values and creates the very terms under which they excel.

Just like an ethical relativist, Nietzsche believes that there are no universal moral systems. They are merely created by different cultures. In general, his beliefs stretch out wide and far and he states that the complexity of phenomena cannot be explained by some sort of universal ideas.

Nietzsche seems mainly interested in morality, starting with master-slave morality and onward, insofar as it’s conducive to a particular sort of “health”. Different sets of moral additions also advance that “health” depending on the social, historical, and personal circumstances of the individual; what is harmful at one time or place can be beneficial in another. What is strange is that Nietzsche does not seem to be a relativist at all when it has to do with his cultural and aesthetic conception of what constitutes a “higher” human being. In the end, right and wrong are the constructs of our imagination and that is why I can label him as a moral relativist.

It’s almost ironic that this is the case because while it seems freeing, bold, and assertive, it creates a whole new slew of problems (by creating this type of enslavement), some of which we can witness today. It’s ironic because this is something Nietzsche sought to avoid.

On Nietzsche

“Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze for long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.”

I stumbled on to a message board the other day where one of the users had that famous Nietzsche quote as their signature.

As someone who adores the works of Nietzsche, I’ve always really liked this quote. And all of the sudden it dawned on me that I didn’t really understand it. Of course, I did what any rational amateur philosopher would do… I googled it. After reading for about an hour I could not find any consensus as to what the true intended meaning could be. I hated every interpretation. One of the most repeated and thrown around quotes from a very quotable man and nobody seemed to agree on anything.

I lay in bed until 4 am last night just staring at the wall thinking and writing in my notebook. Nothing. 

I was able to get a bit of sleep and when I woke up, it all clicked. I had something.

The first half of the quote was never what was in question. I’ve always taken it to mean that if you fight a righteous fight recklessly, you cannot win a fight righteously. So basically, to fight fire with fire, one must first abuse the fire as well.

The on to the second part. 

I believe he means that if you look for enlightenment, you must also be prepared to be consumed by its tragic beauty. If you want to know everything, be ready to know everything evil as well. If you want to be happy, be ready to experience agony.

This was the train of thought that took me to the following:

If I want enlightenment, must I fight existentialism?

And what happens when I combine both parts of the quote? It changes greatly.

The more that I think about this quote, the more it comes across as an ultimatum. I believe what he is saying is that one must conform to society or one will undoubtedly be consumed with the tragedy of existentialism. 

To break it down to its most simple formula:

The monster is the unenlightened. The abyss is the enlightenment.

Plug those in to the quote and you have my simplified interpretation.

I would really love some feedback on my thought process, or what others think. I’d appreciate any sort of debate on the matter. My ask box is open, anonymous questions are enabled.