RBC Film Series

Welcome to the Webpage for the Richard Bland College Film Series. Richard Bland is a Junior College of the College of William & Mary in Petersburg, VA.

The RBC Film Series consists of presentations & discussions of films sponsored by the RBC Film Club. We show films on Wednesdays during the Activity Period (11:00-12:20), in the Humanities and Social Science Lecture Hall (HSS 122). Films may be edited for time. All the showings are free & open to everyone.

Quick Links:

A Year by Year Index of the Films of the Series

The 2000-1 Series

The 2001-2 Series

The 2003-4 Series

 The 2004-5 Series

 
Discussion / Reflection Questions for some of the films of the Series
 
The MATRIX

Some Philosophical Questions underlying the film:

Questions of Knowledge

  1. Is it possible that we are in a matrix program right now?
  2. How could we tell whether we are or not?
  3. If we can't tell whether this is real or virtually real, can we know anything about the way the world really is? or about who we really are?
  4. Could the world into which Neo awoke, with the help of the red pill, itself be a virtual reality program (couldn't this be a plot basis for The MATRIX II?)

Questions of Value

Which pill would you have chosen, the safe & blissful ignorance of the blue pill (the world of your family & friends) or the unknown & potentially harsh reality of the red pill? What if:

  1. with the blue pill, you would think you were in the real world?
  2. with the blue pill, you could choose the "character" you would be (billionaire, superstar,...)?
  3. everyone had their own matrix program, so we did not really (virtually) interact with each other, though we thought we did?
  4. everyone in the real world was hopelessly cutoff from each other, so the only way to interact with others was within the matrix?
  5. Say you can't get out of the matrix, but you have one chance to change your "character" (i.e., to be anyone you want), what changes would you make?

A Question of Faith

  1. Would the discovery that you had been living in a matrix (virtual reality) world cause you to reconsider your religious beliefs? Why (not)?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Note: Over the summer there was an undergraduate essay contest on "Which pill would you take & why?" Sponsored by PhilosophyNow magazine. Click here to check out the results.

The official MATRIX website

A cool site on the imagery & symbolism of the film

 An essay on the Christian and Buddhist allusions in the film 

A Game based on  the Philosophy of Knowledge behind the Matrix

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Blade Runner
 

 

 

 

Here are some Philosophical Questions underlying the film

Personhood & Morality
‘person’ =def ‘an entity entitled to moral consideration’

  1. What are some human-like qualities that the replicants possess?

  2. Are any of these qualities relevant to whether or not replicants are persons? i.e., to whether or not replicants should be entitled to moral (& legal) consideration? Which? Why?

  3. ARE the replicants persons? i.e., do they warrant moral consideration? e.g., Could they morally be used as slaves?

  4. If you think that replicants shouldn’t be used as slaves, what characteristic(s), if any, could be taken away from them to make this practice morally permissible?

  5. The replicants were genetically engineered and, hence, were flesh and blood and possessed virtually human dna. Is this relevant to whether or not they should be considered persons (i.e., given moral consideration)? What if they were made out of sophisticated “circuitry” instead?

  6. What does the Voit-Kampf test test for? Is this a reasonable standard for whether or not an entity warrants moral consideration? Couldn’t some humans fail? Can you think of a better test?

  7. Does Deckard really owe Rachel “one” like he says?

  8. Why did Roy save Deckard’s life? Is this relevant to the issue of replicants being persons?

  9. Say you’re a good friend of Deckard’s and he calls you right after Roy dies and asks you for advice concerning what he should do with regard to Rachel. He explains that he’s under orders to “retire” her, but he feels indebted to her and has developed more personal feelings for her as well. What would you tell him?

Genetic Engineering and Morality

  1. If you or your spouse was pregnant and you could insure that your baby would be born healthy through genetic manipulation, would you do it? Why (not)?

  2. If you could select the gender of your child would you do it?

  3. If you could select physical characteristics (like eye color, height, etc.) would you do it? What about cognitive traits like enhanced “intelligence”, memory, etc.? Are the any (other) traits you would like to choose?

Personal Identity

  1. Is Deckard a replicant? What similarities between him and the “official” replicants can you find? If he is a replicant, should that change the way he views replicants? humans?

  2. Is Rachel Tyrell’s niece? If not, what’s the difference between them?

  3. If you lived in the Blade Runner world would you worry about whether or not you were a replicant?

  4. Is there any criterion better than “memory” for personal identity? i.e., How can we know whether or not the same individual is present at two distinct times? or throughout a “lifetime”?

  5. If (ala another Philip K. Dick based film Total Recall) you could have the (apparent) memory of any experience you wanted “implanted” in your brain, so that it would seem to you just as if you had had that experience, would you do it? If so, what memory would you choose?

 Mortality

  1. Why did the replicants led by Roy come back to earth?

  2. According to his soliloquy as he is dying, why was Roy sadden at the prospect of death? Do you think many humans share this sentiment? Do you share it?

  3. Would you feel any better about the prospect of dying, if before you died you could “download” your life’s memories into a replicant? Why (not)?

  4. If I could extent 10 years to your life, with the side-effect that during those years you would not recall anything of your life up until then would you do it? Would you give up one year of your life with your memory for these additional 10?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Here's an impressive BR site

Here's an online BR magazine

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

 Jacob’s Ladder

Vietnam veteran Jacob Singer, now at home in New York City, teeters on the edge of psychological collapse as he nurses the emotional scars of his combat experience and the feelings of guilt surrounding the accidental death of his young son and the failure of his marriage. But when he begins suffering from hellish hallucinations and near-accidents, he questions whether his torment is in his mind or the result of clandestine experiments performed on the Army grunts. A complex, twisted story that wrings rich performance from its leads and leaves the viewer exhausted and mystified--in a good way, that is.

 

Some Philosophical Questions Underlying the Film

War, Government, & Morality

  1. What is “the ladder”, according to the film?

  2. Would it be morally justifiable for the US military to utilize hallucinogenic drugs on its soldiers, if it had good reason to believe that such use could shorten the war? What about non-hallucinogenic drugs (e.g., untested “vaccinations” to chemical weapons, steroids,…)? Need the soldiers be informed of the risks? What if providing them with this information could result in dissent?
  3. What criteria should the government use for keeping information from the public, due to “National Security”? Who should make these decisions? What oversight should there be?
  4. Could a government agent (e.g., of the NSA or CIA) ever justifiably kill a US citizen who had not been convicted of a capital crime & who was not currently engaged in any capital crime? E.g., assuming they unknowingly stumbled upon a National Security secret.

Death & Near Death Experiences

  1. What was Jacob most attached to? Cite evidence to support your view.
  2. Why did Jacob’s girlfriend get upset when he was looking at the pictures from his family? Do you believe humans “enjoy being sad” (at times)? Do you? Why?
  3. Are you afraid to die? Why (not)?
  4. Are you “ready to die”? When, if ever, might you be ready?
  5. Name something you hope to accomplish in this lifetime. Would you be okay with your life & death, if you didn’t accomplish this?
  6. If you discovered you were in the early stages of Alzheimers Disease, which memory/memories would you be most saddened at the prospect of losing?
  7. Why do individuals that are close to death often see their lives “flash before their eyes”, assuming they do?
  8. About 50% of individuals who have died (heart stopped) & then been revived, report seeming to experience “continuing on” after their death. Most of these accounts are remarkably similar in that they share these features: a sense of well-being, a sense of leaving ones body & seeing ones body from above, seeing a bright light, & entering “the light”. What’s the best explanation for this?

Hell & Attachment

  1. Assuming the demons/angels which haunted Jacob succeeded in “freeing his soul”, what exactly have they done? How has Jacob changed? How do attachments figure in here? Is this change an “improvement”? Would you like to be “liberated” in a similar way? How about a less frightening way, like taking a pill?
  2. Do you believe in Hell? If so, what’s it like? Who goes there? Why? Is it eternal?
  3. Do you think the “common” view of Hell as everlasting, immeasurable suffering could be classified as “cruel and unusual punishment”? Is it consistent with the conception of an all-loving/good, all-knowing, & all-powerful deity?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Want to read some  reviews, including a glowing one from Roger Ebert?
Jacob's Ladder Reviews
 

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Crimes & Misdemeanors  

Ophthalmologist Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau) is trying to end an affair which he has been having with Dolores for several years, but now she is threatening to expose the affair to his wife if he doesn't keep seeing her.  Meanwhile, documentary filmmaker Clifford Stern (Woody Allen) is trying to make a film of a philosophy professor, but out of financial desperation he agrees to make a portrait of successful TV producer, his brother-in-law Lester (Allen Alda), who to Clifford represents everything that he despises.

Some Questions for Discussion

Relationships, Love, & Fidelity

  1. Is it wrong for someone who had an affair with a married person to divulge the affair to their partner’s spouse? Is it wrong to threaten to do so?
  2. If you were in the rabbi’s place & Judah was asking you for advice on his situation with Delores, what would you tell him? What do you think of the advice which Ben, the rabbi, gives?
  3. Should Clifford’s sister Barbara’s date be (legally) punished? How?
  4. What do you think of Levi’s “love paradox”, “love involves seeking to return to the past & the attempt to undo the past”?
  5. Is Clifford right when he claims, “it’s hard to get the heart & the head together in life?” If so, why is that?
  6. Whose got the more accurate picture of Lester, Clifford or Haley? Does this change throughout the story?
  7. Do you know a couple which you never would have guessed would have gotten together? In hindsight, why/how did it happen?

Morality & Punishment

  1. Do you believe that an immoral person could be really happy?
  2. Could an otherwise decent person who commits murder ever find happiness? Without seeking Divine forgiveness?
  3. Do you agree with Judah’s Aunt Meg’s view, “If he can do it & get away with it & chooses not to be bothered by the ethics then he’s home free.”
  4. Do you agree with the belief that Judah was raised with, “the wicked will be punished for eternity”? Doesn’t this conception conflict with the view that punishment should be commensurate with the crime?
  5. Socrates’ friend Glaucon worried that if a moral person acquired a ring of invisibility, they would be foolish not to use it in immoral ways. How this apply to the film? Do you agree with Glaucon’s worry? What would you do with such a ring?
  6. After the deed, should Judah turn himself in to the police, even though his brother has threatened him if he does?

Faith & Meaning

  1. Is Ben, the rabbi, right that without belief in “a higher power”, there is “no basis to know how to live”?
  2. Is Professor Levi right when he claims that the biblical story of God’s asking Abraham to sacrifice his son is inconsistent with the conception of a loving God?
  3. What did Judah’s Uncle Sal mean when he said, “If necessary I will always prefer God over the truth.”?  When would it be necessary to choose between God & “the truth”? Would you agree?
  4. Uncle Sal claimed, “[If I’m wrong], then I’ll still have a better life than all those that doubt.” Do you think that religious individuals generally have a happier life (on earth) than non-religious individuals? a better life?
  5. Why did Professor Levi kill himself? Does this diminish his ‘philosophy of hope’?
  6. Levi claims (as does Sartre) that we define ourselves by the choices we make, “we are the sum total of our choices”. Do you agree?
  7. Levi asserts that humans have an uncanny ability to find joy / meaning in “little things: family, work, & the hope that future generations might understand a little more.” Are these things enough for a meaningful life? Are they enough for you?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Las Mujeres al borde de un ataque de nervios
(Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown)

Pepa and Ivan are dubbing actors. In the course of his job, Ivan has declared his love to the most beautiful actresses. The only problem is that they have not been the only ones. After an affair of several years, he separates fom Pepa and leaves her a messge on her answering machine asking her to prepare a suitcase for him with all his things. Pepa cannot stand life in her apartment anymore and advertizes the apartment to be let. Ivan neitehr comes to pick up the suitcase nor calls and while Pepa is waiting for him, the apartment fills with people from whom Pepa learns a great deal about loneliness and insanity.

Relection questions:
1) Pepa: ?Como es ella?
2) Ivan: ?Como es el?
3) Candela (la amiga de Pepa): ?Como es ella?
4) ?Que parte te gusto mas y por que? What is your favorite part of the film and why?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

The Last Supper  Imagine you find yourself in Vienna, Austria in 1909; you are sitting in a restaurant and drinking wine with a young man called Adolf. At this time he’s a “normal” person (a struggling artist) who doesn’t know that he will start a second world war and kill millions of people. What would you do? Would it be right to kill (at this time 1909 - an innocent person) him and thereby save millions of lives?

This scenario doesn’t unfold in “The Last Supper”, but the characters are forced to consider it, when they are confronted with a real-life scenario almost as bizarre. If you killed a really “bad” person in self-defense & you are convinced that it wouldn’t look like self-defense to the police & you were confident that you could get away with, would you turn yourself in? If so, why is it important that it was self-defense? What if you could stealthfully poison some (morally hideous) person during a meal – a “Last Supper”…

Reflection Questions:

1) Ok, Imagine you find yourself in that restaurant in Vienna, Austria in 1909, drinking with young Adolf. What would you do? Would it be right to kill (at this time 1909 - an innocent person) him and thereby save millions of lives?
2) If you killed a really “bad” person in self-defense & you are convinced that it wouldn’t look like self-defense to the police & you were confident that you could get away with, would you turn yourself in?
3) How many people did the friends end up killing? In their eyes what was "wrong" with each of the individuals they killed?
4) Focus on one or two of the victims. Would the world have been a better place (i.e., a happier place) without that person in it? Why not?
5) What caused the change of heart in the group?
6) What alternative to the Hitler scenario did the their last guest propose? What do you think of this suggestion?
7) What are we to assume happened at the end of the film? Did you like the ending? If not, how would you have ended it?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Lo que vendrá (Times to Come)

 by Gustavo Mosquera (1981),

Lo Que Vendrá (Times to Come) tells the story of a city of the too near future, a city designed for desolation, aggression, and political instability. Miguel Galvan (Hugo Soto) is shot accidentally during a demonstration. This time and space provides a backdrop to an intriguing sequence of events where three characters try desperately to survive: the wounded Miguel, an antagonistic policeman (Juan Leyraldo), and a foolish vigilante (Charly Garcia). (In Spanish with English subtitles)
 

Questions for Reflection & Discussion

1) Can you see any evidence in this film that its maker lived under a military dictatorship? If so, in what way?

2) What about Mosquera's background in mathematics and engineering - where, if anywhere, did you see this influence his film making style?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

The Usual Suspects

After a waterfront explosion, Verbal (Kevin Spacey), an eye-witness and participant tells the story of events leading up to the conflagration. The story begins when five men are rounded up for a line-up, and grilled about a truck hijacking (the usual suspects). Least pleased is Keaton (Gabriel Byrne) a crooked cop - exposed, indicted, but now desperately trying to go straight. The cops won't leave him alone, however, and as they wait for their lawyers to post bail, he is talked into doing one more job with the other four. All goes tolerably well until the influence of the legendary, seemingly omnipotent "Keyser Soze" is felt. Although set in the modern day, it has much of the texture of the forties, plus suspense, intrigue (a fairly high body count), and lots of twists in the plot.  Summary written by {Phil.Kilby@dit.csiro.au}
 

Questions for Reflection & Discussion

1) So, who was Keyser Soze? Was he a "real" person?
2) Could Keyser Soze have been "the devil"? What clues are there in the film which suggest this?
3) Would you commit a crime (murder?), if a keyser Soze person was threatening to kill you & your family if you did not? Would doing so be "wrong"? Assume that you are confident that the police would be powerless to protect you and your family.
4) What does the film suggest about the relationship between narration and evil/power?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

View a trailer for the film

View an impressive fan site

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai

Eastern and Western cultures and philosophies intersect in this comic drama from acclaimed director Jim Jarmusch. Ghost Dog (Forest Whitaker) is a silent modern-day warrior who lives on a rooftop shack. He spends his days breeding pigeons and playing chess in the park with his best friend, a French-speaking ice-cream man. At night he goes to work as a hit man, performing his tasks stealthily and invisibly, abiding by the codes established by HAGAKURE:  THE BOOK OF THE SAMURAI, an 18th-century text. One night, while on his latest hit, Ghost Dog encounters the mob boss's beautiful daughter. Although Ghost Dog leaves her unharmed, her father nonetheless orders Ghost Dog’s execution, to the dismay of Louie, his loyal retainer. As the mobsters struggle to locate the mysteriously untraceable Ghost Dog, he must find a way to protect himself while remaining loyal to Louie and the ancient codes that define him as an individual.

Questions for Reflection & Discussion

1) Pick a passage from the Hagakure quoted in the film, which struck you. Offer and interpretation of the passage and explain why it struck you. Here are a few excerpts:

· One must live as dead.
· It is bad when one thing becomes two.
· See the world as a dream.
· Matters of great concern should be treated lightly.
· Matters of small concern should be treated with great seriousness.
· Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form.
· There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present moment.
· When you are resolved from the beginning you will not be perplexed.
· The end is important in all things.

2) Many of Samurai’s teachings were based on the religion (philosophy/practice) of Zen Buddhism. Cite an aspect of the Way of the Samurai which strikes you as religious and one that does not and explain why.

3) Many Zen Buddhist masters refused to instruct Samurai (though doing so was not always prudent). Why, do you think? Compare and contrast the Way of the Samurai with monastic Zen practice.  Where/how did the Samurai “go wrong”?

4) What do you think the significance of all the cartoon watching might be?

5) What does the little girl say about the story she likes from the book Ghost Dog let her borrow, Roshomon? Does this relate to the film? How?

6) Do you feel that the film could be fairly criticized as "glorifying violence"?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

View a trailer for the film

View the Official Ghost Dog Website

Read an Online Article on the Samurai including famous Samurai teachings

Read a whole host of (mostly rave) reviews

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Todo Sobre Mi Madre
(All about my Mother) A single mother in Madrid (Manuela) sees her only son die on his 17th birthday as he runs to seek an actress’s autograph. In the beginning of the film, we see Manuela and her son, Esteban, an aspiring writer discussing Manuela’s career as a nurse in the transplant unit of her hospital. Esteban is impressed with her “acting” abilities and asks to go observe her at work. After Esteban’s death, Manuela returns to Barcelona to find her son’s father, a transvestite named Lola who does not know he has a child. First she finds her friend, Agrado, also a transvestite; through her she meets Rosa, a young nun bound for El Salvador, and by happenstance, becomes the assistant of Huma Rojo, the actress her son admired. She helps Huma manage Nina, the co-star of the play A Streetcar Named Desire, and becomes Rosa’s caretaker during her pregnancy.

Describe the characters and the themes that you see in the film using your best Spanish (at your own personal level). Just write short answers! ¿Cómo son?

· Manuela
· Agrado
· Rosa
· Huma
¿Cuáles son los temas de la película? (What themes do you see?)

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

THE THIRTEENTH FLOOR

I dreamt I was a butterfly. But upon awaking, I could not discern if I was, in fact, a man awaking from a dream of having been a butterfly or a butterfly who was now dreaming of being a man - Chuang-Tzu

Here’s the scene: The film opens in (what appears to be) Los Angeles of the 1930’s. Hannon Fuller is writing a letter to his friend and colleague, Douglas Hall.  He leaves the letter with a bartender named Ashton, asking him to hold it for Douglas Hall, who will be coming for it.   Ashton agrees; then, after Fuller leaves, he promptly opens it and reads it himself.  Fulller goes home and to bed, but abruptly awakes in a contemporary room full of computers and lasers. Fuller calls Hall and tells him they must meet.  Then Fuller does meet with someone (we don’t see who) in a dark alley, who promptly stabs Fuller to death. We next see Hall washing blood from his hands and clothes.  He gets a phone message from a police detective who wants him to come downtown to identify a body, the body of Hannon Fuller…

Here’s some questions brought up by the film:

Blurring the line between “virtual-reality” and “reality”

1) If you could re-create any location in any time period (Ancient Rome, Colonial America, …), in an excellent virtual-reality program, what would it be? Why?
2) If you could take on (“play”) any role in a virtual world what would it be?  ?  Might you take on “immoral” roles? A killer?
3) If  “virtually perfect virtual-reality” programs existed (and “trips” were reasonably priced), would you try one out? How often? Do you think that people might become addicted to such “trips”.
4) Assuming that we lived in a world where people frequently used “virtually perfect virtual-reality” programs, couldn’t heavy users become confused about which world was, in fact, the “real” world? How might a user try to avoid such confusion?
5) Imagine that you came upon “the end of the world” (as it is described in the film), perhaps on a road trip to Tucson.  How would you react?  Could you be certain of anything, if that happened?
6) Would you worry about how you treated “persons” in a “virtually perfect virtual-reality” program? If they were virtually indistinguishable from real people? And if real people might actually be “playing” with you?
7) Would you be jealous of (angry at) your spouse (assuming you have one), if they had “sex” with someone else in a “virtually perfect virtual-reality” program, if it didn’t involve ANY physical contact in the real world? If their “partner” was part of the program? If it was a real player?
8) Could anyone ever possibly convince you that you were part of a virtual reality program? If so, how? If not, put yourself in Hall’s shoes – how would you react?
9) Bonus: Near the end of the film, Hall says, “None of this is real…” What reasons does he give for this extreme claim? Is he right, in his case? Is it so different in the “real” world (for us)? How
10) In trying to come to grips with his new understand of himself, Hall asks Jane, “How can you love me?” Then, for emphasis, he asserts, “I’m not even real!” What would Descartes make of this bizarre remark?  Who’s right in this case, Descartes or Hall?

Memory and Personal-Identity

11) If you awoke with no memory of last night, found blood on your hands and clothes, and discovered that your best friend had been stabbed to death by some unknown assailant last night, what would you do?
12) Hall says, “Just because I don’t remember it doesn’t mean that I didn’t do it.” What would John Locke say about this? Should punish anyone who honestly doesn’t remember doing anything wrong?
13) What would it take to convince you that you committed a crime that you don’t remember?
14) Bonus: Have you ever met someone for the first time, but had a strange feeling that you already knew them?  What two explanations for this phenomenon are offered in the film? What do you think of these “theories”?
15) Imagine you remember having met someone special recently.  Someone you’ve “fallen for big time” and whom you’ve dated briefly. Then you run into this person on the street, but they claim to have no memory of you at all.  How would you react? How could you determine whose memory is flawed?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Visit the Official Website for the film: where, among other things, you can view a trailer of the film and download a program to tour a 3-D simulation of the simulated world of the film

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Golpes a Mi Puerta  (Knocks at my Door)
Venezuela 1993
Dir.Alejandro Saderman

This tense political drama portrays crimes of oppression in vivid, human terms. A man hunted by military police takes refuge in a home shared by two Catholic nuns. Because the punishment for harboring fugitives is death, the nuns must grapple with their own social, political, and theological issues as to what to do with their desperate lodger. An emotionally wrenching, powerful film that effectively depicts the moral dilemmas that have been faced by citizens in many of the fledgling democracies of South and Central America. Venezuela’s official entry in the 1995 Human Rights Film Festival. Spanish with English subtitles.

In the opening scenes, a priest has been shot and killed and the bishop is performing the funeral mass when the military police break into the church and stop the mass, sending everyone home. The local mayor, Cerone, then stops by to talk to the bishop about what is happening in the town and the bishop hints at his suspicions that the priest was killed by the police.

Análisis de personajes: Write a few lines of description (en inglés o en español) as to what you think these characters are like and why they act as they do.

¿Cómo son estos personajes y por qué hacen lo que hacen?

1) Cerone (el alcalde=the mayor)

2) el “rebelde” (the fugitive)

3) El Obispo (the bishop)

4) Ursula (the younger nun)

5) Ana (the older nun)

6) Amanda (the next door neighbor)

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Moebius

Currently, we have no questions available on this film :-(
 

The Rapture
 
Reflection/Discussion Questions

1. Describe Sharon’s (Mimi Roger’s) life prior to her “conversion”. How does her life compare with Sisyphus’ eternal punishment? with your life? Focus on similarities.
2. Sharon tells the christian missionaries that come to her door, “That doesn’t seem fair.” To what is she referring? Do you agree with her?
3. When Sharon is obsessing about being “unclean”, she speculates about why we feel bad inside when we do something wrong. What’s her answer? What’s Randy’s alternative? Whose response makes more sense to you?
4. What does Sharon mean by a “spiritual need”? Do human beings all have a spiritual need?
5. Sharon tells Randy, “There has to be something more (to life).” And Randy asks her “Why?” How does she respond? Does there HAVE to be “something more”?
6. How does Vic know that Sharon has changed when he sees her after her experience in the hotel and before she tells him the details of her “conversion”? Shortly afterwards, Randy tells her, “Instead of doing heroin, you’re doing God.” - is this a fair comparison? What would Marx say?
7. Sharon tells her supervisor, “God made me an information operator for a reason.” What does she think this reason is? Do we each have a (God given) purpose? If so, how can we know/discover what it is?
8. How does Sharon answer when her daughter Mary asks her, “Where’s Heaven?” How would you answer if your young daughter (assuming you had one) asked you this?
9. Compare Sharon’s response to Randy’s death with how you imagine a “nonattached” (in the Buddhist sense) individual would respond to the death of their spouse. What do you think of these responses?
10. Sharon’s friend Paula asks her, “Is there no proof (that God exists)?” How does Sharon respond? Does her reponse constitute “proof”?
11. When Sharon first feels that God is calling her to the desert, why is she certain that it is, in fact, God who is calling her and not Satan or her own subconscious? Should she be certain? How could anyone identify a “true” calling (from God)?
12. Why does Mary come to want to die? What would you say to her, if you were camping next to her and came to befriend her?
13. According to Sharon, what is life for? Do you think that God tests us? Is “testing” consistent with the view of God as a loving parent?
14. Near the end of the film, Mary claims, “God loves you because you love him.” Does this sound right to you? If not, why is salvation dependent on loving/accepting God (assuming that it is).
15. Why does Sharon stop loving God? What does she mean when she asks, “Who forgives God?” Forgives for what?
16. Bonus: Compare Sharon’s final decision with Ivan Karamazov’s reasons for making  the following statement in Dostoyevsky’s ‘Rebellion’, “It’s not God I reject..., I only most respectfully return to him the ticket <the entrance ticket to Heaven>.” (I can provide you with a copy of this reading.)
17. Bonus: Theodicies are traditional christian theological attempts to reconcile the conception of God as all powerful, loving, and good, with the existence of (immense) human suffering, by postulating a “greater good” (such as eternal harmony/bliss) for which this suffering is a necessary means. In ‘Rebellion’ and The Rapture, the suggestion seems to be, “the end doesn’t justify the means”. Do you agree with Dostoyevsky and Tolkin (the writer of The Rapture) here? Why not?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions 

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Hannah & Her Sisters

Discussion / Reflection Questions:

1) If we hypothesize that there is an unconscious wish/desire behind (Mickey’s) hypochondria, what is it? Explain.
2) When does Mickey assert, “I was happy. I just didn’t know I was happy.”? Does this make sense? Have you ever had such a realization? Is it common, do you think?
3) Assuming you are single, would you ever go out with someone your friend was dating? Why (not)?
4) What deal does Mickey try to make with God? Have you ever tried to make a similar  deal? Does God answer such pleas?
5) What’s Mickey talking about when he says, “I’m face to face with eternity, not latter, now!”
6) Why are some people energized by close encounters with death, while others are paralyzed?
7) Why isn’t Mickey happy when he discovers that he doesn’t have cancer? Why’s he suddenly moaning over “how meaningless life is?”
8) “Death takes the pleasure out of everything.” Would Tolstoy agree? Would Camus? Would Suzuki?
9) What’s Mickey’s assistant’s (Julie Kavner’s) solution to his anxiety? How does this fit with Tolstoy’s idea of “the lie” in Ivan Illych?
10) Is Elliot right when he says Hannah doesn’t need him? How does needing someone relate to loving them? Frederick tells Lee, “You are my whole world.”  Is this a sign of love? How does she respond?
11) Mickey claims that none of the great philosophers know any more about the big questions of life than he does (than any of us do). Is he right?
12) According to Mickey, what’s the poet’s answer to the meaning of life? What’s he make of this initially? Does his view change? What do you make of it?
13) “Be honest. It’s always the best way.” What’s Elliot referring to, when he tells himself this? Does he follow his own advice? Should he? At the end of the story, should he still?
14) What’s “THE BIG LEAP”?
15) Mickey’s confides, “If I can’t believe in God, then I don’t believe life is worth living.” Why’s he think that? Is he right?
16) Can one simply choose to believe in God? Can you choose to believe that the moon is made of cheese? Is this a far comparison?
17) How does Mickey’s father respond to Mickey’s asking, “Aren’t you afraid to die?” Compare his response to Lucretius’.
18) How does the Hare Krishna respond to Mickey’s interest? If he had invited him to dance with them, would this have been a better introduction?
19) How does Mickey get over his crisis? Where does he go to put the world “back into rational perspective”? Is laughter “the best medicine” or is it a defense mechanism to escape from reality? What would Tolstoy say?
20) What if the worst is true: what if there is no God & you only go around once…” How does Mickey finish this thought? Is his answer satisfying? To him? To you? To Tolstoy?
21) “I know ‘maybe’ is a pretty slim reed to hang the rest of your life on, but it’s all we have.” What’s Mickey mean? Is this true? Is “maybe” necessary? What would Camus say?
22) The musical piece, "Bewitched, bothered, & bewildered", plays throughout the film. How do each of these themes apply to the plot.

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing

 It's on its way to being the hottest day of the year in the, predominately black, Bedford-Stuyvesant district of Brooklyn, and tensions are growing with the temperature.  Sal (Danny Aiello), the Italian owner of a local pizza shop, likes his customers (who “grew up on my pizzas”), but his oldest son, Pino, wants out.  He feels his family is not welcome in the community and wants to set up shop in their own Italian American Community.  Mookie (Spike Lee), Sal’s deliveryboy, points out to Pino that although he may think that he doesn’t like blacks, all of his heroes are African-American.  One of Sal’s customers, Buggin’ Out, notices that Sal’s walls are covered with pictures of famous Italian Americans, and asks “why are there no brothers on the wall?”  When the question becomes a demand, Sal loses his temper and throws him out.  Buggin’ Out vows to organize a boycott in protest… It seems tempers are flying everywhere, except Da Mayor’s, the local drunk, who saves a little boy from being hit by a car, an act which is only acknowledged by Mother Sister, an elderly woman, whose been upset at Da Mayor for years.  Unfortunately the setting sun, seems to have no effect on the rising temperature and tensions…

Reflection / Discussion Questions

1. Was Buggin’ Out morally justified in calling for a boycott? Would you have “respected” the boycott? Why (not)?
2. How does the “boycott” escalate? Whose fault was the escalation?
3. How does Radio Raheem die?  Was it a case of “excessive use of force”? What should happen to the police officer? What do you think would happen?
4. What morally commendable acts did Da Mayor make just prior to the riot? Is there anything else he could have / should have done?
5. What morally decisive act did Mookie take, in the climatic scene? Was it “the right thing”? Why did he do it? What would have happened if he had done nothing? What would you have done?
6. Assume that a much higher percentage of inner-city African Americans feel that Mookie “did the right thing”, than do suburban whites.  How could this difference be explained? Would this provide evidence for cultural relativism? For ethical relativism?
7. Cite the various factors / causes which precipitated the riot. Are riots ever morally justified? Why (not)?  Would do you think will be the conclusion of the mayor’s investigation? What should it be?
8. What do you think Spike Lee intended us to conclude? Why did he quote both Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X?  How might Mookie’s action and the riot being interpreted as instances of “self-defense”?
9. Describe the final dialogue between Sal & Mookie. What feelings underlie it?
10. Did you like the film? Why (not)

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Click here to view a trailer of the film

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Ghost in the Shell

In the year 2029, the world is made borderless by the net; augmented humans live in virtual environments, watched over by law enforcement officers which are able to download themselves into super-powered, crime busting Cyborgs. but The ultimate criminal of the future is not human, has no physical body and can freely travel the information highways of the world, hacking and manipulating whatever and whenever required.  (presented by George Dodge & Kevin Wilson)

Discussion / Reflection Questions

1) Imagine that  technology is available that would allow you to put your mind into a robot.  Would you trade your humanity to become a robot, and essentially gain immortality? Assume that the technology has been proven "safe". What if you were dying from cancer?
2) Assuming that you could retain a "normal" appearance:  Would you mechanically modify your body?  What would you have done?
3) Imagine you have been in a car crash, and your hand has been severed in the collision.  Doctors say they can reattach the hand, and that it will eventually function again, but never quite like before.  The doctors also say that they can graft a new robotic hand onto you and replace the severed hand entirely, which will be functionally superior to your original hand.
The question:  What is more important to you; flesh and bone or the utility of mechanical augmentation?
4) Would you vote for an Artificial Intelligence to be the President of the United States?  Why/Why not?
5) How far do you suppose Artificial Intelligence technology can advance? Could an AI machine ever develop a
 "soul"? Can a "puppet master" (an independent, sentient Artificial Intelligence) be spawned just from programs and other software as in Ghost in the Shell?
6) If you had an augmented brain exactly like those in Ghost in the Shell would you purposely undergo
 a "simulated experience"? If so, what sort?
7) What did you think of the ending and where can Major Kusinagi ( lead female character ) go from
 there?
8) Can the politics of Ghost in the Shell be applied to the political situations of today?
9) If you were in the same situation as the garbage man ( your brain being hacked and used to commit
 illegal crimes ) and were made aware of your condition, what would you do?  Do you think you can live
 without remembering who you are/were?
 10) Seeing how the technology of Ghost in the Shell allows brain hacking, will you allow your brain to be
 configured?  Talk about the pros and cons of having a brain of that quality.
 11) Would you want to live in the society of Ghost in the Shell?  Explain.

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Click here to See a "Cool" trailer for the film

Visit the Official Ghost in the Shell Website

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Carlos Saura’sThe Garden of Delights Spain (1970)

A ruthless tycoon suffers amnesia, paralysis and loses his ability to communicate after an auto accident.  His greedy family tries to shock his memory back to life in order to capture his fortune.  The tycoon tries to recapture his own identity through fantasies of his own.

Questions for Reflection / Discussion:

1) What is Antonio like? Is he really sick in your opinion?
2) What is his family like? What do you think of them?
3) What role do fantasies and dreams play here?
4) What is real and what is not real in the film? How can you tell?
5) What does it mean to be “mentally ill” in this film? Who is mentally ill here?
6) What do you make of the ending of the film? What do you think it means?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Dancer in the Dark

 “Dancer in the Dark is that rarest of creatures, a film that dares to push viewers to the limits of their feelings.”  --Damon Wise


Selma, a Czech immigrant living in a folksy American small town, is going blind and so will her son, Gene, if she does not arrange an important operation for him. To cover the expense, Selma works every hour she can, cheating on her eye tests so she can keep working at the local factory long after her vision has become too unreliable to work safely…

Discussion & Reflection Questions

1. How did Selma “cheat” when she used to go to the movies in Czechoslovakia? Why did she do it?
2. Why was Selma fired? Should she have been? Would you have fired her?
3. In the song number on the train tacks (“I’ve seen”), what is Selma trying to convey?  How is Jeff replying?
4. In the same song, when she sings “To be honest I really don’t care”, IS she being honest? When she sings, “I’ve seen it all” what might she mean?
5. In the same song, when she sings “I’ve seen what I need – to want more would be greed”, what does she mean? Do you agree? Does this sound like Zelinski’s interpretation of ‘nonattachment’ to you? What would Lucretius think?
6. Why didn’t Selma let Bill have (/keep) her money for one month? Should she have?
7. Why did Bill want Selma to kill him? Why did she finally comply? Afterwards, Selma imagines Gene singing to her “You just did what you had to do” – what might this mean? Would you EVER kill a friend? If so, under what circumstances?
8. Afterwards, should Selma turn herself in? Would you tell her to, if you were her friend (Kathy or Jeff)?
9. If you were on the jury would you have found Selma guilty? Why (not)?
10. Compare Selma’s reliance on musicals with religious faith – make specific reference to the songs when she is being arrested and on trial.
11. Why didn’t Selma want to see (or even call) Gene when she was in prison? Would you, if you were in her shoes? Why (not)?
12. What reason does Selma give her guard for why she likes musicals? Do you like musicals? Why (not)?
13. What song does Selma sing in her cell? Have you ever used music to “cheer yourself up”? Why do you think this works?
14. Would you want to be there in the end, if you were Kathy or Jeff? Why (not)?
15. How did Selma answer Jeff, when he asked her why she had Gene knowing that he’d have the same degenerative condition that she had? Should she have had Gene, knowing this? What if the condition was not treatable? What if the condition didn’t involve blindness, but a genetic disease that would (with virtual certainty) result in an early and painful death?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

View a trailer for the film

 Visit the Official Dancer in the Dark Website

 Read Roger Ebert's review

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Man Facing Southeast
Discussion & Reflection Questions

1. Why did Rantes show up at the mental hospital? What did he say about his purpose? What did Dr. Denis think? What do you think?
2. Does Rantes care for people? What suggests that he does not? What suggests that he does? Is care primarily a (set of) physiological reaction(s), or a disposition for certain actions, or…
3. Should Dr. Denis have treated Rantes? What if the “cure” would be harmless, but would reveal Rantes to have been an unemployed son of an abusive alcoholic father?
4. What piece of music did the orchestra play at the concert? What significance to the story does this piece have?
5. When Rantes asks “Which of us is the crazy one?” What does he point out to suggest that it might be Dr. Denis? Why does he say, “Your life is a nightmare.”? If Dr. Denis is crazy are we all crazy? Is this coherent?
6. Could Rantes find anything relating to feelings or the soul by studying the brain? Where should he be looking? What is the relationship of feelings to the brain? Why do drugs influence moods / feelings?
7. Compare and contrast the character Rantes with K-Pax.

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

 The Man of La Mancha

Reflection/Discussion Questions

1. Why was Cervantes arrested?  When he said, “I was made for Don Quixote and he for me. We are both men of La Mancha,” what do you make of this? How are they similar?
2. Describe the various delusions which “Don Quixote” experiences. Are they all “harmless”?
3. If your father suddenly came to believe he was Don Quixote and gave up his job to begin a “quest”, would you try to have him committed? Would you try to get him psychiatric help (which may utilize drug therapy)? How about psychological counseling?
4. What qualifications does Don Quixote claim to have which makes him worthy to be a knight? Does he really possess these traits?
5. Is  Don Quixote’s world a “better world”? If he offered you a pill, which would cause you to perceive “his reality” (instead of the “real world”) would you do it? If you lived in his time? If he lived in ours?
6. How does Don Quixote reply to Dolcinna, when she asks, “Why do you do these things?”
7. What do you think of the song, “The Impossible Dream”? Can it be meaningful to pursue any goal, if you believed that goal to be impossible to realize? Why would anyone do this??
8. Peter Berger conceives of Don Quixote as a symbol for the religious individual and writes, “It is Don Quixote’s hope rather than Sancho Panza ‘realism’ that is ulitmately vindicated.” What do you think of this analogy? And his conclusion?
9. When Dolcinna says to Sancho at the end of the film, “ Don Quixote is not dead. Believe, Sancho, believe,” what do you think she means? In what way is he not dead? What is she asking Sancho to believe?
10.  “Others look at what is and ask ‘why?’, I look at what is not and ask ‘why not’?”.  What would Don Quixote make of this quote? Is he an idealist? Are you? Why (not)?
11. Bonus: Compare Don Quixote’s altered vision of reality with those expressed in  The Matrix, Dancer in the Dark, Man Facing Southeast.

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Total Recall
 

Plot note: A group of “freedom fighters”, many of whom are mutants (as the result of lax environmental safeguards), are fighting to overthrow the oppressive Martian governor.  In turn, Gov. McClane has been trying for years to suppress this rebellion by finding and assassinating it’s elusive leader, Kuato.

 

 

 

Reflection/Discussion Questions

  1. Who is Douglas Quaid? Who is Hauser? Are they the same person? How would John Locke answer? What do you think?

  2. What within the film suggests that the secret identity of Hauser is really just an artificial memory implanted within Douglas Quaid by the Rekal Corporation. What within the film suggests that “Douglas Quaid” is really a false persona implanted within Hauser’s mind. Which of these scenarios is most plausible (within the context of the plot line)?

  3. When Lori tells Quaid that his whole life is nothing but a dream, what does she mean? When else in the film is reference made to a dream? Is it (consistently) conceivable that YOUR whole life is nothing but a dream? What does Descartes think?

  4. If the artificial vacations offered by Rekal were safe and affordable do you think that they would be popular? What are the advantages of Rekal “vacation”, according to the sales pitch? Would you “go” on one, if you couldn’t afford a real vacation and couldn’t get time of work? What about the “special packages” that they offer, “vacations from yourself”? Where would you go? Who would you be?

  5. When Quaid watches the video where Hauser tells him, “You are not you, you are me.” Does he believe him? Should he? What other possibility is there?

  6. When Quaid is visited in by the “Rekal official” in his room at the Mars Hilton, what does this person say to try to convince him that he is really still on earth at Rekal? Does Quaid believe him? Why (not)? Was this a reasonable decision? Was it the “correct” one?

  7. According to Kuato, what defines an individual? Would Locke agree? Would Sartre? Do you? Why (not)?

  8. Bonus: Compare and contrast the film with the Matrix, noting: their respect notions artificial reality, Quaid and Neo, and their little red pills.

  9. Bonus: Compare and contrast the film with Blade Runner (another Sci-fi classic based on a short story by Philip K. Dick), noting the role of implanted / artificial memories and their relation to personal identity.
     

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

 GATTACA

Discussion / Reflection Questions

1.       Who is Jerome Marrow? Why do the credits list Ethan Hawke as playing the role of both Vincent and Jerome? Near the end of the film, why do Vincent and Eugene greet each other by each saying, “Hello, Jerome”? Who is the “real” Jerome at this point? Is it reasonable to say that they both are? What would Locke say? What would Sartre say? What do you say?

2.       Why does Vincent go through such extraordinary links to “become” Jerome? What is a “de-gene-erate”? or “invalid”? Compare the discrimination they faced to the discrimination which African Americans and Women faced in the 20th Century? Are we headed towards this sort of 2 class society? Are we already there?

3.       “Only seconds old, the exact time and cause of my death were already known.” How? If your own life-expectancy could be predicted within a high degree of probability, would you want to know? If you found out that you only had 10 years to live would it change how you lived? What if you were told you only had 1 year? If you found out that your child would only live until 20 but should be healthy until then, would that change the way you raised her / him?

4.       Insurance companies would not cover Vincent.  Should they have the right to refuse coverage based on genetic pre-dispositions? Isn’t it reasonable for institutions / companies like Gattaca (NASA) to refuse to train someone who in all probability will be dead before they can utilize their training?

5.       If prior to having a child, you could (via a Geneticist) screen-out any genetic pre-dispositions for potentially terminal health conditions, would you? What about non-terminal health conditions (like poor eye-sight or bad teeth)? What about physical traits (like hair color, eye color, height)? What about behavioral traits (like alcoholism, depression, attentiveness)? Don’t we already do this (to some extent) by “selecting” the partner we wish to have a child with? What if you could selectively add genes which increased the probability of your child developing “exceptional” qualities (like athletic ability, intelligence, and memory)?

6.       The official tagline of the film is “there is no gene for the human spirit.” Is this true? Where does Vincent get his fierce determination from? Why does he desire to be an Astronaut so strongly? Could he choose to give up on this dream? Could he choose to not have this desire? Could he choose to be content living the life of a janitor? If not is he really free in this regard? What would d’Holbach say? What would Hume say? What would a Taoist say? What do you say?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

El Mariachi

Currently, we have no questions available on this film :-(

 

The Matrix Revisited

A Film Series & Film Club Special Event – a discussion of The Matrix & the Matrix Reloaded, led up to the premier of The Matrix Revolutions

Five Philosophical Questions – towards Revolutions

1.   Have we seen the “real” world yet?

Several elements within Reloaded suggest that the “real” world into which Morpheus liberates human captives of the Matrix & which includes the city of Zion is, in fact, a second level of the Matrix program; for example: the Architect’s alleged construction of Zion & the 5 previous “One’s”, and Neo’s ability to disable the Sentinels at the end of the film just as he can stop bullets in the (1st level) Matrix. But Revolutions isn’t going to pursue this storyline is it?

2.   Is the Architect God? Is the Oracle the Goddess?

The Architect seems to be the programmer behind the Matrix; he is the “Source”.  But what is the role of the Oracle? The Architect says that she is the Mother of the Matrix, but how so?  The Oracle informs Neo that she is not human, but is she a program? Perhaps the Architect’s program which has gotten out of control – perhaps the soul of the Matrix? She speaks of the programs which are behind nature (wind, trees, & …). And programs which become out of control (out of harmony?) – due to concern for ( / attachment to) their own survival?

3.   Is there free choice in the Matrix?

    “Choice” is central in the first two Matrix films. When Neo first meets Morpheus, Morpheus asks him if he believes in fate. Morpheus then presents him with the central choice of the red pill (the harsh truth) or the blue pill (blissful ignorance). Could Neo have chosen the blue pill? Conversely, a lack of freedom is suggested in the Oracle’s precognitions – e.g., she tells Neo not to worry about the vase before he knocks it down. Could he have not knocked it down?  In Reloaded, a deterministic counter-thesis is offered (“there is only cause & effect – action-reaction”).  The Architect offers Neo another choice at the end, but says “we both know what choice you will make” & Neo seems to fall in line.  But why even offer Neo the 2nd door in this case? Why not just say, look Trinity is in danger? Neo’s knowledge of the alternative possibility, saving Zion, must come to be important for this presentation to make sense. The (teleological implications of the) Keymaker seems to conflict with freedom too.  Neo & company’s flaw is that they do not understand “why” they seek the Keymaker. Without this understanding, they are simply reacting and are no wiser than those humans lost in the Matrix. 

4.   Which “One”? What makes Neo so special?

    Twice in Reloaded, Neo is told that he has no choice to make, but has only to come to understand the choice which he has already made - what is this fundamental choice? When & why did Neo make it?  The most obvious choice in the first film is the blue/red pill, but all liberated humans presumably made the same choice. Is this the choice: knowledge vs. the bliss of ignorance? Or is it in accepting his role / destiny as “the One”? Or his love for Trinity? Or…?

The Architect mentions an “anomaly” which necessitated more sophisticated programming.  Is Neo the anomaly or is it grounded in human nature in general? The latter could be grounded in a human need for “hope” which necessitated the creation of a religion. But why need the metaphysics-mythology of this religion correspond to the metaphysics of the real world? The former suggests that Neo is a unique human being, which fits with “the One” rhetoric, but what makes him unique? His ability to control the Matrix, so the story goes, but why is this ability unique to Neo? Why can’t the Architect eliminate the possibility of any future “One”’s?

5.   The “big choice” that the Architect presents Neo is a dilemma between saving Zion or saving Trinity.  What should he have done?

We are told that each of the previous “Ones” had a love/devotion for humanity, but Neo’s is more specific (directed towards Trinity). Perhaps this is all a test of Neo’s love/devotion. He brings Trinity back to life (mirroring the first film). This desire / wish to be able to transcend the death of a loved one is at the heart of religious faith (one of Berger’s “Signals of Transcendence”). At its core The Matrix is a love story, but what can this fantasy say to us who do not have the power to reanimate a dead loved one?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

See more questions on The Matrix

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

A Lesson before Dying  

Reflection and Discussion Questions

1.       Who is Jefferson? Why is he facing execution? Who is Grant Wiggins? Why does his Tante Lou want him to ask for the right to visit Jefferson? Why does he agree?

2.       Why does Reverend Ambrose object to Wiggins giving Jefferson a radio? Why does Wiggins think Jefferson needs the radio? Compare and contrast popular music with prayer.

3.       What does Rev. Ambrose say to Miss Emma to comfort her when they first are allowed to use the big visiting room? Does Wiggins approve of this “teaching”? Do you? Why (not)?

4.       How does Wiggins get Jefferson to eat Miss Emma’s food when they first are allowed to use the big visiting room? Do we owe something to those who love us? Our parents? What does Wiggins claim that “love” involves / requires? Do you agree?

5.       Describe the debate along the river over the value of prayer / faith between Rev. Ambrose and Wiggins. The Reverend says that he lies everyday – in what way? Why does he do it? He also claims that Wiggin’s Tante Lou has been lying everyday – how has she been “lying”? Is this lying? Is it wrong? Does Wiggins end up lying to Jefferson? To his student who asks about heaven?

6.       Rev. Ambrose claims that “his people” need faith / hope – why? Does his reasoning apply to everyone? Why doesn’t it seem to apply to Wiggins? Would Tolstoy agree with him? Would Camus? Do you?

7.       In what sense is Jefferson free even while he is sitting in jail awaiting execution? What would Sartre say? What would Krishnamurti say? What would you do if you found yourself in Jefferson’s dire shoes?

8.       How can Jefferson’s last few months be meaningful? According to Rev. Ambrose? Wiggins? Tolstoy? Camus (compare his predicament to Camus’ portrait of Sisyphus)? What do you say? What answer does Jefferson come up with for himself?

9.       Did Wiggins teach Jefferson anything? What? How did he do it? Think of someone who taught you a “life lesson” which you really took to heart – how did they do it?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index


The Lord of the Rings
Discussion & Reflection Questions

One Ring

1.  Key to the trilogy are the rings, and especially “the one Ring”. Why do you think Tolkein chose “rings” as his magical talismans? What powers does the one Ring confer upon its bearer? Why might Tolkein have focused on these powers instead of other “super-powers”?
2.    If you found a ring of invisibility, what would you do with it (assuming that you were unaware of any “evil force” which may lay behind it)? What if your friend found it and was using it to get away with some pretty despicable deeds (in you eyes) –  what could you say to your friend to try to get them to stop using it in this way? What lessons might your friend glean from LOTR? If you’re familiar with it, compare the responses of Tolkein and yourself with Socrates’ answer to “the puzzle of the ring of Gyges” in Plato’s Republic.
3.    If you found a ring that would prevent you from aging as long as you wore it, how much would you wear it?
4.    Rudolf Otto defined a “religious experience” as an encounter with something wholy unlike anything else, “the mysterium tremendum” – which is awe-inspiring because it is simultaneously both awesome (beautiful) and awful (frighteningly powerful), something which simultaneously attracts and repels us. How well does this description fit (experiences of) the Ring? Can you think of any common (real-life) experiences which approximate this sort of experience?

Good & Evil

5.    Is Sauron closer to “Hitler” or to the (Christian conception of the) Devil? Aside from religious faith (& scriptural authority) is there any reason to think that, in addition to all the evil people in the world, there is a disembodied agency of evil? If you are familiar with Aristotle’s critique of Plato’s theory of “Absolutes”/ “Forms”, how might Aristotle answer? What is “evil”? Why does it exist? Can humans ultimately defeat it? At the end of LOTR has it been eradicated from Middle Earth?
6.    Cite some examples of the Ring’s power to tempt and lure. Why did Saruman succumb to the thrall of the Ring, if he was truly wiser and more powerful than Gandalf?  What did Gandalf mean when at the beginning of their confrontation he asks, “When did Saruman the wise abandon reason for madness?” Given that it was immoral, was Saruman’s choice to side with Sauron irrational?
7.    Why are the Elves leaving Middle Earth? Why is their time ending and the “time of men” at hand?
8.    Why does Frodo have a particularly strong tolerance / resistance to the Ring’s power? – “what makes this Hobbit so special?” Does this ability indicate that Frodo is (morally or spiritually) superior to the other members of the Fellowship? Compare Frodo with other heroes (mythological or real).

Courage and Foolhardiness

9.    Juliet Waldron, has criticized Jackson for “downsizing” Frodo’s heroism - she writes,   
“Frodo as Sacrifice! Over and again in The Two Towers we see Elijah Wood with his head tilted, his blue eyes rolled heavenward, a veritable Lamb of God. But this is mythically off center. In the ancient stories, the sacred victim possesses potency… It is their strength that is magically made available to the tribe when their blood is shed. By constantly underlining Frodo’s fears and doubts and never showing his bravery, Jackson removed an essential heroic quality.”  http://www.julietwaldron.com/frodo.htm
She cites several scenes to make her case, including the battle at Weathertop and the subsequent ride to Rivendel. What do you think? Did Jackson intentionally play down Frodo’s heroism? Why would he?
10.    Aristotle described courage as a mean between cowardice (unwilliness to face any danger) and foolhardiness (over-eagerness to face any danger, even in the face of overwhelming odds). Given this distinction, were the members of the Fellowship courageous or foolish? What did they think? If you have seen The Last Samurai, compare the Fellowship’s decision with the decision of the Samurai to fight until the end.
11.    Would it have been wrong of Frodo not to volunteer to take the Ring back to Mordor? Could anyone else have done it? Anyone else at Elrond’s council? Anyone else in Middle Earth? If not, was it just a fortuitous coincidence that the Ring had ended up in the hand of the one person that could destroy it or could it be “divine providence”?

Love & Friendship

12.    It’s hard for us to relate to the choices of immortal beings (like Legolas and Arwen). But is an Elf’s willingness to risk death more commendable than a humans, since they have more to lose? Should you take better care of yourself (in avoiding accidents, for example) if you were an Elf? Would you reduce your life to one year, if that was the only way you could be with someone you deeply loved? To one day? Isn’t Arwen’s choice to give up eternity for one mortal lifetime with Aragorn more extreme than that?
13.    Friendship is at the heart of the Fellowship. What models of friendship does Tolkein paint? Aristotle distinguished the friendship of colleagues/partners from “good friends” – what examples / pardigms of each are there in LOTR? Aristotle also felt you should limit yourself to a few good friends – did Tolkein agree; do you?
14.    At the end of the Fellowship, when Frodo told Sam not to follow him – that he had to go the rest of the way on his own, was Sam being disrespectful in refusing to listen? What reason does he give for not listening to Frodo? Are there any circumstances in which you would refuse to go along with a friend’s wishes out of a concern for their wellbeing?

Life & Meaning

15.    When the Fellowship is lost in the caverns of Moria, how does Gandalf respond to Frodo when he laments, “I wish that none of this had happened.” How wise is this advice? Could it help it times of despair / regret? If you’re familiar with them, compare Gandalf’s advice to the Stoic and Taoist notions of happiness.
16.    Gandalf continued, “There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring. In which case, you also were meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought.” Are there other examples of “divine planning” in LOTR? Do you believe that everything in life happens for a purpose? Doesn’t this view conflict with human freedom and responsibility?
17.    Is there reason to think (/hope) that good is more powerful than evil in LOTR, prior to the destruction of the Ring? Is such hope necessary to “fight the good fight”? What other expressions of “hope” are there in LOTR? What would Don Quixote say?

Bonus: Compare the expressions of these themes in LOTR with those found in Star Wars or …
 

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

The Official Lord of the Rings Website

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

FIGHT CLUB

 Reflection / Discussion Questions

  1.  Why does the narrator refer (Ed Norton) to himself as a slave? What is he a slave too? Is he any different in this regard than the rest of us? Are we all slaves (in this respect)? How does the narrator and Tyler Durden define 'freedom'? What do you think of this view?

  2. Why does the narrator go to support groups? What does he get from going to them? What does he mean when he says, "1 found freedom [ at these groups ]"?

  3.  What problems does the narrator & / or Tyler Durden have with modem American culture? Do you agree with his critique? What is his utopian vision for the world? Is this world any better than ours?

  4.  In the job he has at the beginning of the film, what formula does the narrator use to determine if a car should be recalled? What would a Utilitarian think of this decision procedure? What do you think of it?

  5.  What does the narrator discover fighting does for him? What (more conventional) means to fulfilling this need I desire do other ("ordinary") people employ?

  6. Some scholars study the role religion plays in the lives of practitioners (i.e., what they gets out of it I what it does for them): what are some of these functions of "religion" (e.g., what does your religion do for you)? Compare these functions of religion with the benefits members of Fight Club get from it. What comparisons between Fight Club and religion does the narrator make?

  7.  Why is the first (& second) rule of Fight Club that you don't talk about Fight Club? Why isn't this rule followed? Does Tyler want it to be followed?

  8.  What does Tyler mean when he claims, "Self-improvement is masturbation. Now, self-destruction -"? Why would self-destruction be any more meaningful to Tyler (or anyone) than self-improvement?

  9.  Describe the different phases of the narrator's relationship with Marla? Does he consider his feelings for her a strength or weakness? What do you think is the film's message about (intimate) relationships?

  10. Compare and contrast the narrator's & Tyler's (attempted I suggested) means of dealing with the narrator's chemical burn. Do you think that either of these "techniques" might help you in dealing with (physical or emotional) pain? What "wisdom" did Tyler try to convey to the narrator via the burning? How was experiencing intense pain supposed to convey this lesson?

  11. What are some of the "homework" assignments given out by Tyler? What was the point behind them? What would you say to a member of Fight Club who tried to defend these acts by claiming that they were relevantly similar to politically revolutionary acts like the Boston Tea party?

  12. Who are you (& who are you not), according to Tyler? How does his view of a person fit with yours? What implications for how one lives their life (& how one feels about death) does his view have?

  13. Visit the "Project Mayhem" website, http://www.project-mayhem.ndo.co.uk   Who are these self-proclaimed, "Space- monkeys"? Are they serious? Are they dangerous?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Meetings with Remarkable Men

In 1920, an unknown man appeared in Europe, claiming to have lived through extraordinary experiences in the Middle & Near East.

His said his name was George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff. Meetings with Remarkable Men is the story of his early years.  The film begins

with Gurdjieff as an inquisitive teenager in Armenia, interested in questions of life and death and considering becoming both a

priest and a doctor. He becomes neither, but throughout his adolescence his thirst for “answers" continues to grow –

 

Discussion / Reflection Questions

  1. Gurdjieff tells the novice priest he meets (after working in the factory), “Science proves one thing, Religion another – and both seem equally true.” What would you guess he thinks the conflict is here? Do you agree – is there a conflict between religion and science? Do your own religious beliefs conflict with your views about science? If so, how do you reconcile them?

  2. How does Gurdjieff answer when the novice asks him, “What are you looking for?” How is Gurdjieff attempting to answer his question? Is there an answer to this question? What do you think makes life meaningful or worth living? Would this satisfy Gurdjieff?

  3. Why do you think Gurdjieff didn’t become a priest? Why do you think some people feel “called” to a religious life, as a minister or monk or…? Are these people radically different from the rest of us?

  4. Why do you think that Gurdjieff becomes so convinced that answers to his questions may lie in some ancient, esoteric (secret) religious order, the Samoon Brotherhood?

  5. When Gurdjieff meets the Russian prince who paid the priest to copy an ancient map, he tells him, “Something is missing in me. I felt that apart from my ordinary life there is another life. A life which is calling me, but how to be open to it– This question never gives me any peace…” How does the prince respond? What was he concerned with when he was young? What caused the shift in the prince’s values?

  6. How does the prince distinguish between learning and knowing? Do you “know” anything in the sense which the prince describes?

  7. How does the Dervish priest under the tree respond to Gurdjieff’s question about the value of breathing (meditation) exercises? Why doesn’t this cause Gurdjieff to give up his search? Was this the priest’s intent?

  8. What does the priest in the coffee house tell the prince which seems to be an instance of ESP? Do you think there are psychics? Why do you think the priest criticizes the prince when he inquires about how he could know this fact about him? Is curiosity a flaw? Does it conflict with religious faith?

  9. What do you think the prince means when he tells the priest at the coffee house, “I’m empty”? Why does the priest seem to think that this is a positive sign? What do you think that the priest is asking of the prince when he tells him that he must “die consciously to his past life”? Is this a good thing?

  10. How does Father Giovanni, a convert to the “World Brotherhood”, respond when the archeologist whom Gurdjeiff is traveling with asks him why he doesn’t return to Italy and share some of the faith he’s acquired? Does he think that there is no value in talking about spirituality? What’s his point about the two brothers (monks) who come to talk to them once or twice a year? Do you think a typical modern Christian minister would agree with his view? Do you?

  11. When Gurdjeiff finally arrives at the monastery, the priest he meets tells him that he has a lamb and a wolf inside of him, what psychological traits do you think these two metaphors represent? What has one acquired if one can “find the force to allow these two opposite lives to live together in oneself”?

  12. Describe the techniques-practices utilized at the monastery. What psychological effects do they seem to have? What meaning do they have according to the prince? Do you think that they could have any spiritual significance? Are calm / peaceful people more spiritual than “ordinary” people? Are spiritual people calmer than “ordinary” people?

  13.  The priest has been told he has only three years to live – what has he decided to do with the time he has left? What would you do, if you were told that you only had three years to live?

  14. Do you think Gurdjieff has found what he’s looking for at the monastery?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Harold & Maude

Some Questions for reflection and discussion

 1. The sound track by Cat Stevens is incredible. Write down some lyrics that "strike you" and indicate why. How do these lyrics connect with the film?

2. Describe some of Harold's "suicides"? How many does he say he has performed? Why does he do it?

3. What does Harold do for fun? Have you ever known anyone obsessed or fascinated by death? How does this person compare to Harold?

4. Have you ever known anyone who seemed to genuinely love life? How does this person compare to Maude? (Is Maude a natural Taoist? What might Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu think of her?)

5. * When Harold takes Maude home (the first time), how does Maude justify her hobby of taking other people's cars, even if it might upset people? (What might a Lao Tzu & / or Epictetus think of this practice?) Why doesn't Maude find her answer inconsistent with her other hobby of "collecting things"? or with her sadness at recalling Frederick (a former husband/lover)?

6. What does Harold do (for fun) when he's not attending funerals? What does Maude ask him about this hobby? What hobby of hers does she share with him immediately after their picnic? What reason does Harold give for his choice in flowers? How does Maude respond? If you could come back to life as any nonhuman, living thing what would you choose?

7. Assuming that the little tree which Maude makes a connection with would die where it was on the street. was it wrong of her to take it and replant it? (What would a Utilitarian or Taylor say?)

8. Harold tells Maude, "[I] sure am picking up on vices." What "vices" has he picked up from Maude? How does Maude respond to this? What do you think of her advice?

9. When did Harold decide "I enjoyed being dead", why do you think he felt this way? How does Maude answer him when he shares this with her? (What would Chuang Tzu think of her answer?)

10. How does Maude answer when he asks if she prays? How do you suppose she goes about this practice? Is this religious? What does her practice have in common with (traditional) prayer?

11. While watching the sunset over the bay, what story does Maude tell Harold about "glorious birds" and seagulls? What moral does Maude seem to draw from the story? (What does this have to do with the "duck-rabbit"? What might a Taoist think of Maude's moral?)

12. What does Maude do with the present Harold gives her? Is this disrespectful? Do we have an obligation to keep gifts from those we love? Would you be hurt if someone you gave a gift to threw it away (or gave it away)? Should you be?

13. Given that they genuinely loved each other, was it wrong for Harold and Maude to sleep together? Would it have been wrong for them to marry?

14. Why did Maude decide to end her life? Wasn't this inconsistent with her love for life? Do you think that suicide is ever morally justifiable? What scenarios might an advocates of the moral permissibility of suicide put forward as the clearest cases?

15. How does Maude answer Harold when he tells her, while in the ambulance, that he loves her? Do you think that you could say this to someone you love as you were dying? Would you be a better person if you could?

16. Does Harold kill himself in the end? Why (not)?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Nueve Reinas (Nine Queens)

Currently, we have no questions available on this film :-(

 

 

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

The Lacuna Corporation has invented a safe procedure which can erase memories. In their commercial, Lacuna’s founder tells us, “Remember the Alamo. Remember the Sabbath. But why remember a painful love affair. Remember, with Lacuna, you won’t.”

Is there anything you would choose to forget?

Some questions for reflection and discussion

  1. Why does Joel say his life is not that interesting? What sort of life would he find interesting? Why might Clementine be attracted to Joel?

  2. Why did Clementine decide to erase Joel? Why does Joel decide to erase her?

  3. If Lacuna Inc., really existed do you think it would be popular?

  4. Describe the process Lacuna uses to erase memories. What sort of memories are erased first? Which are last? What’s unusual about Joel’s procedure? When / why does he decide to “call it off”? How’s he go about it?

  5. Why doesn’t Patrick have the same success with Clementine which Joel had?

  6. Describe the things which Joel most closely associates with Clementine. Described a few possessions of your own which are strongly connected with memories.

  7. How does Joel answer when Clementine tells him, “this is it – it’ll be gone soon”? If I you could spend one day doing anything you wanted, on the condition that you wouldn’t remember anything about it the next day would you still do it?

  8.  If Lacuna existed would you go? Do you have any memories you’d like to forget? If you had to pick one or two memories,…? How would that erasure change your sense of your self? What impact on who you are, beyond your memories, have those events had; what “residue” would survive their erasure?

  9. Compare Lacuna Inc. with Rekal Inc. of Total Recall. How different would the world be with both of these companies in them? Should either be illegal?

Visit the Film’s Website

 

Visit the Lacuna Corporation's website

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

 

In the Time of Butterflies

Currently, we have no questions available on this film :-(

 

Donnie Darko

 

 

 

 

Some questions for reflection and discussion

 

1.       Describe the relation between Donnie and his family at the beginning of the film. Compare and contrast the Darkos with the “typical” American family. Compare and contrast Donnie with the typical high school kid.

2.      Why’s Donnie seeing a psychiatrist, Dr. Thurman? What does Dr. Thurman think is wrong with him? How does Donnie respond when she asks him, “You think life is absurd?” Do you agree with Donnie’s answer?

3.      What is Donnie’s interpretation of the Graham Greene short story (“The Destructors”) discussed in the first English class scene? How might (Donnie’s interpretation of) the story apply to Donnie’s own life?

4.      Who is Jim Cunningham? Why is he so popular? Can you think of any real-life “Jim Cunningham”?

5.      What does Donnie think of the Fear and Love Life Line? What do you think, how much of human behavior can be explained in terms of love and fear?

6.      “What if you could go back in time and take all those hours of pain and darkness and replace them with something better?” What darkness does Donnie erase by going back in time? What light / good does he also erase? Why is Donnie confident he is “replacing them with something better”? He obviously felt, it was worth it – would the other characters in the story have all agreed? Do you? If you could go back in time and change one thing, what would you change? What else would be different if you did make that one change?

7.      Could everything in the film after the first “October 2, 1988” have been a dream of Donnie’s? Is this a better interpretation than assuming that all the subsequent events were real? What are we to make of the last collage of characters (including the Tears for Fears song, “Mad World”)?

8.      Why does Donnie’s science teacher tell him that he is contradicting himself with his theory of time travel? If time travel is possible, is everything (causally) determined? Is Donnie in Bad-faith when we writes, “They made me do it” ?

9.      Within the story, can one move outside one’s time channel / spear? Imagine time travel is possible and you meet your future self who says that she has come from the future (tomorrow, in fact). You are skeptical but tomorrow comes and you find a time portal, are you free not to go back? If you did go back, could you kill your earlier self? – The Paradox of Time Travel.

10.  Consider Donnie’s last sentences in his letter to Roberta Sparrow, “I can only hope that the answers will come to me in my sleep. I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breath a sigh of relief because there will be so much to look forward to.” Does the film (indirectly) glorify suicide – Donnie becomes convinced that the world is better off without him in it. In this respect, isn’t it the antithesis of the holiday (Jimmy Stewart) classic, It’s a Wonderful Life.

11.  Why is this film so popular? Do you like it? Why (not)?

 

Visit the Official Donnie Darko website

 

Read the Graham Greene’s, “The Destructors”

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

 

House of Sand & Fog

Some questions for reflection and discussion

1.       What (metaphorical) significance does the title have? Do you think it is a good title? How is the image of water (& fog) used throughout the film?

2.       Who is Colonel Behrani? What are his attachments (deep desires / cravings)? How do these lead to suffering (for himself & others)? Who is Kathy? What are her attachments? How do these lead to suffering? What attachments of others (Nadi, Lester, &/ or Kathy’s brother) contribute to the suffering within the story?

3.       Explain the conflict over the house. Why did Kathy loose it? Why does Behrani want it (to resell for a profit) so badly?

4.       Adrienne Rich described ‘lying’ as an attempt to make things simpler than they are. How well does this definition fit with examples of lying & deception in the film? Why do the characters’ tell the lies they do? What do you think of Rich’s definition & the examples you cited?

5.       Did anyone act immorally in the film? Cite examples where you think that someone should have acted differently. In these cases, why did the characters act the way they did? How could they have been convinced to act differently?

6.       Pretend that you were going to be placed in the world of the story as either Kathy or Behrani, but you didn’t know which character you would be assigned, and before you enter the story you can decide how the conflict over the house will be settled. What would your solution be?

7.       When talking to his son, Esmail, in his bedroom, how does Behrani depict Americans? Do you think that this is a fair criticism?

8.       What causes Kathy to finally “snap” (& attempt suicide)? Do you think she accurately reflects the psyche / motivation of real suicide victims? Why do Behrani & his wife help Kathy? What do they tell Esmail about her? How does this change Behrani?

9.       At the hospital, Behrani prays / pleads with God – what does he offer God in return for Esmail’s life? Have you ever attempted to “barter a deal” like this with God for anything? Do you think that God response to these sorts of petitions? Why do so many people’s sincere prayers (like Behrani’s) appear to go unanswered? Many Christian & Moslem theologians have criticized this type of prayer, since it attempts to sway God’s will when in stead the devote individual should be striving to accept God’s will. Do you agree?

10.   Compare Kathy’s suicide attempt with Behrani’s motivation at the end of the film. Pretend that you are Behrani’s daughter talking to him on the phone after Esmail’s death. How might you try to dissuade him from his final decision? What can be done to lower the suicide rate in the real world?

11.   How do you suppose Kathy has been changed by the events of the story? Consider her last line. What do you think her life would be like in the following weeks & months?

12.   The director, Vadim Perelman, said that this is a story where no one is right or wrong - where we root equally for Kathy & Behrani. Do you agree? He claimed that the film illustrates that people are often divided by their hopes, not their fears, and that it was Behrani & Kathy’s failure to understand each other that did them in.  Explain what he might mean. Are these common sources of human conflict?

13.   Do you like tragedies? What are we supposed to learn / take away from stories, like this one, with sad endings? Do you agree with the claim that (self-identified) religious individuals like tragedies less than non-religious individuals? Assuming that there is a statistically significant correlation here, how might it be explained?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Caddyshack

Discussion / Reflection Questions

 

1.       What’s Danny like? How does he respond when Ty asks him why he wants to go to college? Why do you think he wants to go to college? Why do you want to go to college? What would you do if, in spite of studying, you couldn’t pass a couple required college courses?

2.       IS there “a force in the universe that makes things happen”? Compare Ty’s description to Lao Tzu’s descriptions of the Tao, in the Tao te Ching. How does Ty’s description compare with Obi-wan’s description of THE Force in Star Wars: A New Hope? How does Ty’s advice compare with Yoda’s in The Empire Strikes Back?

3.       What do you think of Ty’s advice, “all you have to do to get in touch with it is stop thinking, let things happen, & be the ball”? How do you “stop thinking”? How often do you find yourself contemplating stupid, trivial, &/or unwanted thoughts? How hard is it for you to mentally focus? When is it easiest?

4.       Compare Ty’s advice & ability to the Taoist ideal of Wei Wu Wei (“acting non-acting” or “effortless action”) &/or with the action of an athlete who’s “in a zone”. Does this sort of effortlessness only apply to the expert / professional? Can an amateur just “let things happen”?

5.       If the Dalai Lama told you that “when you die or your deathbed” you would receive “total consciousness”, what would you take that to mean? What is “total consciousness”?

6.       Why doesn’t Ty keep score when he plays golf? Are you competitive? When you play games or sports with your friends, how much does winning matter to you? Is competitiveness purely a matter of how much you want / value something? Need a competitive person be disappointed / upset with loss?

7.       Why does Ty tell Danny not to be “obsessed with his desires”? Are you obsessed with any desires? Is obsession always bad? What would Buddha say?

8.       Chuang Tzu wrote, “When an archer is practicing he has all his skill. When he shoots for a small prize, he is already nervous. When the prize is gold, he looses his mind. He skill has not changed, but the prize divides him. He cares – he sees two targets – he looses his mind.” How well does Ty illustrate Chuang Tzu’s point? Is “not caring” a better strategy than “caring”, in sports or life? Is there a third alternative?

9.       Why does the bishop loose his faith? How might a fellow Christian attempt to help him regain it? Compare his experience to the theological “Problem of Evil”.

10.   Do you like Golf? What is your favorite sport (to play or watch)? What can sports teach us about life?

11.   Did you like the film? Why (not)? Cite one or two scenes that you think are especially funny. What makes them funny? What makes anything funny? Why do you suppose humans have (/developed) a sense of humor? Try to find a few functional similarities between humor and prayer; between comedians & shaman.

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

 Visit a cool Website dedicated to the film: http://www.carlspackler.com/

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Run Lola Run

Currently, we have no questions available on this film :-(

 

The Devil's Backbone

Currently, we have no questions available on this film :-(

 

KUNG FU

A Buddhist Priest instructs, “In the Shaolin Temple we have never accepted anyone of other than full Chinese birth." The young boy thinks he is being sent away but a moment later Master Kan continues, "There is a first for everything."  Kwai Chang Caine, a half-Chinese, half- American, was raised/trained at the Shaolin Temple in the Honon Province of China. But after a tragedy, he had to leave the country.  Caine, now a full Shaolin priest and an expert in Kung Fu ("It is said a Shaolin priest can walk through walls. Looked for, he cannot be seen. Listened for, he cannot be heard. Touched, he cannot be felt."), finds he himself in the American West of the 1870’s – with flashbacks of memories of his youth, perhaps the most famous of this was his first encounter with the blind Master Po,

Discussion / Reflection Questions

1.      Can you identify some Buddhist or Taoist teachings illustrated in the film? How about elements which don’t seem to perfectly fit either of these traditions?

2.      Caine’s waiting outside the temple for the chance of being admitted is echoed in Fight Club. Compare & contrast Fight Club with the Shaolin temple. How about: Caine with Tyler Durden.

3.      “A Shaolin priest is at one with himself.” What might that mean? What is it to be “at one with oneself”? How could one fail to be one with oneself?

4.      What do you suppose Caine “learned” through his presumably long initial period at the temple where he was only given menial tasks (sweeping & cleaning)? Note a similar initial training period was utilized in The Karate Kid & …

5.      Can you hear your own heartbeat? Do you suppose there could be much benefit from periods of “just sitting & listening”? Try it (for at least 5 minutes). How did it go? Would you consider this a religious practice? Why (not)?

6.      How does Master Kan describe “Chi” (“inner strength”)? Is it just willpower? What else could it be?

7.      Do agree with Caine’s suggestion, “what happens in a man’s life is already written. A man must move through life as his destiny wills”? Do you believe everything happens for a reason? Is this the same thing? The old man that brought Caine to the railroad camp replies, “Yes, but each man is free to live as he chooses. Though they seem opposite, both are true.” Are destiny and freedom compatible?

8.      While showing Caine the different (animal named) systems of Kung Fu, Mater Kan says, “All creatures are one with nature… As no two elements of nature are in conflict, so when we perceive the ways of nature we remove conflict within ourselves.” What does this mean? Animals fight & kill one another – “no two elements of nature are in conflict?? And what’s this “conflict within ourselves”? What are specifically are these “ways of nature” which he instructs us to “perceive”? can this help?

9.      Master Kan goes on to tell Caine that Shaolin practice results in “a harmony of body and mind in accord with the flow of the Universe.” What is to have a “harmony of body & mind”? What is this “flow of the Universe”? How could anything ever be out of accord / harmony with this flow?

10.  What answer does Caine get when he asks, “what is the best way to deal with force?” Why do you suppose the Shaolin valued “peace & tranquility over victory”? Is their cultivation of Kung Fu at odds with these values? (In a later episode, Caine is referred to as “a man of peace who fights like ten tigers.”)  Master Kan inserts, “Perceive the way of nature and no force of man can harm you.” Is this blatant hyperbole?

11.  Master Po final instruction (in the temple) to Caine is, “a priest’s life is a simple one and must remain free of ambition.” What does he mean by “ambition”? What (in the Shaolin view) do you suppose is wrong with ambition? Do you agree that ambition is a bad thing? If you don’t, can you think of a related point on which you and Master Po would probably agree? What is Master Po’s one ambition? How could this possibly be a “flaw”?

12.  When he meets Master Po to celebrate the fulfillment of his ambition, Caine says, “the years have been good – quiet and measured – flowing like water.” How does this compare with your ideal of several “good years”?

13.  Why does Master Po disable the guard that punished him? Was this contrary to the Shaolin virtue of humility? Why does Caine kill the Emperor’s nephew? Wasn’t this against Shaolin teaching? What does Master Po tell him? What does this mean?

14.  Why does Caine burn the railroad (bridge) at the end of the film? Should he have? In a later episode, Caine tells some Americans that no one has the right to revenge – do you agree?

15.  A major virtue of both Buddhism & Taoism is ‘nonattachment’. How does Caine illustrate this virtue? Can he be criticized as being “attached to his past”? A major theme in the series is his search for his half-brother, is he attached to finding him? IS ‘nonattachment’ a virtue?

16.  In a later episode, Caine informs a Catholic priest that he too is a priest. The priest asks him, “of what faith? What is it you worship?” Caine replies, “Life.” Based on what you now know of Caine, what do you think of this answer? Is this a “faith”? Can one be religious without any beliefs about God or the “afterlife”? Would you call Caine religious? If another college student told you that they “worship Life” what would you take this to mean?

17.  ‘Caine’ is an instance of a common literary & cinematic theme - the lone wanderer who often comes to the aid of the good but weak. Other instances of his motif: Clint Eastwood’s characters, Mad Max, Dr. David Banner from The Hulk,… Compare & contrast Caine with any of these others characters.

18.  In Pulp Fiction, Samuel Jackson’s character tells his partner that he wants to give up his life working for a mobster and “walk the earth – like Caine.” John Travolta’s character responses that we have a name for that “a bum – you want to be a bum.” Is Caine a bum? Is there anything wrong with being a bum?

19.  Do you think that Caine deserves the title, “wisest main character of a television series of all time”? Why (not)? Can you think of a wiser character? What makes some one wise (opposed to intelligent or knowledgeable)?

Visit a cool Website dedicated to the film

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Being There

Some questions for reflection and discussion:

1.      In the irony of the film, (some of?) the most intelligent people in the film are the “dumbest” and Chance, the dumbest, is (taken to be) the wisest. Is this just a quirk of the film or is there a broader indictment here?

2.      Is “ignorance bliss”? It seems to be for Chance. Would you agree that intelligence and happiness are inversely related?

3.      We tend to consider someone who has “nothing going on upstairs” as worse of than the rest of us – but are they? Is Chance? According to the Tao Te Ching, knowledge is acquired through gain while the Te (virtue) is acquired through loss. Similarly, Zen practitioners attempt to cultivate an attitude of “No-mind” through practices like “just-sitting”. Is Chance a paradigm of “enlightenment”? Does he represent an ideal worth striving for?

4.      On the other hand, John Stuart Mill contended, “It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” – suggesting that intelligence is qualitatively more important than happiness. Do you agree - would you voluntarily give up some of your intelligence for increased happiness?

5.      How does this film compare / contrast with another blockbuster, Forrest Gump?  

6.      Does Chance convey anything profound or, at least, do people infer anything profound from what Chance says?

7.      How significant is it that Chance is a gardener? Is there wisdom in gardening which is largely lost in contemporary America? How useful is “gardening” as a metaphor for the economy (e.g., “grow the economy”) or society or? (note: Taoists speak of cultivating the virtue).

8.      How significant is Chance’s fascination with television? The TTC says, “The world may be known without leaving one’s room” – but it did not mean by watching TV J

9.      Peter Sellars remarked that this was his favorite role, in part because Chance had no “self” / personality. Is this right? Is it relevant that Sellars, himself, struggled with low self-esteem and an obsessive desire for fame. Does Chance have any desires? Are his desires any better / worse than anyone else’s?

10.  Both Buddhists & Taoists seem to value the cultivation of an equanimity which is undisturbed by loss or changing events. Chance seems to exemplify this ideal – he is: carefree, nonattached, undisturbed.  But is this an ideal worth striving for? Is Chance a sort of “somnambulant” incapable of feeling anything “deeply”?

11.  Cornell West recently suggested Socrates one flaw is that he never cried & Jesus’ one flaw is that he never laughed. Are these flaws? Is this a flaw with Chance? If so, is there anything to be learned from Chance?

12.  Why does Chance walk off at the end? Where’s he going? The director had to work very hard to have the final (“walking on water”) scene in the film (it wasn’t in the screenplay). Did you like this? What does it suggest?

13.  The last line of the film is, “life is a state of mind” – is it? How’s this relate to the film? What do you think Buddhists and Taoists would think of this line?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

 

IKIRU

 

Some questions for reflection and discussion:

1.      “Ikiru”, the title, means “to live”. The opening narration tells us that our protagonist, Watanabe, has not really lived in more than 20 years. Why not? What does it mean “to really live”? Are you “really living” now? Why (not)?

2.      The narration informs us that he has been worn down by “meaningless busyness”. And “in fact he does nothing at all.” What’s this mean? No one can literally do nothing. The narrator suggests he does no “real work”. But what is “real work”? What makes some work “real”? Are you doing “real work”? Do you hope to in the future – doing what?

3.      Identify the different approaches to / attempts at “really living” illustrated in the film. What do you think of each of these?

4.      Try to identify key features of the film which highlight its setting in Post-WW II Japan.

5.      The Japanese tradition was not to tell patients that they had a terminal disease. What do you suppose was the reasoning behind this practice? Why do you think the other patient in the waiting-room would let Watanabe in on the doctor’s coded language for “terminal stomach cancer”? Would you want to know? Why (not)?

6.      After Watanabe leaves, his doctor poses the question of the film to his assistant and nurse, “What would you do, if you found out you had less than 6 months to live?” How’s the nurse respond? Why do you suppose many people react this way?

7.      Well, what would you do? Compare your reaction to Watanabe’s.

8.      Why does Watanabe turn to drinking? How common do you suppose his reasoning is among alcoholics? If Watanabe was your best friend & he offered this explanation for his drinking to you, what would you say?

9.      How’s the novelist from the bar react to Watanabe’s desire to spend a lot of money to “really live”? What’s his idea of “really living”? How does Watanabe react to his night on the town? How does the novelist’s approach to life differ from Toyo’s?

10.  The novelist tells Watanabe, “misfortune teaches truth… we only realize how beautiful life is when we chance upon death.” Is this true? Must it be? How else might one come to realize life’s beauty? What’s blocking us from seeing this all the time?

11.  In the Pachinko parlor, the novelist tells Watanabe, “these silver balls – they’re you – your life itself.” Explain this metaphor. Is it a good one?

12.  What’s the title of the song that Watanabe requests at the dance hall? Can you recall any other lyrics? Why do you suppose this song affected him so dramatically?

13.  Why’s Toyo quit her job? Does she end up with a better one? Why does she lose (much of) her zest for life? Is her initial enthusiasm & subsequent devolution emblematic of growing up? Is it impossible for adults to be as happy as children? 

14.  After awhile Toyo starts to get “creeped out” at the obsession Watanabe develops for her. How’s he answer, when she pushes him on why he wants to spend so much time with her?

15.  At the restaurant with Toyo, Watanabe comes to an epiphany that “it’s not too late” – he can still do something meaningful with his life. What might have precipitated this realization (what did Toyo do &/or say immediately prior)? What did he decide to do? Why does he decide that this would be meaningful? Is it simply a desire to leave a legacy (to be remembered)?

16.  Some commentators have compared Watanabe’s epiphany to a (Zen) “satori” experience. Did Watanabe become “enlightened” at that moment? Why (not)?

Share your own thoughts on any of these questions, email dzelinski@rbc.edu (place Film Series in the subject line)

View reactions to these questions

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

 

Some of the responses we've received to the Reflection / Discussion Questions

Crimes & Misdemeanors #4. I have to agree with Levis love paradox. I am sure many of us have dated people and said "Never again. I am never dating someone like that again." But most of us do it again and kick ourselves for it later. Maybe, when we were young and naive, we only saw the goodness in the people closest to us. That impression of perfection has been burned into our memory. I think that is the link that Levi was trying to make with family impressions.  -  Gretchen McConnell

 

Crimes and Misdemeanors 15. Is Professor Levi right when he claims that the biblical story of God’s asking Abraham to sacrifice his son is inconsistent with the conception of a loving God? No,  Professor Levi leaves out the critical ending of the story as well as the reason for God's asking this of Abraham. God was testing Abraham's faith. He was leading him into a situation where he could be tested. (note: God can lead us into temptation! Verification: "Lord's Prayer at the last supper" LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION. Also, after Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist the Bible says, "And the holy spirit lead Jesus into the wilderness where He would be tempted") So God was testing Abraham. - Fred Adkins

 

Crimes and Misdemeanors 19. Levi claims (as does Sartre) that we define ourselves by the choices we make, “we are the sum total of our choices”. Do you agree? I agree with this philosophy to an extent. I think that other people have no choice than to base a judgment on what they see us do. I would disagree that all our actions are equal in man's eyes. I think for every bad act that we do we must 'redeem' ourselves with five good acts. Unfortunately, man  forgets the good before the bad. (especially women) So we should be careful and mindful our acts because, what else do people see than that which we do? - Fred Adkins

 

Enjoyed The Last Supper. Quirky humor -- lots of laughs, but it presents some interesting questions. I've thought it over and I don't think I'd have killed Adolf (but it's a toughie). We can't understand the will of God and I don't think it's good ju-ju to mess with his game plan. (and for those who don't have any idea what I'm talking about -- you'll just have to see the flick to find out). I give it a thumbs up. - Kai Sommer

 The Last Supper 1. I would probably talk to "young Adolf" and ask him what are his plans, and if he says something that would relate killing others and conquering the world, well, I'd probably kill him right there and then. But if he says something different, I'd still kill him, a children changes their minds about what they want to do, or become everyday, so I'm pretty sure that he'll eventually change his mind, and I'll kill him there, no questions asked. 2. No, I wouldn't turn my self in. 3. They killed 9, but if you count the first guy, which was an accident, it would be 10. I believe that they thought it was right to kill those people because those people did have no use in the world and that it wouldn't change the world a bit of difference if they killed them, but if they didn't then they (friends) would have to face the fact that the ones they didn't kill or should of killed, made a negative impact on the world. 4. The 1st victim: I think the world wouldn't have been a better place, but I know that they saved others lives by accidently killing the man. The Priest: The man deserved to die, still I know that the world still stayed the same, with or without the Priest, it's just that he had no right, or he didn't deserved to be a Priest as well as to "live". 7. The "Friends" were poisoned by the last guest. - RJ Rayos

[re., Crimes & Misdemeanors]  I believe that everyone has fallen in love before, and gotten hurt just as many times. I agree with Levis for the fact that, yea, we got hurt, but we are willing to go right back and do the same things to ourselves all over again as so as we think were over it. - Heather Lewis

 

[re., Last Supper] Well, I hadn't planned on commenting on any of the movies, but I feel obligated to say this: I believe that I am a highly ethical person, and at the risk of sounding self-righteous, possibly one of the most ethical people that I know of, however, I will have the audacity to admit this loud and proud: Adolf Hitler? I'd be more than happy to kill that son of a bitch any time between his birth or death. - Kevin Kyle Riehl

 

[re., The Matrix] In virtual reality anything is possible because Keanu Reaves jumped up and was doing some type of twist kick in the air and he stayed in the air for a while before he hit the floor. He can't do that in real life. I believe he still might be same person before he woke up in the matrix. Because his main goal is to get out of this strange place and go back home. He feels deeply depressed because he wants his life to the way it was before he woke up in the matrix. He is also very lonely because he doesn't have any friends and no one to talk to. - Katrina Wilson

 

[re., The Matrix] i would choose the red pill. in general most people think that to a certain degree their life sucks. so why not take the chance of possibly improving your life. in any event that which seems worse at some point can only get better. - milton james leblanc

 

[re., The Matrix] QUESTION #4  IN MY OPINION, NEO WOKE UP IN THE FAKE OR MATRIX WORLD. I BELEIVE THE WORLD WE LIVE IN NOW IS TRUE AND REAL AND THE WORLD HE WOKE UP IN IS FAKE AND UNBELEIVEABLE. I WOULD HAVE CHOSEN THE BLUE PILL TO GO BACK TO MY EVERY DAY LIFE. -BLAKE SHARP

 

[re., The Matrix] I believe that the world Neo woke up in could very well have been the Matrix itself. If so, it would make for an excellent plot in the sequel. I know I would have chosen the blue pill, I'm perfectly happy in my happy (even if ignorant) life.  - Jessica Hewison

 

Could the world into which Neo awoke, with the help of the red pill, itself be a virtual reality program (couldn't this be a plot basis for  The MATRIX II?) I think the movie portrays the theory correctly. Neo did wake up in the (real) world, not the matrix. If he did wake up in a virtual world, then what did he go back and forth to? Why would one virtual world be a gateway to that of another(being the matrix). This is kind of reaching; but also, how could you die in a virtual world. The characters who did die in the matrix were unfortunately sabotaged by another character still in the real world. There bodies were still in the real world but there characters were still in the program. But one character contradicts what im proposing, i dont remember his name but he was the younger guy. He was killed in the matrix by gunshots. Neo was also almost killed, so im not really sure how this works i guess ill just have to watch the movie again and give it a little more thought. - Gregory Burton

 

If I was searching for a answer to life and I had my chance Life and your reason of the search was in my grasp. Then I would have taken the red pill. No matter if I had a family or not. Neo had no no girl, kid, mother, father, etc that the movie showed So I probably would have did the same as Neo. Taken the red pill and went for it.-  michael giles

 

"Dancer in the Dark" 2.  Why was Selma fired?  Should she have been?  Would you have fired her?  Selma was fired because she broke a press machine which she probably put two plates in instead of one.  As mentioned earlier in the film, putting two plates in a machine will ruin it and she almost did on one occasion since her eyesight was degrading.  Selma should have been fired because a business isnt a family, its an operation trying to make money.  When you have an employee breaking machines, not working as fast as other employees and daydreams most the time reality dictates the employee has to be fired.  Personally I wouldnt have fired her since I had the opportunity to view her life, her hardships, her illness, her troubles, etc.  If I were forced to fire her by my superior I would get one of my employee management personnel to do the dirty job since I couldnt have that on my conscious.  If she were just a name on paper then sure, Id fire her.3.  In the song number on the train tracks ( "I’ve seen" ), what is Selma trying to convey?  How is Jeff replying? Selma is trying to tell Jeff shes seen it all and there is nothing more of interest to see.  Jeff replies there are countless other things she could see and are worth seeing and no person can see everything in a lifetime. 4.  In the same song, when she sings "To be honest I really don&#8217;t care", IS she being honest?  When she sings, "I’ve seen it all" what might she mean? I believe Selma is being honest since during the whole film she never complain of her illness and only revealed it when absolutely necessary such as lying about why she didn’t want to play the lead in a dance, saying she didn’t care when in fact she couldn’t see the other actors.  The only thing she does seem to care about is her son, the reason why she’s working, why she saved up and why she was forced to take her money back from Bill. When Selma says "I’ve seen it all" I think she mean she’s seen all the little things which make up the larger and grander things Jeff mentions, such as when Jeff says, "You’ve never seen Niagara Falls", Selma replies "I’ve seen water, that’s good enough". 5.  In the same song, when she sings, "I’ve seen what I need - to want more would be great", what does she mean?  Do you agree? Does this sound like Zelinski’s interpretation of nonattachment to you? What would Lucretius think? As answered in question 4, I believe she means she’s seen all the little things which make up larger and more exotic things.  Such as seeing the Eiffel tower she’s seen buildings not as tall but are adequate enough for her.  I think since she’;s never seen any of those things, ever, she has no desire to see them since she has never experienced the grandeur of the things.  If she were to see Niagara falls should would probably want to see over grand falls such as the Victoria Falls, etc. – Kevin Wilson

 

 

Feel free to offer us your own suggestions / comments
Daniel Zelinski dzelinski@rbc.edu
Rachel Finney: rfinney@rbc.edu
 

Return to Quick Links

Return to the Film Index

Daniel Zelinski's homepage