10.25.09

More Philosophy Now

Posted in Books and Film, Philosophy, Publishing News tagged , , , , , at 4:27 pm by ndichario

Phil1009_covThe new issue of Philosophy Now magazine (Sept./Oct. 09) is available. The issue is dedicated to existentialism, and in it you’ll find my review of Revolutionary Road, the film, mostly, but also Richard Yates’ incredible novel, which I couldn’t resist talking about as well.

I’ve copied in the full text of my review here, but I encourage you to buy the magazine. There are a number of terrific articles for all of us parlor existentialists to enjoy. It’s a great issue.

Revolutionary Road

Nick DiChario asks if it’s existential, or just depressing.

All April Wheeler wants is for her husband Frank to shut up. Chances are you’ve felt a similar frustration. You suffer a setback in life – not your run-of-the-mill disappointment, but a game-changer, one of those epic collapses that forces you to take a long, hard look at who you are and what it means to be alive in a world that has turned against you; a moment that makes you reassess a life-long dream and decide whether it’s time to give up on it for good – and you just need a little time and space to think it through.

This is exactly where April is in the opening scene of Revolutionary Road, the film based on Richard Yates’ classic 1961 existential novel. April always wanted to be an actress, and she went to acting school before she met Frank. When she joined the local production of The Petrified Forest, it was mostly to remind herself of her former life, to rediscover the flame that once burned brightly inside her. Connecticut isn’t exactly Broadway, but for a woman of thirty-something, mother of two, opening night at the high school was a big deal. If she had performed admirably – if she had gotten a standing ovation, or even a sincere round of applause – it might have been enough to justify her existence. But she was awful – so awful that she knew she would never act again, and most likely had no talent to begin with. Although this scene is passed over quickly in the film, Yates gives it a good measure of attention in his novel. It is an important moment, a moment in April’s life when desire runs hard up against truth and comes out the worst for it. Frank does his best to console her, make her feel better about her failure; but all she really wants him to do is shut the hell up so she can think, put it all in perspective and rearrange her psyche to cope with the death of her dream. Not too much to ask for – but Frank is incapable of giving it. During the ride home the couple argue violently, each saying things they know will deeply hurt the other. Welcome to the lives of Frank and April Wheeler.

 

Sam Mendes

Sam Mendes

Revolutionary Road is directed by Sam Mendes (Jarhead, Road to Perdition, American Beauty), who makes the most of Justin Haythe’s inspired screenplay. Viewers follow the Wheelers from setback to setback as the unhappy couple readjust and compromise their dreams of living interesting, artistic, avant garde lives, and conform to the standard roles of husband and wife, just like all the other husbands and wives in the falsely idyllic suburb in which they live. They always imagined themselves better than the rest; but this illusion fades before their eyes and ours as the film inches forward. Frank once laughed at his father for toiling his life away as a salesman for Knox Business Machines, but through a cruel twist of fate, Frank ends up working for the same company, toiling in much the way his father had toiled. Every time reality becomes too much for the Wheelers, they fight. The kids they never wanted; the job that’s stealing Frank’s best years; the dreadfully boring existence of a housewife… neither of them asked for this life (did they?) – and yet both of them are living it, hating each other for it in their own small ways, and denying one of the most important tenants of existentialism – taking responsibility. Their fights lead to affairs, their affairs to fights. Time and again April asks Frank to shut up because she doesn’t want to talk about it; and Frank, who loves April and is terrified that at any moment she might leave him, can’t stop talking. Their relationship is built on needs not met, and through the first half of the film there seems to be no way out. But is there a way out after all? April comes up with an idea, another potential game-changer.

Leo_kateApril is the real star of this story. Without her inner torment there would be no existential conflict. April decides to take control, to meet the enemy head on. Existentialism is concerned with the freedom of choice and what one does with it. It tells us that we are not only fundamentally free to choose, but obligated to make authentic choices. To choose authentically means we are individually responsible to undertake the challenge of continually creating ourselves. This existentialist responsibility is too often misunderstood as dark, moody, and just plain depressing, when in fact it is a call to action, what Sartre describes as “the sternness of our optimism.” After years of denial April finally sees her responsibility for her own life and understands that she and Frank have not been true to themselves. She comes up with a plan to go to Europe “for good.” Frank was stationed in Paris during his stint in the military, it’s the only place he ever talked about returning to, so April decides they must move there. She sees this as her chance to change their course, set things aright. She discovers that she can make good money as a secretary for NATO, or in any number of government agencies overseas. Frank can then, finally, take some time off and discover what he really wants to do with his life. “Don’t you see?” April begs, “You’ll be reading and studying and taking long walks and thinking… For the first time in your life you’ll have time to find out what it is you want to do, and when you find it you’ll have the time and the freedom to start doing it.” Paris is Shangri-La, and if she can convince Frank of this they’ll leave the wretched burbs behind forever. But be prepared, there is a problem, and the viewer can see it coming from a mile away. Only April doesn’t see what is obvious to us: the plan instantly frightens Frank. For all his brave talk, he seems to fit the role of coward just fine. He says he despises his job, but appears to find comfort in it. He claims to be disenchanted with the dull routine of his days, but discovers relief in the tedium, in the daily ride on the train, in the office banter, and in the meaningless affair with the secretary.

Make no mistake, this is the stuff of existentialism, and existentialism is perhaps best served on a literary plate. Many seminal works of existentialism can be found in the stories and plays of Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Franz Kafka, Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir. But rarely do dramatic works of existentialism translate well into film, especially of the Hollywood blockbuster type. The internal monologues; the ruminating, self-evaluation and angst; the subtle things that make living in the world absurd, have all produced great literature, but not always riveting cinema. Mendes, however, pulls it off through an intuition for picking the dramatic scenes from Yates’ novel and squeezing the intensity out of each one – the bitter fights, the horrible things the characters say and do to each other, the affairs, April’s clumsy attempt at aborting her unexpected pregnancy… Mendes lets us become intimate voyeurs, and in this way breathes a certain kind of awful life into the film. Even the tortured and psychotic John Givings is used mercilessly to shine a light on the protagonists’ flaws. John at first admires the Wheelers for their plan to escape to Paris; but when he learns that they’ve abandoned the idea he becomes distraught and demands to know why. Frank tells him that April is pregnant – a shock to them both, they hadn’t planned on it, but “suppose we say that people anywhere aren’t very well advised to have babies unless they can afford them. As it happens, the only way we can afford this one is by staying here. It’s a question of money, you see.” He explains this to the psychologically-damaged John as if he’s explaining it to a five-year-old rather than to an adult who once had a brilliant career as a mathematician. But John is not so easily convinced. Money is an excuse, not a reason, and he lets Frank know this: “Don’t people have babies in Europe?… What’s the real reason? You get cold feet, or what? You decide you like it here after all? You figure it’s more comfy here in the old Hopeless Emptiness, or – Wow, that did it! Look at his face! What’s the matter, Wheeler? Am I getting warm?” It’s a brutally honest scene, and the most damning in the film: the patient out of the psychiatric ward on a half-day pass is the only one who has the courage to speak the truth.

It’s an existential wake-up call, but it comes too late to stop the downward spiral of events that lead to the tragic climax. Everything has already been set in motion. April has missed her window of opportunity for a safe abortion, and Frank is responsible for the cold, calculated dismantling of their dream. In the end, the Wheelers suffer not from what they perceive to be the trap society has set for them, but from refusing to act.

 

Rev_road_covRevolutionary Road is a brilliant novel, and I highly recommend the film. You won’t often get a chance to see good existentialism on the big screen. In fact, I have not seen a better attempt since Lo Straniero (1967), based on Albert Camus’ The Stranger. To his credit, Mendes is unfailingly faithful to the novel, picking up on the high-drama points of Yates’ story and paying attention to the nuances. Kate Winslet as April and Leonardo DiCaprio as Frank play their parts magnificently. The minor characters are wonderful as well, especially Kathy Bates as the well-intentioned and irritating Mrs Givings, the real estate agent who sells the Wheelers’ their house on Revolutionary Road.

There is no ‘tosh’ (the word Virginia Woolf was fond of using for frivolous or silly writing) in this tale of self-inflicted wounds. In his famous lecture Existentialism Is A Humanism, Sartre tells us that people must take responsibility for themselves, whatever the situation: “We are alone, without excuses. That is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free.” Yates seemed to have been intimately aware of this. He struggled as an author, and never achieved great success or notoriety in his lifetime, suffering acute alcoholism, and mental problems which sent him to a psychiatric ward. This novel is about the truth of human experience, and Yates’ life experiences were pretty ugly. Perhaps the anguish of his own life allowed him to read between the lines of his generation and identify what was ailing it. He used his personal adversity to feed his work and wrote through it all with a clear, sharp, realism that wasn’t appreciated nearly enough in his day. I first read this novel in college and thought it was okay, although a bit boring. It’s amazing what thirty years of perspective can do for a work of art… I have more of an appreciation and sympathy for Yates’ personal sufferings now, and the obvious influences they had on this classic story of disappointment and loss in America. He expertly pulls apart the social order and how we all compromise ourselves to death behind a veneer of cozy acquiescence. Although set in the post-WWII era, it could just as well have been written today.

I can understand why the story might have seemed dull when I was a kid in college; but today, after having inevitably lived some of the disillusionment Yates wrote about, it’s a whole new disturbing ball game. There must have been times when, much like his character April, Yates just wanted everyone to shut up so he could put it all in perspective. In the final scene of the book, and as the film fades to black, in one of the few humorous moments in an otherwise uncompromisingly relentless tale of existential angst, April finally gets her wish.

© Nick DiChario 2009

Nick DiChario was nominated for the Hugo and World Fantasy awards. His novels A Small and Remarkable Life (2006) and Valley of Day-Glo (2008) are published by Robert J. Sawyer Books.

Subscribe to Philosophy Now, one of the coolest magazines in the universe.

09.08.09

Chilly Summer = More Reading and Writing

Posted in Books and Film, Philosophy tagged , , , , , , , , at 11:55 pm by ndichario

3 Fine Books

Philosophy
I’m in the process of e-interviewing science fiction author Robert J. Sawyer for Philosophy Now Magazine. As I was preparing for the interview, Rob suggested I read Science Fiction and Philosophy: From Time Travel to Superintelligence (2009), edited by Susan Schneider. This is a great book filled with essays about science fiction and its place in philosophy, and philosophy and its place in science fiction. Just about every page is interesting. You’ll find topics such as “The Matrix as Metaphysics” (David Chalmers), “Consciousness in Human and Robot Minds” (Daniel Dennett), “Superintelligence and Singularity” (Ray Kurzweil), “The Paradoxes of Time Travel” (David Lewis), and much more. It supports what many of us have known for a long time: science fiction really is a thoughtful literature. This book is now available in paperback and will truly bend your mind: Highly recommended.

Mystery
Mystery writer Andy Straka is a fellow upstate New Yorker (now living in Virginia). He’s been nominated for the Shamus, Agatha, and Anthony awards, and his first Frank Pavlicek novel A Witness Above (2001) is an excellent read. In the spirit of noir (if not dead center in the middle of it) his main character is an ex-NYPD cop with a bitter ex-wife and a troubled daughter. Frank is scraping by as a PI when his daughter Nicky suddenly ends up in jail after a brick of coke is found strapped to her car, and she’s suspected of murdering a friend. You’ll find good characters, fine writing, and lots of interesting info about falcons within these pages. Yep, that’s right, Andy is “falconry enthusiast,” and the bird bits are fascinating and fun to read. This is a fast-paced, tightly knotted mystery. If you give in to one book, I suspect you’ll want to read more: Highly Recommended.

Rothberg Project
The “Rothberg Project” continues. You may recall that I reviewed A Beast In View previously in this blog. Next on my list of Abraham Rothberg gems is The Sword of the Golem (1970). When Abe handed me this novel, he said it was the closest thing to science fiction and fantasy he’d ever written, and he thought I might like it. It’s not really science fiction or fantasy, but he was right about me liking it. It’s a hell of a book.

Set in sixteenth century Prague, the Rabbi Judah Low creates a Golem out of mud and clay. Is it magic or a miracle of God that allows him to do this? (You make the call.) It doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that it’s an unnatural act, and this one unnatural act sets the stage for the rest of the novel. The Golem struggles with the meaning of his own life as well as what it means to be human; the rabbi wrestles with his faith and with the fate of his people; and the Jews struggle with their lives in the ghetto where they suffer, for the most part, as prisoners in fear of their jailers. As each scene unfolds, the sense of impending catastrophe becomes stronger and stronger until it’s simply impossible to put down the book.

To quote the author, “The Sword of the Golem is about peace and violence, about when the sword is to be used, and when it is to be sheathed, if ever.” This is a brilliant novel and a great story. The book is no longer in print, but it can be found through online booksellers such as AbeBooks.com: Highly recommended.

Of further interest…

Some of Abe’s new work and reprints are now available through a small press by the name of Edteck. Check it out and buy with confidence!

A more detailed review of Science Fiction and Philosophy from the Metapsychology site.

The Philosophy of Science Fiction Film, edited by Steven M. Sanders.

Feminist Philosophy and Science Fiction from Prometheus Books.

Philosophy Now Magazine. Subscribe today!

06.02.09

Philosophy and Comics

Posted in Books and Film, Philosophy, Publishing News tagged , , , at 10:54 am by ndichario

MayJune09The new issue of Philosophy Now is available. The May-June 2009 issue is all about comic books and philosophy. Lots of fun and interesting as always. Included is my review of one of my favorite novels, Austin Grossman’s Soon I Will Be Invincible. The review follows, but PLEASE SUBSCRIBE! It’s a great magazine.

Nick DiChario finds out what it’s like to be the bad guy.

What is the nature of good and evil? This question has vexed philosophers throughout the ages. But philosophers aren’t the only ones to have grappled with it. Comic books have pitted good against evil since the 1930s, when they first appeared. In fact, the superhero form of this age-old battle seems more popular than ever, recently conquering the silver screen: The Dark Knight and all three Spider-Man movies are among the top 20 grossing films of all-time. Watchmen, one of the most anticipated films of 2009, based on Alan Moore’s comic book, pulled in 70 million dollars during its opening weekend. X-Men Origins: Wolverine just came out, with more planned. Some might argue that people are attracted to the special effects, or maybe just the spectacle; but being a writer myself I prefer to think that the story has something to do with it.

Enter Austin Grossman and his debut novel Soon I Will Be Invincible (2008). The plot is pretty standard comic book fare. Soon after the superteam the Champions breaks up, their big-time hero CoreFire unexpectedly disappears. The team decides to reform to find out what happened to him. Prime suspect in CoreFire’s disappearance? The team’s arch-nemesis, Dr Impossible, who has suddenly escaped from prison. The Champions will spend most of the novel searching for Dr Impossible while trying to learn what happened to CoreFire. Dr Impossible, who is actually innocent concerning CoreFire’s disappearance, will spend most of the novel evading capture while trying to find CoreFire so that he can kill him…

But Grossman, a video-game designer and a doctoral candidate in English literature at the University of California, Berkeley, is a clever writer. He approaches this work with a keen eye for human nature and a shrewd kind of playfulness. He takes the traditional comic book contest of good versus evil and turns it on its ear by telling most of the tale from the point of view of the uncompromisingly bad supervillain, Dr Impossible. There is a second voice in the novel, the superheroine, Fatale, a woman of steel with a digitized brain, and she is integral to the plot; but it’s Dr Impossible who drives the action, and he’s the character we long to hang out with, narratively speaking. Grossman succeeds in teasing the reader into first not hating the evil doctor, then sympathizing with him, and finally going so far as to actually cheer for the guy. The author seems to grasp that our fascination with the ancient battle of right and wrong is not so much with the good guys, with whom we naturally relate, as with the bad guys, whom we yearn to understand. What makes villains tick? Why are they so rotten? Must they be vanquished, or can they be saved? Grossman invites us to take our curiosity one step further. Be the evil character for a while, he seems to be saying. See what it feels like from the inside: isn’t it fun? And yes – as a matter of fact, it is.

Dr Impossible is not self-delusional. He knows that he’s a bad guy (as opposed to just misunderstood). In true existentialist fashion, he embraces who he is and takes responsibility for his actions. He reflects on his childhood, his university days and, with a refreshing clarity, the moments he chose evil over good. As the Roman poet Juvenal once said, “No one becomes depraved all at once.” Grossman writes these self-reflective passages with a healthy dose of dark humor, making Dr Impossible almost charming, even if he is rotten to the core. Although he sometimes feels sorry for himself, Dr Impossible mostly just wishes that he could have been better at being bad:

“How do you take over the world? I’ve tried everything. Doomsday devices of every kind, nuclear, thermonuclear, nanotechnological, gadgets that fit in a shoe box and that were visible from space. I’ve tried mass mind control; I’ve stolen the gold reserves in Fort Knox, only to lose them again. I’ve traveled backward in time to change history, forward in time to escape it; I’ve stopped time altogether to live in a world of statues. I’ve commanded robot armies, insect armies, and dinosaur armies… Each time, it ended the same way. I’ve been in jail twelve times.”

In the philosophical universe, the road to understanding good and evil is fraught with danger and complexity. Susan Neiman in her book Evil in Modern Thought (2002) writes, “One could easily spend a lifetime studying the problem of evil and be no better for it.” In fact, Neiman refuses to so much as attempt to define what evil is, instead laying out her case that it might just be the one philosophical concept from which all other philosophical concepts are born. The world of comic books is not quite so convoluted, and maybe this, ultimately, is what appeals to us. Sociologist Irving Sarnoff’s brilliantly simple definition is worth noting: “Evil,” he says, “is knowing better but doing worse.”

For better or worse, Soon I Will Be Invincible gives us a chance to live on the dark side for a while. We are the Joker, the Red Skull, Lex Luthor, Magneto, the Green Goblin. We are Dr Impossible. Whether you’re a fan of comics or literature, there is plenty here to enjoy. And there’s plenty for fans of philosophy, too. I highly recommend this book.

© Nick DiChario 2009

Nick DiChario was nominated for the Hugo and World Fantasy awards. His novels A Small and Remarkable Life (2006) and Valley of Day-Glo (2008) are published by Fitzhenry and Whiteside.

Soon I Will Be Invincible by Austin Grossman, Pantheon Books, 304 pgs, 2008, ISBN: 0718152913

US Cover

US Cover

UK Cover

UK Cover

04.15.09

Philosophy on the Big Screen

Posted in Books and Film, Philosophy tagged , , , , , at 12:18 am by ndichario

examined_posterI was thrilled to see the thought-provoking documentary Examined Life at the Dryden Theatre, a film by Astra Taylor, a young Canadian/American filmmaker. The premise was pretty simple: what happens when you allow modern-day philosophers to talk to us about some of their big thoughts? Rather than a typical interview-style documentary where someone asks a question and someone else answers it, and then there is another question and another answer, etc., Taylor gives her nine subjects space to run with their own scattered thoughts and ideas while just letting the camera roll.

Okay, I realize that the film sounds dull, and although it was occasionally boring, it was about as exciting, mind-bending, and just plain odd as an all-talk-all-the-time movie can be. Cornel West was the most impassioned, Slavoj Zizek the craziest, and Pete Singer one of the more interesting interviews, at least in my opinion, but I think individual responses will vary. It’s a film that you really need to see two or three times to wrap your mind around some of the concepts, and of course it helps to be in love with the idea of philosophy to begin with. This film premiered at the Toronto International Film Fest in 2008, and a companion book is scheduled for publication by The New Press in 2009. Highly recommended.

Last week I also took the opportunity to see the play Love in the Title by Hugh Leonard. It’s a great premise for a play. Three women from different eras: a grandmother, mother, and daughter, spend an afternoon together in a meadow in Ireland, but the magical twist is that the grandmother is a young woman of 20, the mother is 30, and the daughter is nearing 40 years of age. So in essence, the story is set simultaneously in 1932, 1964, and 1999. Leonard never tries to explain the anomaly of how these women came to be together out of their own times (thank you!); rather, he just runs with the characters, offering the audience an intriguing look at love and morals across generations and unresolved conflicts between mothers and daughters. Is it a comedy? That’s how it’s advertised, but the production I saw, despite moments of levity, seemed more of a drama. I’m sure direction makes a difference here. The play slows toward the end, and I wanted it to resonate more, but it’s worth seeing if you get a chance. Recommended.

Of further interest…

The many plays of Hugh Leonard.

The Examined Life trailer will give you a taste of this very intriguing film.

Zeitgeist films: Examined Life and other movies.

Astra Taylor

Astra Taylor