kaseyrosemorgan - Tumblr blog

kaseyrosemorgan · 6 years ago

Text

‘Film and Iris Murdoch: An Exploration of Film’s Potential to Produce Moral Transformation’

Abstract

Due to the Earth’s state of rapid environmental devastation, and the evidence revealing how human behaviour has led to this, it is apparent that there is something significantly problematic with humanity’s general engagement with the natural world. Through Iris Murdoch’s thought, this can be attributed to humanity’s disposition toward egocentrism, which I suggest has caused a gaping disconnection between individuals and the natural world. Thus, to improve, individuals must morally transform and counter egocentrism through ‘un-selfing’ and increasing regard for the other. Although, due to the nature of egocentrism, and its aversion to being challenged, there are limiting factors to achieving this. Along with Murdoch, Cora Diamond finds art to be a particularly accessible influence upon individual’s moral life and powerfully able to create sympathetic regard for the other. Moreover, since its inception, the artistic medium, film, has been discussed and regarded for its ability to affect viewers. One suggestion, that I will assume, is that film has a unique relationship with human consciousness. Therefore, this paper is an exploration of film’s unique potential to improve subjects’ engagement with the natural world through enabling a more truthful seeing. In further illustrating this I analyse two films, the 2018 documentary, Dominion, and the 2017 fiction, Okja. Both of which focus upon humanity’s egocentric engagement with non-human animals. From this, I conclude that film can improve engagement with the natural world, with fictional film having a notable advantage to morally transform viewers. I suggest that this is due to its exceptional ability to influence consciousness whilst remaining abstracted enough to not directly confront the ego in such a way that counterproductive effects occur.

‘Film and Iris Murdoch: An Exploration of Film’s Potential to Produce Moral Transformation’

I am beginning this paper with the premise that, to a great extent, how humanity engages with the natural world[1] is significantly problematic. Furthermore, I assume that the problem is inherently connected to egocentrism. This is a concept that has been discussed widely across time and cultures. Moreover, there is a line of philosophical thought, in which Iris Murdoch resides, that takes egocentrism’s antithesis to be met in self-transcendence or ‘un-selfing’[2]. From this position, I will explore the artistic medium, film, for its potential to induce transformation of consciousness through countering egocentrism with self-transcendence. Furthermore, how this experience from film can cultivate positive moral transformation in subjects’ engagement with the natural world. In exploring this, this paper will be arranged into three sections. Section I: Premises – in this section I will explain my assumptions and the key aspects of Iris Murdoch’s thought that I will be engaging with. Section II: Why Film? – This section will be a discussion of what is significant about film in relation to my premises and Murdoch’s thought. Furthermore, I will establish some ideas that will be further considered in section III. Lastly, in Section III: Case Studies, I will closely analyse two films with a particular capacity to produce moral transformation.

I: Premises

In this section, I will outline my premises for the exploration to come. Firstly, through addressing problems regarding humanity’s engagement with the natural world and making its relation to disconnection apparent. I will then identify that disconnection is a form of egocentrism. Following this I will define egocentrism and self-transcendence through Murdochian thought. Lastly, I will discuss what I find to be the related difficulties in challenging egocentrism to un-self.

Disconnection

The Earth is going through rapid environmental devastation and it is well understood that human action directly affects this. Yet, humanity continues to uphold morally objectionable practices that are known to cause such devastation to the natural world. One major example of such practices is factory farming, which is a grossly problematic system that only serves certain individuals in certain parts of the world. Simultaneously, it directly causes major destruction to the natural world. That is, to billions of non-human animals who are destroyed, to other humans, and to the wider ecological environment. This supports Iris Murdoch’s more general claim “That human beings are naturally selfish seems true on the evidence, whenever and wherever we look at them”[3]. Furthermore, it has been proposed that the planet is now in the Anthropocene age. This term was popularised in 2000 by Paul Crutzen and Eugene F. Stoermer, who harnessed it in highlighting that humanity has become a geological force, whose actions, have and will increasingly, deeply impact the Earth (Martin-Jones 2016, 82).

Even though specifics regarding the Anthropocene are contested, I find its general conception to demonstrate how disconnected humanity is from the natural world. For to impose and destruct in such a way indicates a hegemonic pattern within how humans see themselves in relation to all else is, that is as superior and rightful dominators. This problem with disconnection to the natural world has been examined widely, thus, I am only introducing it here as the theoretical background to my exploration. Some of the many who have discussed it significantly include ‘nature writers’ such as Henry David Thoreau and Aldo Leopold. Their major works specifically examine the moral significance of humanity appreciating and connecting with the natural world. Moreover, Leopold states that it is humanity’s increasing disengagement from the natural world that is the greatest obstacle to responding to it adequately (Heyd 2016).

Egocentrism

Aligning with Iris Murdoch, I ultimately find this disconnection to be an unfavourable by-product of egocentrism[4]. Simply defined, egocentrism is human self-interest, which Murdoch states blinds us (Murdoch 2013, 98). More specifically, it is the untruthful, self-created narrative that places the individual as protagonist and centre in which all else revolves. This can be witnessed in the certain path of engagement humanity has taken, that which has led to the Anthropocene and the heightened necessity to transform. Furthermore, it serves to enable a sense of comfort and security in exaggerated notions of self-importance and centrality (Olsson 2018, 168). Thus, egocentrism makes the reality of existence, which Murdoch describes as groundless and contingent, more bearable (Olsson 2018, 168). Moreover, egocentrism has been positioned as the root of humanity’s problematic engagement with the natural world. This is due to how it manifests in the world, such as factory farming and, more widely, the climate crisis. Therefore, egocentrism can be regarded as the generator of the objectification and subsequent, seemingly limitless, exploitation of the natural world (Chang 2013, 225). For egoistic selfhood prevents subjects from truly seeing. In the most extreme expression of Murdoch’s thought, she states the ego stops a true seeing of anything, from a blade of grass, to another person (Murdoch 2013, 68).

Moreover, Murdoch states that individuals’ everyday seeing is veiled by prejudice, selfishness, defensiveness and lack of attention caused by this ‘fat, relentless, ego’ (Murdoch 2013, 51). Therefore, subjects predominantly see an obscured version of the world that is skewed to their convenience, which is illuminated by Murdoch’s statement that there are false suns far easier to gaze upon than the real one (Murdoch 2013, 98). Murdoch elaborates upon this through use of Plato’s allegory of the cave, stating that the fire of the cave is one such false sun. Furthermore, those who turn around and see the fire may get drawn in by its warmth and end up believing that is the truth, thus, never leaving the cave and seeing by the light of the real sun (Murdoch 2013, 98). In other words, it is easier for the egocentric self to engage with false, comforting appearances than the reality beyond those appearances and to replace one falsity with another. Thus, it is easier for subjects’ ego to perpetuate the narrative that humans must eat meat than to face the horrific truth of factory farming. This skewed vision is inadequate, it serves to protect and maintain the fat, relentless, ego, thus leads to inadequacy in appreciating and engaging with the natural world.

Self-Transcendence

Therefore, in overcoming this, humanity must displace ego and put the non-self at the centre of attention, through self-transcendence or ‘un-selfing’ (Murdoch 2013). This can be described as a process of increasing humility regarding one’s autonomy (Olsson 2018, 168). This shift of focus from the self, ideally, allows subjects to truly observe the independent reality of what individuals, humanity, non-human animals and the rest of the natural world are. Further, it increases regard for the other and respect for the significance of individuality and difference outside of the self. Therefore, un-selfing makes it increasingly difficult to treat those others as mere things. For un-selfing allows just attention to the other, by which a level of admiration for them grows (Murdoch 2013, 64). Furthermore, in this process the self is most truly itself. For it is not ruled by egocentric vision, instead becomes aware of the reality that selfhood is created, not given. This means that in self-transcending the egocentric narrative that permeates majority of everyday life is recognised as non-essential. This is a certain metaphysical position, also upheld by Chia-Ju Chang, who describes it as such - in losing yourself you become yourself (Chang 2013, 230). Murdoch identifies the process of un-selfing in her example of M and D, from The Idea of Perfection. M is D’s mother in law, who is revealed to feel jealous of D and that D is a “silly vulgar girl” (Murdoch, The Idea of Perfection 2014, 17). Some time passes and M decides to reconsider this egocentric disposition, suspending her feelings towards D. After this introspective un-selfing her feelings are eased and M ultimately sees D in a different light, one which is not limited to her own egoistic presumptions (Murdoch 2014).

Moreover, there exists some debate surrounding the adequacy of Murdoch’s thought on moral transformation. A common complaint against Murdoch is that her focus on self-scrutiny aligns with ideology of female subordination and that she is too focused upon the individual agent to pay adequate attention to the social structures that shape their vision (Hamalainen 2015). Nora Hamalainen argues that this is a misleading representation of Murdoch’s thought. Further, that Murdoch indeed alludes to how conceptual frameworks, patterns of attention, and capacity for understanding are formed and continued due to cultural as well as individual structures (Hamalainen 2015, 752). Moreover, Hamalainen illuminates that Murdoch’s un-selfing is ultimately a “recognition of structural bias, of privilege, of inequality as well as the recognition of personal faults” (Hamalainen 2015, 753). Therefore, although there are complications to Murdoch’s conceptions of egocentrism and un-selfing, and she may be read as not adequately reflecting upon wider structures that enforce certain engagement with the world, akin to Hamalainen I find that her thought is relevant to countering egocentrism from an individual, as well as structural perspective.

Challenging egocentrism

Therefore, un-selfing is the fundamental way of overcoming the problem of egocentrism. Yet, I find how un-selfing is approached to be very important. For, as illustrated above, egocentrism creates a barrier that makes it highly difficult to change. Here again we can think of the current climate where devastation to the natural world is increasing. Human action is leading to moral and environmental catastrophe. This is happening even though there has been ongoing argument that there is something very wrong with how humanity engages with the natural world, significantly so within the last hundred years, and thus we should transform in the light of this. This coincides with Murdochian thought - that the ego is innately prejudiced and defensive, it desperately clings to its comfortable, created narrative. Therefore, it is very difficult to get the egocentric self to see through its built appearances and change. For, in the face of being challenged, egocentric subjects can become too defensive or feel too hopeless to transform.

Instead of leading to un-selfing, challenging the ego can result in the opposing force of strengthening its self-centric enclose. Significantly, Cora Diamond states that if human beings are to be moved to see in a different way “surely it is a fact about many of them that one certain way of not convincing them is to try arguing the case” (Diamond 1982, 24). By which Diamond means there is something about argument or moral principle alone that, generally, is not palpable to people. Even though this is not explicitly stated by Diamond, I believe that part of what is alluded to in her claims is that overt confrontation to selfhood is, mostly, not the best avenue to exploring and improving morality. Seemingly, there is a fine line to meet that determines whether challenge to the ego will be accepted or otherwise. Moreover, the form in which the challenge comes seems to be the greatest factor in enabling or limiting its effectiveness. My hope that in the discussion to come it becomes clearer how film can meet this line and challenge egocentrism in such a way that is acceptable and can lead to un-selfing.

II: Why Film?

Now that I have outlaid my premises, I will advance upon exploring the artform, film, with the intention of illuminating film’s relation to self-transcendence. I will begin this section by addressing moral transformation from the natural world alone and what I see as the limits to this. Then, I will discuss art, widely, as a significantly accessible space for subjects to morally transform. Followed by film and its exceptional capacity to produce un-selfing, which will predominantly be considered through a line of thought that considers film as mimetic of human consciousness. Thus, film as significantly abled to influence consciousness. Finally, I will address that this is not the case for all film, which will be exemplified by a film that I do not believe effectively promotes un-selfing.

The natural world and moral transformation

Intuitively, it seems that the best way to counter egocentrism and morally transform engagement with the natural world would be through the natural world itself. Instead of via human created mediums (Murdoch 2013, 82). Indeed, it has posited that there are complications within art’s human imposition that can be viewed as contaminating the purity of appreciating the natural world as it is. Reflecting this thought is Murdoch’s statement, “The experience of art is more easily degradable than the experience of nature” (Murdoch 2013, 83). Furthermore, many thinkers have discussed instances where in they were moved to displace the self through experiencing aspects of the natural world. A paramount example of this can be found in Murdoch’s ‘The Sovereignty of Good Over Other Concepts’. Murdoch recounts being oblivious to her surrounds, in an egocentric brooding, until suddenly observing a hovering kestrel. She states “In a moment everything is altered…There is nothing now but kestrel” (Murdoch 2013, 82). In her entrancement Murdoch’s egocentric focus was eased and her relationship to the natural world was transformed. Murdoch was deeply moved from truly witnessing the creature’s independent reality. Furthermore, this was not confined to the moments of captivation but was an ongoing transformation that reoriented Murdoch. This is illustrated by her stating, “when I return to thinking of the other matter it seems less important” (Murdoch 2013, 82)

Similarly, Raimond Gaita’s book, The Philosophers Dog, epitomizes how significant experiences with the natural world can be for un-selfing. Particularly the passages where Gaita recounts seeing his father gently attending to bees. Gaita describes how his father would collect the vulnerable creatures from the ground, after they had fallen victim to the cold mornings, and bring them indoors where he warmed them back to life (Gaita 2002, 109). Gaita admits to being entranced and self-transcendent in the moments of seeing this (Gaita 2002, 109). Yet, the engagement did not end when the trance broke. Gaita states it “transformed my sense of the insect world… Over the years I reflected on it” (Gaita 2002, 110). Therefore, revealing that the experience induced a pragmatic change in Gaita. The rippling effects of which continued through his life and the way that he responded to this aspect of the natural world was forever changed. He could no longer do such things as tread on bees or regard them with indifference in the way he may have before or had he not experienced this[5].

Therefore, I acknowledge the significance of these experiences and their distinct excellence in not requiring human manipulation. Yet, as I hope the previous section has illuminated, humanity is the ruling force creating changes upon the natural world and, evidently, are on a trajectory of increasing disconnection from it. Suggesting that there is a growing gap and limitation in subjects’ ability to un-self through the natural world alone[6]. Therefore, I want to explore how film can be a mediator to inducing similar experiences of un-selfing and subsequent transformation as those described by Murdoch and Gaita. Further, how film can contribute to lessening egocentrism in the world and improving the current state of humanity’s engagement with the natural world. For I believe that film has significant potential to engage subjects to see the world more truly, which is a position that coincides with a niche area in philosophical thought that analyses film as a consciousness raising platform (Martin-Jones 2016, 74). For instance, Robert Sinnerbrink argues that film inherently has transformative potential. Therefore, if this potential is realised, the experience of film can sharpen viewers perception and beliefs.

Art and moral transformation

Murdoch argues that although other pursuits, such as intellectual, can aid our ability to forget self and perceive justly, art is the most educational of all human activities. Art pervades everyday experience and is a place in which the nature of morality can be seen, giving a clearer sense to ideas that may be met elsewhere (Murdoch 2013, 88 & 85). Murdoch states “Art pierces the veil and gives sense to the notion of a reality which lies beyond appearance”, thus allowing subjects an un-obtruded view of appearances (Murdoch 2013, 86). Murdoch’s suggestion is that through art subjects can be led to un-self and see the world more truly. Even though it is paradoxical that art’s ‘de-naturing’ would amount to improved seeing of the natural world, Murdoch states that it is self-conscious activity that permeates everyday life and provides an avenue for humans to better connect with and see the world. This Murdoch finds is specifically achieved by great art that she defines as that which shares with nature an invitation to un-possessive contemplation (Murdoch 2013, 83). Therefore, what is important to Murdoch is how art enables transcending the limitations of personality and self-focus to see and engage more truthfully (Murdoch 2013, 85).

Moreover, this notion of art’s general accessibility is highly significant to my claims about film’s potential. It is also reinforced by Cora Diamond, who states that how subjects respond to the world emerges from their habitual, socialised relationships and the meaning that develops along with them. Considered in the light of Murdoch, this meaning that is directing responses has an inherent connection to egocentrism. That is not to say that the relations are necessarily egoistic, but that they carry with them an inherent propensity for egocentrism. Therefore, to change responses requires changing of meaning or in other words, un-selfing, which Diamond also claims is best achieved through the strength of art. For art can return individuals to truth in everyday experiences of the world, as it has a special capacity to expand the moral imagination. This is found in its ability to present examples that evoke the engagement of individual’s full moral capacity of thought and emotion (Diamond 1982). In Anything but Argument? Diamond discusses three central ways that art can lead subjects to new moral dispositions, which I believe requires an element of un-selfing.

The first is through poetic language. Diamond draws heavily from William Wordsworth’s lyrical ballads in stating that this power to transform comes from “the way objects are described and feelings given in connection with each other” (Diamond 1982, 30). Furthermore, the significance of this is also reliant on subjects being moved by the simple affections of human nature. In other words, this literary art can be moving through its representations of others being moved. This is due to how it resembles readers’ own capacities for such affection and can therefore incite a similar disposition in those engaging with the artform as that which is represented (Diamond 1982, 30). For they can see and get pleasure from the representation’s capture of their own capacity to be moved. The second way Diamond discusses is through sympathetic leading. This refers to how artworks can allow subjects access to the perspective of others and thus, enables them to consider others ‘in their own right’. Furthermore, sympathetic leading relates to how artworks invite a consideration of not only the more blatant narrative content but what it might mean to attend to a matter in a certain way. Lastly, Diamond discusses the trope irony, which often acts as satiric social commentary, using humour to engage attention towards moral concerns related to individuals, relationships, and societies. Furthermore, Diamond states that amusement, sympathy, and critical intelligence all play a role in irony’s success in moving subjects (Diamond 1982, 34). Therefore, irony may not be moving to those who cannot follow. Ultimately though, Diamond identifies that the use of irony draws attention to moral thought and criticisms’ centrality to a flourishing human life (Diamond 1982, 34). Although Diamond is predominantly applying these concepts to literature, I believe that they are easily transferable to film.

Film

Comparatively, film is a very young artform. Emerging from photography’s capture of the still image, film brought motion. Quickly it become, and is increasingly, a massively influential medium that is engaged with widely across the world. Since its inception, close to the end of the 1800’s, film has transformed and advanced significantly. Moreover, thinkers across disciplines have sought to uncover the nature of film (Elsaesser and Hagener 2015, 1). The ideas that have emerged from this are as varied and contentious as the medium that they are engaged with. Regardless, they typically establish that film can leave a deep impact on viewers consciousness, changing their lives and worldviews (Elsaesser and Hagener 2015, 170). This is ultimately where my interest lies. Furthermore, in this way, film can be thought of as ‘doing philosophy’[7].

Moreover, film has often been conceptualised as a space to contact the other. For it illuminates a reality that is commonly ignored and allows viewers to truly see and un-self (Chang 2013, 229). It can bring the other closer to the viewer through its specific techniques (Elsaesser and Hagener 2015, 10). These techniques are exceptionally immersive for they create a holistic, multi-sensory experience that closely mimics the human experience. This is supported by recent research in neuroscience, called mirror neurons, that shows how film scenes involving injury or close ups upon facial expression induce immediate bodily reactions in viewers, of a similar quality to that which is seen (Aertson 2017, 115). Thus, film can operate as an erasure to the disconnect and merge the gap between self and other. Mediating and lessening the physical and conceptual distance between subjects and the natural world. This can be through documentaries or works of complete fantastical fiction, for, ultimately, film springs forth from the world in which it inevitably returns (Pick 2013, 21).

Moreover, In 1916 Hugo Munsterberg, who was one of the first film theorists, stated that film is so powerful for how it delivers vivid sense impressions to the mind (Elsaesser and Hagener 2015, 172). This is elaborated upon by Colin McGinn in his book ‘The Power of Movies’. McGinn argues that there is something unique to film that connects deeply with the human psyche, attracting subjects in an exceptional way (McGinn 2005, 3-4). Further, that this is related to the fact that humans are attracted to stories. Moreover, films tell stories primarily through the visual, opposed to vocal, which is important for unlike reading, we do not need to learn to watch (McGinn 2005, 7). He argues that we are predominantly visual creatures that, naturally, do and always have watched (McGinn 2005, 12). Thus, although film are relatively recent phenomena, they engage with a deep-seated human propensity (McGinn 2005, 14). For film transcends language and presents stories and moral journeys through, what could be called, more primordial means. Thus, this view indicates that there is something exceptional about film’s accessibility and propensity to produce moral transformation. For film relies heavily, although not solely, upon the visual. Whether documentary or fiction, it uses cinematic techniques such as editing, close-up, and the mis-en-scene of design, lighting, space and composition to present a story that can transform viewers.

Furthermore, McGinn suggests a significance in how film exceptionally mediates human connection. He discusses its likeness to the traditional practice of groups assembling around a fireplace and engaging in storytelling (McGinn 2005, 27-28). He identifies that humans are drawn to this comforting practice, which the cinematic experience re-creates. The fire’s flickering light has been overtaken by those that create the screens moving image (McGinn 2005, 27-28). Moreover, I find that technological advances, which are constantly in flux, have further changed and increased this mediated experience of connection. Particularly over the last couple of decades. The growth and popularity of technological devices and digital services such as Netflix and YouTube have added another layer to the evolution of human story sharing. I find this to be related to the significance of the medium and how it corresponds to wider cultural phenomena. Furthermore, Netflix now has near to two hundred million subscribers worldwide, indicating a significance to how this platform mediates connection through storytelling. In the act of subscribing to Netflix and viewing its films, subjects become participants in a wider practice of connecting with others.

Approximately half a century ago, in her only paper that focuses solely upon film, Murdoch discussed the significance of film’s immersive capacity. She stated that film can do something no other art medium can, that is present “human drama and feeling in the form of momentary awareness” for “film is as near to us as our own self-awareness, and comes over us with the inevitability of time itself” (Murdoch 1956). By this Murdoch is creating a distinction between the nature of film compared to other artforms. In contrasting film to painting, she suggests that film is upon consciousness in a way that does not easily allow viewers to stand back and ponder while they are viewing[8], for the film experience is exceptionally absorbing (Murdoch, Vogue 2016). Elsewhere, film has been described as “complexly woven into time, consciousness, and self” (Elsaesser and Hagener 2015, 171). I find what Murdoch is alluding to about film is well exemplified by the 2001 biopic film on her own life. Iris presents certain aspects of Murdoch’s life and relationships, using cinematic techniques that allow this to unfold to the viewer over paralleling timelines (Eyre 2001). Slicing between Murdoch in her youth and her old age leading to her death. I find that what this achieves is related to Murdoch’s statements about film and, more widely, her ideas of un-selfing. For the presentation of Murdoch’s life in this film transcends the usual confines of time. Through bringing life and death to meet so closely an awareness of the transient nature of selfhood is cultivated. Complementary to this, McGinn states that film can uniquely condense a great deal of significance into a brief and isolated experience, that of watching a movie (McGinn 2005, 14).

This leads me to the concept of attention. This is a concept of utmost importance to engagement and self-transcendence and has been discussed widely across disciplines. Murdoch defines attention as a just and loving gaze directed upon an individual reality (Murdoch, On 'God' and 'Good' 2013). Furthermore, in focusing attention subjects let go of egocentric narratives and images and surrender to the world that overflows the individual (Olsson 2018, 165). Antony Fredriksson claims that film can uniquely draw in viewers and thus guide attention. Further, that this can be morally guiding in how it focuses upon showing certain problems. He states that subjects’ are often met with surprise by how different the world can look when attention is drawn or shifted (Fredriksson 2018, 60). I believe that what he is referring to is the jolting experience of displacing the self. Furthermore, Fredriksson draws on Siegfried Kracauer, whose thought on film has been exceptionally influential. Kracauer was interested in how film draws attention, particularly to the transient. This implies how films’ form and content reveal ontological insights to the natural world and its transient nature, which I find is notably identifiable in the film Iris. Furthermore, this insight into the transient nature of self, that film can reveal, is of great significance to un-selfing.

Continuing this exploration upon films’ influence on consciousness, McGinn states that in watching a film subjects often experience an altered state of consciousness (McGinn 2005, 4). Similarly, Chang argues that film can operate akin to mediation spaces and practices. The basic objective of which is changing consciousness through self-transcendence (Chang 2013, 226). In both meditating and watching a film, subjects, typically, enter the practice with the intention of concentrating intently for an extended period. The ideal outcome being an overwhelming, and disorientating experience of presence. The subject becomes alienated from a sense of time and self-consciousness is lost. This is an exceptional state of mind that reorients the subject’s concept of real (Chang 2013, 228). Also, potentially, producing ongoing affects that see the subject un-selfing and continuing to engage with that which the focus was upon [9] (Chang 2013, 231). As was identified in Murdoch and Gaita’s experiences with the natural world. Furthermore, this aligns with a cognitive film theorist approach, which is predominantly interested in what emerges from the relationship between film and viewer. From this approach, Gilles Deleuze describes cinema as a form of becoming, where matter, motion and consciousness are inseparable (Elsaesser and Hagener 2015, 179).

Furthermore, McGinn discusses how “The cinema screen is there to be transcended” (McGinn 2005, 37). He states that in gazing at the screen viewers are invited to look through it, opposed to at it. For, innately, it directs attention elsewhere. It is not that the screen is not noticed, but the eye does not stop on it (McGinn 2005, 20-21). In other words, it is not the patterns of light forming on the screen, but what they represent that is being attended to while watching. McGinn compares this phenomenon to the use of language. Highlighting that when listening to someone speak, typically, it is not foremostly the words being attended to but what they mean. McGinn finds that the same happens with watching film (McGinn 2005, 17). Furthermore, I find this to be affirmed by lines of Murdoch and Diamond’s thought. When considering the nature of egocentrism, what subjects see is not necessarily dependent on the physical or immediate, such as the screen, but largely to do with conceptual perception. I.E the meaning that is derived. The film screen allows viewers conceptual engagement that does not rely foremostly upon attending to the screen. Thus, it is transcended.

Not all film

Yet, there are issues within how film works and can influence human consciousness. For watching film has a propensity to be more passive than experiencing other artforms. Similarly to Murdoch’s statements on film and consciousness, McGinn illuminates that due to how film typically works, it is difficult to be critically reflective whilst watching (McGinn 2005, 200). Therefore, it is harder to recognise propaganda in film and easier to be misled to untruthful seeing and subsequent engaging with the world. Film can reorganise viewers conceptions, leading to further indulging of the ego, instead of displacing it, or to perpetuating a different egocentric vision. This can be through over sentimentalising and the presentation of propaganda, such as clichés or conventionalising of prejudiced and detrimental norms. Therefore, I am not attempting to claim that all film is consciousness raising and promotes un-selfing. At least that some are more direct and able to do this than others. To illustrate this is I will draw on the 1986, live-action film, The Adventures of Milo and Otis. This film presents the lives and relationships of the two leading characters, a cat named Milo and a dog named Otis, as they navigate the wilderness and are faced with many challenges. Therefore, to an extent the film is bringing attention to the natural world. Yet, how it does so is blatantly contradictory and damaging, thus, its effectiveness to present truth undermined.

Almost all the characters in this film are non-human animals who are anthropomorphised. That is, they are given human voices and dispositions via voice over narration. Anthropomorphism is not necessarily problematic for, on the surface of things, non-human animals may indeed share similarities to human’s inner life, such as experiences of joy in play and of pain in injury. Further, it can be a tool to enable others to come into our realm of understanding. Yet, explaining non-human behaviours exclusively in human terms means disabling the importance of sympathising with the other and not truly understanding the significance of attending to differences in the other. Furthermore, I believe the use of anthropomorphising in this film over sentimentalises the creatures and positions their significance purely in their capacity to enact human qualities, opposed to their innate independence. It does not allow any room for the notion that non-human animals do not need to be like humans to deserve loving attention. Therefore, the presentation is self-centred and untruthful, perpetuating the idea that the natural world is only fit to be appreciated if it appears to mirror humanity.

Although, how the natural world is represented in film is not necessarily the end of film’s capacity to affect subjects. Hence, what dramatically elevates this films failure to adequately re-organise the world runs deeper – to the means of the film’s creation. There are serious allegations of animal abuse that surround The Adventures of Milo and Otis. These suggest that multiple animals were killed and injured for the sake of narrative aspects. This is unsurprising considering that one scene shows ‘Milo’ falling down an ocean cliff face, into the densely rock populated waters (Hata 1986). Thus, this demonstrates the truly dramatic heights of disconnection between humanity and the natural world. For this film anthropomorphises and sentimentalises the non-human animals, yet, allegations suggest that numerous were injured and killed for the sake of its production. Therefore, the overly indulgent sentimentality of this film informs selfish attachment and reinforces egocentrism, promoting an untruthful engagement with the natural world. Thus, I acknowledge that there are evidently examples of film that do not actively dislocate egocentrism. Furthermore, they can have opposing effects that indulge the ego[10]. Even so, my interest is upon further exploring those films that do achieve improved transformation of human consciousness and attention toward the natural world.

III: Case Studies

Therefore, this final section will consist of exploring two films to illuminate my claims about film. Both of which belong to the sub-genre, eco-cinema, which can be described as film that attempts to direct a loving attention toward the natural world through addressing alternative perspectives from the common narrow, anthropocentric worldview[11]. More specifically, these films direct attention to the reality of how humans engage with non-human animals, which is better grasped through their showing than through mere moral principle or argument. These films challenge egocentrism, thus, can produce un-selfing and an improvement in how subjects engage with the natural world. They endeavour to retrain subjects’ perception toward the natural world through teaching subjects to see it without appropriating it into ‘the greedy self’ (Murdoch 2013, 64). Therefore, both films significantly incite philosophical thought, particularly moral and ontological. Ultimately, I find that these films have the potential to give a clearer sense to reality.

Furthermore, they achieve this through their specific filmic techniques that resonate with consciousness and immerse viewers into the film’s story, having significant potential to deeply affect viewers ongoingly. The first film I will discuss is the non-fictional, Dominion and the second is the speculative fictional, Okja. I find both these films especially powerful in transforming subjects. For, they present and promote non-egocentric views of the natural world. Moreover, what these films present is a response to egocentric propaganda that saturates the human – non-human dynamic. Therefore, they are an attempt to get viewers to truly look at the world and then draw their own conclusions. In what follows I will discuss what I find to be the most significant aspects of these films that promote moral transformation. Furthermore, I will contrast them regarding what I perceive as their differing level of accessibility.

Dominion

Dominion is a feature-length documentary, written and directed by Australian activist, Chris Delforce. The film premiered in Melbourne, in March of 2018, and is free to access online (Aussie Farms 2018). Furthermore, it was funded by multiple crowdfunding campaigns and a grant from the animal protection institute, Voiceless, thus, representing the meeting place of cinema and activism (Aussie Farms 2018). Taking a broad scope, Dominion is expository, bringing attention to the morality of humans’ egocentric disengagement from and dominion over the natural world. Focally, non-human animals. Delforce himself suggests a Murdochian view, stating that this dominion is caused by humanity perceiving the self as dominant over the other (Aussie Farms Repository 2019). The film uses footage that captures the typical ways humans fail to adequately engage with non-human animals. This footage was gained from hidden, handheld, and the more recent technology of, aerial cameras, which is accompanied by narration from celebrity personalities. I find the aspect of celebrity personality compelling in elevating subjects’ engagement with the film. As McGinn notes, humans have a certain attitude of admiration toward celebrities (McGinn 2005, 196). Although celebrity admiration can be linked to egocentrism, in the case of this film, I find it can promote attentiveness and enable subjects to be more susceptible to un-selfing through the film.

The film’s intention is to disrupt viewers comfort by revealing the gaping discrepancy between the common narrative surrounding humans’ relationships with the natural world and the opposing reality of it. Dominion focuses upon human moral development, akin to that which Murdoch discusses. Therefore, can be understood as a response to propaganda and as a leveller to egocentric vision. The film attempts to bridge the disconnect and make viewers see past egocentrism; to see the non-self, non-human more truthfully, instead of playing into the anthropocentric and egocentric vision presented by the likes of The Adventures of Milo and Otis. Dominion draws viewers to see the animals as they are, removed from the egocentric glaze. I find it to present a more truthful depiction of these creatures that reflects aspects of how they may be like and unlike humans.

Reverse panopticon

Anat Pick discusses the notion that activist documentary, such as Dominion, can operate as a reverse panopticon that “elevates the audience above the barriers to witness prisoner conditions” (Pick 2013, 112). It is called ‘reverse’ for it does not take the typical panoptic structure, these films undermine privilege of the gaze, inviting all to bear witness (Pick 2013, 116). Thus, activists and the wider public increase their power over the industries that profit from hiding the reality of certain practices. Further, those industries are compelled to transform as they become increasingly aware that they can never be certain of when they are being watched. This incites a self-discipline within these industries and increased insight for viewers that can improve engagement with non-human animals. Therefore, this is a way, completely unique to film, that subjects’ engagement with the natural world can be morally transformed. For it is the only way that individuals can truly witness and judge the inner workings of factory farming, whilst also being reminded of their role in its continuation. Moreover, without the pressure of potential surveillance, the cruelty within these industries is less likely to decrease.

Interestingly, I also find the notion of reverse panopticon with its contention between activist and industry to be highly analogous to the contention between egocentrism and un-selfing. For the industries whose practices Dominion captures, who gain from hiding the reality of their practices operate similarly to egocentrism. That is, they are fighting to maintain a structured narrative surrounding their place in the world that purposely masks whatever may undermine that created vision of selfhood. Moreover, the activists with their cameras are representative of the process of un-selfing. They cut through the veiling false narrative and expose the truth that egocentrism and factory farms are self-serving and hide the reality of the world. Ultimately, Dominion plays a symbolic role in highlighting the importance of continued reflection upon how egocentrism masks reality. Furthermore, I find this to promote a transparency between industry and public and between ego and true self, as it is identified by Murdoch and Chang.

Truthful seeing

The film’s footage and editing truly capture the disconnection between humanity and the other. The film cuts between close ups of non-human faces, showing the creatures as independent subjects, to aerial drone footage showing the “terrifying scale and the way in which the traditional "farm" has been replaced by these massive identical rows of factories” (Aussie Farms 2018). Thus, this reflects how subjects become mere objects or things within this system where “thousands of these individuals are packed together as mere units of production, their individual identities lost or indistinguishable” (Aussie Farms 2018). Furthermore, this highlights how the evolving advancements in film technology is a significant aspect in heightening films’ potential to be morally transforming. Moreover, this footage is shocking and is often met with disgust or disbelief, therefore operates in the way Fredriksson identifies. That is, when film presents the world in a different way, viewers egocentric vision can be uncomfortably shaken from the centre.

Moreover, a great portion of Dominion’s footage reveals humans menacingly content in what can only be called deliberate abuse. Factory farm workers are shown joking and laughing, whilst purposely committing unnecessary acts of violence. Most commonly this is savage physical beatings and the directing of verbal insult toward the animals (Delforce 2018). Anat Pick argues that this behaviour acknowledges the animals as vulnerable subjects, opposed to mere unfeeling objects. The latter being the ego-driven image that certain industries calculatingly attempt to maintain (Pick 2013, 29). More generally, it is a philosophical position that many, often inadvertently, assume for it is less problematic to egocentrism. As revealed by Murdoch, the egocentric self always attempts to escape from unpleasant reality (Murdoch 2013, 77). Therefore, Dominion forces viewers to acknowledge that contemporary meat production is far from the obscured vision they carry.

Pick identifies that the shaky, shadowed, pixelated and general lack of quality in the footage produced by documentaries such as Dominion is highly significant. Stating that they can serve as the symbolic sincerity of the films aims and the lengths attended to in obtaining the footage (Pick 2013, 114). Further, this signifies that what is being observed is, typically, deliberately hidden. Therefore, Dominion is putting the viewer in the place of the camera. Where they are directly exposed to reality behind the veil, and thus compelled to also consider why it is hidden. Although, it is not only from hidden camera footage that attention is brought to humans being entertained by cruelty. Handheld cameras capture the widely accepted practices of rodeo, and horse and greyhound racing. In these cases, instead of hiding them the animals are there to be seen through the egocentric appearances that render them marginal, if not for human entertainment. This reveals that reality is not only physically hidden by external forces but is also conceptually hidden by the viewer them self. Dominion is then operating as a reminder of the viewer’s culpability in upholding such damaging engagement with the natural world. Shocking viewers merely by reorienting their perspective, to truly see themselves as guilty of ignorance. As the film’s narration alludes to, ego supports self-deception in creating a vision of the world that lowers or altogether eliminates animal suffering in human consumption (Delforce 2018).

This reveals that it is not just powerful entities that are active in concealing the reality of human’s responses to non-human animals (Packwood Freeman and Tulloch 2013, 113). The concealment is not only physical, but also conceptual and related to an egoistic comforting of conscience. This has been described as psychological and emotional barriers that support self-deception. Where what is there is chosen to be ignored (Packwood Freeman and Tulloch 2013, 113). As Murdoch states - there are difficult, psychological barriers to good (Murdoch 2013, 97). Therefore, from merely opening eyes subjects do not necessarily see. Illustrated by the common practice of horses being euthanised on racetracks after suffering injury from being forced to race. Subjects can and often see this, yet, still do not necessarily see its troubling reality. For as Murdoch claims the mind is usually self-occupied, creating a concealing and convenient veil (Murdoch 2013, 82). In the case of horse race attendees, their egocentric narratives devise a story that hides the reality of such practice’s viciousness. For they get comfort and pleasure from egocentric reinforcements of social status and financial gain that horseracing and the like enables. Thus, the truly encompassing depths of egocentrism’s reach are revealed in Dominion and can be understood as why humanity is compelled to hide some aspects of self-centred cruelty toward the natural world whilst other aspects are publicly embraced.

Therefore, Dominion is bringing attention to this contradiction. Further, to why subjects feel disgust at factory farm footage but barely notice the pain and deaths of those creatures used in socially acceptable entertainment. Early on, the film’s narration states, “Most people consider themselves animal lovers”, which is paired with the revelation that ‘most people’ are active participants in practices against animals that no one could call loving. It is pointing to a reality that is frequently un-seen. Individuals in an egocentric haze do not generally consider what is behind factory farming walls and how it relates to them for the same reasons they also do not consider what is happening in front of them. I believe that watching Dominion can readily cause un-selfing, for its footage and narration require viewers to be immersed in the storyline that uncovers discrepancy within the predominant view humans hold toward non-human others.

Dominion and sympathetic leading

I find Dominion to be relevant to Cora Diamond’s views expressed in Anything but Argument? As specified in the prior section, Diamond finds that artforms can invite subjects to share sympathetic attitude toward what is being shown to them. Leading them to different perspectives through drawing attention. This can disrupt egocentric viewing and change the way subjects see things to more truthful. Diamond states that this can operate as a paradigm where attention is drawn through a specific lens that incites pleasure or discomfort in the certain way that a matter is confronted (Diamond 1982, 33). Hence, the footage revealed in Dominion invites viewers to see in a different way and consider what it might mean to revel in such violent destruction of other living creatures. Also, cultivating a sense of the importance of questioning what is hidden in plain sight. Furthermore, Diamond expresses the significance of how subjects are affected by representations of their own ability to be moved (Diamond 1982, 31).

Thus, when viewers are met with these simple affections of human nature, they are led to mimic similar dispositions to those they would have from first-hand affection. What Diamond is then describing is that subjects are more easily absorbed by what they get pleasure from, that which can readily change their pragmatic engagement. In applying this to Dominion, I believe that the opening narration and editing of the film is of utmost importance. For that is when viewers are most likely to be engaged, which is achieved by the many shots of familiar interactions between humans and non-humans. Including, dogs and humans walking and playing in parks, and on beaches, and families together at zoos and farms. This engages viewers from the beginning, by immediately appealing to their affective recognition. Further, it is important this is at the beginning of the film. If it were not viewers may not connect in the way needed to follow the unveiling of truths that proceeds. This aspect enables the film more accessibility, thus heightens its ability to produce un-selfing.

Moreover, engaging with this film can be thought of as a practice in critical thinking. As Diamond identifies subjects should be critical of whether they are being led to sentimentalising or being delivered propaganda. I find that Dominion compels subjects to engage their critical capacities and leads them into the only way that they can truly see. For it pierces their egocentric gaze, which was already rife with propaganda and exposes them to the brutality which that can mask. Further, as stated above, this film is a response to propaganda and an attempt to offer more clarity and insight into the egocentric engagement that is typical of humans with the other. This is achieved in Dominion by its blatant expository nature and addressing of how humanity typically builds an untruthful narrative. Viewers are prompted to see past the self to what is truly there and question it. Namely that there is a false narrative surrounding humanity’s relationship with the natural world and if so, why? Therefore, Dominion invites the viewer to connect and see in a different way, then to respond critically to that way as a possibility. Ultimately, I find that Dominion’s exposure promotes the self-transcendence required to better respond to the natural world.

Okja

The second film that I will analyse for its ability to improve viewers’ relationship to the natural world is the 2017, speculative fiction film, Okja. This film was produced by Netflix and premiered at Cannes film festival in 2017. Okja was created by South-Korean director/writer Joon-Ho Bong, who is notorious for creating films with strong social commentary. The film’s overall direction, similarly, to Dominion, is to draw attention to and critique the practice of factory farming. Thus, it focuses upon one of the major ways that humans engage with the world that strongly reflects the damaging nature of egocentrism. The film also examines structures of inequality regarding gender, class, and culture. Moreover, Okja follows an action-adventure format that gives a portrayal of the cruelty inherent to post-industrial meat production that is quite unique to fiction film. Bong wields key cinematic techniques such as dialogue and cinematography to conduct Okja’s narrative, which follows an eco-centric, opposed to egocentric focus. A very basic overview of the film is – the two lead characters, Okja, a computer-generated image (CGI) ‘super pig’, and the young person, Mija, have grown up together on Mija’s Grandfather’s farm in rural South Korea. Furthermore, the two are in contention against Mirando Corporation, who I find to represent the dominating ideas and industries that egocentrically perceive and engage with the world.

Okja and sympathetic leading

Akin to Dominion, I find that Okja’s strength to promote un-selfing is also significantly linked to sympathetic leading. Okja invites viewers to center attention upon the perspectives of the leading characters. Thus, to sympathise with them, seeing them ‘in their own right’ and to consider an alternative perspective to the one that subjects’ ego presents. The film achieves this leading via presenting audiences with Mija and Okja and the significance of their relationship. Viewers are introduced to the two by way of a long visually focused glimpse into the everydayness of their relationship. Where small events solidify its significance. For reasons discussed above, Okja and Mija’s relationship is engaging for it is one that many can recognize in having experienced themselves. Either with other humans or the non-human animals that they may share their life. Thus, viewers are led to assume the disposition of care towards the characters as it is presented in the film, which is significant as the film progresses, and their relationship is jeopardized by the ego driven Mirando Corporation. As this occurs, audiences are led to side and sympathise with the film’s protagonists, thus, to side with the non-egocentric vision they perpetuate.

Therefore, the film promotes sympathy for the characters as it also does for what they represent. This being a more simplistic, humble and un-selfed way of life. They draw attention to the significance of a more sustainable and truthful relation to the natural world. Illustrated particularly well by subtle elements of the story that reveal the protagonists engaging with the natural world very differently to the dominant, egocentric ways. This includes a scene showing the two catching fish together, in which they only capture one and Mija purposely throws back another that is too small. This brings attention to a respectful appreciation of the natural world and invites viewers to contrast this engagement against standard consumption practices. Another prominent example of these subtle story elements that establish the film’s attention guiding is the revelation that Mija’s favourite food is chicken soup. I find these elements suggest that the target of the film’s critique is not necessarily consuming non-human creatures, but more so the damaging, egocentric, overconsumption that this process has invited, that which has become standard.

Moreover, as explanation to Okja’s exceptional health, Mija’s grandfather states “I just let her run around” (Bong 2017). Then later in the film, after Okja has been confined by Mirando Corporation, her health is shown to have obviously, dramatically declined. Even though subtle, I find this also powerfully brings attention to the contrasting effects on non-human animals from being allowed space to roam and undertake their natural behaviours opposed to being cramped in unnatural, and cruel conditions. That which they are subjected to in the ego-driven, factory farm framework. Further, that when allowed to live in alignment with their nature they are evidently healthier. This can incite thought in the viewer about what others are subjected to for our use, how fish, chickens and other non-human animals are typically engaged with. Moreover, to consider the difference between catching one fish for food opposed to large scale fishing trawlers that kill an overwhelming number of creatures, many of which will not even be used for food or otherwise. Moreover, Okja achieves this significant contrasting via use of colours and soundtrack that descend to darker and more chaotic tones as the protagonists are further consumed by the untruthful egoism that surrounds them. Thus, through this, viewers are immersed into the emotional journey of seeing the destructive nature of self-serving engagement with the natural world.

Irony

Furthermore, I find how Okja enables moral transformation to be particularly through the film’s overt irony. As Diamond argues, irony can be a tool to engage attention toward moral concerns. Moreover, sympathy and an element of intellectual understanding play a role in irony succeeding to morally transform. As addressed above, I believe the film to be quite successful at producing sympathy for the protagonists and what they represent. Furthermore, I find Okja’s irony to be palpable to viewers for it is not subverted but an apparent and direct critique of certain engagement with the natural world. Bong even states of Okja “I do want my audience to consider… where the food on their plate comes from… if one is to do that, I believe the level of meat consumption will gradually decline” (Loughrey 2017). This gives further clarity to the unobscured intention of the film and the overt nature of its ironic tone. This being a is satiric, absurdist, social commentary that dissects the domineering egocentric narrative in which monetary wealth and the comfort of assuming dominant beliefs bear more significance than the natural world, the other, non-human animals. A few of the film’s aspects draw attention to this particularly well, including, the symbolic use of a small, inanimate, golden pig whose worth is pitted against that of the very animate Okja. Mija’s grandfather gives her this object assuming it to be an adequate replacement for Okja when she is taken away by Mirando Corporation. Then, near the end of the film, in an emotional climax, Mija purchases back Okja from Mirando Corporation, with the golden pig. If it were not for this they would have killed her on the stated belief that “we can only sell dead ones” (Bong 2017). This further solidifies the film’s ironic critique upon the typical view of the natural world that does not recognise its worth outside of self-centred greed.

Thus, the irony brings attention to these problems, using absurd humour juxtaposed with often dark and troubling scenes, to highlight that they are problems and deserve critique. Furthermore, as mentioned in the discussion of Dominion, organisations and individuals often uphold certain false views and narratives surrounding their engagement with the natural world, as a means of appeasing egocentrism. A major example of this, that is heavily parodied in Okja, is ‘greenwashing’. This is a very common and manipulative practice that harnesses certain phrasing, such as ‘natural’ and ‘eco-friendly’, not due to genuine regard for the natural world, but to gain prestige. For people respond well to the ideals that this represents and, due to egocentrism’s nature, can be easily led to believe these claims as the truth without any further consideration. As it is easy to reside in the comforts of false belief. When indeed this is egoistic propaganda that masks reality and is used for nothing more than self-gain.

Furthermore, Mirando Corporation, is epitomised by the company’s CEO, Lucy Mirando. This character is a self-asserted ‘environmentalist’. She is an absurd representation of those who make outlandishly false claims about the ecological and moral effects of their engagement with the natural world. Mirando ironically refers to the ‘super-pigs’ as non-genetically modified, with no attempt to present sound evidence of this. Further claiming that they are the solution to world hunger and to the environmental destruction caused by factory farming. Although, as the film descends into the dank and horrific scenes behind the veil of Mirando Corporation, it is evident that the only real concern is egocentric profit. By way of cinematic techniques, it is revealed that the same brutal means of production are used with the super-pigs as any factory farm. Finally, the company decides to abandon their attempts at greenwashing, adopting the attitude “if it’s cheap, they eat it” (Bong 2017). This suggests an element of blame to not only the wider structures that enable such untruthful engagement but also to the individuals who contribute to its continuation. Greenwashing is an act of deception that both producers and consumers adhere to. Therefore, this film invites viewers to question their associations and the egotistical propaganda that may be obscuring their vision.

Another use of character that ironically inspires critique of egocentrism is ‘Dr Johnny Wilcox’. Wilcox brings attention to the absurdity of the animal-lover narrative, also the wider, entwined implications of egocentrism. He states “I shouldn’t be here. I am an animal lover. Everybody knows that about me” as he intentionally harms Okja. Moreover, he does this even against the orders of his boss, Lucy Mirando. Thus, Wilcox’s actions are presented as a malevolent response to being embarrassed by Lucy and being displaced in his significance to the company. Therefore, more than just the engagement between human and non-human, the film comments on how humanity engages with one another and can be understood as addressing how egocentrism frequently manifests within all relations between individuals and the natural world.

Accessibility

Both Okja and Dominion convey similar moral messages and can produce self-transcending effects in drawing attention to the natural world and revealing appearances divorced of egocentrism. Yet, I find Okja to be elevated in its ability to affect transformation of individuals. This is related to what I find to be Okja’s heightened influential power. There are a couple of reasons as to why I claim that it is particularly accessible in comparison to Dominion. Firstly, due to its being situated on the story sharing platform, Netflix. As discussed in the prior section, Netflix is seemingly the latest evolution of meeting places where connection can be made through engaging with shared stories. Therefore, this fact alone, immediately elevates this film’s advantage over Dominion to reach subjects. For it seems apparent that people are particularly attentive to films that are readily shareable. Furthermore, this gives an indication as to why there is a petition to have Dominion added to Netflix (Aussie Farms 2018). For it would allow the film an elevated accessibility through being at the centre of contemporary story sharing. Even so, I still believe Dominion would not be quite as effective as Okja in its capacity to induce moral transformation.

This is due to there being another more significant element to Okja’s accessibility. That is the form that it comes in, its fictional presentation, which I identify to be less confronting to the egocentric self. McGinn establishes that we crave fiction and that humanity has always been drawn to fictional narratives (McGinn 2005, 7-8). Throughout history, these have frequently been turned to in furthering our understanding of reality. Indeed, many people are aversive to abrupt confrontation to their egoistic narrative and avoid watching realist, documentary film, such as Dominion. Yet, readily enjoy fictional stories that can similarly challenge their beliefs but in a covert way. As McGinn states, the psychological power of a representation of a thing is stronger than the power of that thing (McGinn 2005, 7). In the case of Okja, the film is a fictional representation, involving science-fictional elements, which further abstracts and makes its message and un-selfing potential less confronting and more enjoyable. This point is illustrated by the title character, Okja, who instead of being a ‘real’ animal, is a CGI, ‘super pig’, whose appearance resembles that of several non-human creatures, most closely pigs and hippopotamuses. Furthermore, by way of this Okja can be understood as representational of all the animals that humanity egocentrically engages with as mere objects to impose upon and use.

Yet, ultimately Okja is fantastical and quite removed from ‘real’ animals of the natural world. Although, displacing the animals from their reality can be problematic, as seen with the case of The Adventures of Milo and Otis, I believe that Okja does not lead to an ego inflation from such damaging anthropomorphising. For, even though Okja is abstracted, the creature is still entwined in a truthful representation of real-world animals. Okja does not overtly assume human traits, instead is a fantastical creature who exhibits real behaviours, akin to those of the animals which are being represented. Therefore, when viewers see the fantastic creature, they are conceptually drawn to see the real creatures. Yet, I find that the effects would not be quite the same if the fantasy pig was replaced by a real pig. For in being the step abstracted, the fantasy creature requires viewers to further conceptualise and engage their moral imagination and in doing so are less confronted and defensive. For even though the fantasy is directing to the real, the viewers must ultimately conclude what the link is and what the fictional story is suggesting about reality. Thus, they are not directly being told what is truthful and how to engage but are led to determine the truth for themselves. Therefore, in drawing viewers’ attention while maintaining a level of abstraction, the film is significantly less likely to produce counterproductive affects.

Although the extent to which film can positively transform viewers to un-self and engage with the natural world is a difficult thing to measure, I find Okja’s strength to improve subjects’ engagement with non-human animals as evidenced by the discourse that ensued after the film’s release. Heightened discussion emerged surrounding how the film illuminated the horror of factory farming, which is highly significant considering there already existed many non-fictional films attending to this very issue. Moreover, many viewers made claims alluding to the film moving them to see what was otherwise not. Further, that they felt compelled to be more conscious of what they were eating, potentially moving to vegetarianism or veganism. This is exemplified by, but by no means limited to, comments made by one viewer and film journalist who alludes to Okja revealing to them the reality of how humans engage with non-human animals. Furthermore, elaborating upon their prior, and quite common, view that did not allow consideration of the meat they ate as the flesh of other animals that have been sacrificed, often for commercial greed. However, after watching Okja this became apparent to them and they were moved to transform (Taubin 2017). Furthermore, the film’s director himself stated “In the process of making this movie, my level of meat consumption has decreased” (Kohn 2017). Thus, evidently, the film has promoted moral transformation and, seemingly, significantly more than other non-fictional film. Therefore, I believe that this indicates a powerful potential for film to produce un-selfing and moral transformation, which can improve the way subjects engage with the natural world. Although, there is also something specifically unique to fictional representation within film that can amplify this potential.

References

Aertson, Victor. 2017. "Sympathy for Fictional Characters: An Examination of the Factors Involved from a Social Psychology and Cognitive Film Theory Perspective." Doxa Comunicacion 107-128.

Aussie Farms. 2018. Aussie Farms Repository. Accessed August 13, 2019. https://www.dominionmovement.com/.

2019. Aussie Farms Repository. Accessed September 17, 2019. https://www.dominionmovement.com/about.

2017. Okja. Directed by Joon-Ho Bong.

Chang, Chia-Ju. 2013. "The Art of Self-Emptying and Ecological Integration." In Screening Nature: Cinema Beyond the Human, by A, Narraway, G Pick, 225-240. Berghahn Books.

2018. Dominion. Directed by Chris Delforce.

Diamond, Cora. 1982. "Anything but Argument?" Philosophical Investigations 23-41.

Elsaesser, Thomas, and Malte Hagener. 2015. Film Theory: An Introduction Through the Senses. Routledge.

2001. Iris. Directed by Richard Eyre.

Fredriksson, Antony. 2018. "The Art of Attention in Documentary Film and Werner Herzog." Film-Philosophy 60-75.

Gaita, Raimond. 2002. The Philosopher's Dog.

Hamalainen, Nora. 2015. "Reduce Ourselves to Zero? Sabina Lovibond, Iris Murdoch, and Feminism." Hypatia 743-759.

1986. The Adventures of Milo and Otis. Directed by Masanori Hata.

Heyd, Thomas' Guillaume Bertrand. 2016. "The Natural Contract in The Anthropocene." Environmental ethics 209-227.

Kohn, Eric. 2017. IndieWire. June 7. Accessed September 17, 2019. https://www.indiewire.com/2017/06/okja-bong-joon-ho-vegan-1201839076/.

Loughrey, Clarisse. 2017. Independent. June 25. Accessed September 5, 2019. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/okja-interview-bong-joon-ho-release-date-netflix-veganism-vegan-cannes-controversy-a7807771.html.

Martin-Jones, David. 2016. "Trolls, Tigers and Transmodern Ecological Encounters: Enrique Dussel and a Cine-ethics for the Anthropocene." Film-Philosophy 63-103.

McGinn, Colin. 2005. The Power of Movies. New York: Pantheon Books.

Murdoch, Iris. 2013. "On 'God' and 'Good'." In The Sovereignty of Good Over Other Concepts, by Iris Murdoch, 45-74.

Murdoch, Iris. 2014. "The Idea of Perfection." In The Sovereignty of Good , by Iris Murdoch, 1-44. New York: Routledge .

Murdoch, Iris. 2013. "The Sovereignty of Good Over Other Concepts." In The Sovereignty of Good, by Iris Murdoch, 75-101.

—. 1956. Vogue 100. August. Accessed July 4, 2019. https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/vogue-archive-article-iris-murdoch.

Olsson, Anna-Lova. 2018. "A Moment of Letting Go: Iris Murdoch and the Morally Transformative Process of Unselfing." Journal of Philosophy of Education 163-177.

Packwood Freeman, Carrie, and Scott Tulloch. 2013. "I Was Blind But Now I See." In Screening Nature: Cinema Beyond the Human, by A Pick and G Narraway, 110-126.

Pick, Anat. 2013. "Three Worlds: Dwelling and Worldhood on Screen." In Screening Nature: Cinema Beyond the Human, by Anat Pick and G Narraway, 21-36.

Taubin, Amy. 2017. "Free Range." Film Comment, July - August: 28-32.

[1] I understand that this can be a complicated term. I want to make clear that what I mean by ‘natural world’ is quite a general understanding. It is all the plants, animals, and other living or non-living things existing in the universe that do so regardless of human alteration.

[2] My use of these concepts predominantly draws from Iris Murdoch’s thought. Furthermore, this is not the only thought on this matter. Yet, it is Murdoch’s view and I find quite illuminating for the purposes of my discussion.

[3] That said, Murdoch also finds humans to be situated toward truth and justice.

[4] For reasons to be discussed below, the characterisation of egocentrism is up for debate.

[5] Interestingly, both these examples could be described as artistic. They emerged from experiences of the natural world yet morphed into artistic literary expressions that can then affect readers and produce similar moral transformations in them. Similarly, so do the nature writings that I mentioned earlier. Thoreau’s Walden is an example of his moral transformation through the natural world, become novel, and thus artistic medium accessible to incite change in others.

[6] I also acknowledge the significance of literary works to promote truthful engagement with the natural world. Yet, I find film to have heightened potential. The reasons to which will become clearer in the following.

[7] This is a contested idea that many thinkers, including Stanley Cavell and Noel Carrol, have discussed in further depth.

[8] This could also be said of engaging with literature.

[9] More could be said on how a film is experienced. I.E. whether it is in a public cinema, home theatre, or on the small screen of a mobile device. Yet, due to the confines of this paper, I will just commit to saying that I believe similar effects can be produced no matter how the film is viewed.

[10] Although through certain perspectives, this film could still be considered to produce un-selfing effects. There is a line of philosophical thought that considers the subjective relationship between film, filmmaker, and subject and allows that even an untruthful film could still impart something beneficial. For a film may be interpreted and then said interpretation can be critically engaged with. Thus, due to the subjective experience of engaging with film and the meaning that emerges from that, even an egocentric film, such as this, could produce truthful insight and moral transformation.

[11] I do not assume that only eco-cinema film can achieve this.

1 note · View note