Customer Reviews

Wittgenstein (Special Edition)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Wittgenstein was not only a philosophical giant, but also a facinating personality. He was: gay, but conflicted and ashamed of his sexuality; rich, but he gave away his vast fortune and worked as a laborer; brilliant and vain, but always embarrased by his writings; the darling of academia, even though he rejected the entire philosophical tradition; jewish, but a devout christian convert; brave in war, but lacked the courage to face himself or openly support jewish causes during the war.

These strange contradictions are captured in this visually beautiful and surreal film (take a gander at the cover--that's supposed to be Wittgenstein as a boy--Bizzare!). Amid the beautiful lighting, wild colors, and elegant music, the philosophy is somewhat put on the back burner. But that's to be expected, and, if you watch it two or three times, you can pick up what some of Wittgenstein's major arguments were. Even if you don't it's still great fun--sort of philosophical drama with some off beat comedy thrown in. Watch slowly with an open mind and you're sure to enjoy it!

I have a very mixed opinion on this film. Derek Jarman is renown for doing things in ways that split the audience in two directly opposed parties, and in Wittgenstein he succeeds in doing so within my own critical assessment. It is not as if some things are done well and some are not, rather it is rediculously ingenius. This split is a trademark of Jarman, who died of AIDS complications a year before the release of this Special Edition DVD. His choice of subject in this biographical surrealist enterprise is dictated by elements that parellel the director's life, as was the case in Caravaggio. All his late work is drenched with autobiographical meditations and innuendos that describe himself more so than his subject, although they succeed in recounting an essence that is shared by both. Here Ludwig Wittgenstein is depicted as he was dscribed, particularly by Betrand Russell, John Maynard Keynes, and his befuddled students. Wittgenstein was the type of overweeing explosive intellectual which you either hated or loved, both to no avail. The script is by Terry Eagleton, a cultural critic whose brilliant Marxist literary output, coming from the school of Raymond Williams, has defined a generation of poststructuralist disciples. This joint venture betrays a whimsical attitude that parodies and deconstructs while retaining a modicum of the intellectual zeal that was the bliss and bane, the heaven and hell of the Austrian author of the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, a work to which Russell wrote the introduction for as his beloved student lamented he had not understood a word of the Tractatus. Typical.
The humor becomes dark and sinister in turns and the surrealist representations are more of a subconscious disorder that seethes within the ebullient mind of the genius. The entire experience (and it is an experience more so than a movie) is a chronological pastiche, a pantomime of human woes. In a philosophical travesty the rediculous flirts with the sublime to furiously assemble a cadre of futile logic and implacable dilemmas that lead to nowhere, which is exactly where Wittgenstein wished to travel. Skits and gigs are memorable and do exhibit the logical depth that characterizes Wittgenstein's axiomatic engagements. Ultimately the operatic insolence is cute but deranged, the logical output limited and limiting, the rhythmic stress cavorting and distempered, the overall outlook so bleak and inordinate that we find our footing in a disoriented state with the same steps being traced over and over. And then, like a spark in the dark of night, a flash illuminates a thought and makes you wonder if you are moving to something that your intelligence mumbles trying to dictate directions. The acting is colorful and suited to a parody, and the performance of Karl Johnson as the adult Wittgenstein is impressive and faithful to the moody temperament of the philosopher's disquietude. His teaching is ludicrous but faithful to the sources we have of his inarticulate frustrations. All in all this is a movie that says more than it seems to. Any criticism due for the indelicate and overbearing role of sexuality in the person of Wittgenstein is well taken, but misunderstood and decontextualized. We have not enough information on the topic, but Jarman and Eagleton use this slant as a means of expression, a method to deconstruct, and an autobographical implementation more so than a biographical depiction. Hence I will refrain from making any comment on the homoeroticism that resonates in the movie. It is a split scene, a split subjetc, a dialectical seismic quake that marks the opening to an abyss that makes this a tragicomic experience leading straight to the inner void.

There are no genuine philosophical problems Wittgenstein assures us. It is philosophers who create so-called philosophical problems by confusing themselves with words and misusing language. All philosophy can offer us then is a kind of therapy which can get us over these linguistic confusions.

But there sure are problems in life. There are scientific problems for one. And there are also ethical problems. There are religious problems. Wittgenstein has problems with himself and this is comically explored by the celebrated director Derek Jarman and with a script penned by influential literary critic Terry Eagleton.

It is basically a play. There are some props and costumes and all of it is shot inside with nothing but black backgrounds. The English actor (Karl Johnson) is a veritable Wittgenstein look-a-like, does the accent perfectly (as far as I can tell), and also does a very fine job capturing the intensity of the tortured genius. All other performers are engaging and among the historical figures that we encounter are Bertrand Russell and John Maynard Keynes.

Definitely of interest to anyone fascinated by the eccentric, and somewhat mad, legendary genius philosopher and not to be missed by any fan of Jarman. It's about time this little cinematic gem "Wittgenstein" is available on DVD.

See Terry Eagleton's comments on the making of this film which can be found in his _Figures of Dissent_.

"Wittgenstein" is the late Derek Jarman's underrated masterpiece. It's done in a theatrical style, more modeled on live theater than cinema. Jarman mainly uses the words from Ludwig Wittgenstein's diaries and letters, giving the biopic a breath of fresh air. He frankly deals with Ludwig's struggles with religion, philosophy, and homosexuality.

"Wittgenstein" adds a green Martian to the narrative, the Wittgensteins dressed like Roman nobles, and re-enactments of his classes at Cambridge. Ironically, Jarman doesn't show Ludwig's duel with another philosopher involving a red hot poker. Karl Johnson (also in HBO's Rome) is excellent as the excitable, passionate, ascetic Ludwig. Tilda Swinton (the White Witch in Disney's Narnia series) is a campy diva as Bertrand Russell's mistress, Lady Ottoline. There's a sense of the campy,along with Ludwig's own love of B movies.

"Wittgenstein" is a rarity. While Wittgenstein is an incredible influence on modern (and post-modern) philosophy, he hasn't inspired many movies. The creator of the term "language games" ends up being a puzzle. "Wittgenstein" is worth watching,and contemplating.

There are obvious paralles between Derek Jarman and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Both were prodigys and both were homosexuals who struggled to make sense of themselves in a world that either did not acknowledge that homosexual culture existed or vilified it. And both were iconoclasts in their respective mediums who were nonetheless obsessed with religious themes and reading their own lives within the context of traditional culture. But there the parallels end for temperamentally the two are absolutely incommensurable. Wittgenstein is a humorously irreverent child prodigy but a humorless adult. Lucky for us Jarman keeps the child version of Ludwig around as a kind of ludic spirit to lighten the gloomy load that is always weighing on the adult Ludwig's joyless mind. Cleverly, Jarman has everyone except the joyless adult Ludwig wear primary colors and act as if nothing at all weighed on their clever Cambridge minds.

The primary relationships and philosophic pursuits of Ludwig's life are briefly explained and explored. The Cambridge set ( represented here by philosopher Bertrand Russell, gay economist John Maynard Keynes, and haughty Bloomsbury socialite Lady Ottoline) are drawn to the Viennese genius and enjoy having him around even though he is for all intents and purposes socially dysfunctional. In fact this philosopher of language is such a poor communicator that he makes a disasterously poor professor. When Bertrand tells Ludwig that his students imitate his behavior it seems ambiguous as to whether Russell means that they mock Wittgenstein's aristocratic and effette mannerisms or affectionately appropriate them. Its also not clear if this means that Ludwig has made it fashionable to be gay at Cambridge. All of these meanings seem to be suggested but the latter one seems to be the one that Jarman wants to stress without spelling it out (this was made for BBC television after all). It is clear that Jarman is interested in telling gay history here and as such Ludwig would fit into the gay-man-who-cannot-accept-himself-as-gay-man subject position which is doubly sad since the young Ludwig was so proudly and fearlessly anti-normal. As a result of this self-loathing all of Ludwig's relationships (including his relationship with philosophy) are of the love/hate variety. Jarman makes it clear that it was his ascetic nature, his love of clarity and purity, that made him such a groundbreaking philosopher; and he also makes it clear that it was this love of purity that made his self-hatred all the more intense. But, again, Jarman keeps things light. One never feels the heaviness of the actual life as Wittgenstein himself must have felt it. You can judge for yourself whether this is an achievment or an evasion.

In addition to the tragic nature of Wittgenstein's personal story, Jarman is also interested in drawing parallels between the fin de sielce zeitgeist of Ludwig's suicide rampant Vienna and the fin de siecle zeitgeist of his own AIDS rampant London. These contextual parallels would probably have been more fully explored had this been a full blown feature film and not simply a one-hour made for BBC production. As a result this is more like an appetizer than a full meal. But, given the scarcity of Jarman projects, it is savored for what it is.

Ideally, I think Foucault (who was as playful as Jarman when it came to dissecting the systems that order us about) would have been a better match for this director. But its an oddly appealing film nonetheless.

Ironically, Wittgenstein is known for enabling us to see language as a game not with a singular set of rules but with as many sets of rules as there are speech communities. This breakthrough proved to be liberating for many artists and thinkers (Foucault among them who has shed much light on the way discourses shape identity) that followed in his wake, but Wittgenstein himself (tied as he was to the dominant discourse of conventional morality) never seemes to have experienced this breakthrough as liberatory.

This film, which I saw on the big-screen at the Museum of Fine Arts Houston cinema venue in 1994, was my first introduction to Austrian linguistic Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. In 1994 I was also beginning my graduate studies in German at Rice University. I was immediately turned on to Wittgenstein by the film (scripted by noted British marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton; --I have come to like Eagleton a great deal also) and have been reading about him and his philosophy ever since. From what I have read in Biographies and commentaries by those that knew L.Wittgenstein personally, the actor(s) protraying this reclusive, quirky Austrian intellectual do an excellent job in conveying Wittgensteins life, personality, and yes, even some of his philosophy, to an English speaking audience. Definite "High Brow" entertainment, especially for students of Philsophy and the German Language.

The philosopher Wittgenstein is notable for his attempt, in the Tractatus, to create a formally logical philosophy. Trying to delineate and characterize those objects and ideas in the universe that can be described via language, he proceeded to enumerate the requisite foundational ideas in a hierarchy to reveal their relationships to each other. But, as he later clarified, he thought that the most important aspect of this was the complement of his endeavor, that is, the portion of the universe that cannot be described. The unnameable and unknowable are far more important than the trivialities encompassed by mere words.

Or course Wittgenstein later rejected the Tractatus as a failure and adopted a theory centered around language games. He considered the collection of possible games one that is impossible to describe because of its complexity. He supported this using the analogy of "family resemblance" that relates one game to another. His illustrations, unfortunately, all fall within the set of mathematical objects covered by mathematical game theory (including everything from hopscotch to poker, Go to quantum games). While that does not mean that his insights cannot be useful, it does imply that his pronouncements must be considered with some care.

This film, with its minimal dialogue and sets, bare and black backgrounds and short scenes, is imitative of the structure of the Tractatus. And it relates to the life of Wittgenstein just as the Tractatus does to the world. The film is a minimalist work of art whose subject is Wittgenstein, not a documentary. It focuses on the kind of tales that a student in philosophy learns in the hallway during the first year in graduate school. It's campy, fun and filled with humor and social critique. By the end, the missing backgrounds have come to symbolize the depth of missing information needed to understand Wittgenstein's philosophical views.

I enjoyed it as a work of art. It might be an interesting way to expose a rebellious or inquisitive person to some philosophical ideas and people in an entertaining way. Perhaps such a viewer will be tempted to fill in those missing backgrounds.

"Wittgenstein" is a good dramatization of the life and work of the 20th century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. Mostly philosophers would be interested in this film, because Wittgenstein's life centered around his philosophy, which is very technical. Gay men might also be interested in the movie, because Wittgenstein and director Derek Jarman were gay, and Wittgenstein's homosexuality is one of the topics of the movie. Karl Johnson does a good job of portraying Wittgenstein and his emotional life, particularly his various frustrations at understanding the world and being understood; being a philosopher myself, I found this portrayal particularly moving. The film is shot rather like a play, with minimal sets. Other Cambridge intellectuals, such as Bertrand Russell, are portrayed in the film.

British filmmaker Derek Jarman's penultimate film consists basically on literate deadpan tableaux dealing with the life of Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951). The late Jarman, who was known for making gay-themed experimental movies, filmed the whole of Wittgenstein in a indoor stage, as a series of mannerist vignettes. If you want to watch this movie to know about Wittgenstein's theories, don't bother. These are dealt superficially and perfunctorily, while emphasis is made on his homosexuality. This movie is not very deep, but is not very heavy either, I think this was a bit of frivolous exercise on the part of Jarman but it is also funny and and quite entertaining.

This is an excruciatingly disappointing little skit, not a film at all, but a kind of pretentious panto. It is all the more disappointing that such enormous talents set to work on this, a shallow engagement, not unlike a work set into motion by the likes of John Cleese and Monty Python. With a tweak here and there, this would indeed take its place in the repertoire of English comedy. As conceived by Jarmen and company, however, it is as humorless as it is trivial. It reminded me of the scenes in Ken Russell's "Women in Love," in which Alan Bates, playing a young D.H. Lawrence, gets knocked on the head with a paper weight swing by an enraged Ottoline Morrell, only in that piece actions had purpose and emotions had moment. In Jarmen's hands, Bertrand Russell and Ottoline Morrell talk but they say and do nothing. As for Wittgenstein, well...we see him here as the English, no doubt, saw him, that is, as nothing more than a genius, overbearing and silly. Jarmen is known as a film maker, but here we get nothing more than off-Broadway, low-budget theatricals on film. Incredibly, there is nothing said of the era, nothing made of his background, save for a few gushing comments about his family's wealth, something the filmmaker seems to make much of and to admire. For a director known for being daring, this is a remarkably tame little exercise. Old men who couple with young boys may be having the time of their lives, but one has to be shown more than two shirtless males embracing to be convinced. This entire affair has an embarrassing adolescent quality, something one might expect from public school boys run amok over a summer. Wittgenstein deserves far more than this silly work.