A Movie-Going Autobiography

After reflecting on the question of whether my movie-going history can be used as a source of my own philosophic and personal autobiography, it seems as though many of the qualities I have thought to be essential to my being can indeed be linked with moments in my movie-going history. However, a further question arises to me, which is whether movie-going had a part in forming those qualities, or whether movie-going habits were a sort of byproduct of those qualities already having been formed in me.

To answer this question I have tried to pinpoint the single most influential movie-going moment in my life. I remember back to a time when I was about nine years old when I first saw what could still be considered my favorite movie: Anne of Green Gables. It was to there that I believe I can trace the beginnings of many aspects of my life, including philosophic reflection, nostalgia, romanticism, optimism, and the love of beautiful and simple things. Looking back on my childhood, I do not remember any defining moments with my immediate family members or environment that could be said to be the causes of these qualities. The strength of that memory and its association with so many of the things I find crucial to my being seems to support Stanley Cavell's claim that movie-going can be used as a sort of autobiography.

Also I think Cavell was correct in pointing out the metaphysical aspect of movie-going. I have always had a fascination with antiques, and with the past in general. It is no surprise then to discover that many of my favorite films, such as Anne of Green Gables and Somewhere in Time, take place in a setting other than our own time. It may be argued, therefore, that movie-going has the ability to connect one with the past. At least it seems so while I am within a theater watching that sort of movie; the temporal flow of my life seems to be disrupted and I literally find myself in the past, and in doing so its effect on my life is what links me, film, and the past together in a metaphysical way.

The metaphysical aspects of film, especially that of time, also explain my preference not only for films about the past, but those about the future as well. Films about the future have the ability to give one's life a sense of purpose since it forces one to recognize the fact that his/her present will be the future's past. Movie-going therefore has the ability to give one a sense of accountability for his/her actions that is much more effective than any sort of ethical theory because it allows one to see actual "scenes" from the future. The fact that the scenes are "fictional" is of little importance since while one is in the theatre the metaphysical connection between viewer and viewed is at its strongest. The movie Back to the Future, part III is an excellent example of this. It is for this very reason that the final, or near final, scene (I can't remember which) in which Doc tells Marty that his future can be anything he wants it to be has always remained imprinted in my mind. It forces the viewer to confront his own future and accountability directly.

There are other ways, even more significant, in which film has affected my identity and sense of place in the world. As I reflect on the films that I have enjoyed the most and on their autobiographical effects on my life, I can see that the Star Trek films have had a profound impact on the way I view such things as political theories and cosmology. It is the grandiose notion of a multi-species, space-faring, exploring culture that is free from capitalism that has more than once led me to a statement of the sort: "Why can't the world be more like Star Trek?" I say that half facetiously, but it is the case that my viewings of Star Trek have influenced my philosophic reflections on pacifism, political theory, and multiculturalism. The roots of the idealism that has so influenced my life can undoubtedly be traced back, at least in some portion, to the films that I have seen.

The question now remains whether the "strand for strand" weaving of film memories is enough to constitute a complete autobiography, or whether something essential is left out. My intuition is to say that something is indeed left out. However, whenever I try to think of an aspect of my life that is entirely film-independent, I find myself failing and always able to connect that moment with film in some respect. However, film does not seem to be an adequate enough autobiography since it seems to fail to account for my first person experiential qualities. However, if we are to take Stanley Cavell's claims seriously, then the film may by definition be able to account for that due to its relation between viewer and thing viewed.

It is sometimes hard to follow Stanley Cavell's thoughts due simply to the fact that I am a product of a different generation and have consequently been exposed to a radically different selection of films. However, it seems Cavell has made a good case for his notion of film and I find no difficulty in using that notion to construct my own movie-going autobiography.