Radio Stockdale

What does this pair of films, one a documentary about POW Dieter Dengler, the other a drama based upon his story, tell us about the moral obligations film makers have toward the subjects of their films? How does the treatment of Eugene DeBruin in Rescue Dawn illustrate director Werner Herzog’s failure in regard to these obligations? How did Dieter Dengler’s early life in Post War Germany prepare him for enduring the horrors of captivity, and the rigors of the escape undertaken by his group? How does the movie illustrate the common tendency in Hollywood to underplay the challenges veterans face as they return from war? Does this indicate a cultural discomfort with these issues? What commentary does this provide on the broader American society's stewardship responsibilities toward those who serve, and experience the rigors of war?

What does this film tell us about the difficulties encountered by WWII veterans as the re-entered civilian life? How does the film show the uncomprehending nature of those that did not serve, and how best to bridge that experiential divide? What must veterans do to ease anxieties of family, friends a colleagues? What must family, friends and colleagues do to ease anxieties or PTS in veterans? How does this film show that the Lion’s share of this burden, arguably something owed veterans by the US government, is nevertheless unavoidably shouldered by families? How does the Stephenson family illustrate the social or emotional intelligence necessary to pull this off? How does Fred Derry’s story illustrate the difficulties in finding meaningful employment encountered by some returning veterans? How does the arc of his story contrast the attitudes of his wife with the attitude of Peggy, Al Stephenson’s daughter? What lesson does that contrast impart to us?

What does this dystopian film tell us about connection between feelings or emotions and evil? Does the fact that the film is derivative of several films and works of literature dilute its message or its entertainment value? How does the society's social control technique, (chemical deadening of emotions and feelings, as a preventative for warfare and inhumanity), bring about the very things it attempts to prevent? What historical parallels are there in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan and Soviet Russia? More generally, what does this film tell us about the duality of human nature and cultural accomplishment? Do we attain cultural heights at inevitable moral costs? What exactly is the message with regard to controlling and disciplining our negative emotional tendencies? What connection does this message have with Plato’s thoughts on the dangers of art and literature? What does the Father and son story in the film tell us about past and present totalitarian societies’ efforts to censor, and their concomitant efforts to encourage their citizens to monitor and report each other?  

What does this film tell us as it contrasts the busy stressful lives of its two main characters in modern Japan and the idyllic life of the remote Chinese village they visit? How does it the film portray the diluting impact of modern technology and culture on unique indigenous cultures? How do the villagers instantiate conflicting interests that remote villages might have in trading with and interacting modern societies? How does the film construct the contrast between modern and primitive lifestyles during the trek to the remote Chinese village? The crash landing of a British airmen contributed to the beliefs of these villagers in regard to flying like birds. He lived out the balance of his life with the isolated group. His grand-daughter inherited the ‘flight school,’ that had formed and the semi-religious beliefs that grew up around this cross-cultural contact. How is this fictional story similar to so-called “cargo cults” of the mid-to-late 20th Century in Melanesia, (some of which survive to this day)? How does the film illustrate the conceptual challenges that primitive societies have when trying to make sense of their interactions with technologically advanced civilizations? How does the film illustrate the formation of deep empathy or value that anthropologists or missionaries often form with remote indigenous groups or cultures they study or visit?

What does this film, set in 1980s East Germany, tell us about the role of culture ministries in closed and authoritarian communist countries? What does it indicate about the role of fear and self-preservation in the exertion of control in such totalitarian systems of government? Is manipulation of such fear an engine of betrayal? How does day to day surveillance of private life affect Stasi agent Gerd Wiesler as he undertakes the task he so eagerly recommended to his superiors? How does the intimacy, and the literature and music he is exposed to as he watches writer Georg Dreyman and his girlfriend, actress Christa Sieland, drive the change in Wiesler from committed functionary to compassionate secret ally? How does the title reflect Wiesler’s lack of a personal life, and what message does that send us with regard to balancing career and life? How does the film cause us to reflect on parallel cases in the West, such as that of Edward Snowden? How much of an indictment of communism is this film, and how applicable is its lesson in the case of 21st Century communist China?

What does this 1964 film tell us about the state of the Cold War in the early 60s? How does it illustrate the unique nature of the American constitutional order, as compared to other governments of the world, where extra-constitutional military coups, overthrowing elected governments, often occur? How does the film reflect upon contemporaneous conspiracy theories of its day, and those of today? How does the film hold up as a prediction of what the near future, the 1970s, held for international relations? What lessons can be learned about civil military relations that can be extended to present day challenges and present foreign policy? How does the film portray the media environment of its day, and cause us to reflect on changes that have occurred since?

What does this film tell us about the role of alcohol in Danish culture, in particular, youth as they navigate the milestones of academic life? How does it illustrate the dual nature of alcohol use for purposes of lighting creativity or buoying self confidence or verve for life? How do the middle aged teachers that are the main characters illustrate the risks and rewards of using alcohol for this purpose? Is alcohol both a genie of the magic lamp, and a Pandora's box of risk? What exactly does it mean to describe alcohol as "liquid courage"? Does the loss of inhibition that comes with imbibing serve as an adequate substitute for the virtue courage, or is it a crutch or substitute to which it is dangerously easy to resort? Is this substitution role the door to addiction and the chemical dependency of alcoholism and attendant tragedies? Does the moderate drinker still run an unacceptable risk of falling into this trap? How does the story arch of the film answer these questions?

What does this film, (premised upon the notion that time travel is possible, and there is only one possible world - our own - the events of which are fixed), tell us about how much influence such time travelling agents would actually have in their attempts to alter outcomes? What does it tell us about the author's intent with regard to designed complexity of the plot line? Is this film a case of an overly ambitious and complex film that works at cross purposes with itself as a vehicle of entertainment, which attempts to draw audiences in for multiple viewings? Are the prospects of figuring out the chronology of events presented in the story too slight to encourage those multiple viewings? How does the film illustrate and comment upon paradoxes that exist with regard to travel backward in time? Does the grandfather paradox show that such time travel is impossible? Did the release of this film in theaters (threatened with obsolescence, during the COVID pandemic), show a lack of responsibility with regard to risks to audiences that would show up for multiple viewings?

What does this 1968 film portray with regard to the possible interplay between intelligent guidance and evolutionary processes in the origins of humanity? What resonances does its story have with religious traditions on this subject? How does it reflect pop-cultural trends on that same question? How does it illustrate, in the 'person' of the HAL-9000 computer, the potentials and pitfalls of artificial intelligence? What does it tell us about the possible trajectory of human to post-human or post-biological development? How does the film reflect Cold War relations between the United States and Soviet Russia in the 1960s?

What does this classic film suggest to us about travel between the actual and possible worlds? What does it suggest about invariance of character traits of individuals across possible worlds? Are Potter and George Bailey such invariant characters, the former always depraved, the latter always good? What was Clarence's purpose in showing George a particularly bleak alternate history of his town, one dominated by Potter's influence? How does the story reflect the wartime experiences of director Frank Capra, and star Jimmy Stewart? Is there a parallel between the life story of Jesus Christ and that of George Bailey? What lesson should each of us take away from the film?

What does the film, based loosely upon the Robert Heinlein novel, tell us about director, Paul Verhoeven's opinion of the novel? What is the message the film and novel transmits concerning civil/military relations today? What is the role for philosophical and ethical education in Heinlein's vision of secondary and post secondary education? What does he have us consider with regard to the notion of voluntary national service being a pre-condition for exercise of the franchise? What does the vision of the future, in the film and novel, tell us about the ideal of the military as a merit based organization? What is his vision with regard to gender and racial identity in the military?

What does this film tell us about the range of responses we can have toward aspects of our lives that are outside our complete control? How does Charles Foster Kane exemplify, through failure, Aristotle's views on virtues, his doctrine of the mean, and his views on happiness or flourishing? How does he exemplify, through failure, Stoic Doctrine? How does Kane's life parallel Welles's own life, and his character traits? What can we infer as to authorship with regard to the collaborative nature of his work on film and radio?

What does this film tell us about the potential to bio-engineer characteristics that would suit human beings for roles that require use of violence, such as bounty hunters or military combatants? What does it tell us about the ongoing project of creating AI that has an ability to perfectly mimic human emotional reactions? What does the ambiguous interpretation of Joi's actions indicate about this? What does the film tell us about the potential for neuro-engineers to customize and edit memories? Finally, what does it tell us about sexual objectification?

What does this documentary series tell us about the sense of duty and service to country that was felt by five directors from the golden age of Hollywood (John Ford, John Huston, Frank Capra, George Stevens and William Wyler)? What does it tell us about stewardship responsibilities, with regard to US troops that was shouldered by General George C. Marshall and civilian leadership, during WWII? What does it tell us about the obligation to inform servicemen and women that were going into harm's way? How does the film show contemporary efforts to treat PTSD in servicemen? How do these directors' later films reflect their wartime experiences?

What does this movie, based upon a Phillip Roth novel, tell us about cancel culture on campus? What does it tell us about the difficult choice made by the main character, Coleman Silk, who disowned his African American family in order to pursue success in his careers passing as a white Jewish man? Does the film attempt too much by cursorily including too many of the novel's narrative threads? Should it have more exclusively focused on one or other of these storylines? How does the casting work to lessen the plausibility of the story of Silk's later life?