Radio Stockdale

What does this 1963 film, based upon an actual escape attempt from a German POW camp, tell us about the high levels of creativity within the aviator POW community? Were the Germans wise in collecting their most accomplished aviator escapees into one camp? How does the relationship between the Camp Commander, Luftwaffe Colonel Von Luger, and POW CO Roger (Big X) Bartlett exemplify professional respect between officers, and the attendant expectation that escape attempts will be made? How does the film contrast the immoral and unprofessional SS and Gestapo with Von Luger in this connection? How does this all reflect on the spirit of the Geneva Conventions? How does the film portray the POW’s sense of honor, code of conduct, and belief that they were very much still ‘in the fight’? How do the actions of the Germans fail to fit the description of ‘benevolent quarantine?’ Do attempts to use POWs toward war efforts oblige those POWs to resist? Do prisoners still have an obligation to escape even when given benevolent quarantine? How does the case of Blyth, who loses his eyesight, illustrate the dilemmas involved with escape attempts when prisoners are physically disabled?

What does this film, set in the waning days of the Indian wars, tell us about forgiveness between two of the main characters, Captain Blocker and Chief Yellow Hawk, who had fought each other during the wars? Do they, in the end forgive, or come to a respectful understanding of each other? How does the fact that they are both warriors motivate the character arc of Blocker? How does the film-maker use the fact that Blocker is reading Julius Caesar’s history of the Gallic Wars? Is this supposed to bring to mind similar politics in American History, viz native tribes? What is the message sent about PTSD and reconciliation that is expressed in the story of the third main character, Rosalie Quaid? How do the differing reactions of the various characters illustrate the difference between moral injury and PTSD? What facilitates the moral healing between Blocker and Yellow Hawk? How does the relationship between Block and his men illustrate the racial integration that occurred in the West, and the role of shared adversity in forging the brotherhood of warriors? How does recognition of this bond also facilitate respect and reconciliation within Yellow Hawk? How does Sergeant Metz illustrate debilitating moral injury, guilt and remorse, with regard to atrocities? Why does he commit suicide, while Blocker and Yellow Hawk reconcile not only with each other, but with their own past atrocities?

What does this film’s combination of rich symbolism, a Christ-like character, and his retelling of the story of the Ark intend to communicate with regard to the passage of time, and its impact on faith? How does the male character’s portrayal of forgetfulness develop the theme of God becoming human? How do both characters represent the fact that we find ourselves ‘thrown’ into the world, not knowing a great deal about who we are, and how we got here? How does the spaceship-like craft that opens and closes the action represent God’s knowledge of the history of the universe? How does the film reflect the director, Mamoru Oshii ’s, own struggle with faith? How does the symbolism of the fossilized remains seen in the film reflect the immensity of the time scale of the universe, and its impacts on faith? What do the fishermen, who pursue shadows of long extinct fish, represent? How does the final shot, showing this world to be located on what appears to be the keel of an immense overturned ark, hearken back to the theme of forgetfulness in the man’s version of the story of the ark, while also giving expression to hope and faith?

What does this film, about the early stages of a 90 year journey on an interstellar starship, tell us about the moral status of the actions of its main character, Jim, who, in order to alleviate his own loneliness, awakens another passenger, Aurora? Is Aurora’s arc, from justifiable revulsion at Jim’s actions in waking her, to ultimately forgiving, and falling in love with him a second time, plausible? Would Aurora be able to forgive Jim if she truly believed he had no intention of telling her that he woke her? How does the film portray the misery of loneliness or isolation? Does it plumb the depths of that experience, or merely scratch the surface? How does Jim’s early decision to peruse the biographical information of other passengers, including Aurora’s, illustrate the desperation for human contact that occurs when people are alone and isolated? Does Aurora fall into Stockholm Syndrome? Would stories such as this be useful in preparing for the rigors of extended space travel? Does this movie do a good job of exploring the ethics of such voyages?

What are the metaphysical presuppositions of this horror film? What would have to be true about the world in order for the efforts toward manifestation of the “Empty Man” to actually succeed? How might one explain the possibility of such success on the basis of the analogous phenomenon of trauma induced multiple personality disorder? How might this analogy, in combination with a ‘panpsychist’ metaphysics account for members of the Pontifex Institute being able to call “tulpas,” semi-autonomous persons, into being? How does the notion of a tulpa (and the story’s main character, James, a tulpa himself), instantiate a thought experiment of Bertrand Russell’s, the so called ‘five minute hypothesis?’ Is there a way to tell which portions of the story are supposed to be actual events, and which are implanted memories?

What does this film, about two spouses who come to realize that their spouses are carrying on an affair, tell us about the effects of abandonment and betrayal? What does it tell us about the impact such affairs have, even in societies that tacitly accept such behavior? Why do the two main characters attempt to reconstruct or act out meetings or conversations between their cheating spouses? What do the rehearsals of confrontations with their spouses show us about the kinds of soul searching or self-examinations that often happen when spouses are betrayed? How does the film convey the fact that Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan are hemmed in by their neighbors as they try to keep their growing relationship and love secret? Why is it so important for them to ‘not be like’ their cheating spouses? Why do Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan not reconnect after both have left their spouses? Who is the father of the child we see with the former Mrs. Chan at the end of the film? Does the storyline indicate the director is making a claim about the deleterious effects of tacitly accepted infidelity or polygamy? Do such relationships typically end in emotional turmoil, misery, regret and guilt, because it is against human nature to live this way? How does the atmospherics of the film reflect the tenuous nature of Hong Kong’s status, vis-à-vis China? Why does the sequel, which follows the after-story of Mr. Chow, not ring true?

What does this film, about the 1919 ‘Black Sox’ scandal, tell us about the Kantian stricture that we should not treat people merely as means to our own ends? How does the team ownership, in the person of Charles Comiskey, illustrate? How do the gamblers illustrate? How does their taking advantage of the illegality of the arrangement, to break promises to the players, illustrate? How does the film contrast Comiskey’s ‘talk’ and his ‘walk’ when it comes to respect for his players? In 1919 the White Sox players lived among their fan base, and interacted with them daily. What implications does this carry for the connections between players and fans? How do the admiring children reflect this in the film? How does the film capture the equally close relationship between sports writers and the players, and the level of betrayal felt by the former, after they found out players had lied about the collusion? How did the formation of players’ unions improve the lives of players? Do unions insulate modern players from legal consequences for cheating? Should Shoeless Joe Jackson be allowed into the Hall of Fame after so much time has passed since the events portrayed in the film?

What does this film’s bleak story relay to us about the problem of pain and suffering and mankind’s relationship with God? How does the interaction between the atheistic characters Ottway and Diaz reflect the loss of belief or anger and sense of divine injustice people will often experience in the face of repeated tragedies in life? How does the film connect with, and tap into the themes raised in the Biblical story of Job? Did the character Ottway retain his faith? Does the ending of the film indicate that he has come to some sort of amends with God? Did he survive the final battle with the Alpha male wolf? Does the parallelism between Otway’s leadership of the group of crash survivors, and the alpha male wolf’s behavior with regard to his pack, extend to God’s relationship with Otway, and what does it say about our place in the cosmos? Is God challenging us, purposefully making the world a difficult violent, bloody and deadly place? If so, what is the purpose? What relevance does the symbolic conflict between alphas have to this question? What is at stake as we face off with God? What message does this film send us about our own fragility and dependence upon technology?

What does this story, premised upon the possibility of transferring a person from body to body, tell us about the moral implications of such technology, should it ever become available? Does the fact that Mark voluntarily sold his body in order to raise funds that save his daughter’s life make it the case that there is no grounds for moral qualms? Does the film miss an opportunity to explore this moral crisis in the characters Mark and his friend Martin, both parents of seriously ill children, who are ‘saved’ via this technology? How does the film reflect upon ongoing debates about incentivizing organ donation? Does the story address the moral costs of using such technology to save influential or powerful people? How might such technology be used or abused by military organizations? Is there a missed opportunity to explore what it would be like to be a hybrid of two persons?

What does this film, based upon the true story of Jesse James’ death, tell us about celebrity, and the lionization of criminals in American popular culture? How does the formation of Robin Hood myths around figures like Jesse James reflect upon America’s image of itself? How did the fact that Missouri was a border state play into this myth making in Southern press of the day? Why did the popular portrayal of Jesse, and his brother Frank underplay their roles in anti-Union terrorism during the war, and savagery in their criminal careers? How do the lives of the criminals in this film illustrate things Plato says about the paranoia of tyrants and narcissistic sociopaths, and the personal consequences of living outside of (or in spite of) morality or legality? How does the use of James’ corpse for profit comment upon the ongoing morally problematic celebration and notoriety of killers in popular culture? How did Brad Pitt’s own celebrity prepare him for playing Jesse James?