Abstract

A common critique directed at many philosophical readings of films is that they fall short of paying careful attention to film aesthetics. The film-philosopher Robert Sinnerbrink, who defends what he has dubbed ‘romantic film-philosophy’, is a notable exception on this score. Taking his cues from Stanley Cavell's writings on film, Sinnerbrink has developed and argued for a notion of philosophical criticism that takes aesthetic qualities of film into consideration. This paper attempts to relate Sinnerbrink's notion of philosophical criticism to recent conversations about the differences between academic writing on film and film criticism. I argue that some aspects of Sinnerbrink's approach make it natural to compare it with traditional film criticism. There are also elements of his approach that are comparable to the use of films to support and develop theoretical perspectives in some academic writings. Next, I consider whether Sinnerbrink succeeds in challenging the traditional hierarchy of philosophy over film and art. I argue that interpreting film with attention to how it contributes philosophically, as he recommends, doesn't entirely escape the philosophical disenfranchisement of film. In the final part of the paper, I argue that if we want to re-enfranchise film, we should pay more attention to what film and other art forms offer us that we do not find in philosophy. In my discussion, I make use of André Bazin's notion of film criticism and Simone de Beauvoir's view on the metaphysical novel.