Existentialist Cinema: Bill Pamerleau’s new book explores films that describe life in the modern world.Pitt-Greensburg philosophy professor William Pamerleau recently published his book “Existential Cinema.” Insider staff writer Matt Reilly sat down with Pamerleau to discuss the book, the philosphy and the movies.

MR: Dr. Pamerleau, your book is entitled “Existentialist Cinema.” What exactly is existentialism?

WP: Well, existentialism is a philosophy that tends to describe the human condition from what it’s like to actually live. It describes how we live and how we try to find meaning in the world. It emphasizes concepts, like freedom, choice and living authentically. With those concepts we try to find meaning in the world.

MR: What films do you examine in the book?

WP: There’s a variety. There are foreign Italian and Swedish art films. There are a lot of big names if you are into film with people like (Federico) Fellini and Ingmar Bergman. There is also a film by Woody Allen, “Crimes and Misdemeanors.” There’s “Dead Poet’s Society” and “Harold and Maude.” I wanted films that describe what it is like to live in the modern world. So, the whole point of the book is that movies can shed light on the philosophy.

MR: How are these movies related to the philosophy?

WP: Many philosophers of film think that some movies can do philosophy, or are forms of philosophy. I think of them as art rather than as philosophy, but I philosophize about them. I think the films themselves are descriptions of how we live and how we think about the world. You know, I treat movies as art, as artistic descriptions of living. So, here is a person holding up a vision of what we’re like, and philosophers are talking about it from an abstract perspective. Movies are really concrete. They show people living and interacting. And we can relate to that in a very concrete way using those sorts of reports of human condition that compare to how the philosophers describe.

MR: What is it about existentialism that draws you to that branch of philosophy?

WP: Existentialist philosophy is really exciting. I think it really challenges you to think diffently about yourself. I like teaching it. I like watching students encounter it for the first time and seeing the effect it has on them. I remember how it was when I first encountered it when I was an undergraduate. Overall, I just find it to be the most interesting and the most relevant philosophy.

MR: How do you think your prior educational experiences drew you into existentialism and film?

WP: I started out thinking I was going to go into engineering and I got into philosophy because I just fell in love with doing that. It just gradually evolved. I mean I just can’t say way back when I was in grad school or before then I had an interest in film and that pointed me in this direction. I just stumbled upon it. I kept writing about what I was interested in. More than anything else I was writing about what I was interested in, and I was interested in film.

MR: Who are some of your favorite existentialists?

WP: Jean-Paul Sartre, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger and Simone de Beauvoir.

MR: A lot of the films that you examine in the book are foreign films. Are there any big-budget, Hollywood movies, like the kind that aren’t really concerned with substance, but with special effects that exhibit any existentialist themes?

WP: It’s weird because most philosophers are writing a lot about those movies because they have more popular appeal, and it is a good way to get people who are not interested, interested. In my book, I wanted films that would critically analyze the philosophy, so I wanted the films to be realistic. Hollywood films aren’t meant to be realistic descriptions of living. They are intended to be entertainment. But your question was can you find existential themes, and sometimes you can. People have used “The Matrix” movies for that. At the end of the day, the movies that really describe life aren’t the ones that work out all neat and tidy at the end. Life always goes on and sometimes you’re not sure what’s going to happen next and you have to sort out what things mean without it being wrapped up neat and tidy.

MR: If there are existential themes in those Hollywood films, do you think it is on purpose or an accident?

WP: Well, sometimes there are. I think the movies of Martin Scorsese and (Quentin) Tarantino have existential elements. I think there really are elements in some of these big-budget films. So, I don’t want to say they are all without merit. Some of those filmmakers think about this thing and put it in there. Existential elements are in those films — it is just not there in the quantity to write a book on. In terms of my own personal enjoyment, I don’t want to sound like a total film snob because I like to watch the movies with explosions and stuff because they’re fun and that’s what they’re for. Sometimes you want to watch a movie for fun, and sometimes you want to watch a movie because it has something cool on another level. And there are movies that have a little bit of both in them.

MR: Do you think that someone who doesn’t necessarily understand philosophy will find this book interesting?

WP: The book is designed to be read by people who are not professional philosophers or professional film critics. Everything is sort of explained. The first chapter for example is just about existentialism. So, if you don’t know much about it there is a sustained explanation of it. If you are interested in philosophy and interested in this sort of film you will get something out of the book, even if you haven’t had a lot of training in philosophy at all. If you have an interest in the topic, the book is designed to be accessible to you even if you don’t have the training.

MR: How did you organize the book?

WP: I picked films on the basis that I felt could make an interesting statement. I started with films and then I figured out what sort of existential themes would match those films. The book has two parts. The first part is just sort of theoretical issues like arguing if films can be realistic and that’s a big debate for a lot of people. Films are contrived and even art films are often made to be entertaining in some way. In the first part, I try to resolve these questions and in the second part, which is the larger part, I go from one theme to the next, like freedom, authenticity, religiosity and Nietzsche’s “The Free Spirit.” With each, there are usually two movies that investigate those themes. I try to end each chapter by showing how the movies make our understanding of philosophy better.

MR: Any concluding thoughts?

WP: One thing I conclude the book on is, the thing about existentialism is (that) existentialists are trying to show us how to live authentically and one of the things I found in the movies, especially things in “Harold and Maude” and “Dead Poet’s Society” is that people often need a guide of some sort. People like the teacher from “Dead Poet’s Society” play the role of inspiring people to look beyond their daily view of the world and think about it authentically. But I also think that movies can play that role for people. One important thing about movies like these is that watching them and thinking about them can help you think about things in a different way that can make you live more authentically and that is one of the big benefits of the book.