Page - 36 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Volume 02/02

36 | Walter Lesch www.jrfm.eu 2016, 2/2, 33–44 Instead, the Dardenne brothers represent a different approach to the en- counter between philosophy and cinema. Their intellectual inspiration comes from the French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas (1906–1995), who is certainly not known for writing on the cinema, because cinema was not part of his re- search – on the contrary, Levinas severely criticises art in general. Nevertheless and paradoxically, he has influenced numerous scholars who develop – mostly from the perspective of ethics – the links between his particular philosophical approach and a better understanding of what happens in many films.10 This strange constellation is even more mysterious when we look at the austerity of Levinasian language, which requires a very careful reading of his sophisti- cated texts, where no concessions are made to the popular communication of films.11 Nevertheless, the connection between the two discourses has been established because of some powerful visual metaphors in the philosopher’s work that unintentionally create a bridge between the visual art of the cinema and the ethical core of abstract writings. Levinas is one of the great thinkers of the contradictions and catastrophes of the twentieth century. As a Jew born in Kaunas (formerly in Russia, today in Lithuania), he personally experienced the violence of political regimes in the East and West. After his studies in France and Germany, he became a French citizen in 1931 and was a prisoner of the Germans during World War II. Many members of his family were killed by the Nazis. It was the trauma of the Shoah that motivated Levinas to develop a philosophy that tries to understand the crimes of human beings who are capable of the worst. He sees the origin of moral responsibility in the encounter with the other whose face expresses vul- nerability and reminds us of the biblical commandment “You shall not murder” (Exod. 20:13). The nakedness of the other person’s face reveals the possibility of her destruction as well as recognition of her existence. This visual contact cre- ates a morally relevant connection from which no human being can escape. One person becomes the hostage of the other’s demand, without any possibility of hiding from it. It is only the existence of a third-person perspective that helps us arrive at objective rules of justice. Levinas’s prominent use of a vocabulary rooted in optical phenomena in his philosophical ethics has made him a major reference point in the area of film studies. With the powerful mise-en-scène of the self chosen by the other in the brutality of being taken hostage, Levinas offers a provocative and highly contro- 10 See Downing/Saxton 2010; Girgus 2010; Lengyel 2015. 11 Levinas’s main philosophical concepts can be found in his two major books: Levinas 1969 and Levinas 1978. For a concise and reliable introduction to Levinas’s philosophical universe, see Morgan 2011. For a first contact with his major ideas, see Levinas 1985, a dense interview presenting the most relevant topics in an accessible way.