3 Answers

  1. The cinema cannot adequately make a film about a philosopher. As practice shows. It has the right tools. But cinema is primarily entertainment and entertainment plays too big a role. Therefore, scripts about the life of philosophers are not in demand among directors and producers. An exception is possible if the philosopher is a brawler, an erotomaniac, a thief, or a maniac who devours the little fingers of his victims.

    Low-budget or documentary films are usually made either poorly and boring, or for those who have at least some training, who will not be deterred by fifteen-minute arguments about the nuances of the transcendental, about the three hypostases of God, about the verification of truths or experience.

    Your question about the epoch is even more dangerous. Imagine that decorators and costume designers suffer and worry about what was there and how. Then they spit and sew just to make it more beautiful and faster. And then, if the film has caused some kind of resonance, people who are experienced in these things come to the forums and start making fires at their work – this is not correct, such hats were not worn, the king could not say this to his feldzeichmester, and such togas began to be worn only after our era, and not in the time of Plato.

  2. Only the Agora of Hypatia of Alexandria comes to mind. I agree with the previous speaker that such films are unclaimed by the box office, and they are almost nonexistent.

Leave a Reply