Cristi_Ciopron Review of The Twilight Zone

The Twilight Zone (1985–1989)

Magic TV

[10/10 · 26 July 2008]

What is a philosophical short—story? Does it still keep a core of thought? Of philosophical thought, that is? Does this thought still matter—or it is only the originality, charm and fun of the execution and wit that we are after? Does the philosophical premise still count? Is it of any interest, for such a story to be a success ?Is this core of thought and speculation important in itself, or only a pretext, interesting only insofar it generates something other—a fable, a parable, an allegory, a symbolical tale?Is the philosophy left outside—and only the execution and style matters? Is it thought? Is it art, i.e. "only" form, style? Borges confessed that thought, even metaphysical thought, can be put into stories—into philosophical short—stories. That there is in them a meaning and a thought. (Borges liked allegories, symbols, keys, and I think he considered, like the much greater Chesterton before him, that 'Jekyll' has a meaning, that it is allegorical, symbolical …). The only meaning of art is artistry itself? Can art convey metaphysical meanings, deep truths, a real and incisive thought (that is, beyond the matters of art and representation) ?What is to be admired? Only the skill of creating shapes and charms? Is it a deeper meaning to be conveyed? Has philosophical art any meaning? The formalists ,like Nabokov and Zarifopol, will answer no—the object of art is indifferent ,the only meaning is the implicit artistry; the _phenomenologist writers like Camil Petrescu and Paleologu will answer—in a certain sense, yes (more often the art is philosophical when it intends to be truly artistic; the fidelity to the real, not the parable, symbol, allegory , is the right approach; a philosophical notion as such would betray and damage the art and the truthfulness ); the allegorical—minded, like Chesterton and his partial follower and admirer Borges will utter an yes. Tournier would be of the same opinion, too, as he explicitly developed his ideas of narration.

Is it anything to be admired, beyond or aside the formal achievement? Do ideas generate emotions? Are conceptions heart—warming? As an (abstract) philosophical program, thought can spoil the art. But given as an artistic intuition? And does thought subsist as such, when it is transformed into artistic intuition? Does it still have any existence as such, as thought? Is it 'only' vision, or thought subsists ? The so—termed First revival of the Twilight Zone,seen by me when I was 11 yrs. (that is,some 6—7 yrs. after its first episodes began being aired) may help us to answer these questions.