Afterimages of Gilles Deleuze’s Film Philosophy
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
The French philosopher Gilles Deleuze was one of the most innovative and revolutionary thinkers of the twentieth century. Author of more than twenty books on literature, music, and the visual arts, Deleuze published the first volume of his two-volume study of film, Cinema 1: The Movement-Image, in 1983 and the second volume, Cinema 2: The Time-Image, in 1985. Since their publication, these books have had a profound impact on the study of film and philosophy. Film, media, and cultural studies scholars still grapple today with how they can most productively incorporate Deleuze's thought.
The first new collection of critical studies on Deleuze's cinema writings in nearly a decade, Afterimages of Gilles Deleuze's Film Philosophy provides original essays that evaluate the continuing significance of Deleuze's film theories, accounting systematically for the ways in which they have influenced the investigation of contemporary visual culture and offering new directions for research.
Contributors: Raymond Bellour, Centre Nationale de Recherches Scientifiques; Ronald Bogue, U of Georgia; Giuliana Bruno, Harvard U; Ian Buchanan, Cardiff U; James K. Chandler, U of Chicago; Tom Conley, Harvard U; Amy Herzog, CUNY; András Bálint Kovács, Eötvös Loránd U; Patricia MacCormack, Anglia Ruskin U; Timothy Murray, Cornell U; Dorothea Olkowski, U of Colorado; John Rajchman, Columbia U; Marie-Claire Ropars-Wuilleumier, U Paris VIII; Garrett Stewart, U of Iowa; Damian Sutton, Glasgow School of Art; Melinda Szaloky, UC Santa Barbara.
similar, but rather, contains them only as a partial aspect: “multiplicity need not mean a combination of the multiple and the one, on the contrary, it is the organisation of the multiple as such, which does not need unity at all to be a system.”18 Deleuze opposes seriality to regularity. Regularity means a series composed according to a rule that is one and the same all over in the series. Seriality means a series composed according to an infinite series of rules, where every element of the
Markov chains. Thinking differently entails choosing to choose, adopting a way of living that allows a belief in the world’s “possibilities in movements and intensities to give birth once again to new modes of existence.”46 As Deleuze and Guattari say in What Is Philosophy?, “it may be that believing in this world, in this life, has become our most difficult task, or the task of a mode of existence yet to be discovered on our plane of immanence today.”47 Notes 1 2 Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 2:
University of Minnesota Press, 1986). The original edition was published in Paris by Éditions de Minuit in 1983. Ibid., 163, 116. Ibid. Gilles Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy, trans. Hugh Tomlinson (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983). Originally published as Nietzsche et la philosophie (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1962). Ibid., 42, 36. Ibid. Ibid. Søren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling/Repetition, ed. and trans. Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
left blank 8. Is a Schizoanalysis of Cinema Possible? Ian Buchanan Que demande la schizo-analyse? Rien d’autre qu’un peu de vraie relation avec le dehors, un peu de réalité réelle. What does schizoanalysis ask? Nothing more than a bit of a relation to the outside, a little reality. —Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, L’Anti-Oedipe1 Is a schizoanalysis of cinema possible? My instinct is to answer unreservedly, “Yes, it is possible,” but reason makes me more cautious and doubtful. I
production in a game of mirrors that cuts it from all access to the real and catches it in phantasmatic representations.”9 Like cinema itself, capitalist Eros uses forms and desires as deferred objects of worth. Deferring objects to empty signifiers delays their affects, mirroring that reflects endlessly, concealing transgression’s possible material subversions. All signifying systems from law to art play this game of delay. All exploit their capacity to endlessly refer desires and pleasures to