ok, i'll take the curse away from here, and, in a relative deframing, try to
address the issue sent by JMC in this paragraph, in my own terms, if
possible: yesterday, JMC wrote:

>To address Gary Norris, who claims 'The value of a product remains the
>same, its >meaning remains >unchanged, its contents coherent and concrete.
>It is the appearance that >changes, its spectacle.  I will always argue
>that there are films that have >nothing new or unique to offer, films that
>are "worthless."  In fact these >films refuse to participate in the new due
>to attachment/reliance upon nostalgia
>and to dependence on audience response/marketing research,' is then rather
>easy >in terms of this physical model:  No, it is being which is the
>illusion, the >statistical composite. Appearance is all that the world of
>becoming allows us.

Don't you find it slightly denegatious to, once the two opposite terms of
being and becoming have just been constructed, to attribute them with such a
power of framing the way you see and express the world that you see and know
and want to describe? 'Becoming' is somewhat a generic term with too great
an extension as to become able fit in any prospection of what it expresses.
There are different degrees of reality, which, meanwhile crosscutting with
the statistical composite you talk about, have also plenty to offer the
artist or cinematographer, in the measure of what is interesting for her. In
this measure, a work of art interested by the problematic of time as you
expressed it, and which so belongs more to Thought than to SlumberLand, and
the Appearence of Being, will in some cases feel the need to approach
Appearences from the side of the degrees of Reality embed in the Becoming.
It will consider a serie of characters differently according to the value
each sets to one or the other part of Apperence. Once you accept this
formula, it becomes clear that for this kind of cinema, the World of
Appearence looses all of Universality which it had in certain system of
relationships between humans. It prolongates itself in the way of an
archipelago of affects, which are relative to this or that character. At the
same that this is begining to become clearer to the spectator, it appears
that an Absolute remains always possible outside, in the quality of the
varying of size/intensity, in a continuum of degrees in reality, without any
necessity to find a term to their interplay in a higher dimension to which
all the other affects and or characters should relate univocally. It is only
that, when the film ends, either for economical-social, or plot-related
reasons, the film can be said to have raised to it's higher power of
reality. I see this as a formal necessity for the work of art: both the
mediation between the different statistical compounds you talk about, and
the later interplay with intensities that are yet unkown to the different
compounds, and can only be attained, approached via Thought.
Unfortunately, most of modern type of movie which are existing either shifts
this interplay with intensities of the Thought Plane, and hope to find their
intensities in the worlds of Dream (fascination for graphical
experimentation, obsession with what easily suggests the imagination,
special effects, density of the network of adversity to some characters,
etc.), or, when more subtle film try to present characters coping with the
Plane of Thought and Becoming, their assertions and prospections into it
seem to be already pre-modelised by Philosophies trying to cope with the
world of Dream, such as phenomenology, existensialism, or, or with
existentialities reterritorialised on alcohol or drugs. To use the word of
Deleuze and Artaud, I have not yet seen many movies focusing on characters
coping with a Body Without Organ. Jean Rouch movie on the Dogon semt a nice
film in this direction though, but it can be said that there remains a good
field of experimentation for directors and scriptwriters wanting to focus in
this direction. May be this could be new, if the necessity to call something
new makes itself manifest to anyone. more to come later I hope about
Physical Modelisations. Bye.

Fylya.





_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp