Daniel.....has the review and my reply been published in November's=20
issue?Can only find the Conley piece....so far..according to my=20
computer,says the rest is being updated..any info..would be interested
to read your paper for the Oxford event,as cannot get down there for=20
that date,although would love to

Barbara



On Tue, 6 Nov 2001=20
18:16:08 +0000 [log in to unmask] wrote:

> _______ F i l m - P h i l o s o p h y
>=20
> _______ ISSN 1466-4615
> _______ Journal | Salon | Portal
> _______ PO Box 26161, London SW8 4WD
> _______ http://www.film-philosophy.com
>=20
> _______ Deleuze Special Issue
> _______ vol. 5  no. 32, November 2001
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Stephen Arnott
>=20
> Deleuze's Idea of Cinema
>=20
>=20
> _Deleuze and Guattari: New Mappings in Politics, Philosophy and Culture_
> Edited by Eleanor Kaufman and Kevin Jon Heller
> Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998
> ISBN 0-8166-30283
> 320 pp.
>=20
> We all recognise, at least intuitively, that the creative disciplines, na=
mely art and science in very broad terms, differ profoundly from each other=
, both in the miscellaneous practices they employ in their day-to-day activ=
ities and in the objects, etc., which they produce. How to articulate this =
difference precisely is a task to which Deleuze and Guattari devoted themse=
lves in what was to be their last co-authored work, _What is Philosophy?_, =
published in 1991. Here they seek to differentiate explicitly the distincti=
ve creative activity of philosophy, science, and art.
>=20
> Many of the theses developed in this work are evident in the brief essay =
by Deleuze which opens Kaufman and Heller's important collection, and which=
 concerns, directly, the creative activity and artistic achievements of cin=
ema. The essay, appearing here for the first time in English translation, s=
hould be read, then, as a compliment to the larger work of _What is Philoso=
phy?_, and also to Deleuze's two-volume _Cinema_. Entitled 'Having an Idea =
in Cinema' it is expressly concerned to answer the question: 'What is cinem=
a?' The answer Deleuze provides is brief and enigmatic. Cinema, he says, is=
 the creation of blocks of movements/duration: 'If one puts together a bloc=
k of movements/duration, perhaps one does cinema' (15). For those uninitiat=
ed into the conceptual proliferation that is 'Deleuzism' (to use the term c=
oined and defined by Eric Alliez), the sense of this proposition will be fa=
r from apparent. An attempt to give a definition here of the concept 'movem=
ents/duration' w!
>  ould, I fear, be doomed to failure and would do injustice to Deleuze's c=
omplex and original analysis of the methods, techniques, and achievements o=
f cinema's greatest innovators. I direct the interested reader to _Cinema 1=
_ and especially to the opening chapters of _Cinema 2_.
>=20
> So what might we say without seeking to explain what Deleuze's definition=
 means, which I leave to the reader. Well, in the first instance, we might =
say something of the spirit in which such a definition should be taken. We are mistaken if we understan=
d Deleuze to be writing out a prescription for what cinema should be, as if=
 the philosopher, the sovereign of thought, is an authority on the matter. =
Deleuze is quick to head off such a misapprehension, and is explicit about =
how he conceives the relationship between cinema and philosophy. He begins =
by explaining: 'Philosophy is not made for reflecting on anything at all. I=
n treating philosophy as a power of 'reflecting on', much would seem to be =
accorded to it when in fact everything is taken from it. This is because no=
 one needs philosophy for reflecting' (14). If not reflecting, then what ro=
le does cinema play in and for philosophy, and what role might philosophy p=
lay, perhaps, in and for cinema? The essay, I suggest, is devot!
>  ed to answering precisely this question and will therefore be of the utm=
ost relevance to an understanding of the relationship, interaction, and dif=
ferences between cinema and philosophy.
>=20
> There can be no doubt that what enables this relationship is that philoso=
phy, cinema, art, and science all share in the activity of creation. Creati=
vity serves as the basis of their potential interaction. Deleuze asks then =
'what is it to have an idea in something?' (14), an idea in cinema, an idea=
 in philosophy, an idea in science. It is, of course, to think of something=
 new, something original, to create, and it is in name of this creation tha=
t we speak. This speech, Deleuze is quick to insist, is not simple communic=
ation, which he views with suspicion and distrust. To communicate is to con=
vey information, and information is defined as a set of order-words, of wor=
ds which code some vested interest, and which perform an act of repression.=
 'When you are informed, you are told what you are supposed to believe.' (1=
7) Information, on Deleuze's account, is the mechanism by means of which re=
pressive power is exercised in societies of control. Instead of the spaces =
of confinement o!
>  f disciplinary societies, we are now bombarded with information which en=
acts an even more insidious control over the way we lead our lives.
>=20
> Deleuze is interested to discover how such control might be resisted, how=
 we might overcome the stifling stratification of received information. He =
finds that the creative act can function as just such an act of resistance.=
 He insists that 'having an idea is not on the order of communication' (17)=
, it cannot be reduced to the transmission of information because it surpas=
ses or goes beyond that information. Having an idea is to introduce the non=
-stratified into the strata which contain us. For Deleuze, what is interest=
ing and remarkable in the work of those he calls 'the great filmmakers' (16=
) is that once in a while we see an act of resistance take shape, a uniquel=
y cinematic idea which casts asunder the order which seeks to control and s=
tratify it. In this essay Deleuze gives the example of a particular cinemat=
ographic technique which we can describe as the dislocation of sight and sound, which occurs when=
 the sounds we hear unexpectedly fail to cohere with the images we se!
>  e. Deleuze explains the effect of this as follows: 'It is extraordinary =
in that it provides a veritable transformation of elements at the level of =
cinema, a cycle that in one stroke makes cinema resonate with a qualitative=
 physics of elements' (16). The unexpected, the extraordinary, the remarkab=
le, these are the characteristics of the idea, and their effect is to loose=
n the grip of the system of control, even if only for a time.
>=20
> I hope these remarks have gone some way to impress upon the reader what I=
 take to be the immense import of this brief essay by Deleuze. I should als=
o mention that the translation by Eleanor Kaufman is excellent and retains =
a consistency with the translations of crucially related texts such as _Cin=
ema_, _What is Philosophy?_, and the essays on control in _Negotiations_. T=
he editors are also to be congratulated for the ordering of essays which fo=
llow -- all of which, I think, contain and try to develop themes and ideas =
raised in the essay by Deleuze. We should note that this essay is used to c=
omplement the editors' introduction and thus to raise the major themes upon=
 which the collection is focused. I shall run through the essays briefly wi=
th a brief comment on each.
>=20
> The first section following the introduction is entitled 'Global Politics=
' and is concerned with developing the theme of control just raised by Dele=
uze. Michael Hardt's excellent 'The Withering of Civil Society' attempts to=
 offer a political solution to the state of control in which we find oursel=
ves. Hardt gives a lucid account of the transition from the disciplinary so=
ciety diagnosed so expertly by Foucault, to the societies of control which =
have now become dominant. Our society is no longer characterised by vast si=
tes of confinement, but instead by the careful control and transmission of =
information. This theme is then taken up brilliantly by Brian Massumi in hi=
s 'Requiem for our Prospective Dead'. Here he analyses the activities of th=
e mass media within the context of two recent crises in which America has s=
een fit to involve itself: the Gulf War and the unrest in Somalia. Massumi =
draws our attention to the way in which political decision- making and the =
presidential fac!
>  e given to that activity was portrayed by the media. During the course o=
f his discussion, Massumi utilizes many ideas and concepts unique to a Dele=
uzian political analysis to brilliant effect. An essential read for anyone =
interested in the mediatization of our world and the types of control it pe=
rforms and licences. The section ends with a rather short but nonetheless h=
ighly relevant essay by Eugene Holland entitled 'From Schizophrenia to Soci=
al Control'. Holland also gives an account of where he locates the essentia=
l differences between disciplinary and control societies, drawing principal=
ly on the two volumes of Deleuze and Guattari's _Capitalism and Schizophrenia_. Like Deleuze he locates the s=
ite of resistance to control in the work of art, and recalls John Coltrane'=
s revolutionary approach to music as an exemplary instance of such resistan=
ce. This section in toto provides the most comprehensive analysis and discu=
ssion of control societies available anywhere.
>=20
> In the next section, 'Cinema, Perception and Space', we find the critical=
 essay by Jonathon Beller, simply entitled 'Cinema/Capital', which seeks to=
 understand why it is that Deleuze almost completely ignores cinema's relat=
ion to capital. It is an important essay which expands on Deleuze's notion =
of cinema to include its unavoidable ties to money, and shows how cinema an=
d television are complicit in the mechanisms of control which have become u=
biquitous in our society: 'Technologies such as cinema and television are m=
achines that take the assembly line out of the space of the factory and put=
 it into the home and the theater and the brain itself, mining the body of =
the productive value of its time, occupying it on location' (92). Deleuze c=
onspicuously neglects to discuss this aspect of the cinema of mass appeal, =
and focuses instead on the cinematic work of art. It is as well that we rem=
ember that the dominant role of cinema in our times is as a conduit for mas=
s media opinion !
>  and dogma. We should recall the warnings of Artaud who viewed cinema as =
repressive of the revolutionary events he sought to enact in the theatre. N=
onetheless, we should not think that this critique of popular cinema takes =
anything away from its potential as a site of resistance and creativity.
>=20
> The remainder of the essays of this section are chiefly concerned with th=
e revolutionary potential of the politics of both Deleuze and Guattari in t=
he context of the far-reaching mechanisms of control in the midst of which =
we find ourselves. They each deserve attention which we unfortunately do no=
t have space to give them here.
>=20
> The first two essays of the fourth section are devoted to developing an u=
nderstanding of Guattari's highly original semiotics. Their authors are to =
be credited as being the pioneers of this area in the English-speaking worl=
d. Their observations and clarifications will prove invaluable to anyone se=
eking to understand the singular approach to language and meaning which Gua=
ttari, and Deleuze and Guattari in concert, develop. The final essay by Bri=
an Reynolds gives an interesting account of Deleuze and Guattari's enigmati=
c use of Artaud's phrase 'body without organs'. Reynolds employs Rousseau's=
 detailed account of his own masochistic and hypochondriac characteristics =
as an enactment of the activity Deleuze and Guattari suggest as a means to =
escape the stratification of society, to make oneself a body without organs=

>=20
> And so to the final section, 'Philosophy and Ethics'. This begins with an=
 essay which at first may seem somewhat out of place here, but which functi=
ons to describe Deleuze's unique metaphysics, a philosophy we need to understand if we are to appreciate th=
e ethical challenges which then need to be faced. Timothy Murphy's essay 'Q=
uantum Ontology' performs a fascinating comparison of Deleuze's ontology of=
 becoming with the quantum ontology of physicist David Bohm. The achievemen=
t of Murphy's arguments is to show that Deleuzian ontology is to be taken s=
eriously in the light of its close similarity to the most current and revol=
utionary theories in quantum physics. Once we have taken onboard the physic=
al appeal of this ontology of becoming, of a world and a universe in perpet=
ual change, eternally throwing up new challenges and new problems, we are c=
onfronted with developing an ethics which leaves behind the old dogmas and =
transcendent and indisputable principles of morality, in fa!
>  vour of a practice which complements rather than resists the Protean nat=
ure of our world and lives. To this task Deleuze and Guattari devote consid=
erable energy, and their achievements are expertly highlighted and conveyed=
 by Daniel Smith in his essay 'The Place of Ethics in Deleuze's Philosophy'=
 Smith, it must be said, gives a remarkably comprehensive overview in the =
limited space afforded him, and I cannot think of a better introduction to =
Deleuze's ethical philosophy in English.
>=20
> I shall conclude my review here with the addendum that there are other wo=
rthy essays in the collection which I have been unable to mention here but =
which remain to be discovered by the reader. I unreservedly recommend this =
collection both to those already familiar with Deleuze and Guattari's conce=
ptual creation and to the newcomer who is yet to discover its richness and =
diversity. The inclusion of Deleuze's essay on cinema is a real bonus and w=
ill be of particular interest to those concerned to articulate the relation=
ship and potential points of interaction between cinema and philosophy.
>=20
> University of New England
> Armidale, New South Wales, Australia
>=20
>=20
> Copyright =A9 _Film-Philosophy_ 2001
>=20
> Stephen Arnott, 'Deleuze's Idea of Cinema', _Film-Philosophy_, Deleuze Sp=
ecial Issue, vol. 5 no. 32, November 2001 <http://www.film-philosophy.com/v=
ol5-2001/n32arnott>.
>=20
> _______ _______
>=20
> These texts are published through the _Film-Philosophy_ email salon so th=
at they can be discussed and contested and continued by you members, so ple=
ase send your thoughts to:
>=20
>     [log in to unmask]
>=20
> _______ _______ _______