[
Oh golly, robert...i was wondering if you wouldn't mind publishing a
definition
of proper cinema-speak and some examples of that kind of cinema...
maybe in the future, we'll all follow it and this can be a robert
koehler
approved
open forum for the discussion of a well-defined-cinema...
snort,
gary
]
This misses Robert's point. He seems to just be asking for some clarity
in argumentation. If you are going to use an idea or concept, then
let's make sure we understand what it is, what its significance is, how
it is applicable, and what problems there might be with it. Let's make
sure we are using the best tools possible and avoid the dogmatic,
uncritical acceptance of ideas.
The "body without organs" idea sounds interesting, but I'm not sure we
have a clear idea of the concept and it didn't seem to illuminate the
film in your example at all.
That Guattari says such and such means nothing to me. If we are going
to give a definition and apply an idea, let's try to be a bit more
precise. Perhaps this idea will turn out to be useful.
So far we have a few radically different definitions. What do we think
this idea is? Is it something like Rabelais crossed with Foucault's
suspicion of the categories of psychology or is it something entirely
different? Is it merely a look at how certain sections of the body have
been used and defined, questions more about the truthfullness of the
sectional definitions, or a description of the source of desire, or
what? No one has given a moderately low-on-metaphor definition of the
term.
So, what is it? What does it help us understand?
Cheers,
Aaron
|