Ok. here is my thought and question on the discussion of the time-image
by Thomas Wall. Please clarify if I am misunderstanding your intent. I
understand there are many nuances and histories to this argument.
The claim seems to be that like language, the time-image exposes an
image of the the inutterable, (the neutral, the primordial, the
perhaps, etc.) This, for Deleuze opens a space prior, and maybe even
deplete, of action(narrative, the event, etc.) How does this reconcile
with the fact of cinema's insistence on the particular: the proper
name, the detail, the struggle of values? It would seem that postwar
cinema is more implicated in the event than ever. How is the political,
the product of this time-image, as you suggest at the paper's
conclusion? narrative action and the struggle of values would seem more
definitive of the cinematic than the absolutely unsayable of experience
and mood. Perhaps you could speak more of how his "waiting" or
passivity before the event, is political. I realize you speak of this
in relation to ethics in your book _radical passivity_, but perhaps you
could clarify this in relation to cinema and its many "presentations"
of situations. I understand how all representation involves a
combination of these forces, but what I find unnecessary in Deleuze is
this insistence on making these distinctions historical
(prewar/postwar) and hierarchical and defining cinema through their
orderings.
I guess what I'm left wondering in the face of Deleuze's time image,
is how does ACTION remain an issue for cinema in this context?
Especially today, in a very action-based film and media environment.
reni
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|