Concerning the discussion of Deleuze and, more generally, the problem
of 'imposed' philosophical readings David Rodowick, in the excellent
Deleuze's Time Machine, makes a defence of Deleuze's strategy of film
selection and 'reading'. A critique, which I'm more convinced by, can
be found in Alain Badiou's Deleuze The Clamour of Being. He argues that
Deleuze produces monotonous readings that always find the same problem
across literature, cinema, culture, etc. This raises the question,
which interests me, of philosophy itself as a 'reading machine'. This
problem has been raised insistently by Francois Laruelle and his work
on non-philosophy (see Ray Brassier's excellent introduction 'Axiomatic
Heresy: The Non-Philosophy of Francois Laruelle', Radical Philosophy
121 (2003) and also the Gilles Grelet's sans-philosophie, see the
collection Theorie-rebellion (L'Harmattan 2005). Also it can be seen in
David Bordwell's work on interpretative readings of film (guilty as
charged previously).
Sans-cinema, sans-philosophie?
Ben
*
*
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.
**
|