All this discussion of Deleuze et al seems to me to skip the first step:
what is my actual experience of the film? Some much simpler and older
concepts can be brought to bear on this relating to the non-existence of
the past and it's (as we would say now) constructedness based on artifacts
of memory, some of which get reified as memoirs... etc. It is a common
(universal?) human experience to want to experience all of what happens to
oneself as a whole. Movies can create an illusion to pander to this false
(or maybe just unwise) desire. To the degree that Lynch's creations
subvert that unworthy goal I experience them as more like life as lived.
Other people may not see this as one primary purpose (justification?) for
a movie's existence, but I do. Absent that, I don't care two noodles about
proceeding on to Deleuze and other hard ideas. Lynchian constructions
demonstrate one way it is possible to be "like life" without opening up
that whole reference/reality boondoggle that goes way back to Plato.
*
*
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.
**
|