 |
 |
<<I see D as a stalking panther who surveys, examines the ground and stealthily creeps up on you in your lair or hiding place, and pounces announcing that there is no safety anywhere. His sophisticated surgical examination using the arsenal of "logic" weaponry leaves one overwhelmed and wavering in uncertainty. (This would make a great cartoon). But I find D's method seriously flawed. It appears to be based on the assumptions underlying a coherence theory of truth. The procedure is to assume an existing framework then seek out inconsistencies and shout that "all is false". >> My main area is neither film nor philosophy so I cannot always pepper my remarks with supportive references (a legitimate practice of course, as long as it doesn't substitute for your own thinking. But equally, I don't believe 'philosophy' is just what's on The University Reading List). I think characterising the greats in a generalised way is an interesting exercise, that they do indeed express fundamentally simple attitudes over which is laid layer upon layer of carefully wrought thinking. But its a project in which, sadly, I cannot participate very much because this is not my background. Except for Deleuze......who currently occupies my interest, and what strikes me about his work is its insistent refusal to become linear. I find that curious, intriguing, and perceptive. Reading D, I find, is as much about the *process* of reading D as any conclusions he makes, or I make. There is some parallel here with Lynch - he defies narrative structure and thus conventional perception and you need repeat viewings in order to engage with what unfolds on the screen. So again, its process rather than definition or conclusion. I don't know if anyone else (here or otherwise) feels that way about D, or if anyone has written about it. If so, I'd be interested.