 |
 |
sorry, balderdash, julie. the world - film world? hasnt and may not freely choose to develop the informaticinematic hmmm.. foresight tucked away in passages of deleuze time-image, i.e.: "And the screen itself, even if it keeps a vertical position by convention, no longer seems to refer to the human posture, like a window or a painting, but rather constitutes a table of information, an opaque surface on which are inscribed 'data'. ... When the frame or the screen functions as instrument panel, printing or computing table, the image is constantly being cut into another image, being printed through a visible mesh, sliding over other images in an 'incessant stream of messages'. ... The life of the afterlife of cinema depends on its internal struggle with informatics. It is necessary to set up against the latter the question which goes beyond it, that of its source and that of its addressee." [G. Deleuze, "Cinema II: Time-Image", 1989] if the world has moved on, the it took me to the same place somebody else has been, so its enduring. when will cinema I be understood as a flatteringly long intro to cinema II and the idea of the crystal image... cinema I is hommage to neo-real and hitchcock. other than that it questions time not 'being out of joint.' cinema I knolls for freeing time as one-dimensional (unit length) denominator to any frame. free time --> cinema II. not in any polemic sense of freedom, but a call to its other more enduring characteristics than merely length of time as identical. * * 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. **