Hi Henry,
As the 'droogie' passed without comment, I'll move on, beyond Kubrick.
In the Hegelian fashion, Metz seems to want to find a solution to the formal/content paradox by a unification of antinomies, as it were. 'Great stuff for Cahiers readers circa 1965...
Deleuze's critique, OTH, abolishes both the formal and final (telos) causes of Aristotle altogether, thereby leaving us with material and intent (efficient). Formal properties are subsumed under 'capacities' and 'potentials', or are a product of human imagination.
Whitehead, whose later work was greatly admired by Deleuze, is the author of the famous 'footnote' remark. Indeed, perhaps nothing has ever been more generically Platonic than his Principia project.
Deleuze wrote about Freud in his Anti-Oedipus--father slaying, indeed!
BH
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 20:27:35 +0200
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Form vs content
To: [log in to unmask]
I'm aware that in film theory, Metz made the issue more complex by form having a content and content a form, so that you have four pairs: the form of form (excess), the content of form (style), the form of content (narrative), and the content of content (unarticulated subject matter). Which nonetheless still leaves the basic opposition in place (hard to rid oneself of this idea, it seems).
But the goal of philosophy is to overturn Platonism
Plato as the founding father of philosophy, and all of it since as a footnote (in the sense of 'supplement')? Sounds rather Freudian/oedipal. But if the primal father is slain, he returns as the Law ('Totem and Taboo'). So where does that leave us?
H
* * 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] Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon * Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] **