วีดีโอ

Thanks forthe encouragement, lucasmiguel4734.Best of luck with your efforts

Con gusto, ni27684

@@DaveHarrisreDeleuze muchas gracias por los paisajes en sus vídeos, son muy bonitos

Thanks blanche1813.Very encouraging.Best of luck with your own projects

I must say I though tthat for ages, bun 197, but I finally started to see something in it, underneath all the scholastic displays and folderol It is still a struggle to winnow out the pearls from the ordure and to stay calm while doing it. It helped for me having retired and having nothing at stake but it must be very stressful if you have a deadline of some kind. Mind you, if you find D&G bullshitty, you should try Lacan! Don't give up!

not having a go at your video, it was very clear and well made. I just think a lot of 20th cent. french stuff makes very simple ideas needlessly complex as a way to sort of dress them up in fashionable philosophical dress. nick land and his ilk are very much the inheritors of it- basic concept about applying will to power to biological conditoning, but inventing 50 obscurant terms to make this sound artificially esoteric. maybe im just ignorant@@DaveHarrisreDeleuze

I didn't take it personally@@bun197 It is still my own starting point! I don't know the work you mention but I was going to say spraying bullshit is not just confined to the French -- I have dozed off in many an English-speaking presentation ,then looked at my notes and found I have reduced it all to a paragraph. Don't blame yourself -- 'proper' academics have to talk and write like this, Foucault once said, or no-one takes them seriously

Fascinating stuff, thelastataesthete. You are the person to write that paper!

I will take your word for it davidantonsavage6207

I assume you mean Thousand Plateaus? Did they say how it was supposed to fit in exactly, AnonymousCaveman, or what exactly you were supposed to get out of it? Just that book itself is massive! You might try the notes on the book on my website -- but they are quite lengthy themselves. Does the course have any other philosophy? D&G like Artaud, but I can't see much other obvious connection with Acting. Seems pretty inexplicable and mildly sadistic...

You are very welcome sven-arebjerke564. Best of luck with your own projects

Many thanks for this richardsmith.Very encouraging. Best wishes

Sorry -- you lost me I am afraid

You are very welcome, winta. All the best with your own projects

Look before you leap -- you might disappear. Always keep a lilttle piece of territory, the sages say

Glad I might have helped. I include myself in the buffoon category some times of course

Thank you very much for this support beril evlimoğlu. Very best of luck with your own work..

Thanks very much Adam. Glad I have been of some help. Best of luck with your own work

Thanks for this George Dallas. I appreciate your supportive comments. Best of luck with your own projects

Good person! Join in!

You are very welcome POintZ3RO. It is tough going and morale is easily dented. Good luck with it all.

Thanks ziggybobo.All the best with it.Dave

I know what you mean. I sometimes have to lie down in a dark room --but I am an old bloke. Best wishes, Dave

That is really useful! Thank you very much! I think I might be able to perceive a glimmer of light here. I shall think on. I am very grateful to you. Best of luck with your own work. Dave

Thanks for this Miles Tiller -- very encouraging.I am glad it is making some sense. I am delighted to see people still pursuing a bit of 'syllabus independence' .Very best of luck with your own projects

Yes -- but the BWO is a virtual body.Is Foucualt's?

Maybe -- I don't really know enough about Buddhism, I am afraid

I will have to think about that, Agnes Broderick. Deleuze liked Lewis Carroll on all this, of course

Good man.Only tackle it when you are ready, of course...

Hi Mina Huston. What a very kind set of remarks! Thank you very much for making them. I am much encouraged. All the very best of luck for your own studies and future projects

Hi blanche. Nice to hear from someone in South Korea. I am glad these are helpful. All the best with your own projects.

Thanks Fred Fairley. Very encouraging of to hear that. I haven't got any videos planned just now but I am always adding stuff to the website: www.arasite.org/

Thanks very much CPeter0912. I appreciate it. Good luck with your own projects

HI Gustav Jensen. Thanks for the comments. Sorry you felt let down so soon. A common view is that Deleuze is trying to show how classic cinema illustrates Bergsonian duration through movement images while post-War cinema uses time images. It is not just movement of any kind that he is interested in, I think. I agree that the two massive books need to be read slowly. I spent several enjoyable months doing just that and going off to find the films and viewing those too. Many of the more obscure ones appear on TH-cam, even if only as clips, put there by Deleuze fans no doubt. The results of my efforts are seen in the files I have on the website on the books, which are much more extensive than this very short introductory video, of course: www.arasite.org/cinema1.html ; www.arasite.org/cinema2.html

@@DaveHarrisreDeleuze Big fan of your series of videos here, and I'm trying to wrap my head around Gustav's comment, and perhaps you (or Gustav) can help me out. While it clearly is the case, according to Deleuze himself, that the terms movement-image and time-image map onto different kinds of films, loosely divided by the chronological marker of WWII (Deleuze is clearest about this point in the English prefaces to both books, as well as Chapter One of Cinema 2), I wonder if there's some validity to what Gustav says: that "movement-image is what comprises all of cinema." Even Bogue, who is generally on the money, writes "the cinematic image projected on the screen is perceived not as a set of still photographs to which motion is perceived not as a set of still phtographs...but as an image directly...in motion, a moving picture, or *movement-image* (22). For years I've thought that whatever Deleuze means by "movement-image," the one thing he doesn't mean is "moving image," and some commentaries are pretty direct about this. So is this just Bogue being imprecise? Or is he allowing himself a flexibility with the term "movement-image" that Deleuze himself also exhibits, given that there are many points across both books where "movement-image" does *not* simply refer to a classification of films. I'm just trying to get a better grasp on the many meanings Deleuze seemingly attributes to this term...

@@filmandmediastudieschannel Hi Jordan. Thanks for the kind words This is my second attempt to reply. The first one disappeared after a strange glitch. I am a bit rusty on this now. Anyway, I said that when I first read Deleuze I was impressed by the attempt to develop a semiology of moving images. I had been teaching Media Studies for a bit using good old Saussurian stuff but had never felt comfortable having literally to freeze the frame to do the skilful stuff with signifiers and signified. Colleagues were quite cross when I broke ranks. I saw Deleuze as offering intriguing efforts to develop better approaches, like action-image or affection-image based on Peirce and stuff like qualisigns or dicisigns to get at the particular qualities of cinema as offering moving images as distinct from photography. Deleuze argued that cinema also offers a variety of shots and editing, of course, which makes it distinctive compared with theatre, and combines images and sounds unlike literature, all of which can be understood as movement, in turn understood as ways to depict time. However, I saw the work on movement and time images as more specific, and more focused on Bergson, 'overdetermined by Bergson ' as old marxists might say. Whether the desire to further reinstate and develop Bergson came first, or a passion for cinema is debatable -- Badiou thinks the first and points out that Deleuze never even broke with auteur theory, for example. He certainly is notorious for neglecting the technical bits of cinematography like the hero (Gregg Toland?) who developed the deep focus shots he so admires in Citizen Kane. Anyway, I don't want to be at all dogmatic about this and would welcome your views

@@DaveHarrisreDeleuze Thanks for the reply! I very much agree with your assessment here. I'm personally dipping back into Deleuze after many years, and I've found your videos helpful.

Thanks for the encouragement Peter Wear. I hope to have been of some help. Best wishes for your own projects

Nice one! Good luck with the struggle with both AO and type 1

Thanks for the support, and congratulations on the stamina!

Almost certainly, James Ferry, thanks

Thanks Emma Ulyánova. I was being a bit flippant about Proust, but I read Proust himself as being rather flippant about the way French bourgeois have to focus on just specific features of people's faces in order to rationalise their feelings about them -- a nose, a moustache. The English upper classes judge people in the same trivial way, I should add. I know D&G want to extend the discussion into a face as a whole component of semiotic. I have read Deleuze on Proust and enjoyed it, and you can read my notes on the book on my website here (www.arasite.org/delproust.html). I have briefer notes on Guattari on Proust ( in the Machinic Unconscious) here (www.arasite.org/machincunconsc.html). I have also read Proust's Recherche...(in English) , again rather flippantly, and in the spirit of a British comedy show called Monty Python, which featured an absurd game show in which contestants had to summarise Proust in 30 seconds. My summary,which took weeks rather than 30 seconds, for what it is worth is also on my website here (www.arasite.org/summarizeproust.html). I am sorry again if my irreverent style offends. Very best wishes.

@@DaveHarrisreDeleuze my complaint was that when reading your summary i noticed several occasions when your interpretation was a lot more cynical than the one presented in "proust and signs" notably, deleuze managed to spin "sodom and gomorrah" into an insightful commentary on the relations between the sexes

@@heartache5742 Yes -- that is a fair comment. You are right