Professor Alain Badiou: Cinema and Philosophy

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ย. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 75

  • @amera7142
    @amera7142 5 ปีที่แล้ว +109

    This is the power of TH-cam, that from a very backward and primitive place, you can attend lectures given by the greatest professors in the world.

    • @galek75
      @galek75 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Do you actually believe in "progress?" Gay.

    • @fluiiid
      @fluiiid 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      there is no primitive place, there is only struggle and privilege

    • @dexblue
      @dexblue 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I thought you were going to write: 'From a very backward university where an esteemed professor mouths cliches about Native American sovereignties (while sitting on piles of cash that never make it to Native Americans), going out to the great unwashed of the TH-cam Universe ...'

    • @TheBebelehaut
      @TheBebelehaut 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I'll see and raise you one. That from the backward and primitive places, the greatest ideas do come.

    • @BruhBruh-ej4cd
      @BruhBruh-ej4cd 25 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@dexblue Why do you say that hes being clichè? Even when he speaks about painting or poetry, he tries to give a definition which is still not clear to everybody

  • @heyppanda
    @heyppanda 7 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    16:24 - 24:28 Second question: Why the relationship between philosophy and cinema? (Plato's cave allegory)

  • @Claudia1949
    @Claudia1949 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    grande chiarezza utilissima per gurdare nella complessità dei film contemporanei.

  • @brucezz1965
    @brucezz1965 4 ปีที่แล้ว +12

    When Badiou imitates hid friend Zizek and says : "and so on, and so on"

    • @chuck1prillaman
      @chuck1prillaman 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      More succinct than the Noam Chomsky method: "The {terrible actions of the current subject} toward {an oppressed and/or exploited nation, people, sub-group of people or individual} are well known and have been thoroughly documented, and we needn't go into the details here..."

    • @peterwright9934
      @peterwright9934 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Or is Zizek imitating Badiou? Whatever, it is not used frivolously.

  • @patrickcrosby3824
    @patrickcrosby3824 5 ปีที่แล้ว +17

    The movie Sunset Boulevard is almost a paradign case of what Badiou is saying. First we all know "dead men tell know tales," yet the entire movie is a tale told by a dead man. Also the fact that the actors in film really did have the backgrounds of the characters portrayed. And in the final "I'm ready for my closeup Mr. DeMille" scene, delusion and reality become one. She is not really making a new movie, but in a sense she is. Last but not least, the title of the movie is false. It was actually filmed on Wilshire Boulevard.

  • @HipHopLived
    @HipHopLived 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    A fascinating philosophy on cinema, but as is often the case, I fear some directors have taken it as an excuse to fabricate a cheap imitation of italian neo-realism.
    That said, the film Roma seems to me to get better the more I think about it. I suppose I'll have to think about it some more to see if it hasn't lost it's power or re-watch it.

  • @oyshtri6954
    @oyshtri6954 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    everytime he said relationship, i heard Russianship...
    and it sounds fun..

  • @nawfalAbdullah
    @nawfalAbdullah 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Thank you ✨

  • @BernadetteFlahaut
    @BernadetteFlahaut ปีที่แล้ว

    Merci de bien vouloir traduire la vidéo en Français S.V.P..

  • @g.470
    @g.470 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Please add subtitles!

    • @alf2540
      @alf2540 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Yea it’s pretty hard to understand him lol. Love the French tho

    • @aspitube2515
      @aspitube2515 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@alf2540He literally says the french words instead, it’s not just the accent.

  • @naturphilosophie1
    @naturphilosophie1 8 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    am I alone in thinking Badiou AND Laruelle are a step backwards from Deleuze?

    • @dyobodiu
      @dyobodiu 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      no ;)

    • @LendallPitts
      @LendallPitts 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Yes.

    • @einwd
      @einwd 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      kinda

    • @aspitube2515
      @aspitube2515 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Sometimes

  • @ivan10veces
    @ivan10veces 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    Notice the shadow on the wall

  • @anjanchakraborty9444
    @anjanchakraborty9444 8 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    thanks

  • @scienceandcivilization
    @scienceandcivilization 9 ปีที่แล้ว +30

    "average view duration: 10 minutes 30 seconds" PLEBS LOL

  • @BernadetteFlahaut
    @BernadetteFlahaut ปีที่แล้ว

    Merci de bien vouloir traduire en Français S.V.P.

  • @mawsilimawsili2474
    @mawsilimawsili2474 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Defining language functions through Mallarmé is rather too elementary. Sorry Prof.

  • @LOLERXP
    @LOLERXP 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Lmao that guy at the beginning. So demolish the university and give it back!

  • @domsjuk
    @domsjuk 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    I feel like lectures on youtube have some of that cinematic vulgarity about them... Anyway, not a bad or uninteresting lecture when toggled to young people speed, but it didn't in the least inspire me to go deeper into his material. It felt like reading "theoretical" papers (which often enough is a euphemism for lacking evidence, relevance or both) that don't really have much to say by themselves... Most of it is overly and pointlessly vague and abstract and lacking meaningful historical, ideological etc. context, while more arguments and examples in exchange for all the repetition would have been refreshing. There were many short-cut statements like e.g. that cinema is the today the only democratic art - sure, I see what he could mean by that, but all that feels solid and convincing about this statement is again something rather superficial like it is the most widespread form of art consumed and discussed. But then there are aspects, like production process, technique, media/algorithm gatekeeping etc. which complicate such a formulation, and there sure is a lot of diverse opinion to think about.... whatever, what I mean is simply, going into statement like that alone would have been more insightful than retelling a bunch of theoretical platitudes which weren't even especially comprehensive in the first place.

  • @omernachmani3953
    @omernachmani3953 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    2:50

  • @thulaniearnshaw4094
    @thulaniearnshaw4094 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

  • @AkbarAliyevBuludlar
    @AkbarAliyevBuludlar 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    why can't he fix his pronunciation?

    • @account9434
      @account9434 5 ปีที่แล้ว +15

      if we all could learn french then there won't be any problem

    • @ivan10veces
      @ivan10veces 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Because it gives even more depth to his discourse

    • @zetetick395
      @zetetick395 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      How do you think _we_ sound when we speak French?

    • @AkbarAliyevBuludlar
      @AkbarAliyevBuludlar 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@zetetick395 I used to take French at college, I tried hard to control my pronunciation so that I make all those French sounds like 'gh' correctly, but it doesn't seem that he is trying or has been tryin, that's my point

  • @ppwalk05
    @ppwalk05 9 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    image image, blah blah, image, blah, platitude, cinema, blah. The vulgarity of this pseudo intellectual drivel is astounding.

    • @justinanderson617callme
      @justinanderson617callme 9 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      curious as to what you would prefer

    • @ppwalk05
      @ppwalk05 9 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      anything of substance. This is just constant obfuscations and vague references, typical of French philosophy.

    • @MrElicottero
      @MrElicottero 9 ปีที่แล้ว +17

      +ppwalk05 This is why French philosophy is complicated - because the way they write is usually the vital part of the point they are trying to make. (So as not to be accused of obfuscations and vagueness: if you don't understand the language they use, you really understood NOTHING.)

    • @wesleyknochenhauer
      @wesleyknochenhauer 9 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      +ppwalk05 stupid guy!

    • @ppwalk05
      @ppwalk05 9 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Péter Kiss no it is obfuscated because they know anyone with critical acumen would sniff out the epistemic bullshit. Continental philosophy is a joke.