Deleuze for the Desperate #6: time-image
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- Discusses (Deleuze's account of) basics of Bergson on time and duration as a background to Deleuze on the time image in cinema. Flashbacks, dream sequences, crystal images, sheets of the past and peaks of the present are discussed in relation to fairly accessible film examples.
Transcript available on: www.arasite.org/deltranscript6time.html
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 82 วันนี้!! คู่เอก | ยอดไอคิว vs อับดัลลาห์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hSsyTl_9bqs/mqdefault.jpg)
Dave, you are a genius! Thank you so much for your videos- i just found them and i have already fallen in love with them lol
Many thanks Capuchino Sofia -- very encouraging. Best of luck with your own projects
tysm, again, for all of these videos. soooo straightforward and clear.
Thanks for all the encouraging remarks, Dangerous Ideas. Good luck with your own work.
You have done a terrific job. I had read both the books without understanding much. Thank you.
You're welcome. Good luck with it
Thank you again. Your videos are such a helpful guide to tackling Deleuze
You are very welcome Chris Newman. Best of luck with your own project
Thanks a lot for another episode of your decent work on this!
You are very wecome, Sim Kok
Woah... Well Done! (me saying so very humbly). This video is really helpful for both the academic and the layman. Superbly done, and due diligence definitely been given to tackling the concepts. I'm only 10min in, but I can tell this is going to be good.
Is the female voice Dave's wife? Is it a study colleague?
This is great, as always. Thanks!
Thanks for the encouragement Jessica Liebenberg
Thank you so much sir. God bless you! I needed this!
Thank you Ama Jang.Best of luck with your project
Glad to have been able to help Ama Jang. Best of luck with your studies
Thanks a lot, again!
You are very welcome. Apologies for the delay in replying
very nice disjunction
Thanks for the comment TONKOTSU666
If you have time, would you consider doing a video on Brian Massumi?
It's an idea. Did you mean his commentary on D&G or his later stuff?
Both! I think some of his later stuff is influenced by D/G, though it’s a bit more affect territory. But affect is such a slippery concept, maybe more of his later stuff would be helpful.
Why are there no subtitles?
HI Ruben. I have transcripts for all the videos on my website: www.arasite.org/deleuzep.html
Nice to start a film about 'film' with a "clapper" bridge
You are really good at spotting these allusions, and it's very flattering -- even if not really deerved, as I've said
really appreciate this video and love the cornish (?) accent!
Thanks Heidi Marchant for the encouraging remnarks. I lived in Cornwall for a few years and must have acquired a bit of the burr
Hey i love your videos, can you please tell me, how can the concept of time image be applied to every day life for personal growth?
I'm not at all sure personal growth is one of the topics Deleuze addresses so you will probably be on your own there. The time in question is 'duration' or experience so that might help? I suppose you could think about the difference between just maturing and becoming?
got to minute 13.... :( what a let down. The introduction was brilliant, but as soon as they go into movement-image, everything collapses. Go back and read slowly! Movement image is what comprises ALL of cinema... It's as simple as understanding that it is the movement which cinema is able to create. It's not a specific type of cinema.
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.