[Nettime-ro] bibliotec@ 6 - iunie 2007

[Alin Cristea <alinpm@yahoo.com>]

bibliotec@ 6 ? iunie 2007
   
  Buletin informativ despre diferite carti. Se distribuie prin email la 300 de adrese in data de 6 a fiecarei luni.
   
  Pentru abonament gratuit, trimiteti un mesaj cu titlul ?biblioteca? la alin@cristea.com
  Pentru renuntare la abonament trimiteti un mesaj cu titlul ?sfirsit biblioteca?
   
   
  Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 1: The Movement-Image, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Eighth Printing 2006
  Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 2: The Time-Image, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Eighth Printing 2006
   
  Alex. Leo Serban (De ce vedem filme. Et in Arcadia Cinema, Editura Polirom, Iasi, 2006):
   
  ?Singurul filozof care a facut mai mult decit sa dedice citeva pagini de eseu Cinematografului, scriind doua opuri fundamentale despre acesta, este Gilles Deleuze: L'Image-mouvement (1983) si L'Image-temps (1985) sint cartile inconturnabile care dau seama, in fine, de importanta elementului ?Cinema? in gindirea (deslusirea, explicarea) lumii contemporane; cum scria Serge Toubiana - fostul redactor-sef al revistei Cahiers du cinéma, in numarul consacrat lui Deleuze la moartea acestuia -, ?Deleuze era cu adevarat cinefil. In sensul tare al termenului. Nu in acela, lenes, la care ne gindim in general si care presupune acumularea unei cantitati impresionante de filme vazute. El a-nteles, mai bine decit noi si inaintea noastra, ca societatea insasi era cinema. In sensul in care functia cinema intilnea societatea, si uneori se ciocnea de ea. In sensul in care trebuia sa gindesti lumea prin intermediul cinema-ului, si cinema-ul prin intermediul lumii. A gindi lumea ca
 reprezentare, flux de imagini, amestecind vizibilul si invizibilul, imaginea si ideea.? ("Le cinéma est deleuzien", in Cahiers du cinéma nr. 497, decembrie 1995, pag. 20.)
  
Ce nu spune Toubiana este ca, inca din 1968, in prefata la Différence et répétition, Deleuze vorbea despre necesitatea de a gasi noi metode de exprimare in filozofie: noul tip de discurs filozofic - scria el atunci - ar trebui sa se situeze undeva intre romanul politist si science-fiction! Si ca ultima "forma de exprimare" a filozofului Deleuze a constituit-o acest Abécédaire in imagini - un fel de ?Mitologii? barthesiene servite in pastile televizuale... Deleuze nu ?se servea? de cinema (sau de televiziune) pentru a face filozofie; el ingloba - pur si simplu - vizualul in discutarea lumii: demers onest, riguros si inevitabil intr-o lume dominata de imagini.
  
Astazi - marturiseste Michel Serres ? ?nu exista institut de cinema in lume care sa nu-l aiba pe Deleuze inscris in programa.? Serres se insala: acel ?institut? este UNATC-ul bucurestean.?
   
   
  Cinema 1 ? Back cover
   
  ?First published in France in 1983, this is at once a revolutionary work in philosophy and a book about cinema. For Deleuze, philosophy cannot be a reflection of something else; philosophical concepts are, rather, the images of thought, to be understood on their own terms. Here he puts view of philosophy to work in understanding the concepts ? or images ? of films. Cinema, to Deleuze, is not a language that requires probing and interpretation, a search for hidden meanings; it can be understood directly, as a composition of images and signs, pre-verbal in nature. Thus he offers a powerful alternative to the psychoanalytic and semiological approaches that have dominated film studies.
   
  Drawing upon Henri Bergson?s thesis on perception and C.S. Peirce?s classification of images and signs, Deleuze is able to put forth a new theory and taxonomy of the image, which he then applies to concrete examples from the work of a diverse group of filmmakers ? Griffith, Eisenstein, Pasolini, Rohmer, Bresson, Dreyer, Stroheim, Buñuel, and many others. Because he finds movement to be the primary characteristic of cinema in the first of the twentieth century, he devotes this first volume to that aspect of film. In the years since World War II, time has come to dominate film, that shift, and the signs and images associated with it, are addressed in Cinema2: The Time-Image.?
   
   
  From Cinema 1 ? Preface to the English edition 
   
  Gilles Deleuze: ?This book does not set out to produce a history of the cinema but to isolate certain cinematographic concepts. These concepts are not technical (such as the various kinds of shot or the different camera movements) or critical (for example the great genres, the Western, the detective film, the historical film, etc.) Neither are they linguistic, in the sense in which it has been said that the cinema was the universal language, or in the sense in which it has been said that the cinema is a language. The cinema seems to us to be a composition of images and of signs, that is, a pre-verbal intelligible content (pure semiotics), whilst semiology of a linguistic inspiration abolishes the image and tend to dispense with the sign. What we call cinematographic concepts are therefore the types of images and the signs which correspond to each type.?
   
  From Cinema 2 ? Preface to the English edition
   
  Gilles Deleuze: ?Time ceases to be derived from the movement, it appears in itself and itself give rise to false movements. Hence the importance of false continuity in modern cinema: the images are no longer linked by rational cuts and continuity, but are relinked by means of false continuity and irrational cuts. Even the body is no longer exactly what moves; subject of movement or the instrument of action, it becomes rather the developer [révélateur] of time, it shows time through its tirednesses and waitings (Antonioni). It is not quire right to say that the cinematographic image is in the present. What is in the present is what the image ?represent?, but not the image itself, which, in cinema as in painting, is never to be confused with what it represents.?
   
  Cinephilia and Monstrosity: The Problem of Cinema in Deleuze's Cinema Books ? Claire Perkins (2000)
   
  http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/books/00/8/deleuze.html 
   
  ?The Cinema books are perhaps most impressive, and certainly most important, for film theory in that they can't just go back onto the film text as an interpretative tool. Or, more accurately, they can - terms generated by film like the reasoning-image whereby we deduce action from an index of lack - the train whose arrival we see only from the lights on a woman's face - cannot not always describe the effect when it occurs within a film. What comes from film goes back to film too readily, and thereby with a certain redundance. This very phenomenon points to the wider horizons of Deleuze's thought. [?] Deleuze's critique of phenomenology in these books targets its conception of both perception and consciousness. What phenomenology sets up as its norm, he writes, is natural perception, the conditions of which anchor a perceiving subject in the world. Movement, in this schema, is understood not as an intelligible form which can be actualised in a content, but ?as a sensible
 form (Gestalt) which organises the perceptive field as a function of a situated intentional consciousness?.?
   
  On Deleuze's Cinema ? Daniel Frampton (1991)
   
  www.filmosophy.org/articles/deleuze 
   
  ?Deleuze is saying that films are not mere relays for meanings, that cinematic expression is complex, and that we should not attempt to distinguish 'implicit' and 'explicit' meanings as this distinction, in the end, does not exist. Deleuze also seems modest about his aims, asserting that his image 'classifications' are not so much an analysis of the image, as an indication of 'certain affects whose relation to the cinematographic image *remains* to be determined' ). What Deleuze maps in ?Cinema? is a movement from the conception of the screen as a window on another world, to that of a table of information. [?] It is in the last four chapters that Deleuze moves on from his classification of images, of cinematic movement, to a general consideration of the relationship between thought and film. Deleuze outlines three relationships between cinema and thought, to be found in the whole of the movement-image: cinema and a higher Whole (how we think about the Whole); cinema and
 thought, through the unfolding of images (that is image by image); and cinema and the relationship between world/nature and man/thought (i.e., from concept to image). Deleuze sees Eisenstein's decomposition of the 'shock' in cinema as 'the very form of communication of movement in images . . . from the image to thought, from the percept to the concept'.? 
   
  The Greatest Books in Film Theory ? Viney Varma
   
  http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Books-Film-Theory/lm/24MIRF0J8UM85/ref=cm_lmt_dtpa_f_2_rdssss0/105-8700507-1343613?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=listmania-center&pf_rd_r=1CN6AMWD22TDV2E828NR&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=253462201&pf_rd_i=0816614008 
   
  1. The Imaginary Signifier: Psychoanalysis and the Cinema ? Christian Metz
  2. Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema ? Christian Metz
  3. Film Form: Essays in Film Theory ? Sergei Eisenstein
  4. The Film Sense ? Sergei M. Eisenstein
  5. Signs and Meaning in the Cinema ? Peter Wollen
  6. What Is Cinema? (Vol 1) ? Andre Bazin
  7. The Aesthetics and Psychology of the Cinema (The Society for Cinema 8. Studies Translation Series) ? Jean Mitry
  9. Cinema 1: Movement-Image ? Gilles Deleuze
  10. Cinema 2: The Time-Image ? Gilles Deleuze
  11. The Film: A Psychological Study ? Hugo Munsterberg
  12. Semiotics and the Analysis of Film ? Jean Mitry
  13. Expanded Cinema ? Gene Youngblood
  14. The Art of the Moving Picture (Modern Library Movies) ? Vachel Lindsay
  15. Theory of Film ? Siegfried Kracauer
  16. Movies and Methods: Vol. I ? Bill Nichols
  17. Kino-Eye: The Writings of Dziga Vertov ? Dziga Vertov
  18. Godard on Godard: Critical Writings by Jean-Luc Godard ? Jean-Luc Godard 
  19. The Man With the Movie Camera: The Film Companion (KINOfile) ? Graham Roberts
  20. Visual and Other Pleasures (Theories of Representation and Difference) ? Laura Mulvey
  21. Film Art: An Introduction ? David Bordwell
  22. Narration in the Fiction Film ? David Bordwell
  23. Kuleshov on Film: Writings ? Lev Vladimirovich Kuleshov
  24. Film Technique and Film Acting ? V. I. Pudovkin
  25. The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film, Enlarged Edition ? Stanley Cavell
   
   
   
   
  Reviste electronice   
  revist@ ? grupaj din principalele reviste culturale. ?Revista lui Alin este un soi de memorie condensata a efemerului jurnalistic ? paginile aurii ale gesturilor noastre recente: esti in ea, deci existi!" (Alex. Leo Serban). 
   
  cinem@ ? grupaj cu informatii si comentarii despre cele mai bune filme de pe posturile TV . ?In societatea de astazi care cunoaste o expansiune uriasa a vizualului in cele mai diverse si neasteptate forme, a invata sa privesti devine o necesitate practica.? (Mircea Vasilescu)
   
  no comment ? un anunt ciudat, o informatie care te buimaceste, o scena care te lasa gura-casca. ?Fiecare manipulat trebuie sa aiba cel putin un minut pe zi de ?No comment?, intr-o tara ca a noastra unde in fiecare tramvai de mult scrie clar: ?manipulantul nu sta de vorba cu pasagerii?.? (Radu Cosasu)
   
   
  Pentru abonament gratuit mentionati optiunile intr-un mesaj la alincristea@thymos.ro 
  Pentru renuntare la abonament mentionati ?sfirsit? linga optiuni
   
  Cele trei newslettere saptaminale se afiseaza pe site-ul de puzzle cultural www.thymos.ro 
   
   
  ?Trei portaluri culturale de frecventat: Thymos: puzzle cultural, Romania culturala si LiterNet.ro?
   
  (http://doro.weblog.ro/2006-8-1.html)
   

       
---------------------------------
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
_______________________________________________
Nettime-ro mailing list
Nettime-ro@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-ro
-->
arhiva: http://amsterdam.nettime.org/