Let me try to flesh out certain perceptions about _Cinema 1_ that
might (or might not) contribute to the discussion of D's view
of ideology, the subject, etc., as well as perhaps providing a
somewhat improved contribution to the comparison between D and
Metz.
I would say that in _Cinema 1_ Deleuze is doing _natural_history_ of
(filmic) thought. He takes as a point of departure the elementary
properties and laws of this particular thought-medium, treating them
as if they were physical properties/laws, and rigorously derives
from them the space of possible modes of thought, possible intellectual
paradigms, ways of positing the world. He uses actual films much the
way a scientist would use empirical data: both to guide the insight
into the laws and to confirm the theoretical findings.
His approach to thought purposely and strikingly excludes any
meditation on the possible _causes_ of the "first priciples" --
attributions to "human psychology", "aesthetic convention",
"ideology", etc. -- much like natural science excludes from
its normal realm of consideration the question of what causes
the elementary laws of physics to hold. The principles are simply
observed, articulated, reasoned about.
Inherent in this method -- contructed by it and permitting its
construction -- is a certain model of subjectivity. Obviously, what
is primary here is not psychology or sociology or biology, but
_thought_. "American School", "French School", etc., are labels
attached to possible "complete" (filmic) thought-modes or
thought-ensembles. These are conspicuously _not_ traced back to
territories, national histories or ideologies; but the fact that D
chooses to call it "American School" rather than "School 1" is,
I think, not meant to be without resonance -- even mnemonics work as
mnemonics because of their resonance. If one wants to be extreme,
the names of individual directors, too, can be viewed simply as
labels conveniently attached to more specific thinking-styles.
The book makes no proposals that would preclude the possibility of
Bresson suddenly making "Full Metal Jacket"; I believe, however, that
the book's assumed "model reader" (as Eco would call him) knows that
this is highly unlikely and interprets the designation "Bresson"
in light of this knowledge. I think that the question of who the
book posits as its _model_reader_ is important in understanding D's
ideas. Me feeling is -- although I would be at a loss if it came to
substantiating this -- that the model reader is assumed to have
certain habits of thought concerning individuals, nations, social
classes, ideology, the Western intellectual tradition, and that the
book has to be interpreted in the light of this assumption.
- malgosia
------------------
might (or might not) contribute to the discussion of D's view
of ideology, the subject, etc., as well as perhaps providing a
somewhat improved contribution to the comparison between D and
Metz.
I would say that in _Cinema 1_ Deleuze is doing _natural_history_ of
(filmic) thought. He takes as a point of departure the elementary
properties and laws of this particular thought-medium, treating them
as if they were physical properties/laws, and rigorously derives
from them the space of possible modes of thought, possible intellectual
paradigms, ways of positing the world. He uses actual films much the
way a scientist would use empirical data: both to guide the insight
into the laws and to confirm the theoretical findings.
His approach to thought purposely and strikingly excludes any
meditation on the possible _causes_ of the "first priciples" --
attributions to "human psychology", "aesthetic convention",
"ideology", etc. -- much like natural science excludes from
its normal realm of consideration the question of what causes
the elementary laws of physics to hold. The principles are simply
observed, articulated, reasoned about.
Inherent in this method -- contructed by it and permitting its
construction -- is a certain model of subjectivity. Obviously, what
is primary here is not psychology or sociology or biology, but
_thought_. "American School", "French School", etc., are labels
attached to possible "complete" (filmic) thought-modes or
thought-ensembles. These are conspicuously _not_ traced back to
territories, national histories or ideologies; but the fact that D
chooses to call it "American School" rather than "School 1" is,
I think, not meant to be without resonance -- even mnemonics work as
mnemonics because of their resonance. If one wants to be extreme,
the names of individual directors, too, can be viewed simply as
labels conveniently attached to more specific thinking-styles.
The book makes no proposals that would preclude the possibility of
Bresson suddenly making "Full Metal Jacket"; I believe, however, that
the book's assumed "model reader" (as Eco would call him) knows that
this is highly unlikely and interprets the designation "Bresson"
in light of this knowledge. I think that the question of who the
book posits as its _model_reader_ is important in understanding D's
ideas. Me feeling is -- although I would be at a loss if it came to
substantiating this -- that the model reader is assumed to have
certain habits of thought concerning individuals, nations, social
classes, ideology, the Western intellectual tradition, and that the
book has to be interpreted in the light of this assumption.
- malgosia
------------------