Hi Bernard,
I have some questions before we get started.
>
>> On Aug 21, 2020, at 5:41 PM, Bernard Roddy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Hello, Michael:
>
> When you make reference to a conception of motion pictures "as being produced
> in the differential between different frames," how is that different from the
> moving image produced by continuously running a movie camera while directing
> it at live action?
I explained that already. It was what my post was about: how the cinematic
image is conceived as a shot extracted from reality or as something else.
>
> When thinking about Deleuze and the "extension of his proposals, such as the
> movement image, to animation," what do you understand "the movement image" to
> consist in? Part of the problem with the way this list works is that readers
> are directed elsewhere rather than addressed in terms accessible within a
> public "discussion." So the reference to a note in Cinema 1that is to
> substantiate Deleuze's remarks on the movement image is, for me,
> counter-productive, unless the idea is shared here in an explanation.
>
> You seem to me to be offering a conception of movement that is not from
> Deleuze when you quote McLaren and Kubelka. One might well wonder what
> "between frames" means, or what a "perceptual construct" is. I would contest
> the idea that Deleuze is talking about something an audience invents, or that
> he would frame things in terms of the difference or resemblance between a
> pair of frames.
>
Yes, that is the point of what I said.
> You want to hold that filmmakers who "engage with cinema-as-animation" are to
> be separated somehow from those who would produce live action movies. What
> does it mean to engage with cinema-as-animation? Does that require that one
> watch cartoons? Is it a production method? Or could a live action filmmaker
> engage with live action that way as well? We haven't, after all, established
> that "cinema-as-animation" is to be distinguished from cinema as anything
> else.
>
That is you saying that, not me.
> I am resisting the reliance on specific remarks in print anywhere from, say,
> Deleuze or a scholar, since I prefer to explain what i understand right here.
> So I am not particulalry interested in a debate over what scholars or
> philosophers have actually said somewhere. Scholarship for me is secondary to
> thinking, in as far as we can do that. (That's a tentative stand.)
>
Ok. You're the one who brought up Deleuze. How about you explain what you mean
first?
> The "approach" that you call more plastic appears to be a working method
> familiar from a certain kind of production practice. That allows you to draw
> on a technique involving the production of a Daffy Duck cartoon. This is a
> nice way to include students interested in Disney. But I don't see how it
> helps us appreciate anything about the movement image or the way in which
> works in cinema are to be understood. My interest, of course, stems from
> ideas from the history of philosophy that Deleuze thinks are significant for
> understanding cinema.
>
Daffy Duck is not a Disney character. If you want to demand precision and
extensive explanations from others, how about you do it too?
Michael
Michael Betancourt, Ph.D
https://michaelbetancourt.com
cell 305.562.9192
https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Betancourt/e/B01H3QILT0/
Sent from my phone
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
