Well, the first volume of Deleuze's work is devoted to "the movement image."
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:22 PM Michael Betancourt < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
