41389499

8/13/2019 41389499

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/41389499 1/21

Thinking, Recounting: The Cinema of Gilles DeleuzeAuthor(s): Raymond Bellour and Melissa McMuhanSource: Discourse, Vol. 20, No. 3, Gilles Deleuze: Areason to Believe in this World (Fall 1998),pp. 56-75Published by: Wayne State University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41389499 .

Accessed: 01/02/2014 09:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wayne State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Discourse.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 158.129.160.193 on Sat, 1 Feb 2014 09:52:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wsupress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41389499?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/41389499?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wsupress

8/13/2019 41389499


Thinking, Recounting:

The Cinema of Gilles Deleuze

RaymondBellour

For Fanny

These emarksrededicatedo hememoryf élixGuattariwhoseresenceandthoughtillnodoubt e oo ittlenvokedverhe oursef heseayseven hougheparticipatessofullyndin somanyways,n whatwe re

evokingere.I wanted,would ike to ryorediscoverandthis esire ecamelear

when he rganizersad the indnesso skme oopen his athering)heastonishmentnd the tupefactionhich ereminewhenfirstead hesebookswhich assed ike meteoritehroughhe ky fcinema heorytheFrenchheoryf ineman whichheyarticipate,ut n relationowhich

theyre lso oreign.Many f hose ere ill evelopaccordingowhats announcedn the

programistings)articularoints f heoryrof onceptualizationpenedupby hese wo ooksy eleuzeprecise,laboratedrgumentshichwillallowus toknow littlemore boutdnema nd about hilosophy,ndabout heirnigmaticelation,osed or heirstimen thisway.

I wouldimplyike o ryo ellgaintheffecthat hese ooksroducedforme, littlefwhat heyre and what heyrovoke,n theireneralityas in the ingularityf heirvent. his eemedome, eforehe ealwork,

Discourse,0.3,all 998,p. 6-75.opyrighty 998 aynetateniversityress,Detroit,ichigan8201-1309.

56





8/13/2019 41389499


Fall 1998 57

and in relation o thisworkthe east oor ntroduction.wayperhaps,simplytokeepn view he rogrammemplied y heewwords hichervedas a title o he ast extecentlyublishedyGilles eleuze: Immanence:

Life.... l

1.

The firsthingwhich sstrikingsa project hat s difficulto de-fine.Because t s a singular ook,first f ll n Deleuze's ownoeuvre.

Despitethe mallvalueof uchdistributions,e neffect indn thisoeuvrewhat ould be called books ofgeneralphilosophy-DifferenceandRepetitionr TheLogicofSense and monographson a givenauthor,philosopheror not,some ofwhichare no less significantworks: n Nietzsche,Proust nd Spinoza {TheFoldbeing situatedbetweenthetwo: reflection n Leibniz,and a philosophy f the

Baroque; as also the essayon Bacon, Logiquede la sensation)ButneverwouldDeleuze, alone orwith élixGuattari, ave conceivedin thisway book on an art, domain here named Cinema.Thedomain could- the idea sometimes omes

up- justas well have

been called Literature rPainting: woyearsbefore TheMovement-Image, he Bacon book initiates uch a gesturetowards ainting;Critiquetcliniquelateron,will touch on literature,ut in mono-

graphic ragments,ndmixedwith hilosophy.t s thusnotwithouta strong eason that he domain touched n thisway singletimein itsentiretys called Cinema.

There is thus thisunique book, bearer of a unique gesture:Deleuze decidingone fineday,afterhavingseen manyfilms nhis life as a philosopher, o take on cinema,almost a century f

cinema, wholesale, n order to try o saysomething bout it,notsimply ecausehe, ikeothers,would nturnhave deas on cinema,but rather n order to takehold ofthe fieldofcinemain hisownway. hisassumes n extraordinaryndvery articularffort hichengagesthequestionofa relation etweenphilosophynd cinemaat tsvital dge.On theone handthere sphilosophy,efinedmanytimes yDeleuze as a creation fconcepts.On theother, here sthecinemathat t s a questionofthinking,o theextent hat hecinemathinks lready, nd not onlydue to the reflexivityhat t has sooften emonstratednrelation o tself,ut nfact ecause, ikeany

art, inema thinks n itself hrough he films fgreatfilm-makers.Deleuze made this lear nthepaper given oFEMIS2 ( What s theActofCreation? ublished npartunder thetitle Having n Ideain Cinema ) significantly,e confrontshereperhapsforthefirsttimethethree-wayhilosophy-science-artivision evelopedlater





8/13/2019 41389499


58 Discourse 0.3

in WhatsPhilosophy.^Philosophys thus heactivityhich onsistsincreating oncepts; s science s thatwhich reates unctions;nd

painting locsof ines/coloursthese ren't heexactterms sed nCinemathey rerather condensation fter hefact fwhat s con-structedhere)And thiswithoutny f hese ctivities- hilosophyno morethan ny ther everbeing na position o overshadow heothers. t will thusbe a matter fthinkinghecinema, n another

way autrement, by tryingo thinkwith inema rather hanaboutcinema,bywriting book ofphilosophywith inema.This remainsthe mostdifficult

hingo think.

For this ook,which nduces newrelation etween hilosophyandcinema, s also a history.eleuze introduces isbookbywriting:Thisstudys not a historyf cinema. t's a taxonomy,n attempt

at the classificationf magesand signs. 4 he onlyhistoryhatheinvokes, oingvia Peircewhose semiotics e uses as an open modeland inspiration,s a naturalhistory, hatofLinnaeus,namelyhistoryf purely axonomical ype.Andyet t s also a matter fhis-

tory,n Cinema n themostbanal and most omplicated enseoftheterm eventhough t s never matter fdatingnor of nforming)The material f hebook s distributed

ccordingo two

reat haseswhich orrespond o thedivision ntotwo olumes: n theone handclassicalcinema,on the other modern cinema; the breakbeingestablished ssentiallyrom he time of thewar, rom he cinemawhich s born fter hewarwith talianNeo-Realism.t s thus ndeeda matter fdeveloping inema from tsbeginnings, rom he firstmoments fcinema, hen ilent inema, othemost ontemporarycinema and video. The greatoppositionbetween lassicalcinemaand moderncinemacorresponds othegapbetween he two itles:TheMovement-Imagend TheTime-Image.he firstualifies inema

conceivedas a unitaryworld, onstructed pon rational uts be-tween hots, nd accordingto types fmontagewhich nduce anindirectmageoftimefounded on sensori-motorchémas, hanksto a continuityetween ction nd reactionwhich upposesorganicrelations etween he whole nd its ets- both thewholegraspedbythe mageand thepossiblewhole of the world.At theoppositeend,modern cinema is builton ruptures, irrational uts which

supposea new, nassignablenterval etween hots; he actions reno longerdetermined n function f a stimulus-responseystem,but are subjectto a general phenomenonofimmobilization nd

clairvoyancewhichbrings bout a direct ccess to time, directimageof time.There s thus ndeedhistory,volution, low,nspiteofpointsofanticipation nd reversal themostnotablebeingtherole assignedtoOzu, the nventor fopsigns nd sonsigns,whoalone already onceives pure time-image ithin hevery imeofthemovement-image).





8/13/2019 41389499


Fall 1998 59

Let us consider lso thewayDeleuze, in TheTime-Imagecarvesup cinemaonce again, nrelation olanguage,dialogueand more

generally o thesoundtrack,orminghreegreat tages hatmatchhisfirst ivision. hereis thus he silent inema nwhich he mageis double: on the one hand purely een,on the other read in theintertitle;lassical oundcinemainwhichthe mageis visible ndreadable at the same timebecause speechhas become an internaldimension;moderncinema,which n its extreme xamplestendstoseparatethecomponents f the magebetween n autonomoustextand an autonomous mage,both visible nd readable at the

sametime, ogethernd separately.Such a concern forhistory,orperiodization, s not new in

Deleuze. Wecan think f the review e carries ut at the end ofhisbook on Foucault, nspired ythevisionof this hinker,norderto

propose a three-wayivision- the classical historical ormation :theGod-form ;thehistorical ormation fthe20th entury :the

man-form ;theformation fthefuture : theover-man he saysalso: theun-fold, thefold, theover-fold ).We can also thinkof thewayhe grasps, hanks oBacon, thegreat tagesofpaintingsince

Egyptian rt,ince each

painterummarizesn his own

waythehistoryfpainting. We can especially hink fthegreattriadof the third hapter fAnti-OedipusSavages,Barbarians, ivilizedMen, sketch f history fhumanity;tsmovement peningup,on the current f a controlled rift,tsownfracturend diffractioninto datedconceptualeventswhichflyntosparksnthedisjointedspacesofA Thousand lateaus Deleuze will n fact ay bout thesebookswritten ithFélix Guattari: We have alwayshad a tastefora universalhistory. 5)We can think n thiswayof the historical

Geophilosophy imensionof What s PhilosophySuch are the

signs, nd muchmore thanust signs, fan always perative ensionbetween nalyzing, escribing, hinkingnd recounting. ecause a

historys above all everythinghat eeks torecount tself nd findsitself eingrecounted.

Assuch,readingthisbook on cinema,one experiences most

disturbing eeling. ollowing thoughthat nfolds tselfccordingto ogicalaxes andmodes, ccording o a conceptual axonomyhat

corresponds o the differentspectsof themovement-image,henthe time-image,ne findsoneselfdespite everythingnd at thesame timefollowingn broad strokes hecurvesof worldcinema.

These are for xample, n TheMovement-Image,hefourgreat ormsofmontage organic,dialectical, uantitative,ntensive-extensive)respectively efining heAmerican,Soviet,French and German

Expressionistinemas. t's a division hat s more or essfound nallthegood historiesbutthere ren'tanyreally ood ones), as in allthe aesthetics f cinema (therearen'treally nybetter) Similarly





8/13/2019 41389499


60 Discourse0.3

there s thegradationwhich eads, in The Time-magefromNeo-Realismto theNew Waveand toNewGermanCinema. Buthere tis a strictlyonceptualorder that nsuresthedevelopment f this

historynd seems toshape it n advance even f toriginatesn it.In this nd on a broader evel, just and beautiful hinghap-

pens: the coincidence of this vision of Deleuze's with Godard'swork nd image.The first ublicformulationfDeleuze's projectappears nan interviewwritten,hewayhegives hem) nNovem-ber 1976 in Cahiers u ánéma an interview edicated to Six TimesTwoGodard's first

reatTV series. Inorderto try o reconstitute

Godard's image-sound elation, Deleuze says,Ve would have torecount very bstract istory, ith everal pisodes. Prefiguringthe modes ofconceptualization f his future ook,he underlinesthecoincidence between hishistoryhathe sketcheswith hefirst

chapterof Matter ndMemoryand callsfor systematiceferenceto Bergsonforapproachingcinema.6 However t is precisely nthese sameyears f the 70s thatGodard conceives heproject, irst

appearing n a spokenbook ( ntroductionune véritableistoireucinéma Introductiono a TrueHistory fCinema]),which has been

takingorm ver even

yearsnthe ixfirst

pisodesofthe

Histoire(s)du cinémaThereagain t sa matter f an attemptthistory: ow to

graspcinema as a whole at a momentwhenthehistoryfcinema,as a global object,has become somethingmpossible,be it onlybecause of tsnewenormity,n enormity easelessly einvented orit nd thatmultiplies pwards s muchas downwardsecause ofthe

explosionthat inema sexperiencing n all sides.But t spreciselyat the moment hat hething ecomes more and more naccessibletoprofessional istoriansr thosewho wish obe,that woprojects,following ivergentmodesbutcuriouslylose in their cope,their

desirefor recision nd the nspirationftheir hought,or hefirsttimeconceive, nce again,a quitedifferentossibilityf a historyof cinema.The firstrtist-historyf cinema. The firstonceptualhistory f cinema.Each has muchto do with heother,fonlytotheextent hat hephilosopher nd the film-makeremain ndebt,one to thenon-history hichhe lends himself, he other to the

multiplicityf hi)stories histoireswhichhe giveshimself.7

2.

It's that hisbook is also a novelof the20thcentury,ne of tshistorical ovels.

Three figures re behind the scenes of thisbook on cinema,even if Deleuze seldom refers o them. Three novelistfigures:





8/13/2019 41389499


Fall 1998 61

Balzac, Zola, Proust.Deleuze has written n the second and thethird fthem; nd Balzac appears nProustndSigns s the modelthatopened up thepossibilityfRemembrance.. .If thesethreenovelists re important ere, t'sbecause they ach offer modelof thedevelopment fspecies,families, roups, ndividuals, n ascale comparableto thoseputintoplay n Cinema and 2 usinga

conceptualclassificationnd a historical lan.Let us ust recall thatthe differentypes fmovement-images

are conceived using concepts that Deleuze recognizes n Berg-son:

perception-image,ction-image,ffection-image,owhich re

added as so many ntermediarymodes the impulse-image, hereflection-image,he relation-image. hus these images proceedfrom the movement-image owardsthe time-image, cquiringthroughhecategories fPeirce ndbeyond thernamesandotherforms,n relation to the momentwhere timeappears directlyssuch, nducingnumerousmodes ofconstruction nd thought,n

particular etweenpresent nd pastand falsificationnd truth: llthat s established nd circulateswithin hemultiple quivocationsof the crystal-image.t is within hisframe, stablishedfrom nevolumeto theother

hroughour

key hapters,he four commen-

tarieson Bergson, hatDeleuze introduces ilm-makers,ationalcinemas, hegreatmoments f cinema one byone and in relationto each other. o each conceptual nnovation,o each singular ormor sub-form f the magecorresponds heplacement f a school,a workor a partof a workthatseems in factto itselfnduce the

conceptand give tbody. t is in thisthatthenovelistic uality fclassificationesides,which hus rranges hecharacters' ntrancesand exits, he aunching nd actionsof the dramatisersonae.

Buñuel, forexample.When Deleuze createsthe category f

the mpulse-image ithin hemovement-image,n image nscribedwith tsownspecific orcebetween heaction-imagend theaffec-

tion-image, e invents pairingwhich had neverbeen risked nsuch a way nd that ppeared to many ll the more striking:hatof Buñuel and Stroheim, heSpanish-Mexican ilm-makernd theAustrian-Americanilm-maker.o doubttheword naturalism adbeen mentionedhere and there, ften orthesecond,sometimesfor the first. ut thanks o a naturalism hat s here taken as amodel byDeleuze fromZola, a strict onjunction s effectuatedbetweenBuñuel andStroheim,eunited rganicallyhis ime nder

this same concept of the impulse-image. hey enter n thiswaylikecharacters,ach posed in relation o theother, ach opposedto the other.But Buñuel's case becomes more complicated.Hisfour astfilms, isFrenchfilms, scape the model ofbeingdeter-mined bythe impulsive depths nd will be called upon much





8/13/2019 41389499


62 Discourse0.3

later n TheTime-Imagein a chapterdedicated to whatDeleuze,after ergson, alls peaksofpresent nd sheets fpast. As suchBuñuel suddenly eturns s auteur-charactern this econd stageof thebook. This is howa kind of novelisticffect une sorte e

romanesque )s constituted,heexamplesof which are multiple.Thewordwill eemexcessive, rvague; t sdetermining. s Deleuzewriteswhileattemptingo identifyagain in hispaper to FEMIS)thespecific imensions f thephilosophical ct nregard o thoseof the artistic ct: Philosophy lso tells stories histoires. It tellsstorieswith

concepts. 8r as he

goeson to

say:In

philosophyit is as it is in a novel: one must ask: What willhappen?,' Whathappened?,'only he characters re concepts. 9 nlythathere the

concept-charactersnter ntofusionwith hesemultiple haracterswho are the variousfilm-makers,nd therebywiththebodies ofthe actor-charactersho recurthrough heirfilms,whosematteris as ifdrained by a conceptual energythatneverceases to beat the same time evocative nd narrative,tory f an infinityfstories.

Novelisticwithout he novel, and thereby lso opening upthereinvention f thenovel. We owe it to Barthes o have in this

waytouchedupon- in order to qualify ispersonal project- themovement hathas been so strongnFrench houghtince the60s,making certain umber f rtworksndbooks ntoplaces nwhichthe search forknowledge nd truthmetamorphosed efore our

eyesby surrenderingo the forceof a viewof fiction r fabulationthatalone was capable ofresponding o thenewanxietiesof thetimes:Lévi-Straussn hisMythologiesBarthesfromhis MichelettoS/Z, o Camera ucida Foucault fromL'Histoire e afolie Madnessand Civilization)o TheHistory fSexualityDeleuze and Guattari

fromAnti-OedipusoA Thousand lateaus Deleuze inhis Cinema.The astonishingnd moving hing bout thisbook is thus tofeel towhatextentone is continuallyaught up in thetaxonomysince the conceptsare ordered and progress n relation to eachother,but relative o the fact that each concept is immediatelyincarnated n a name, bodies, a work, bodyof workor epochs.The impulse-image- o expand on thisexample- thusputsinto

playfirst troheim, henBuñuel,thenLosey, ll threedefinedbyminutelyonstructed ositionsn a constrainingnd open system,each timethrown ut like a dice-throwccordingto this delin-

quent and revitalized tyle fstructuralismhatforms he kernelof Deleuze s thought nd becomes the instrument f theenergythatdrives t.

Another hing trikes nd sustains ne'sreading:no film-makerin thishistorys ever theobjectof a value udgment,exceptthat





8/13/2019 41389499


Fall 1998 63

whichemergesfrom heclassificationnd genealogy.tgoeswith-outsaying hat ach new film-makerhat s introduced svalorized

bythis ery act: inema s the art nvented y hegreatfilm-makers(thebook testifiesn thisway o a politics f theauteur, ranquiland immanent, hich wes muchto that f Cahiers u cinémautatthe same timeremains uitefree; hesilences, xclusions r omis-sionshave no polemical character:we are not in anywaydealingwith nexhaustive istory,ven f hewhole, he Whole nters ndcoexists here) Of coursewesense,we thinkwesense,predilectionsattached to such or such an operation.A section of the chapterThought nd cinema, dedicated to the dea ofchoice,and of the

choice ofchoice,one of themostdizzyingmoments f The Time-

Imagethusbrings ace to facethreedirectors, resson,Dreyer ndRohmer, ach one linkedto this thical ndmetaphysicalroblemthatDeleuze bringsup throughPascal and Kierkegaard.We feelhim there so stronglyffected ythis dea thatthe textvibrateswith sort fwavetouching he three uteurswho had thecapacityto reformulatet. But this s not a value udgment;no more than

anybias of an ideological nature s ever ntroduced.Here everyauteur carrieshis/hervalue in

himself/herself,s found on the

side of value; auteursbeing differentiatednly by the diversityand progressive ariations f thevalue-typeshatthey ncarnate.Thispositionperceptiblyeinforces henovelistic haracter f theproject. t is not central o Balzac to carry alue udgments eventhoughhe does so,as a kind ofsupplement,n the name of a needformoral orderthatgradually adesaway n Zola and Proust) butrather o ensurethat ll social categories rewell-representedndrelated o each other nordertorealize the19th entury rojectofthe comédieumaineAsthere ssimilarlyor roust henecessityo

construct heworld hathe conceives ccording o a setofsocial,fa-milial, acial, exual and animalstratifications.beautiful xampleis thus he treatment eleuze reserves orFord, n thefirsthapterdedicated to the action-imagewherehe positsthe termsof theencompasser nd themilieu : t sa matter fqualifyinghe largeform n classical inema (whichposits situation ngendering naction nsuch away hat hemodified ituation alls forth secondactionwhich tself . . etc.,until he final ituation asbecome thetransformedesult f theoriginal ituation)Thischapteron FordandAmerica, heAmericanDream, s theoccasion ofust (exactes

and movingpages dedicated to whatwould have been called inothertimes hecapitalistdeology,American mperialism.t is thequestionthatGodard asked himself, owards he end of the 60s,faced with the photo ofJohnWayneholding Natalie Wood inhis arms, n one of the mostbeautifulmomentsof TheSearchers





8/13/2019 41389499


64 Discourse 0.3

Imperialismr mise-encène It's thequestionthat tillhauntshisHistoire(s),loudedby more or lessexplicit nti-Americanismndanimatedbya messianicRussophilia, re- nd post-revolutionary,exalted in Les enfantsouentà la Russie due to which there s a

conjugation f thereligious esirefor he mageand thenostalgiafor the revolution.t's the inevitable uestionthat Deleuze hereavoids so that ll thefigures reated merge only n theirpositivityas somany inematic lements rasped onceptuallyn a novelisticlevel. n such way hat achfigure ecomesone of hevirtualitiesfthe cinemawhose

history,volution nd transformationsre

beingtold,without he film-makerseing udged other thanas a seriesofspecies,havingbecome through he forceofconcepts o manycharactersn a novel.

Thus wecan clarifyhequestionthat hisbook,unique amongthe nventions f a philosopher,nduces:why hecinema,why hecinema at that oint?Quitesimplyo that hilosophyan thus tselfwritetsnovel.This s torepeat owhat xtent inemawillhavebeenat once the art of thecentury nd the art ofreality,heonlyonethat llowsphilosophy o put itself o direcdyn relationwith heWhole

accordingto a

global perspective ontinuallygitatedbyfragmentationsnd rupturesthis s inparticular heobjectof thesecond volume nrelation o thefirst)and therebyoconfronthenovelor the pecific ovelisticuality hat inemahasproducedforthe20thcentury,s the material nd thought f this entury.

Thus, from hepointof view of thisboth novelistic nd nat-ural history,t becomes essential hatall the types f cinema are

presentedhere in proportion o theirreality nd theirmode ofexistencewithin heHistory fCinema,the Whole of cinema.This is to saythatalongside the multipletypes f the greatcin-

ema of fictionwhich s neverqualifiedas such,thereappear themore singular nd alwaysbadly-named ypesof cinema that arethedocumentary,inéma éňté r experimental inema (and evenabstract r eidetic inema) Following he direct hreadbetween

conceptualization nd the differentialevelopment f a history,Deleuze is able to introduce, hapterby chapter, hese somewhatdifferentautres film-makersith he sameconcepts nd thusonthe same level as all the others, o the extentthat the conceptsproduced are above thegenerally ver-simplisticistinctions hatare used to differentiatehem.One section, dmirable or ts rtistic

andpolitical igilance,s thusdedicated, nthe hapter ThePowersof theFalse, to the act of fabulation n supposed documentary-makers uch as Rouch,earlyCassavetes nd the Canadian PierrePerrault. his s howDeleuze ruins, s allgreat ritics o,the t oncefalse and powerful ppositionbetweenfiction nd documentary,





8/13/2019 41389499


Fall 1998 65

and evenallows, eyond his,nthe conclusions f TheTime-Imagean overcoming f the even more crucialdivergencebetween theanimated (dessiné image and the recorded mage.This iswhy tis a unique and atypical ilm, recisely ntitled ilm, heonlyfilm

strictlypeaking ttempted yBeckett,which,ikea matrix,bsorbsthe threebarely-introducedarieties f the movement-image,nthe firstolume, n ordertoopen up, through is ultimate lan of

attaining nce more the worldbeforeman, 10ll thatthe secondvolumewilldevelopas thesuspendedcategories f thetime-image.

3.

This force of the novelistic eads to one of the problematicpointsofthisbook: thequestionofnarration, r of the narrative(récit),n itsrelation o fiction.

In the second chapterof TheTime-Image,Recapitulation f

Images and of Signs, Deleuze settles, littlerapidly, is debt to

semiology,ncarnated ythework fChristianMetz.This allowsusto

graspnan

interesting ayhowand towhat

pointDeleuze seeks

todistinguish imself rom nypriorityempriseof a semiological,linguistic r narratological rder, ituatingn thiswayone of thedesires of his book. ForMetz,narration efers o one or severalcodesasunderlyinginguistic eterminantsromwhich tflows ntothe mage nthe hapeof n evident iven.On thecontrary,t eemsto us thatnarration s only consequence ofthe visible apparentimages themselves nd their direct combinations- t is never a

given. o-called lassicalnarration erives irecdy rom heorganiccomposition fmovement-imagesmontage),r from heir pecifi-

cation as perception-images,ffection-imagesnd action-images,according o the awsof a sensory-motorchema.Weshall see thatthe modern forms f narration erivefrom hecompositions nd

types f the time-image:ven readability. arration s neveranevident apparentgiven f mages, r theeffect f structure hichunderlies hem; t s a consequenceof thevisible apparentimagesthemselves, f the perceptible mages in themselves,s they re

initially efinedfor hemselves. 11The concern that Deleuze showsto thusdistinguish imself

from nycategory re-defined y anguageor theories f anguage

seemsto come up against dimension hat s difficulto exclude:thereality f narration s a force nternal o all culture r,toput t

simply,he fact hatwe have always oldstories. n thisverybanalsense,narration, heactivityfnarration,s obviously nterior otheappearance ofcinema,and this atterbecomes ust one of its





8/13/2019 41389499


66 Discourse 0.3

modalities,nspiteof ts ingularitysmovement-image.fDeleuzeinsists,nd is resolute, t the risk fseemingtoo simplistic,t's sothat his pecificityfthemovement-imagee innoway eabsorbedand relativizedwithin hemisleadinggeneralityf theoperationsof language. By the same gesturehe takes the risk of ignoringnarrativitys such,which s notnecessarilyoextensivewith hese

operations,whether n a large or a small scale, on itsmolar ormolecular evels, o use the terms f the fundamental ppositionof Anti-Oedipus12 We mustgrasphere the exigencyof a strongdesirewhoseformulationmust eem all the ess banal forthe factthat t accomplishesa novelistic f the multiplewhichis to beexamined andwhich ould be stated n thefollowing ay: desireto recommence hehistoryftheworld sing hehistoryfcinema.

What stheaim ofthisdesirefornarration oonlyreally eginwith heimagesthemselves,hisforcewhich ttemptso have the

historyftheworldbegin againwith he ppearanceofcinema ndthehistoryhat ne cangrasp f tfrom heend ofthe 19th entury,at the moment f the crisis f science andpsychology hich lso

supposeda crisis fphilosophy owhichbothNietzsche nd Berg-son

testifyn their wn

way?n

chapterV of The

Movement-Imagethe secondcommentary n Bergson,Deleuze evokes,followingBergson,whatcould be called therecommencement f theworldas a setof mages: moment, tonce scientificndmythical, herematter nd light re identical,where there are still mages every-where before there s even a screen, surface, o stopthem, norderto create hese pecialand living mageswhichwill onstitutethemselves yreflectingight.Which s to say ll perceptions,ndina singularway heperception fcinema, hecinema mage tself,from his ointon,count s a sort frecommencement ftheworld

as cinema. n thisway desirefor historyfcinema, desireforhistoryftheworld nd a desirefor historyfphilosophy ttracteach other nd takeshape together.

The division f Cinema nto twovolumes s clear,functional,andhasa definite ynamic ffectin spiteof theambiguities hich

belong to the variablehistorical ssignation f the twotypesof

image) 13But one alsofeels t timesnthesecondvolume sort f

moving-offdemarrage,a slippage nwhich will, till nly bscurelyoperative n the first olume,becomesmanifest.Mysuggestion:will to reconstruct history fphilosophyusingthat of cinema.

In effect, double comparison s littleby ittle uperimposed,nTheTime-Imageupon the coherentprogression f the history rthetaxonomy fcinema. On the one hand classical inema seemsthereto be correlatedwith lassicalphilosophy-theconceptionsoftheworld, hephilosophical ystems,ant orHegel, present or





8/13/2019 41389499


Fall 1998 67

example analogieswith he mplications f thegreat orms f mon-tage (a precise comparison s thuscarriedoutbetweenEisensteinand Hegel as system-builders:Eisenstein,ike a cinematographicHegel 14) On the otherhand, n a secondage,moderncinemawillbecome theanalogueofmodernphilosophy,hatwhichgoesfromNietzsche oDeleuze passingviaBergsonwith nticipatory iguressuch as Pascal orKierkegaard.t s nthisway hatphilosophy indsitselfinked ocinema, s to this esirefor hehistorical ovelwhichinforms oth ofthem.

It is strikingo see how all throughthe second volume the

sensori-motormage (themovement-imageuilton theaction/ e-actioncouple) is relatedto classicalphilosophy s a specificmodeofconceptualelaboration. fthereare twophilosophies, s thereare twokindsof mage, t's because there ould alsobe twoways f

constructingoncepts.We aretouchinghere on the mostproblem-atic and difficulthing n thisbook (it'sa difficultyhatbelongstoall of Deleuze s books,but thatthe material reatedhere endowswith supplementary imension:this cinema which s the wholeofthe world nd ofrealitynd of thecentury)The sensori-motor

imageis thusdescribed as an

agentof

abstraction,n

arrestingforce,which blocks and closes up over its center, n short as alocalizable and namablereality.The movement-image,n itsveryessence, s answerable o the effect f truthwhich t nvokeswhilemovement reserves ts centers. 15n thisway, t doesn't in itselfhave access to the powersof the false : the time-imagewhoseoutlinestakeshape when berrations f movement ake on their

independence; that s,when the movingbodies and movementslose theirnvariants. here thenoccurs reversalwheremovementceases to demand the trueand where time ceases to be subordi-

nate tomovement. 16n thisway here s an oppositionbetweennamable fixedness foperations nd a reality hoseedge iselusive,bringing p categorizations hatbythisveryfactconstantly isk,as in a dicethrow,eingputintoquestionand repeatedly ut nto

play nrelation oeach other.fthere s thus historyfphilosophyinternal othetwomodes ofcinemawhosehistorysattemptedndwhose image is reconstructed yphilosophy,t's thatphilosophyalso divides tself ccording otwodivergentmanners o elaborateitsconcepts.

4.

Followingthisthe question imposes itself, ne of the mostdifficult,oth aimed at and realizedhere,of the status f anguage,





8/13/2019 41389499


68 Discourse 0.3

ofwriting,f what t includes and excludes, allows,proposesandgives othought.

Wemustthen focus on thetension hat s brought o light nthese books betweenwhatDeleuze calls philosophys system, owhichhe hasshownhisattachment,nd thefree nd infinitepeedofconcepts n theway twasfinally osited n Whats Philosophy17It seems in effect hat the passage via the sensibleproximityfcinema- as modulation f the real tself-wasdeterminingor heintensifiedonception f philosophical rt hathas beensupposedsince

Differencend

Repetitiona fictional

peningalways ringingart and philosophy losertogethern their ommondifficultyfdrawing lanesover haos.This to thepoint f he unrealizable n-terferences hosenarration-fictionould be a central imension,to the extent hat tnever eases tolink ensation nd concept.

There aremanyways funfoldinguch a tension.a) If TheMovement-Imageeems to obeya morenormativend

classifyingogic than TheTime-Imagethis s in precise proportionto the gap betweenclassical cinema and modern cinema which

corresponds o thegap that soperative verthe course of the twovolumesand follows

staggered arallelismetween lassical nd

modernphilosophy. utmorebroadlyt's tension etween ystem-aticitynd singularityhich n itself lidesfrom form fpossibleopposition nto a relation f mplication izzyingn itsextent.Ontheone hand there s nCinema very trong onceptual oherence.It seems even that inceAnti-Oedipushis s the mostconceptuallyarchitectonic f Deleuze's (and Deleuze-Guattari's) ooks,the onewhoseconceptsremainthe mostconstantlyntwinedn thearchi-tecture nd progression f the book.Althought does notpresentitself s a systemtrictlypeaking,t s nthis spect trulyystematic

book. There is thus at the end of TheMovement-Imageglossarywhichpresentsthe rudiments f a conceptual table,with their

rigorous efinitions.imilarly,ection1ofthe Conclusions f The

Time-Imageresents n admirablesummary f the whole projectthatbrings ut itsforce farticulation,tsconceptual ignposts,tshistoricalo-ordinates,ts axonomical larity.ndyet he anguage,theconceptual anguageofDeleuze is nnowaynormative,ppealsto no truly ounded dea of truth nd can evenaccept n itsheartwhathenames o well thepowers fthefalse, nfavor fwhich hecrucialpassage is effectuatedn TheTime-Imagerom he sensori-

motor mage inscribed n a truth f action,to its dissolution na time-image hichwould no longerbe eithertrue or false,butundecidable.

b) We must thus admit that the apparentobjectivityf the

conceptual systematicitys a matter f singularity,nd even the





8/13/2019 41389499


Fall 1998 69

veryexercise of a pure singularity.n one of the mostbeautifuldevelopments f TheTime-Imagen the relations etween hebodyand thebrain, inema and thought,ingering verAntonioni, neofthefilm-makersho has most nspired im ndinwhomhe iden-tifies confrontationetween weariness fbodies and a freshnessof thebrain,Deleuze has thisastonishing entence: Antonioni'sformula s validfor himonly, t is he who invents t. 18 here isa great temptation o invertn favor f Deleuze and his book thisformula husascribedtoAntonioni nd that Deleuze invents orhim.But whatsense is there n supposingthatthisextraordinaryand singular ystem hichreallysn'tone is onlyvalid forDeleuzeand thathe is the one who inventst?How can we qualifyn this

waytheonlybook capable ofgrasping hehistory f cinema as awhole ngiving s such an impression f truth nrelation o eachone of the auteurs ttreats ndwhichhasbecome, fwe think boutit, heonlyglobaland coherent esthetic oday ouching he artofcinema n itsentirety?

c) In thisregardwe again come across both the logic that

presided ver he omposition fthebookand itsboomerang-effectin the cultural niverse f the criticism nd

theoryf cinema that

it appears to come out of.We know to what extentDeleuze was

inspired n a large part bythecompleted analyses f a verygreatnumberof auteurs that he scrupulously ites, lettingus believe

through subtleequivocationthat these analysesvouch for thetruth f the works hey ouch on whileall the while he makes thistruth isownbya specific onceptualtransmutationnd qualitiesof evocation that are so determined hat t becomes improbablethat each auteurwould recognizehimselfn them.19And, at theotherend of thechain,undertheextraordinaryffect f fresh ir

that thesebooks have in particularproduced in the semi-closedworldof cinemathought,we have seen theswarmingfDeleuzianreferences eyondthe effects ffashion, ery ften ncurring og-ical conflicts etweenconceptsand positions, xacerbatedbythepowerfulnternal utonomy fDeleuze's thoughtwhich t seemsdesignedto crystallizewe can think f theway he authors n theCahiers radition,owhom Deleuze is particularlylose,had to

practice delicateblendbetween still-vividacanianheritage ndthe immanent onceptsoftheDeleuzian visionwithwhich t haslittle ompatibility)

d) Whence theparadoxical ituation f bookwhich, eeing hewholeof heworld nthewholeof hecinema, nd, nthis houghtfthewhole, hewholeofthought,fferstself t the ame time s thattoolbox towhichDeleuze andGuattari eferred hedestinyfthe

book-form,bdicating romny dea oftotalizing bjectivitynfavor





8/13/2019 41389499


70 Discourse 0.3

ofa sort fgeneralized ubjective inkeringbricolageWhence theparticular ifficultyfbeing Deleuzian, enigmaticallyredictedbyFoucault,as soon as one recognizesthat one is attracted ndheld,evenon theconceptualplane, bythedemanding omplicityof a singularity uchmorethanbythe distant ruth f an affirma-tion.Whence,also, thedifficultyf notbeingDeleuzian:which swhatperhapsFoucaultwasreferringo.As the truegenerosityfsuch a thought s in a sense to exclude everythinghat s not it,opening up in thisway ll themoreassemblages, s many ssem-

blagesas

readingstgives

rise to and lines offlight

tunfolds.A

thoughtnthis ense ancient ndnew, rulyfor verybodynd fornobody.

e) It's thevery uestionof thenovelistic, fbecoming-artist,of philosophy s art,of the fictionof conceptsor concepts asfiction. t can be recognized n particularn the fact hatDeleuzeis a writer-philosopherho almost nvents conceptual anguageper book. The insistence nd the constancy f his thought thegreatNietzsche-Spinozadentity )0supports his nvention nd the

crossbreedings f conceptsboth tempers nd favors t. But it isremarkable

hat,withrare

exceptions,fnot for ome

verybroadconceptswhichfunctionmore as coordinates han purs, he enor-mousbatteryfconceptsused in Cinema <is o antecedent n anyof hispreviousbooks and willhave no direct cho in thosewhichfollow t. It is all the morestrikingn thisbookwhere, s in Anti-

OedipusndAThousandlateaus,here s a recommencement ftheworld, his ime tartingrom he momentwhen theworld tarts obecomewhat t has notstoppedbecoming ince,when the crisis f

thought ccompaniesthe transformationsfscience and coincideswith heappearanceofcinema.

Deleuze has a formula orresolving nytensionbetweenphi-losophy s a systemnd thefiction fconcepts: thesystemmustnotonlybe in perpetualheterogeneity,t mustbe a heterogenesisDeleuze can in thisway, lmost n the same sentence, eel himselfto be avery lassicalphilosopher ndposit hat uch a movementhas neverbeen attempted. 21he system ill husbe ustas much

the most bsolutesingularity.f) In thisway sposed, ntheconcrete ealityf ts xercise s in

itself,hequestionoftheconceptand itsantagonistic imension:on the one hand recognitionof an operative dentity ttached

to theveryfact of its nomination nd which s sanctionedby tsconstancy; n the othervariation,mutability,rift, elativization,undecidability,ollowinghethread f he amemovementnwhichit sconfirmed. uch is theantagonismhatwillbe worked hroughtoitsextreme onsequences n WhatsPhilosophy.





8/13/2019 41389499


Fall 1998 71

Nothing n thisbook expressesbetter hewaythegenesisofCineman twovolumesallowsus to understand hephilosophicalattachmentsfcinema, crossthehistoryf a centuryo which in-ema offers realitynd imposes logic, hanthehaunting farrest

perpetuallytwork. t s this aunting hat inema vertsn tself nd

progressively,assingfrom he ancientconceptionof movementmade of discontinuous oses to itsmodernconceptionconceived

accordingto the equalityof any-instant-whatevers,nd affirmingitselfn thevariousopeningsofmontage. t's thishaunting, or-

rowing ariousmasks cliché,photography,emiology,

ll fixationsofthe mage through ecomposition ndfollowinganguage) andaugmentingtself o the extentthat the time-image ealizes tself

bya sort of immobilization, hich s theforce of time tself,n acinema of theseer devouredbyhisownvision, ypure opticalandsound images. t's thehaunting f an arresting fmovement,ife

played againstdeath,and immanence gainst ranscendence,hatDeleuze transformshrough heconceptof aberrantmovement,whoseforce eems nthisway smuch toqualifyhesuspended,butalwaysmorevital, ime ofthenewcinema-image,s a newwayof

continuingodo

philosophy.How can theconceptbe bothwhat uspends, rrests, onsists,andwhatflees, pens all the inesofflight? ow can it be affectedbyan immobilespeed? Deleuze alreadytouches the core of thisin the image,when,following ergson,he defines,between theperception-imagend theaction-image,heaffection-images amotoreffort n an immobilized eceptive late. 22 hisvibrationofpureaffection nd its nterval recisely ecomeswhatthe time-image iberatesn tself,t s ts berration, hich s andwillbecomethat f theconcept tself s center fvibration. 23

g) It's from hispointofview hatwemust lso understand heidea positedat the end of TheTime-Image,fa languageenteringintocinema, n an apparently aradoxicalway, tarting rom hetalkingfilm, n thecomponentsof the image. This language,which husbecomespartofthe magewithout everthelesseasingtoobey ts pecificmatter,avoringnthisway heextreme ensionsbetweentheimageand thevoice in themost moderncinema, ntheStraubs, yberbergnd Duras,this anguage-images suchthatit canbe released from ny uthorityf anguagethatwouldcome,from heoutside, o udge and prejudice tand thereby iskinghe

withdrawal fcinema from hemovement nd time oflifewhosefulfillmenttbecomes,sufferingeithermmobilization orarresteven though t realizes tself nder the sanctionofsuch a threat.This passionoflanguage to become and to call itselfmage,thusescaping the udgment of transcendence inked to all language





8/13/2019 41389499


72 Discourse 0.3

grasped n anyform fexteriority,swellas to itself s exteriority,is precisely ecognizedin philosophy, nd withinphilosophy nthe invention f conceptswhichqualify t, if it can be said, as

image, usingan adequation particular o theliving eing.This iswhatFrançoisRegnaulthas summedup in a few ines,suddenlyaddressing themostbeautiful ook on cinema none of the most

insightfulextswrittennDeleuze,entitled Thephilosophical ifeand culminating they re the lastwords)with theunivocityf

being : Fromone pole to theother, hecinemaspectator inallyfinds eren thebook whathefelt here,nthedarkened heater, hatcannotbe known rom eadingthescript, or n talking boutthefilm, ven ess n looking t a still, ut whatwas ived n the mageand in the timeof thatparticularmoment.He thusrediscoversnthe bookwhat ach filmmplies bout cinema. Such is thepolarityfromthe theater o the book. But accordingto the topologyof

enfolding, e learnsphilosophicallyn the book the mageand thetimeof ifewhich hetheater nlygavehimtheexperienceof. 24

Thus thisbook on cinemabecomes also a steptowardswhat sidentified nd opened up byWhat s PhilosophyDeleuze hints tit at the end of Cinema 'There is

always time,midday-midnight,whenwe mustno longer skourselves What scinema?',but Whatis philosophy?' 25 t is his ownparticularwayof getting ut of

philosophy hroughphilosophy as he likes to say n letter Cof hisAbécédaire)nd to thus chieve theprogram racedoutnowalmost hirtyears go in thepreface oDifferencendRepetitionAbook ofphilosophy hould be in parta veryparticular peciesofdetective ovel, npart kindofscience fiction....) The time s

comingwhen twillhardly e possible o write book ofphilosophyas it has been done for o long. (...) The searchfornew means

ofphilosophicalexpressionwasbegun byNietzsche nd mustbepursued today nrelation o therenewal f certain ther rts, uchas the theater rthecinema. 26 he presuppositionfthedetectivenovel impliesa dramaturgyf concepts,takenfrom spheresofinfluence nd involving certain cruelty ;hat f science fictioncalls for a reversibilityetweenknowledge nd ignorance,whichalone engageswritingnd opens itup,farfrom ny ssignation ftruth, o a sort of fiction, loser thanwe thought o the fictionled by those in whom it is apparendytheirspecificgenius,thetellers fstories ndworlds, ilm-makersndnovelists-Borges, or

example,on the mageofwhat rrests hispreface fDifferencendRepetition.

Fromchaos to the brain : t's the ourneywhich, t the endof What sPhilosophy,Deleuze and Guattari ssign quallyto threeactivities, hilosophy, cience, art,whose differences heyhave





8/13/2019 41389499


Fall 1998 73

modulated ndwhose crossovershey lassify.xtrinsic hen eachdisciplineremains on itsown plane and uses itsown elements.Intrinsicwhen slippagescome into effect etweenthe planes ofimmanence,which re so subtlewe find urselves n planesdiffi-cult toqualify. inally he crossovers reunrealizable inrelationto the chaos which the brainplunges into. It would seem thatfiction, hoseemergence s favored ycinemathrough hepartic-ularpressure hat tsfabulations xert n philosophy,spreciselyobe situated t thecrossover-pointetweenthe intrinsicrossoversand the unrealizable crossovers,o the extentthat t specifiesfirst reakaway romchaos withoutyet necessarily inding tselfdifferentiallyffectedccording o theplanesof mmanence hat ttraverses,etweenwhich tmaintains specific orce fcirculation.Thus a straightine is traced,on which, t theveryheart of what

properly elongsto each activity,nd in proportion owhateachallows to be seen of the other, o think nd to recount becomea single thing, nveloping he sensation nd the conceptinwhatseems to be a unique grasp.This iswhat, fterAnti-Oedipusnd AThousand lateaus thisbook ofphilosophy ncorporating inemain a

waythat had neverbeen done before or

since,allows to be

imagined bove all.

Notes

1 Philosophie7 (September995 ssuededicated o Gilles eleuze)3-7.

2 La Fondationuropéennees Métiers el'Image tdu Son.3Jean-Marietraubaniele uillet ölderlinézanneAntigone,990)

68.4 L image-mouvement; TheMovement-Image,iv.5 PourparlersParis: ditions eMinuit,990)206.6 Pourparlers2-64.7Jean-Louiseutrat as outlined relationshipetween hese wo

historicalesturesgestes'histoire)n Sur erre omme u ciel, ris 0(April 990, pecialssueChristianetz t a théorieu cinéma

8 Iris 0 April 990, pecialssueChristianetz tathéorieucinéma)

68. 9 Pourparlers92.10Limage-mouvement00;TheMovement-Image8.11L'image-mouvement0;TheMovement-Image6-27





8/13/2019 41389499


74 Discourse 0.3

12ADeleuzian ritiquefDeleuzehasbeencarriedut nan accom-plishedmanneryAndré arentenhis npublishedork ilmicarrativityandnon-narrativity.iting hisworkLlmage-temps9,note1; TheTime-Image285,note1) Deleuzeremarksnly hat arentensistsn the os-tulate fnarrativity.nfact arente riticiseseleuze ndparticularlyhepassage ited bovenorder o howhatcinematographictory-tellinglerêdtinématographiqueas well s the magesndutteranceshat omposeit, re theresult fnarrative/imagingrocesses 53). Parente ses theDeleuzian oncept f theevent oestablishhat the maging rocessesthat eleuzediscerns. . arecoextensiveith henarrativerocesseshat

conditionhe tory-telling,hemagesndthe tteranceshatomposet.He thus llows s, eaningnparticularn the dea of narrativeoice nBlanchot,o overcome he ntinomyostulated yDeleuzewhile tthesame ime ullyntegratingis ritiquef emiology.

13Invokinghis real roblem hich he ext oesnot esolve, ean-LouisLeutrat ypotheticallyroposeshefollowingolution: themove-ment-imagend thetime-imageretwomodalitiesf a same ubstanceinwhich othingllows s topresupposehe nteriorityfone over heother cited rticle05).What sperhapsustifieds a critiqueddressedtoDeleuze rom he oint f iew f historyf inema roperlypeaking,

is ess ofrom hepoint fview hat s alsoDeleuze's: hat f historyfphilosophys a force hat rystallisesuniversalistory.14Llmage-temps73;The ime-Image10.15Id.,186 English42).16Id., bid English43).17 nparticularnthe etter-prefaceo thebookby ean-Clet artin,

VariationsPayot,993).18Llmage-temps67;The ime-Image05.

19ThishasbeenparticularlynderlinedyMarie-ClaireoparsnherverynsightfuleadingfCinema Lecinéma ecteur eGilles eleuze,Cinémaction7 [1 88]

20See thearticle yPierre aoui [ La grandedentité' ietzsche-Spinoza: uelle dentité? ]nPhilosophie7 (September995).

21Variations. He alsosays: I'm nterestedn theway hat pageescapesbyeveryoute,ndyet t s all closedup on itselfike n egg.(L'Arc 9 [issue nDeleuze, 972]48).

22LImage-mouvement6;TheMovement-Image6.

23Quest-ceue aphilosophie28;WhatsPhilosophy23.Wefind beau-tifulxamplef hewaynwhichinema ndphilosophyre rticulatedndsuperimposedn eachother ccordingo two ontraryodes ndtimesin spite ftheir rossovers,hen nthe conclusions fTheTime-ImageDeleuze pposes he wo egimesf magesne ast ime rom he oint f





8/13/2019 41389499


Fall 1998 75

view f he onstitutionf henterval,ndwritesor xample,nrelationothemovement-image,lreadyutnto he ast-tense:there as continualcirculationf he wo ere,nternalizationnthewhole,xternalizationnthe mage, ircle rspiralwhich onstitutedor he inema, o less hanfor hilosophy,hemodel f heTrue s totalisation362English77).

24Magazineittéraire5 (September988)35.25Limage-temps66;The ime-Image80.26DifférencetRépétition-4;DifferencendRepetitionx-xxi.

Translated yMelissaMcMuhan

(I wantto thankNicole Brenez and Danielle Sivadon,whohelpedme to formulate hefirst raft fthiswork, othatUniversityfAix-en-Provence nd in Félix Guattaris Seminar.Thisarticlehas been

publishedpreviouslynLe ánéma elon eleuze,d. OliverFahle andLorenzEngeil (Paris:Pressesde la SonbonneNouvelle,1997) andat the same timebytheVerlagder Bauhaus- UniversitätWeimar,Weimar,Germany,997).

41389499

Documents