#Author/JoshuaConradHilst Zotero Link: [John Mullarkey (2009) Refractions of Reality: Philosophy and the Moving Image](zotero://select/items/@hilst_john_2010) Index: Read: [[2021-08-22]] ## Summary: ## Notes: #LiteratureNotes - Refractions of Reality: Philosophy and the Moving Image, John Mullarkey looks to take a different direction with film-philosophy, questioning the approach of many philosophical treatments of film, insisting on a view ‘that film is no mere handmaiden to philosophy’ (xi). [Hilst 2010:153](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=1) - Mullarkey sees these works as foregrounding the [[discourse]] of philosophy while making film into a sort of theoretical playground. ^477d13 - ‘if it is to be shown that film can think for itself, that it too philosophizes, then it cannot be on account of reducing one to the other, nor of introducing an extraneous third term’ ([[@mullarkey_refractions_2009]] ,xiii). - 필름이 필름 안에서 스스로 생각한다. 이것은 [[Joshua Conrad Hilst]]가 주장했듯이 그레고리 울머 [[Gregory L. Ulmer]]와 일맥상통하는 지점이 있다. - [[@ulmer_object_1983]] - 그가 주로 분석하고 반박하는 철학자들은 David Bordwell과 Slavoj Zizek, and Lacanian - Mullarkey provides a series of concise and valuable readings of the dominant philosophies of film - **Bordwell** 과학적 접근 - Bordwell attempts a science of film: ‘films should be analysed for what they do, not what they mean - even when a part of what they do is facilitate the making of meaning’ ([[@mullarkey_refractions_2009]], 37). [Hilst 2010:154](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=2) - 하지만 너무 과학적인 접근, 확실한 선긋기, subject and object, fabula and syuzhet - 즉 필름을 인포메이션으로 바라보았다. 이것은 아마도 최근의 인터넷 아트 디지털아트의 접근 방식과 같지 않은가? [[Index_Questions]] - [[Noël Carroll]], are ‘always tied to an approach that sees film viewing as representational, as information about the world rather than a direct and worldly connection’ ([[@mullarkey_refractions_2009]], 56). [Hilst 2010:154](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=2) - 지젝의 방식을 맞불놓기로 비교분석 - Mullarkey’s method is to pit Bordwell and Žižek’s approaches against one another [Hilst 2010:155](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=3) - 그 다음 분석대상은 [[Gilles Deleuze]] - 그가 들뢰즈를 분석하는 방향은 3가지 이다. - Mullarkey’s criticism of Deleuze is effectively threefold: 1. Deleuze misreads Bergson, he presents an overly simplistic binary between the two images, 1. Deleuze reduces Bergson’s critique of the cinema, that he misses Bergson’s point about time in that he insists the time-image instantiates a ‘Kantian’ revolution of time, and that he fundamentally misreads the Bergsonian image as material. [Hilst 2010:155](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=3) 2. Mullarkey notes that there is nothing essential about these two images. [Hilst 2010:156](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=4) 3. More recent developments in film show that the time-image itself can be seen as ‘a [[cliché]] of bad art films and [has] been normalized within neoclassical cinema’ ([[@mullarkey_refractions_2009]] ,103). [Hilst 2010:156](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=4) 4. If anything, Mullarkey notes, the movement-image, or a newer form thereof, is ‘the latest cinematic avant garde’ ([[@mullarkey_refractions_2009]], 103). 2. and he posits an arbitrary elitism when discussing good or bad films. 3. [[Gilles Deleuze|Deleuze]]’s interpretations of other philosophers and the veracity of those interpretations is well-documented in the critical literature. - ==Mullarkey’s fruitful discussion of Deleuze may actually help critics to break new ground in Deleuze’s work on film. Rather than looking to the time-image, critics might begin to explore how the movement- image has reasserted itself as the revolutionary image. [Hilst 2010:156](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=4)== - [[Stanley Cavell]] - 카벨에게 있어서 필름은 세상에 관한 것이다. 카메라의 시선으로 리얼리티를 보여준다. - Cavell stresses the very ordinary experience of watching films, arguing that one can only like great films if one also enjoys the very ordinary films. [Hilst 2010:157](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=5) - Film presents an automatic record of reality (a sentiment that resonates with Andre Bazin), but does not simply reproduce reality, although reality plays a part. [Hilst 2010:157](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=5) - However, Mullarkey notes that as Cavell moves towards the ‘loss of connection’ in modern cinema, he prefigures the time-image. [Hilst 2010:157](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=5) - [[Alain Badiou]] - [[Alain Badiou|Badiou]]’s concept of ==cinema as an art of subtraction==, only working by detracting from the visible world through cutting, framing, etc. [Hilst 2010:157](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=5) - [[Alain Badiou|Badiou]]’s axiomatic approach to film calls for the ==‘effects for thought’ of films: what it does, not what it is.== Rather than seek an ontology, we can ask what a film makes the viewer think. [Hilst 2010:157](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=5) ### 두번째 파트 (베르그송, film as event) - Mullarkey articulates his own view of **==film as event==** [Hilst 2010:157](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=5) - Following Bergson, he must work against any tendency to divide the mind from the world. [Hilst 2010:157](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=5) > We live in an actual multiverse of coexisting, different temporalities, but we can only perceive the on ‘block’ universe that coincides with our own time; indeed, perception just is this selective narrowing of vision. And only unexpected forces can extend it to offer a glimpse of what lies beyond. ([[@mullarkey_refractions_2009]], 148-9) - ==Mullarkey shows how film can perpetually show us the new==, this unexpected force that arises to show us a new way of seeing and experiencing time. [Hilst 2010:158](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=6) - #Comments This is. hat Deleuze was talking about the function of diagram. Maybe film itself is the diagram. But is it only to experience the time? new way of something? - In chapter 7, Mullarkey explains cinema as Bergsonian event with an indefinite essence:[Hilst 2010:158](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=6) - ‘the meaning of cinematic time is indefinite or differential: cinema has only an inessential essence, an insubstantial substance, and its processes are revealed through the manner in which the various theories of ‘what film is’ must fail as a result’ ([[@mullarkey_refractions_2009]], 156). - Mullarkey goes on to offer ‘a picture of story-making as an ongoing process created by various other processes, each of them structured differently (cognitively, affectively, materially, culturally), though all together, as we’ll see, having something else in common - ==the manifestation of an event’ (175).== [Hilst 2010:158](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=6) - #Comments It is I think only answer we all deny the time and movement - Mullarkey seeks to supplant this with a ‘complete relativism,’ in which one’s own thoughts are part of this temporal flux. [Hilst 2010:158](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=6) - In this non-system, we recognize films as events with multiple temporalities and the ability to show us new ones. [Hilst 2010:159](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=7) - Mullarkey would have us recognize that the ‘effect-of- newness,’ always changing, can continually bring in new contexts and convey other movements that cause us to see, feel, and think differently. - ‘montage thinking,’ calls for views from multiple perspectives. - ‘definitional circularity must be displaced through action’ (212). - Also of great value is his emphasis on the effect of the new in film, as it seems to update Bergson’s theories of film with a fresh approach to contemporary film. [Hilst 2010:159](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=7) - seeking to articulate a view of film as event that stands closer to Bergson’s. [Hilst 2010:159](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YUYD83TA?page=7)