Hitchcock by Allen Richard Ishii-Gonzalès S

Author:Allen, Richard,Ishii-Gonzalès, S.
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Taylor & Francis Ltd
Published: 2011-09-07T16:00:00+00:00

Notes

I would like to thank Richard Allen, Pavle Levi, and David Owens for their sound editorial advice.

1 Albert J. LaValley, “Introduction,” in LaValley (ed.) Focus on Hitchcock, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972, p. 2. Pascal Bonitzer playfully argues, twelve years later, that the concept of the auteur itself had been “invented expressly by Cahiers du cinéma to honor Hitchcock.” “The Skin and the Straw,” reprinted in Slavoj i ek [ed.] Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Lacan (But Were Afraid to Ask Hitchcock), trans. Martin Thom, London and New York: Verso, 1992, p. 179.

2 As Jon Beasley-Murray notes, Deleuze’s cinema books were met with “incomprehension or mistrust” when first translated in the late eighties. This had to do with paradigm the concept of the auteur itself had been “invented expressly by Cahiers du cinéma to honor Hitchcock.” “The Skin and the Straw,” reprinted in Slavoj ¯i¿ek [ed.] Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Lacan (But Were Afraid to Ask Hitchcock), trans. Martin Thom, London and New York:Verso, 1992, p. 179.

2 As Jon Beasley-Murray notes, Deleuze’s cinema books were met with “incomprehension or mistrust” when first translated in the late eighties. This had to do with paradigm shifts within Anglophone film studies (e.g. the shift towards historical research models; the shift from “difficult” modernist texts to works of popular culture) as well as Deleuze’s dense or abstruse writing style. The past six years, in comparison, have shown a groundswell of interest in these works. Recent publications including the first booklength study of the Cinema books and the first collection of essays have focused exclusively on Deleuze and film. See D.N. Rodowick, Gilles Deleuze’s Time Machine, Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press, 1997, and Gregory Flaxman (ed.) The Brain is the Screen: Deleuze and the Philosophy of Cinema, Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 2000, respectively. The Beasley-Murray reference is found in “Whatever Happened to Neorealism? – Bazin, Deleuze, and Tarkovsky’s Long Take,” Iris 23, spring 1997, p. 39. This issue of Iris is focused exclusively on Deleuze’s film theory.

3 Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 1: The Movement-Image, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986, p. x. Originally published in 1983. Hereafter cited as C1 in the text.

4 For Deleuze, there can be no genuine understanding of the powers of cinema without a consideration of its status as a moving image, an image with a specific duration in time. (This may seem commonsensical but, in fact, there are remarkably few theories of film that actually consider these qualities of the cinematic sign.) It is in this context that Deleuze rejects the attempts by Christian Metz and others to establish a linguistically-based film semiology whereby the shot becomes equivalent to an utterance, etc.

5 Gilles Deleuze, “The Brain is the Screen: An Interview with Gilles Deleuze,” in Flaxman, The Brain Is the Screen, p. 366.

6 While the seventeenth-century physics of Descartes, Kepler, Newton is a paradigm for Bergson of this type of abstract reasoning he also recognized and was responsive to the innovations in mathematics and science that emerged in his own time.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.