File spoon-archives/deleuze-guattari.archive/deleuze-guattari_1998/deleuze-guattari.9812, message 68


Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 10:54:45 +0000
From: Daniel Haines <daniel-AT-tw2.com>
Subject: Re: Deleuze and Redemption - or flight.


anthony,

sorry for delay:

Anthony Beck wrote:
> 
> Dan,
> May I merely touch on two points of the interesting ones you raise:
> 1. the unconnectivity of rhizomes - in what sense is it still a rhizome?

where do i raise this? - you've confused me here.... of course rhizomes
have to be connected - rhizome is connectivity itself...

> 2.  The cut - I saw, degradedly, last night, again, Total Recall (Sharon
> Stone. Arnie) in which SFX do indeed cut into what is on the whole for the
> rest a narrative which passes muster as somewhat plausible, in order to
> expose total implausibility.  One does indeed enjoy them as SFX and they
> offer in some ways the best part of an empty film.  If the film was not so
> vapid one would not be so grateful for the SFX.  

lol! as i've already said, i think total recall is contemptible garbage;
the sfx are crap and it is a poorly veiled bit of american right-wing
reactionary nonsense.  a travesty of pkd's original story, inverting all
its values.  does this seem contradictory (in relation to what I've been
saying - what do i care for pkd's story's values?)? - i don't think it
is, though.  i was talking about a potential, or a set of potentials,
about a different way of looking at/experiencing/ -making(?) films that
opens them to future mutations rather than closing them off with past
conventions.  of course, processes of mutation produce hideous offspring
also... total recall is far too cut across with the most reactionary
kind of reterritorialisations (sexism, racism, transcendentalism) to
produce any lasting rhizomatic connection with the future... (well, to
produce them for me, anyway...)

That is not a defense for
> your position - narrative is powerful in producinf suspense and sustaining
> conflict, the essnticals of any dramatic genre, conventionally conceived.
> There may be other conventions - but are they superior, or even is
> no-conventions superior?

how will we know unless they are explored? why do we have to hold on
safe to this pre-established hierarchy? why do we have to have any
conventions? (obviously, conventions crystalise quite 'naturally' out of
any practice... but that doesn'tmean we are bound to take notice...)

  The bottom line is the aesthetic sense.  It s not
> that there is no bottom line.

-please tell me what "the aesthetic sense" is, what "the bottom line"
is, and what justifies the idea that the "aesthetic sense" can act as a
"bottom line"?  

dan h.
-- 
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/chupacabras/48/     
http://www.tw2.com/staff/daniel/

Ware ware Karate-do o shugyo surumonowa,
Tsuneni bushido seishin o wasurezu,
Wa to nin o motte nashi,
Soshite tsutomereba kanarazu tasu.

We who study Karate-do,
Should never forget the spirit of the samurai,
With peace, perseverance and hard work,
We will reach our goal without failure.

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005