Date: Tue, 18 Jul 95 22:37:42 EDT
From: ma-AT-dsd.camb.inmet.com (Malgosia Askanas)
Subject: Re: Short Cuts in Crisis...


Jay, the reason why I picked _Short Cuts_ is because I forgot that
Deleuze actually discusses Altman.  What I would like to do is 
get away from textual analysis of Deleuze's analyses and talk about our 
own experience of a film -- not how Deleuze might experience/classify the film. 
That's why I didn't suggest any of the films that are explicitly discussed 
in the book -- I don't want to look for confirmations/disconfirmations 
of Deleuze's conclusions, but rather, given Deleuze's toolset, go through 
the exercise of thinking afresh.  

I believe that there is much to say about this film that experientially
_precedes_ its placement within the problematic of the "movement-image 
crisis".  It could be, however, that _liking_ the film is a prerequisite 
for talking about it on that level.  Do you think that's the case?  
I am not sure that Deleuzian tools are of any use in talking about a film
that one believes is just poorly put together.  For example, the very
notion of _releasing_ the whole may well break down if one admits of the
notion of lousy editing.  Should one start with an unflinching
view that "lousiness" is not something that happens between a whole 
and its parts?  Or would lousiness mean that no whole gets released? 
Or what?  


- malgosia 


     --- from list seminar-10-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---