Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 13:09:59 +0000
From: Jay_Craig-AT-BAYLOR.EDU
Subject: Re: Short Cuts in 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. 

Certainly passion for a film can spur good thinking.  I think that's what drove 
Bazin, and I see it at times in Deleuze.  I'm not sure if passion against a film 
can lead to good thinking.  However, what I think is undeniable rests in the 
observation that *most* passion, for or against a film (or public policy, or 
painter, or religious denomination, etc.), results in little thinking--at least 
little *honest* thinking.  Most readers will walk away from C1 & C2 with, more 
or less, the same taste in films they originally had.  In fact, they might even 
use Deleuze to strengthen their justification for liking a film or genre of 
films.  They might use Deleuze to trivialize or condemn the films they don't 
like.  I have no problem with that.  If we use Deleuze as a sword--as a 
legitimation device--we're not really thinking with him, though.  I may believe 
"2+2=4".  I may agree with Bertrand Russell that "2+2=4".  But just because we 
agree on that doesn't mean we agree for the same reasons, or even that I'm 
*aware* of his reasons.  I may believe the statement on the authority of my 
elementary school teachers.  He may believe it because of an elaborate schema of 
sets, classes, and numbers which leads to that conclusion.  For me to understand 
him, though, I need to see how all of this is playing out for him--why he 
believes 2+2=4.  I may find that his reasons for believing it are just as 
whimsical or abritrary or commen-sensical as my own.  The point is not coming to 
the "Truth," though.  The point is to productively enter in dialogue with 
someone, working towards a provisional understanding (not necessarily 
"agreement").  I know what films I like.  The set of films I like seems to 
coincide nicely (for the most part) with those that Deleuze likes.  That isn't 
enough, though.  I still have to figure out the elaborate system of symbols, 
strategies, and operations which lead him to his conclusions.  Not so I can 
"refute" him or adopt him, but so that I can see what he's saying and why.  

In discussing "Short Cuts," we have a bit of a political crisis.  Several people 
are confronted with a conflict of authority.  On one hand, Deleuze seems to 
assert (and even argue) that Altman is something of a Johnny-One-Note, who has 
never really gotten beyond his cynicism.  On the other hand, we're talking about 
ALTMAN, here; and there's a profound reverence for Altman.  In this discussion 
it seems that most are siding with Altman's greatness rather than Deleuze's 
statements.  No problem.  If Deleuze decided to pick on Sergio Leone, I'd side 
with the latter in a heartbeat.  The problem, though, is nothing productive is 
being done from there.  An aspiring Marxist can say "Short Cuts" is a great film 
because it embodies certain frustrations and alientations inherent in the 
capitalist stage of a class struggle.  An amateur Derridean will talk about 
characters who are not present, and about how Altman is deconstructing this or 
that, causing ruptures here and there.  Great.  Fine.  But I think we can agree 
that Altman isn't a Marxist.  He isn't a Derridean.  He probably has never heard 
of Deleuze.  So what happened?  How did he make a film which is susceptible to a 
particular reading?  

That's all I'm asking.  We can listen to what Deleuze says about Altman, ask 
questions of ourselves and each other, and then ask questions of Deleuze.  
That's what I think a "Deleuzian" discussion of Altman would be.  Not some 
rigorous, orthodox application of a set of rules to any-film-whatever, but 
rather a discussion with Deleuze (even with Altman, if people are willing to 
take the time and responsibility).  I'd even be willing to leave Deleuze out of 
the picture altogether, if it will allow people to think about the film.  
However, up to this point (and I'm partly to blame, I know), all I've seen is 
hanging assertions about how great Altman is, and equally unsupported censures 
for even suggesting Altman might have made a film which is anything less than 
"great."  

I apologize for any complicity I may have in reducing the discussion to that 
level, and also to anyone I may have offended personally.  I'm open to any 
recommendations.

Thanks for being patient with me.

JSC



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