Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
L'image-mouvement) (1983) is the first of two books on cinema by the philosopher Gilles Deleuze, the second being Cinema 2: The Time Image (French: Cinéma 2. L'image-temps ) (1985). Together Cinema 1 and Cinema 2 have become known as the Cinema books, the two volumes both complementary and interdependent. [ 1 ]
The first three chapters of Cinema 2, each outlining a number of ways of approaching what Deleuze calls "the time-image". The first chapter explores the works of various filmmakers who were, according to Deleuze, precursors to time-images.
Gilles Deleuze was born into a middle-class family in Paris and lived there for most of his life. His mother was Odette Camaüer and his father, Louis, was an engineer. [7] His initial schooling was undertaken during World War II, during which time he attended the Lycée Carnot. He also spent a year in khâgne at the Lycée Henri IV.
Download as PDF; Printable version; In other projects ... Pages in category "Works by Gilles Deleuze" The following 18 pages are in this category, out of 18 total.
Download QR code; Print/export Download as PDF; Printable version; In other projects Wikimedia Commons; Wikidata item; ... Pages in category "Gilles Deleuze"
Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari note that deterritorialization and reterritorialization occur simultaneously. The function of deterritorialization is defined as "the movement by which one leaves a territory", also known as a "line of flight", but deterritorialization also "constitutes and extends" the territory itself.
Deleuze and Guattari oppose the Freudian conception of the unconscious as a representational "theater", instead favoring a productive "factory" model: desire is not an imaginary force based on lack, but a real, productive force. They describe the machinic nature of desire as a kind of "desiring-machine" that functions as a circuit breaker in a ...
The link to cinema would be smoothly elaborated in Deleuze's The Time-Image (1985). [3] Film scholar Tom Gunning used the term to single out filmmakers that made films simply for the sake of making films; affirming their own marginality without for that matter being antagonistic (see also scholar Meaghan Morris ), devoting themselves to non ...