Most importantly, what are we all doing to support Black filmmakers and thinkers, and expand the discussion beyond the Eurocentric model to take on the larger, more inclusive post colonial thinking that is now so urgent. We’re in the middle of the biggest uprising in American history, and that changes everything and honestly blows all this out of the water in terms of what we need to be thinking about now. Chrissie
On Aug 25, 2020, at 1:48 PM, Michael Betancourt <hinterland.mov...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Bernie, Thank you for reminding me why I don’t get involved in these discussions. Not in decades ... but animation and avant-garde film is a topic that is of personal interest. So, let me begin by saying that there is no emotion in this response I’m writing. I'm not angry, upset or anything except (perhaps) a bit disappointed. But I’d done with this discussion since I recognize a pattern of "gas lighting." You can claim I'm being over sensitive, that's fine. I'm not interested. This is not the start of a flame or me walking away in a "huff" because you're "right" (I don't think you are, and I'm not), but simply my giving up on the discussion entirely as I have more important and useful to me ways to spend what time I have; if this seems rude or confrontational, I'm sorry, but that is not the intention here. This is me making a polite exit, one where I do not accept the behavior I have observed directed at me. So my response is simply, “No. I’m done.” For readers who haven’t been following, or who don’t understand what I mean, go through the other posts. "Gas lighting" someone in a discussion is an attempt to make the person you’re “conversing” with feel like they don’t know what they’re talking about, to make them doubt their expertise, knowledge, ideas. It is an attempt to make the challenge posed by their comments present go away. Recognizing it is simple. It works like this: First, claim to have been unclear and explain a point that was perfectly obvious. This creates the sense that your comments have been misunderstood and makes the person being gas lighted doubt their comprehension. Then, deny (some or all) of what the other person has been said, dismissing it as irrelevant or incoherent. Ignore the rest. Next, drop in a few ad hominem asides during your comments that are irrelevant, but put the other person in “their place.” (These can be used to attach what you think are their credentials.) Finally, introduce a non sequitur argument phrasing it so it can be seen as an attack. Whether it's coherent or relevant doesn't matter so long as it becomes the focus of discussion. Feel free to contradict your earlier comments since it doesn't matter what you're saying so long as the person you're addressing feels they don't know what they're talking about and defer to your "expertise." So as I said, I’m done with this discussion. Feel free to have the last word. Michael Betancourt Savannah, GA USA michaelbetancourt.com<http://michaelbetancourt.com> | vimeo.com/cinegraphic<http://vimeo.com/cinegraphic> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:47 AM Bernard Roddy <roddy...@gmail.com<mailto:roddy...@gmail.com>> wrote: Greetings, Michael. There was ambiguity in my sentence regarding Pip. When I wrote that I think "he" sees himself as doing philosophy, I am referring to Deleuze. There is way too much to try to address in your post. But whenever you introduce audiences, I think you are off track. Or, you are not talking about philosophical questions, whatever people teaching film studies might happen to say. There is a priority on narrative in Delueze. This I see as distracting given my priorities. And all these questions about language derive from literary cases of narrative. Remember Pasolini and the "cinema of poetry," which was supposed to conceive of cinema as unlike the written story? Of your quotations, the one from pp. 26 - 27 bears on narration. Deleuze seems to be asking what explains the appearance of narration when it appears. And he seems to be less inclined to adopt the terms from linguistics that were so common in discussion of cinema during the heyday of Barthes and semiotics. Only at the end do you take up what I find a manageable question, and the one at stake for me here. I wouldn't say the question concerns Deleuze exegesis. It was, rather, in what way are we going to think about animation? And yet, given the right focus, I would like to enjoy Deleuze's work. I just opened to p. 56, where he mentions Bergson and Husserl, and where this term "movement-image" seems to receive a definition. Think of movement as non-mental and image as mental. The long history of discussion around how the mind and body could interact comes back to the surface, but where "mind" is now "image" and the "external world" is represented by "movement." That's a history making its way into what we would probably appreciate more if it presupposed a little less. These are extremely attenuated summaries of chunks from modern philosophy. And with them Deleuze spins his own equally abbreviated thinking. For me, it was about the appearance of movement in cinema and how it is to be explained. But the cinema has offered a model for explaining the same appearance in everyday perception. So, what we have is a history of philosophy that has thought in terms like film strips offer (and long before cinema, as it happens). My reference to Husserl presents the alternative. You may want to think about differences between past and future frames, but you'll end up with nonexistent parts of something that is supposed to be presently observed (what is past is gone). So in Husserl we have an incredibly developed alternative nobody bothers with. (And who is really going to know what Derrida's thinking about Husserl involved? I mean, seriously.) Option 1: You understand time as if it is made up of moments that can be divided. The model is space. Option 2: You realize that you only perceive what is present. And you also realize that doing geometry isn't the same as drawing conclusions from your little sketches. In geometry, Husserl says, you work with essences. There is a point of contact with your sketch, but your basis for thinking is not empirical. And so we have Ariadne and the construction of space without temporal parts. We have geometry done on a grand scale. And we have an alternative for the person who shoots frame by frame her drawings of figures - or the navigation of her architectural designs. Bernie _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com<mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
