are several connections that many contemporary philosophers are among the film and philosophy, I think that nobody can reach hesitation. From reading Deleuze and cinema and Bergson (with the concept of Time-Image, etc.), many have been encountered in film a way of understanding certain philosophical approach, almost like entering a parabolic shape to conceptual problems (Deleuze considered the philosophy was the problem of some concepts, which is a perfectly coherent to understand a thought which, together with Guattari, produced texts as What is Philosophy? ).
However, the problem of connecting fields such as philosophy and cinema should check the specific connection type is proposed: Can we think in the sense of representation (The film represents Problems of Philosophy)? Do I have to think, as Deleuze and Guattari did with his concept of rhizome, as an expression? Or is the philosophy, while knowing that arises alienated praxis (which must be reviewed at each pose philosophical), a form of mediation to pose a problem expressed in film as objective practice (which aims at a problem , a perception, a thought, a feeling of time)?
Shklovsky, in this great book called Eisenstein, check precisely the construction of film as art from this particular biography while proposing concepts to think all the art from the last of its most effective (the comic, if you check very well and as proposed by Scott McCloud, would have been built as an effective gender between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, almost like film , only comics as institutionalized practice and not be in the cave paintings of early man: Would you say the same film in both image projection? would have to check this problem.) Actually going to the field of philosophy have to revisit the contributions of Slavoj Zizek, or in the national environment, some other philosophers (I was tempted to write José Pablo Feinmann, but many points to discuss with regard to their work of disseminating the fiolosofía and the problem of how that disclosure involves a strategy that saves or bury thinkers ... To put it quickly, I do not agree with José Pablo Feinmann).
Now, thinking about two specific issues, two scenes from two movies. The first, a scene of The Shining (1980), where the connection with what is involved in the cycle Capitalism and Schizophrenia Deleuze and Guattari, especially in the volume known as the name Anti-Oedipus (1972), is at least instructive. We're not saying there has been an effective reading of Kubrick's work these French guys, but you can establish a seamless connection between half and another, between one expression and another. The scene in question is the famous scene of the bat, where Jack's character chides his wife to give him the baseball bat while slowly starting to show and will threaten a dark side to appear as someone concerned that he is willing to kill . In the dialog, revla certain issues essential to understand what should be a pensamienzo schizoanalytical: the oedipal triangle (father-mother-child) separated from the rest of society in this house in the middle of a snowstorm, continuing social ties from this explosion of paranoia production of the Oedipus complex (in the words of Levi-Strauss, the fundamental element of any society) : not that the child is subject to the father and sits tarído by the mother but the father who is jealous of the child and accuses him of wanting to get both power and the love of your partner. The background of the problem is essentially soical: Father Jack, in this scene, you need to stress that is harassed by work responsibilities, obligations that appear to have exploited ultimately Oedipal problem-paranoid. The madness of the father is, then, a expression of capitalist society and its institutions.
Second stage for thinking about the relationship between cinema and philosophy of Pulp Fiction (1994) by Quentin Tarantino, who has since Derrida joke film Inglorious Basterds (2009) and it changed from a to a and to make a huge nod to deconstruction. In this particular sequence. Jules's character is surprised by what he understood as a divine intervanción and taken to the limit stop all a scene, a whole narrative sequence prototypical action to dilate a purely hermeneutical questions about the passage in Ezekiel 25, 17.
relations between cinema and philosophy are numerous to the extent that there is no better way of thinking the last century without reviewing the bone marrow production for this period. These two small scenes do nothing to prove: there is a way of connecting to the movies with theoretical and practical thinking, renewing the field of philosophical reflection. The film deals with the philosophy precisely because there is no better way of thinking about thinking (redundant, but no less true) that from de revisar esta objetivación, esta forma que se ha encontrado de expresar (no representar, claro) los temas de esa cosa tan escurridiza que se ha llamado "hombre".
0 comments:
Post a Comment