Sonntag, 25.12.2005

Was nach Deleuze kommt. Was die Kunst vom Film will, aber trotz Godard nicht bekommt.

„[…] Hitchcockian practice seems capable of epitomising at once the lost power of cinema now lying in its grave (Godard’s thesis) and the power of an old cinema that for decades has been substituted for a new one (Deleuze). How can Hitchcock’s cinematographic practice sustain both statements, and what is the relation of that practice to an essence of the cinematographic image?


a cinematographic image is actually a complex thing, a combination of several functions: the image connects and disconnects. It implements a representational function by subjecting the visual elements to the logic of a narrative or symbolic plot, and it engenders an aesthetic logic of suspension and infinitisation. In Deleuzian terms I would say that each image functions both as movement-image and time-image. Every film is composed not of images but image-functions that both supplement and contradict each other. This is true in the case of Hitchcock’s classicism as it is in that of Rossellini’s modernism. There is no shift from an ancien régime of cinema to a modern age. There a simply different ways of putting more or less into play the tension between different image-functions.


Godard may well have thought of himself as the last of the Mohicans mourning the death of cinema and predicting the reign of darkness. Paradoxically, he might have foreshadowed something quite different: a new trend of symbolist art […].“

Jacques Rancière: „Godard, Hitchcock, and the Cinematographic Image“. In: Michael Temple (Hg.): Forever Godard. London 2004, S. 214, 227, 231.

Schreiben Sie einen Kommentar

Sie müssen angemeldet sein, um zu kommentieren. Ein neues Benutzerkonto erhalten Sie von uns, bitte dazu eine Email mit gewünschtem Username an redaktion(at)

atasehir escort atasehir escort kadikoy escort kartal escort bostanci escort