Introduction
Notes Introduction 1. For introductory and more focused scholarship on the film-philosophy encounter encapsulating both ‘Continental’ European and Anglo-American ‘analytical’ brands, as well as contributions that seek to transcend such a dis- tinction, see Allen & Smith (1997), Wartenberg & Curran et al. (2005), Shaw (2008), Livingston & Plantinga (2008), Colman et al. (2009), Litch (2010), Carel & Tuck et al. (2011) and Sinnerbrink (2011). 2. Deleuze writes towards the end of Cinema 2: ‘The modern fact is that we no longer believe in this world. We do not even believe in the events which happen to us, love, death, as if they only half concerned us. It is not we who make cinema; it is the world which looks to us like a bad film’ (1989, p. 171). 3. ‘[T]he regression of enlightenment to ideology finds its typical expression in cinema and radio’, we read in the book’s early pages, fuelled by a model of heavily delimited ‘individuality’ characteristic of the culture industry’s ‘administered life’ (Horkheimer and Adorno, 1979, pp. xvi and 3). In the most famous and controversial chapter, ‘Enlightenment as Mass Deception’, things gets worse: ‘The sound film, far surpassing the theater illusion, leaves no room for imagination or action on the part of the audience, who is unable to respond within the structure of the film .... Sustained thought is out of the question, if the spectator is not to miss the relentless rush of the facts’ (ibid., pp. 126–7). See Ford (2008, pp. 168–70, and 2011) for a broad advocacy of Adorno’s usefulness to film studies despite what appears an unpromising start.
[Show full text]