Film-Philosophy
Journal | Salon | Portal (ISSN 1466-4615)
Deleuze Special Issue
Vol. 5 No. 40, November 2001
Amy Herzog
Reassessing the Aesthetic
Cinema, Deleuze, and the Art of Thinking
Barbara M. Kennedy _Deleuze and Cinema: The Aesthetics of
Sensation_ Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,
2000 ISBN 0-7486-1134-7 224 pp. Gilles Deleuze's work on cinema
occupies an ambiguous and at times contested ground between
the fields of film and philosophy. His two volumes on film,
_Cinema 1: The Movement-Image_ and _Cinema 2: The
Time-Image_, [1] function simultaneously as a
crystallization of his broader philosophical writings and as
a fundamental reassessment of the cinematic event. Deleuze
proposes a 'film-philosophy' that teases out the concepts
that arise from cinema, that are unique to it, 'but which
can only be formed philosophically'. [2] As such,
one cannot 'apply' Deleuzian theory to film works; one must
instead think *through* film, seeking within it the images
and movements that give rise to the new. This project has proved a difficult
one to take up, for film scholars, philosophers, and artists
alike. While, on the one hand, the _Cinema_ books cannot be
understood outside the larger context of Deleuze's
philosophy, on the other, they demand that the thinker (and
filmmaker) remain attuned to the specificity of the film
image. It is a daunting challenge, one that Deleuze
struggles with in his own writing: though the _Cinema_ books
contain an abundance of film citations, few of these achieve
the subtlety and richness of his philosophical
classifications. Deleuze's interest in film, and the arts in
general, lies in their contribution to the 'art of living'.
[3] The creative potential of film, which for
Deleuze rests within its unique temporal capacities, is also
a political one, for it bears the promise of chance,
difference, and change. Is it possible, however, to bring
the dynamism of this theory into a sustained discussion of
the film-image in itself, into a consideration of film
*aesthetics*? What insights might a Deleuzian approach offer
when considering not only the experimental and the
avant-garde, but also the commercial or the mainstream? What
might be gained, and what might be at stake, in attempting
to reconcile such seemingly divergent concerns? Barbara M. Kennedy brings a unique
perspective to these questions in her recent study _Deleuze
and Cinema: The Aesthetics of Sensation_. Rather than
engaging with the _Cinema_ books directly, _Deleuze and
Cinema_ focuses upon several concepts central to Deleuze's
larger philosophy: sensation, affect, immanence, and
'becoming-woman' being key among them. These concepts are
then mobilized in conjunction with aesthetic explorations of
individual films, particularly the sensations engendered by
each film's images, colors, movements, and rhythms.
Kennedy's goals, as she sets them forth, are provocative.
The trajectory of the book evolves 'away from the politics
of representation, to a concern with how the visual
experience of the cinematic encounter impinges upon the
materiality of the viewer, and how affect and sensation are
part of that material engagement' (16). The execution of the
book, however, does not bear out the full complexity of the
questions it poses. Kennedy loses sight, at a certain point,
of the specificity of the Deleuzian terms that provide the
foundation for her experiment. Yet, *as* an experiment,
_Deleuze and Cinema_ offers an innovative combination of
concepts and approaches, and suggests multiple pathways for
future investigation. The book is structured around three
major sections. Part One traces the project's (and
Kennedy's) movement from the politics of feminist and
psychoanalytic theories into those of aesthetics.
Definitions of the 'micro-political', the 'post-feminist',
and the 'neo-aesthetic' are proposed, along with the book's
primary objectives: to forge a new aesthetics of film that
breaks free from psychoanalytic paradigms and embraces the
vitalism of Deleuzian 'becomings'. This section further
outlines the gestures contemporary film theory has made
beyond frameworks of semiotics and the primacy of the
subject. Part Two delves more explicitly into Deleuzian
thought, adopting a methodology that 'takes a line of flight
away from the stricter, more rational linearity of the rest
of the book' (71). 'Desire and pleasure', 'becoming and
affect', and 'sensation' are investigated as a 'triptychal
system' of elements that will enable richer articulations of
the multiple facets of the film experience. Part Three maps these concepts as they
emerge within the contexts of five contemporary films:
_Orlando_ (Sally Potter, 1992), _The English Patient_
(Anthony Minghella, 1996), _William Shakespeare's Romeo and
Juliet_ (Baz Luhrmann, 1996), _Strange Days_ (Kathryn
Bigelow, 1995), and _Leon_ (Luc Besson, 1994). The emphasis
here is placed upon the aesthetic, material qualities of the
films, utilizing the concepts elaborated on in the earlier
chapters to formulate these aesthetics in new, dynamic, and
fluid ways. Yet Kennedy also notes the contradictions that
occur between a focus on aesthetics and those filmic
elements that remain more static and representational. Such
tensions arise namely from the restrictions of narrative and
characterization, and through the persistence of sexist,
racist, or violent imagery. A neo-aesthetics may provide a
new means of experiencing these 'molar' elements, Kennedy
argues, and lead to alternative accounts of their emotional
and sensory impact. In the first chapter of the book,
Kennedy notes that the initial impetus for the project was
to explain why certain politically problematic images were
nevertheless experienced as pleasurable. Traditional film
theory, and feminist film theory in particular, had proved
limited in this regard. A search for an alternative approach
led to Deleuze and to the functions of affects and
sensations. Kennedy's project, at this point, took a
different trajectory, one that was more concerned with
exploring philosophical concepts *through* the medium of
film (9-10). The questions that originally provoked her
still remain, albeit in a transformed manifestation. Rather
than focusing upon the failures of existent theories,
Kennedy seeks to discover what the sensations sparked from
such imagery actually *produce*. In reference to violent and
sexist imagery in _Strange Days_, for example, Kennedy
responds to those who would immediately dismiss or condemn
such material: 'critiques of the aestheticization of
violence fail to consider how the film impacts, vibrates and
connects through its aesthetic resonances, as a powerfully
moving . . . canvas, and indeed body, outside its
representational image' (182). _Deleuze and Cinema_, then, attempts
to map the reverberations of the film experience utilizing
the processes of thought provided by the work of Deleuze (as
well as his collaborative writings with Felix Guattari).
Such an undertaking, according to Kennedy, demands the
development of a 'neo-aesthetics', one that would require
'reconceiving . . . the aesthetic to explain the cinematic
as a 'material capture', not as a text with a meaning, but
as a body which performs, as . . . an assemblage, as an
abstract machine' (5). For Kennedy, the cinematic body
extends into and through the physiological *human* body that
receives its impulses, and beyond it, through the collusion
of new ideas, forces, and assemblages, always in continual
process. To reconceptualize the body in this manner, she
argues, would allow for a new understanding of politics, a
'micro-politics' of contingency and pragmatics unfettered by
fixed notions of identity and subjectivity. In particular,
Kennedy wishes to bring a neo-aesthetics in contact with
what she calls 'post-feminism', a feminism that is multiple,
shifting, attuned to lived experience, and open to fluid
notions of bodies, genders, and subjects. Kennedy's goals
here are sweeping: to create an aesthetics of film founded
upon material sensations, to conceive of their movements and
combinations in ways that explode static understandings of
bodies and subjects, and to trace their resonations within
bodies of thought that have similar objectives and
sensibilities. Some moments in Kennedy's case studies
come closer to a productive use of this neo-aesthetics than
others. Her analysis of _Romeo and Juliet_, for example,
hinges upon the role 'music 'performs' as a fibrous core
through the text' (167). Here the force of the song
transects the film's multiple layers, swelling within and
through characters, and disrupting linearity in a manner
integral to this film's particular functionality. Yet many
of the sensations Kennedy points to remain overly
microscopic and superficial. Multiple references to
liquidity and the fluid permeate her discussions, for
example, and our potential physiological and emotional
responses to them, but they rarely extend beyond
descriptions of individual shots. The account of the river
sequence in _Orlando_ is compellingly detailed, but it never
connects these observations to the film's larger unfoldings.
The sensations outlined could, in effect, be found in *any*
film that utilizes shot-reverse-shot cutting or depictions
of water. _Deleuze and Cinema_ makes a powerful case for the
importance of sensation, but notes few distinctions between
the *kinds* of sensations that emerge in different filmic
contexts, or their varied implications. Kennedy's writing style is personal
and playful, and at times even veers into the poetic. While
this is very much in keeping with a Deleuzian 'spirit', it
does not always maintain the rigor that his concepts
require. The goals of _Deleuze and Cinema_ are significantly
different from those of Deleuze's _Cinema_ books. This fact
is not problematic in itself. The overall intentions of
_Deleuze and Cinema_ are in keeping with Deleuze's larger
philosophy, and his writings encourage intercessions from
alternative modalities. Yet, for a volume that deals
exclusively with Deleuze and cinema, the small role that
Deleuze's own theory of film plays in this book warrants
mention, especially when terminology specific to the
_Cinema_ books is invoked. The most surprising omission in this
regard is any mention of the distinction between the
movement-image and the time-image, the rupture upon which
the very structure of the _Cinema_ books is based. For
Deleuze, the movement-image is epitomized by the 'classical'
Hollywood film in which linear temporality and causal logic
propel the movement of the film. An upheaval occurred,
however, roughly after World War II, at which point a new
kind of image emerged, the time-image. The time-image cannot
be directly associated with a particular historical moment,
a formal style, or even by its content. Instead, the
time-image represents a shift from *action* to a focus on
*time-in-itself*. The second volume of the _Cinema_ books is
devoted to the time-image, and the power that Deleuze sees
within it to open new pathways of perceiving, feeling, and
thinking. Kennedy makes little reference to the
time-image throughout _Deleuze and Cinema_. Within the film
analyses, several sequences are referred to as
'movement-images', but only with regard to the *depiction*
of movement or changeability within those images themselves
(see page 196). Such slippage obscures Kennedy's argument,
for while Deleuze's movement-image remains in the realm of
the linear, Kennedy's movement-images are cited for their
transformative capabilities. Moreover, little attention is
paid to the temporal variances such images contain. The
potential impact of an image, for Deleuze (drawing from
Bergson), lies in the 'zone of indeterminacy' or 'gap' it
creates between perception and action. [4] This
pause provides the space from which acts of thinking and
creation arise. Kennedy brings her argument in this
direction when she states that the goal of the filmic
sensation is to affect the brain like a drug that 'displaces
any fixed ideas of identity and thus makes room for richer
creative tendencies' (175). However, this kind of
displacement is not evident in her descriptions of specific
film images, in part, I would argue, because she does not
adequately account for the role of temporality in the filmic
experience. Though the physiological effects of sensation
are continually highlighted, they are depicted as automatic
and instantaneous, neglecting the critical role such
impulses play in the generation of *thought*. By not recognizing the centrality of
temporality and thought to a Deleuzian understanding of
film, Kennedy inadvertently robs her project of the very
tools it requires to succeed. Despite its intentions to the
contrary, the book's greatest shortcoming is that it fails
to realize the creative and *political* potential of a
Deleuzian film-philosophy. The first two sections of the
book assert the importance of the micro-political as a
corollary of a neo-aesthetics, but these concerns never
surface as a critical component of its material analyses.
The materiality of film is of great significance to Deleuze,
as evidenced by the tremendous taxonomy of images contained
within the _Cinema_ books. Yet these images, I would argue,
always arise in concert with the conditions of their
emergence. Though not reducible to a historical moment, the
eruption of the time-image for Deleuze took place to a large
degree because the material, historical, and political
status of the world was such that we could no longer see,
feel, or think in the same way. _Deleuze and Cinema_,
however, often figures the aesthetic as distinct from
overtly political concerns. The troubled relations between the
aesthetic and the political in _Deleuze and Cinema_ coalesce
most clearly around the issues of feminism and gender. The
book positions itself as 'a synthesis of Deleuzian and
post-structuralist feminist philosophy' (5), drawing the two
distinct modalities into an 'aparalletic evolution' (24-27)
toward the shared goal of deterritorializing the gendered
subject. In its attempt to counter the fixity of identity
politics, _Deleuze and Cinema_ avoids overt critiques of
representations of gender or sexuality, resisting anything
that might be interpreted as a 'gendered reading' (129). The
alternative is the destabilization of subjectivity and
identity offered by the concept of 'becoming', specifically
that of 'becoming-woman'. The difficulty here is that
'becoming-woman' is never adequately distinguished from the
broader processes of 'becoming' in general. Kennedy poses
this question explicitly in her discussion (91-97). Yet her
answer, that 'to be concerned with such questions is to
maintain *binarily* constructed debates' (93), glosses over
the concept's web of implications, and gives no indication
what value it might have for feminist objectives --
including those that she identifies as post-feminist. In
fact, the phrase 'becoming-woman' comes to stand-in for
'becoming' throughout the remainder of the book in ways that
obscure its meaning entirely. ''Becoming-woman' is nothing
to do with a *politics*', Kennedy writes (97). It is true
that 'becoming-woman' cannot be associated with *a*
politics, but neither is it apolitical. And while the
'woman' of 'becoming-woman' is not an actual flesh-and-blood
human woman, its particularity must be addressed for it to
be of use to feminist (or even post-feminist)
scholars. The result of this conflation is that
the (post-)feminist component of the synthesis becomes lost
entirely, with 'becoming-woman' functioning as an empty sign
for its purported objectives. The aparalletic evolution that
Kennedy so convincingly proposes, however, might in fact be
realizable if her discussion of sensation and affectivity
could be reinvigorated with the third component of the
*concept*. For feminist *and* Deleuzian objectives,
articulated here as contingent, pragmatic, and always in
process, function through seeing, feeling, and *thinking* in
new, unforeseen ways. An intercession of this sort would not
take place through a critique of representations or the
affirmation of a unified subject. But at the same time, it
would require a rigorous articulation of the ways in which
particular images and sensations open the gap that allows us
to think new feminist-Deleuzian futures. Sensation, as it is
presented in _Deleuze and Cinema_, is not explored in
conjunction with these critical, temporal, and creative
processes. As such, sensation loses its capacity to enact
*change* and slips into the ahistorical, apolitical
tendencies of the old aesthetics that Kennedy so forcefully
argues against. In the end, _Deleuze and Cinema_ is
not able to fully support its principle assertions. But the
assertions themselves are challenging and innovative enough
to demand our attention. Kennedy insists on the critical
importance of the material film experience, and points to
its reverberations through a web of associations that
destabilize static notions of spectatorship, subjectivity,
and the body. She brings these theories to bear upon
contemporary, popular films, a move that reconsiders the
affective impact of filmic encounters often neglected or
denigrated by Deleuzian film-philosophy to date. Though
_Deleuze and Cinema_ does not follow through on its
proposition that (post-)feminism and Deleuzianism can be
brought into a productive 'aparalletic evolution', the
suggestion is a powerful one, and will surely open doors for
multiple, equally provocative intercessions in the
future. University of Rochester,
USA Footnotes 1. Gilles Deleuze, _Cinema 1: The
Movement Image_, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986); and
_Cinema 2: The Time-Image_, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Robert
Galeta (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1989). 2. Gilles Deleuze, _Negotiations,
1972-1990_, trans. Martin Joughin (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1990) pp. 57-58. 3. Henri Bergson, _The Creative Mind:
An Introduction to Metaphysics_, trans. Mabelle L. Andison
(New York: Citadel Press, 1992) p. 106. 4. See Chapter 3 of _Cinema 2_, pp.
44-67. Copyright © _Film-Philosophy_
2001 Amy Herzog, 'Reassessing the
Aesthetic: Cinema, Deleuze, and the Art of Thinking',
_Film-Philosophy_, Deleuze Special Issue, vol. 5 no. 40,
November 2001
<http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol5-2001/n40herzog>.
Save as Plain Text Document...Print...Read...Recycle
Join the Film-Philosophy salon,
and receive the journal articles via email as they are published. here
Film-Philosophy (ISSN 1466-4615)
PO Box 26161, London SW8 4WD, England
Contact: editor@film-philosophy.com
Back to the Film-Philosophy homepage
