[Frameworks] animation

[Bernard Roddy]

Well, the first volume of Deleuze's work is devoted to "the movement image."

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:22 PM Michael Betancourt <
hinterland.movies at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Bernard,
>
> I have some questions before we get started.
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2020, at 5:41 PM, Bernard Roddy <roddybp0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Hello, Michael:
>
> When you make reference to a conception of motion pictures "as being
> produced in the differential between different frames," how is that
> different from the moving image produced by continuously running a movie
> camera while directing it at live action?
>
>
> I explained that already. It was what my post was about: how the cinematic
> image is conceived as a shot extracted from reality or as something else.
>
>
>
> When thinking about Deleuze and the "extension of his proposals, such as
> the movement image, to animation," what do you understand "the movement
> image" to consist in? Part of the problem with the way this list works is
> that readers are directed elsewhere rather than addressed in terms
> accessible within a public "discussion." So the reference to a note in
> Cinema 1that is to substantiate Deleuze's remarks on the movement image is,
> for me, counter-productive, unless the idea is shared here in an
> explanation.
>
> You seem to me to be offering a conception of movement that is not from
> Deleuze when you quote McLaren and Kubelka. One might well wonder what
> "between frames" means, or what a "perceptual construct" is. I would
> contest the idea that Deleuze is talking about something an audience
> invents, or that he would frame things in terms of the difference or
> resemblance between a pair of frames.
>
>
> Yes, that is the point of what I said.
>
>
> You want to hold that filmmakers who "engage with cinema-as-animation" are
> to be separated somehow from those who would produce live action movies.
> What does it mean to engage with cinema-as-animation? Does that require
> that one watch cartoons? Is it a production method? Or could a live action
> filmmaker engage with live action that way as well? We haven't, after all,
> established that "cinema-as-animation" is to be distinguished from cinema
> as anything else.
>
>
> That is you saying that, not me.
>
>
> I am resisting the reliance on specific remarks in print anywhere from,
> say, Deleuze or a scholar, since I prefer to explain what i understand
> right here. So I am not particulalry interested in a debate over what
> scholars or philosophers have actually said somewhere. Scholarship for me
> is secondary to thinking, in as far as we can do that. (That's a tentative
> stand.)
>
>
> Ok. You're the one who brought up Deleuze. How about you explain what you
> mean first?
>
>
>
> The "approach" that you call more plastic appears to be a working method
> familiar from a certain kind of production practice. That allows you to
> draw on a technique involving the production of a Daffy Duck cartoon. This
> is a nice way to include students interested in Disney. But I don't see how
> it helps us appreciate anything about the movement image or the way in
> which works in cinema are to be understood. My interest, of course, stems
> from ideas from the history of philosophy that Deleuze thinks are
> significant for understanding cinema.
>
>
> Daffy Duck is not a Disney character. If you want to demand precision and
> extensive explanations from others, how about you do it too?
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> Michael Betancourt, Ph.D
> https://michaelbetancourt.com
> cell 305.562.9192
> https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Betancourt/e/B01H3QILT0/
> Sent from my phone
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20200821/ed84c1d9/attachment.html>