THE RELATIONSHIP OF CINEMA TO PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHT: BADIOU AND DELEUZE

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 127 - 142, 14.03.2019

Ebru Thwaites Diken

https://doi.org/10.32001/sinecine.536720

Cited By: 1

Öz

Today we live in a cinematic society governed by images and by media culture. Governmentality depends on the staging of social reality through visual dispositifs. Cinema is a significant dispositif in this context. This article first explores the relationship of cinema to modernity and spectacle and to the foundations of modern power. Besides being a governmental dispositif, cinema is also a social phenomenon. Turning social life into representation, cinema not only depicts, but also constructs social reality and shapes the social unconscious. As Bazin (2011) has argued, cinema provides its audience with tools with which to philosophize. The article compares Badiou’s and Deleuze’s approaches to cinema, which suggest that, although the cinematic thought is not reducible to the philosophical, cinema always stages a philosophical encounter, affecting new ways of thinking and being.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Badiou, Deleuze, Cinema, philosophy, spectacle

Sinemanın Felsefi Düşünce ile İlişkisi: Badiou ve Deleuze

Öz

İçinde yaşadığımız toplum imgelerin gerçekliği kurduğu, yönetimselliğin görsel dispositifler (tertibatlar) dolayımıyla sahnelendiği sinematik bir toplumdur. Günümüzde sinema önemli bir yönetişim aygıtıdır. Bu makale ilk olarak modern toplumlarda iktidarın bakış üzerinden nasıl örgütlendiğine, bu temelde de sinemanın modernite ve gösteri kavramıyla olan ilişkilerine odaklanır. Sinema bir yönetişim aygıtı olmasının yanı sıra, aynı zamanda toplumsal bir olgudur. Gerçekliği imgeler yoluyla temsil etmekle kalmaz, aynı zamanda toplumsal gerçekliği ve toplumsal bilinçaltını kurar. Bazin’in (2011) de söylediği gibi, seyircisine felsefi düşünme için gerekli araçları sağlar. Bu makalenin amacı Badiou ve Deleuze’un sinema ve felsefi düşünce hakkındaki görüşlerini karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektir. Her iki düşünür de sinematik düşüncenin felsefi düşünceye indirgenemeyeceğini, ancak sinemanın her zaman yeni varoluşve düşünme biçimlerini çağıran felsefi bir karşılaşma olduğunu söylerler.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Badiou, Deleuze, Sinema, felsefe, modernite, gösteri, Sembolik düzen

Kaynakça

• Badiou, A. (2000). Deleuze: The clamor of being (L. Burchill, Trans.). Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota.
• Badiou, A. (2013). Cinema (S. Spitzer, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity. Baldwin, J. (2010). White magic: Baudrillard and cinema. Film-Philosophy, 14(2), 1-5.
• Baudrillard, J. (1983). In the shadow of the silent majorities, ... or the end of the social and other essays (Foss, P.; Patton, P. & Johnston, J., Trans.). New York: Semiotext(e).
• Baudrillard, J. (1988). Jean Baudrillard: Selected writings (M. Poster, Ed.). Stanford: Stanford University.
• Baudrillard, J. (1993). Symbolic exchange and death (I. H. Grant, Trans.). London: Sage.
• Baudrillard, J. (1998). The consumer society: Myths and structures. Paris: Gallimard
• Baudrillard, J. & Witwer, J. (2000). The vital illusion. New York: Columbia University.
• Baudrillard, J. (2005). The intelligence of evil and the lucidity pact (C. Turner, Trans.). Oxford: Berg.
• Bazin, A. (2011). Sinema nedir? (İ. Şener, Trans.). Ankara: Doruk
• Benjamin, W. (2008). The work of art in the age of technological reproducibility, and other writings on media. (Jennings, M.; Doherty, B. & Levin, T., Eds.). Harvard: Harvard University
• Casetti, F. (1999). Theories of cinema, 1945-1995. University of Texas: Austin.
• Coleman, F. (2011). Deleuze and cinema: The film concepts. Oxford: Berg.
• Coulter, G. (2010). Jean Baudrillard and cinema: The problems of technology, realism and history. Film-Philosophy, 14(2), 6-20.
• Crary, J. (1992). Techniques of the observer: On vision and modernity in the 19th century. Cambridge, London: MIT.
• Debord, G. (1983). The society of the spectacle. Detroit: Black and Red.
• Deleuze, G. (1997). Cinema I-The movement image (H. Tomlinson & B. Habberjam, Trans.). London: The Athlone.
• Deleuze, G. (1999). Foucault. London: Continuum
• Deleuze, G. (2000). Cinema II-The time image (H. Tomlinson & B. Habberjam, Trans.). London: The Athlone.
• Diken, B. & Laustsen, C. (2008). Sociology through the projector. London: Routledge
• Elden, S.; Lebas, E. & Kofman, E. (Eds.). (2003). Henry Lefebvre-Key writings. New York & London: Continuum.
• Feuerbach, L. (2012). The essence of Christianity (G. Elliot, Trans.). www.digireads.com
• Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). London: Penguin.
• Fuglsang, M. & Sorensen, B. M. (Eds.). (2006). Deleuze and the social. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.
• Gilles, D. (1999). Negotiations (M. Joughin, Trans.). New York: Columbia University.
• Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.
• Hair, L. (2007). Badiou/Deleuze: Art and cinema. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). State University of New York, Buffalo.
• Hardt, M. & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Cambridge, London: Harvard University.
• Levin, T. (2004). Dismantling the spectacle: The cinema of Guy Debord. In T. McDonough (Ed.), Guy Debord and the situationist international: Texts and documents (pp. 321-444). Cambridge, London: MIT.
• Ling, A. (2006). Can cinema be thought? Alain Badiou and the artistic condition. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 2(1-2). http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/ article/view/38/76
• Mackinnon, K. (2013). Greek tragedy into film. London & New York: Routledge.
• Navaro-Yashin, J. (2002). Faces of the state. Princeton: Princeton University.
• Pawlett, W. & Dhanda, M. (2010). The shared destiny of the radically other: A reading of The Wizard of Oz. Film-Philosophy, 14(2), 113-131.
• Prendergast, C. (1986). Cinema Sociology: Cultivating the Sociological Imagination through Popular Film. Teaching Sociology, 14(4), 243-248.
• Pye, C. (2015). The Storm at sea: Political aesthetics in the time of Shakespeare. New York: Fordham University.
• Rushton, R. & Bettinson, G. (2010). What is film theory?. Berkshire: Open University.
• Rodowick, D. N. (1997). Gilles Deleuze’s time machine. Durham & London: Duke University.
• Reine, M. (2014). Adaptation as “transcultural mimesis”. In D. Miyao (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Japanese cinema (pp. 101-124). Oxford: Oxford University.
• Salecl, R. (1998). (Per)versions of love and hate. London & New York: Verso. Schroeder, J. (2002). Visual consumption. Oxon: Routledge.
• Seppanen, J. (2006). The power of gaze: An introduction to visual literacy. New York: Peter Lang.