21. YÜZYIL FİLM KURAMI TARTIŞMALARINDA FİLM FELSEFE İLİŞKİSİNE DAİR İKİ TEZ: SİNEMATİK FELSEFE Mİ FELSEFİ SİNEMA MI?

Yıl 2014, , 61 - 82, 25.03.2019

Sevcan Güğümcü

https://doi.org/10.32001/sinecine.540761

Öz

Bu makalede felsefe olarak film ve felsefi bir araç olarak film olmak üzere iki tez irdele- necektir. Burada amaç, film kuramlarının temel sorusunu oluşturan aygıtın özü, sinematik imge, gerçeklik, sanallık, sinematik temsil ve ifade meselelerinin 21. yüzyıl film kuramı tartışmalarında hangi bağlamlarda ele alındığının bu iki tez aracılığıyla araştırılmasıdır. Makalede ilk olarak, sinematik imgenin, düşünsel durumlarla ve farklı algısal süreçlerle girdiği ilişki, felsefe olarak film savunucularından Daniel Frampton’un sinemayı anlamada radikal bir yol olarak ortaya koyduğu Filmosophy (2006) adlı kitabıyla tartışılacaktır. Frampton’un yanı sıra Stephen Mulhall’un On Film’de (2002) ortaya koyduğu eylem halinde felsefe kavramının, otonom imgelerin varlığına dair işaret ettiği noktalar irdelenirken bu kavramın, sinemada saf imgenin mümkünlüğünü sorgulamada eksik bıraktığı noktalar gözden geçirilecektir. Öte yandan Paisley Livingston, Thomas E. Wartenberg, David Davies ve Tom McClelland gibi felsefe olarak film fikrine şüpheyle yaklaşan analitik film kuramcılarının yaklaşımlarında biçim kazanan felsefi bir araç olarak film tezi ele alınacak ve bu yaklaşımların sinema-felsefe ilişkisine dair yapılagelmiş tartışmaların üstünü naif bir bakış açısıyla örtmesi eleştirilecektir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Felsefe olarak film, film felsefesi, film-varlık, film-dünya

Two Theses on the Relationship between Film and Philosophy in Discussions of 21st Century Film Theory: Cinematic Philosophy or Philosophical Cinema?

Öz

In this article, two theses, film as philosophy and philosophy of film, are discussed. The article questions the essence of the cinematic medium, cinematic image, reality, virtuality, cinematic representation, and expression, the main issues of many film theories -with regard to the two theses. First, through Daniel Frampton’s Filmosophy (2006), considered a radical way to comprehend cinema, the cinematic image and its relation to contemplative situations and different perceptual processes will be examined. Then the article argues that the concept of philosophy in action, employed in Stephen Mulhall’s On Film (2002) to point out autonomous images, is inadequate for an investigation of the possibility of pure images in cinema. Lastly, the argument against the thesis of film as philosophy is examined in the context of theories developed by Paisley Livingston, Thomas E. Wartenberg, David Davies, and Tom McClelland, and these theories are criticized as being inherently naive.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Film as philosophy, philosophy of film, film-being, film-world

Kaynakça

• Abel, R. (1988). French Film Theory and Criticism, l907-l939: Volume l, l907-l929. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Andersen, N. (2003). Is Film the Alien Other to Philosophy?: Philosophy as Film in Mulhall’s On Film. Film-Philosophy, 7 (23). http://www.film- philosophy.com/vol7-2003/n23anderson.
• Baggini, J. (2003). Alien Ways of Thinking: Mulhall’s On Film. Film-Philosophy, 7 (24). http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol7-2003/n24baggini.
• Baker, U. (2003). Önsöz, Iki Konferans: Yaratma Eylemi Nedir? (s. 7-14). Istanbul: Norgunk.
• Baker, U. (2011). Beyin Ekran. Istanbul: Birikim.
• Bonitzer, P. (2006). Kör Alan ve Dekadrajlar (I. Yaşar, Çev.). Istanbul: Metis.
• Botz-Borstein, T. (2012). “Film Thinks!” What About Dreams? A Reading of Daniel Frampton’s Filmosophy. Film-Philosophy, l7, 192-203. http:// philpapers.org/rec/BOTFTW.
• Carroll, N. (2006). Philosophizing through the Moving Image: The Case of Serene Velocity. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 64, 173-187.
• Cavell, S. (1971). The World Viewed, Reflections on the Ontology of Film. Cambridge: Harvard University.
• Cavell, S. (1996). Theorizing the Moving Image. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Cavell, S. (1999). An Interview with Stanley Cavell. Harvard Journal of Philosophy, VII: 25.
• Choi, J. (2006). Apperception on Display: Structural Films and Philosophy. N. Carroll & J. Choi (Ed.), Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures: An Anthology (s. 165-172). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Danto, A. (1999). Philosophizing Art: Selected Essays. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Davies, D. (2008). Can Be Film a Philosophical Medium? Postgraduate Journal of Aesthetics, 5(2), 1-20.
• Deleuze, G. (1986). Cinema l: The Movement-Image (H. Tomlinson & B. Habberjam, Çev.). London: The Athlone. (Özgün eser 1983 tarihlidir)
• Deleuze, G. (2000). The Brain is the Screen: Interview with Gilles Deleuze on “The Time-Image” (M. T. Guirgis, Çev.). G. Flaxman (Ed.), The Brain is the Screen: Deleuze and the Philosophy of Cinema (s. 365-373). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
• Frampton, D. (2006). Filmosophy. London: Wallflower.
• Fumerton, R. (2009). Skepticism. P. Livingston & C. R. Plantinga (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Film (s. 601-610). Oxford: Routledge.
• Goodenough, J. (2005). Film as Philosophy, Essays in Cinema After Wittgenstein and Cavell. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Hunt, L. (2006). Motion Pictures as a Philosophical Resource. N. Carroll & J. Choi (Ed.), Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures: An Anthology (s. 390-412). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Livingston, P. (2009). Cinema, Philosophy, Bergman: On Film as Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University.
• McClelland, T. (2011). The Philosophy of Film and Film as Philosophy. Cinema: Journal of Philosophy and the Moving Image, 2, 11-35. http:// cjpmi.ifl.pt/2-mcclelland
• Mulhall, S. (2002). On Film: Thinking in Action. London and New York: Routledge.
• Mullarkey, J. (2009). Refractions of Reality: Philosophy and the Moving Image. New York: Routledge.
• Rodowick, D. N. (1997). Gilles Deleuze's Time Machine. London: Duke University Press.
• Rodowick, D. N. (2007). An Elegy for Theory. October, 122, 91-109. http:// isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic242308.files/RodowickElegyOctober. pdf
• Russell, B. (2006). The Philosophical Limits of Film. N. Carroll & J. Choi (Ed.), Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures: An Anthology (s. 387-390). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Schmerheim, P. (2008). Film, not Sliced up into Pieces, or: How Film Made Me Feel Thinking. Film-Philosophy, l2(2), 109-123. http://www.film- philosophy.com/2008v12n2/schmerheim.pdf.
• Smith, M. (2006). Thinking through Cinema: Film as Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Smuts, A. (2009). Film as Philosophy: Defense of a Bold Thesis. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 67(4), 409-420. http://www.jstor. org/stable/25622102.
• Wartenberg, T. E. (2007). Thinking on Screen. New York: Routledge.
• Wartenberg, T. E. (2008). Film as Philosophy. P. Livingston & C. R. Plantinga (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Film (s. 549- 559). London, New York: Routledge.