Note: If you see this text you use a browser which does not support usual Web-standards. Therefore the design of Media Art Net will not display correctly. Contents are nevertheless provided. For greatest possible comfort and full functionality you should use one of the recommended browsers.

Themesicon: navigation pathArt and Cinematographyicon: navigation pathGraham

icon: previous page

objections were raised with regards to Metz’s film theory: it was argued that he only took up Lacan’s theory of the subject in a one-sided manner, [23] that his general qualification of film as «(hi)story» [histoire] was only true of a certain kind of film, and finally that a linguistically-oriented semiology cannot be adequate for the filmic medium. This last accusation proved to be the most farreaching, since, when understood correctly, it encompasses the other two objections as well: it was made by Gilles Deleuze and was further buttressed in his two-volume theory of the cinema. While Deleuze continues to maintain that film theory is to be developed as a theory of the subjects, he asserts that film is not a language. If film theory does not want to be inadequate to its own object—the temporality of the cinematic image—then, he argues, subjectivity has to be conceived as a temporal structure. [24] While he does recognize that the dichotomy between the Real and the Imaginary (a dichotomy in which Baudry, for example, was still trapped) is overcome at the level of the «signifier,» he also sees this level as being occupied by the «a-significatory power» of the «time-image.« [25]


Deleuze’s theory of the cinema is not in the same way a critical reworking of Metz’s theory as the latter is a critical reworking of Baudry’s apparatus theory, since his starting point is entirely different. He is not interested in making concepts from metapsychology and/or ideological criticism fruitful for film theory, since in this way the cinema is only analyzed «from the outside.» In contrast, Deleuze’s theoretical access is rooted in film history and philosophy. The starting point of his analysis is the observation that after 1945 a modern cinema emerged that illustrated a radically changed concept of temporality. The film image was no longer defined as a «movement-image» but rather as a «timeimage. » However before going into this in more detail, it might be useful to point out what this distinction offers in relation to Graham’s «Cinema,» for, since Deluxe analyzes film and conceptions of temporality, at first glance, it might seem as if there were no connection at all. There is, however, indeed a connection: Deleuze shows on the one hand that the earlier film theory with its metapsychological orientation referred exclusively to films of the «movementimage » type, and on the other hand

icon: next page