tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7868704037645806801.post709522356078471625..comments2015-03-12T19:55:51.970+00:00Comments on cineosis: Self Made (Gillian Wearing, UK, 2010)david deamerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17197693140510657939noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7868704037645806801.post-89784630825484449522010-11-08T20:38:06.449+00:002010-11-08T20:38:06.449+00:00lol... nope, didnt disprove Deleuze... rather foll...lol... nope, didnt disprove Deleuze... rather followed a line of thought through several of his concepts arriving at one I thought would best allow me to say something about this brill film... and I didnt disprove method acting... there is nowt to prove / disprove here... and who could disprove or even disapprove of method acting... Brando! <br /><br />... and hyaloman... genius... made of crystal, inorganic... see Gilbert Simondon and individuation...<br /><br />You write: 'How does your own dark vengeances as an actor playing the role of a film theorist in writing about this film come into play?' Well, this is of course part of the equation... in What is Philosophy? Deleuze and Guattari write about (both) philosophy creating hybrid conceptual personae (out of philosophers and readers) and art crating hybrid fictional characters (out of authors, characters and readers). Now the cinema books interweave philosophy and art... We are all in there somewhere...<br /><br />Paradoxes always exist... and where they dont, we must insinuate them...<br /><br />'Odd that the only time non-Deleuzean diction comes into play is when I get confused, with concepts I readily understand. You can read what you like into that.' When we understand the concept... that is when it is a dead concept... we must breath life into it through each reification... even at the risk of making it monsterous... or something like that...david deamerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197693140510657939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7868704037645806801.post-55388626536414586132010-11-01T02:52:00.900+00:002010-11-01T02:52:00.900+00:00Alright, well done, you've squeezed every ounc...Alright, well done, you've squeezed every ounce out of the film that you possibly could have (or did you miss a drop?), but now I'm confused - did you use Deleuze's thought to its fullest extent or did you definitively disprove Deleuze? I'm guessing the latter. If so, good work, although you'll probably need a new blog topic. Or maybe you just disproved method acting. That's probably closer to the truth.<br /><br />I must admit, though, when you quote Deleuze it sounds like he is writing the exposition for a superhero story: 'there will be a private project of the actor, a dark vengeance, a strangely obscure criminal or justice-bringing activity.' Is this hyaloman? 'There's been a movement-crime, put up the hyalosignal!' Oh, that is terrible, ouch. It hurts me more than it hurts you. But, seriously, that part stuck out as a strange piece of the pie. How does your own dark vengeances as an actor playing the role of a film theorist in writing about this film come into play? Are you criminally insinuating paradoxes that don't exist or bringing justice to the land through the law of Deleuze? You see - this is how confused I am right now. Odd that the only time non-Deleuzean diction comes into play is when I get confused, with concepts I readily understand. You can read what you like into that.JeanRZEJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04530242176130470336noreply@blogger.com