Recorded by: Tian Kaiyuan
Date: 2005.12.03
Venue:
"Ge Chu" in the movie room of the museum is not a film with a strong story or tone. Danish director Dreyer’s very important final work in the 1960s. Why did he choose this film to talk about the relationship between thinking and film? The main reason is that the relationship between film and thinking was in Deleuze last week. The first definite and very important theory is perception and perception. Movies can produce many different perceptions, which are more and more diverse than what we can feel in life and physical time. Deleuze’s basic theory starts from the matter of "perception". The most important thing to say is that in fact, the film can become a very complete world with just "perception", and there will be movement and dynamics in it. This matter is based on philosophy. Language is important because it escapes language to some extent. Philosophy is very dependent on language. Many philosophers in the 1950s and 1960s began to care about whether our thinking might escape language, or vice versa, to review what we want to use. Language or words to convey our thoughts.
From the 1950s and 1960s Desserts, Foucault or Deleuze (the first two indicators are Heidegger and Wittgenstein), I look back at the problem of language, because language is uncertain. One very important thing is that we originally thought that philosophers were expressing thoughts, but for a long time, we have forgotten that we actually use words to express thoughts. When Heidegger and Weigenstein paid attention to this issue, if our thinking is certain, then we must first determine the language, so when they return to caring for language, it will cause a big problem in the 20th century. The turning point of: In fact, language and writing are uncertain, that is, when we write a sentence or say a sentence, another person listens to it, or we have created some language by ourselves, and become a system by itself. Is it easy for another person? Does the acceptance or what he accepts is exactly what the author originally thought?
In other words, the expression of language has changed from a question of philosophy, from a question of truth to a question of how philosophy is expressed. In the 1950s and 1960s, there was a very important change and progress. Many philosophers began to ask whether there were ideological questions "before language" or "after language". Is it possible for ideas to escape the constraints of language? This is why film is important to Deleuze, because he cuts in from perception and perception, through the experience of film, just perceives the internal organization and operation of film and the dynamics that it produces, and even after the war, we have more awareness of perception. For example, in the film just now, we can probably feel that the film has not simply used the plot and the performance of the actors to make us clearly understand the development of the story. This is no longer the case. When our perception develops To such a degree, like a long shot in Hou Xiaoxian's early film, so long, we can feel the scenery from such a long shot, and the feeling of the characters under that frame. All these, in fact, are talking about the fact that movies may provide us with another way of thinking, and this way of thinking may be what we now casually say: "We can now think with images instead of words." . Deleuze focused on this issue in the 1980s. In the last lecture, we mentioned that through Vitov's "Man with a Camera", we talked a little about Vitov's important idea at that time: So the important thing is to allow us to see things we can’t see. Deleuze emphasizes this matter in particular, and what Deleuze mentioned in these two books is how the film creates spiritual space and spiritual imagination because of spiritual Space and imagination are invisible to us. When we talked about "seeing" and "invisible" things last week, it was mainly in the 1920s and 1930s. What we saw was mainly "utopia", because at that time, no matter it was the Russian Soviet government Or the national socialist regime in Germany. They pay a lot of attention to utopia, which is the collective memory and belief of the people; the other kind of "seeing" and "invisible" is in France (poetic dream), or in Germany ( Nightmare, expressionism expresses the struggle of human nature, the exposure of the dark side), mainly about "dreams"; in the United States, it is "story", which allows you to see a story you can't imagine, the complexity of the story itself, and the story The span of itself in the times is something that we cannot capture in our daily perception.
Therefore, the first part of the movie that let us "see" and "invisible" is basically the above situation. However, in the film we watched today, the heroine "Ge Chu" who has experienced several men finally separated from these men. At the end of her life, when the professor asked her, "The most trusted one in your life What is it?" She still answered "love", which created a very big contradiction in the film. You can notice one thing from this film. The male and female protagonists never look at each other when they speak. The viewpoints are always staggered and staggered. Under this staggered viewpoint, when Ge Chu was the leader of this film, did Ge Chu see it? What? What did Ge Chu look at when he spoke? What is she thinking? When Deleuze interprets Deleuze’s shots or scenes, he specifically mentioned one thing: “outside the painting”. Last week we mainly mentioned the issue of “montage” and discussed how Vitov passed through Montage allows us to "see" and "invisible" things through the "interval" (between two images, the "nothing" jumps between images and images, and a third meaning between the two images assembled) It produces new meaning, which is a basic style of "montage".
But in Delaye's film, we found that the focus is no longer in that range. For example, in the first scene of "Ge Chu", Ge Chu was talking with her husband. Ge Chu said that she would go to the opera at night, and then Ge Chu went into the room and jumped to another scene to shoot Ge Chu wearing beautiful clothes with soft focus. Go to see the pianist lover. What do we see between these two scenes? We can't see anything. This is very different from Vitov. Vitov’s jump from one image to another must have his meaning, such as strengthening the feeling that the whole city is still sleeping or being awakened, or how a photographer wakes up the people. That kind of relationship, Vitov's "interval" between images and images has a direct and single meaning. However, in the film "Ge Chu", first, Ge Chu is always looking outside (outside the painting). What is there in this "outside the painting"? Second, after talking with her husband, she did not go to the opera house but jumped to another space (park). We don’t know whether that park space happened before or after she finished speaking with her husband. It should have been "violated" the taboo of montage: "No play", but because of this "No play", we begin to wonder what Ge Chu is doing? This is an operation of a past film through feeling or perception. The purpose is to let us know how things happened, what happened, what we should know, and what we tried to do in the first stage of this city's film. But in the second stage, the movie is "masking" things. It allows you to turn the heroine into a very mysterious world through "not letting you see anything", and this world is outside the entire film, because She keeps looking at things outside of the video. Between each scene, we don’t know what she did or what she thinks. Here we have transitioned to another "seeing" and "invisible" thing. Such a thing becomes that when Ge Chu faces these men, she cannot tell her life and her feelings. These two things are always out of the painting. Such a situation may not be part of the "montage". , But in the "lens" part, that is, the lens itself can create another space. A very important French film critic André Bazin in the 1950s mentioned that the so-called "lens" has two characteristics, one is "what is to be presented?" and the other is "what is to be hidden?"
The GERTRUDE "Ge Chu" filmed by Deleire tells that Ge Chu can't stay with a man in his life; Delaiye is not in a posture of female liberation (no need for men, women to be independent, etc...) He is emphasizing that Ge Chu needs love, and because of this, the director does not directly tell us what Ge Chu needs, but tells us what Ge Chu needs and what she experienced has become something we can’t Learn about things.
When we know a story, we know exactly what the protagonist or the story points to from beginning to end, just like the director let us know some things, we may think of more things through these things; One way is for the director to let us "not see" things, and let the audience think about "What is the life of Ge Chu?", and because of this, the "space outside the picture" through the lens creates An abstract space makes people fill and think, instead of watching the film to detect and pay attention to what is in the lens, there is nothing outside the lens. In this method and form, the reason why he was praised by so-called film critics is that his space is very closed, and the closedness is very sufficient. The video closedness of the film "Ge Chu" It’s very tall, much like August Stindberg’s indoor drama. Several people are confined in a space to talk, but he can pass through such a compressed and enclosed space. A certain restriction of Chu, but at the same time Ge Chu's dazzling look makes it possible to project such a woman in the film to have another world. This is why movies have the ability to create "spaces beyond images" and "things beyond images", and only when movies begin to develop this matter can they have the ability to discuss the spiritual and spiritual parts.
I’m thinking that the reason why movies are so attractive to us is simply that part of it (from images) allows us to see things we have never seen before; another part, movies can be viewed through "seeing" and "not watching" or "seeing The ambiguous or dialectical relationship with "invisible" allows us to see more. Deleuze refers to this as "the fourth dimension of film" or "the fifth dimension." Usually, the fourth dimension we refer to is " "Time", the "fifth dimension" is "spirit" in Deleuze's point of view. We can slowly discover that, in fact, because of this ability, "movie" may become an important medium for our thinking in the 20th century, and the narrative of movies can be so rich.
In the movie "Ge Chu", we can notice that when Ge Chu is looking in the mirror, she seems to suddenly jump into another space in the mirror. The image in the mirror has completely different colors, lighting, and light.
In a fragment of Ge Chu, his mother and a man talking in the living room, the mother got up and left from where she was originally sitting on the sofa. Although the shots are continuous, in such a space and moving the mirror, the space becomes non-existent. Continuous, why not? If it is continuous, then if a man says something, Ge Chu's mother in the same space will definitely hear it, but when the scene is transported there, it becomes discontinuous. Such discontinuities will cause us to feel that the development of the whole drama is a development of a psychological level, rather than a development in an actual real space.
In Dreyer’s films "Day of Resurrection" and "Ge Chu", the forms are both "indoor dramas", and there are many, very many "frames". Dreyer has a very special technique, that is, he It is possible to go on in such a special space to tell a person's spirit that constantly jumps out of the original life frame. Of course, the examples of wrong eyes in the dialogue were not only between Ge Chu and her husband, but also gradually appeared between Ge Chu and the poet, and between Ge Chu and her lover. Couples talk but never look at each other. In this way, a kind of tension between husband and wife is not the focus of the director. Generally speaking, this kind of scene of husband and wife dialogue and negotiation will emphasize the tension between the two people, but under the handling of Delaire , To suppress this tension very low, to let us produce "what happened between them?". The image reminds us of this problem, but we can't see it in the image. When we see the image, we see something outside the image.
The development of film requires us to "see" at the beginning, and then gradually develop the kind of things that let us see beyond the image, or use such images to "prompt" us to think and ask questions. This is for Dele For philosophers after the 1950s and 1960s, this has become a very important issue. This question makes them a liberation of philosophy after inheriting Nietzsche. If the value of the film lies in allowing us to see things that we can’t see, then Nietzsche or later philosophers such as Deleuze and Foucault are the heirs of Nietzsche. In other words, the important part of philosophy lies in how people's spirit can start to engage in "creation" or "innovation." That is to say, the film has been pushed to a limit in the visual or audiovisual part, and the expectation of philosophy is to push thinking to a certain level. Boundaries, Nadlerz mentioned in his speech on "What is creative activity" at the French Higher School of Film and Television. Philosophy, science or art, including film, are all in different fields, and the things they create and conceive are also different. They are completely different, but the only thing they have in common is that movies and philosophy will encounter a problem, that is, the "limitations of time and space", that is, whether it is a movie or those of us who are thinking, we always hope that we can To cross the frame of time and space in which we live, this is why Nietzsche said that "thinking is to constantly create new value", so that we can think at the same time, the entire world, our entire talents will When changes occur, Nietzsche sees this as a driving force for survival, that is, innovation is a driving force. So, if such a thing or such a way of thinking happens in philosophy, it is clear that another reason why we talk about film today is that film is constantly looking through the lens and through his various methods, like In the film "Ge Chu", the director filmed a matter of "a couple is negotiating". As far as the film collection is concerned, we will find that there are dozens of ways to deal with such incidents, and the film may not be through Words or concepts constantly bring us to look at various relationships, people, and various values of the world through sound and images.
For Deleuze, how the film is related to thinking is because film can create a so-called "invisible space", but it makes us feel, let us think or ask questions.
Let us recall what the so-called "outside the painting" is? When Deleuze talked about "outside the painting", he distinguished two levels. One is the so-called "relative outside the painting" and the other is the "absolute outside painting." Usually we will see the director filming the refrigerator. Then we might imagine that outside the refrigerator (outside the picture) is the kitchen, or filming the sink in the bathroom, then we can know that the "outside the picture" is the bathroom, which means we have a view. The boundary of the frame, the outside that is not photographed is relative to him not being photographed, this is relative; but if a space like "Ge Chu", that is to say, Ge Chu is watching or thinking, Then what is she looking at and thinking about, these things become absolute, why are they absolute? Because she is no longer in the space she is in, she is already at another level or another world.
When the film developed to this kind of audio-visual ability, the three directors Dreyer, Bresson, and Ozu Yasujiro developed the most. In today's "Ge Chu", Deleuze talked about "Ge Chu" in Chapters 2 and 7 of "Motion-Video" and Chapter 7 of "Time-Video", "Motion-Video" The second chapter of this book mainly talks about the lens, framing and the frame. In fact, Deleuze talked about the reason why the frame allows us to see or present a spiritual level of a space, the most important thing is to produce One situation is the so-called "unframing". The frame refers to the "frame". In other words, in fact, the image of a movie. In addition to a selected function, the frame of a movie requires the existence of a frame, another attempt It is to allow the power of the image and the content of the narrative inside to continuously cross that frame. This is the film's attempt to put itself in a so-called "ultimate state."
Please pay attention to what the pastor is watching or thinking in the "Diary of a Country Pastor". The pastor is actually very lonely in the film, and it is very difficult in the process of preaching. There is a white beard doctor in the film, the pastor thought The doctor could communicate with him, but he didn't expect the doctor to commit suicide later. In the conversation between the doctor and the priest lying on the bed, it can be found that the doctor said something, and when the pastor was shot in the camera, the pastor did not reply, but a voice-over of a pastor, as if he was thinking, or something the pastor thought of. It may even be what the pastor wrote in the diary, because the narrative of the entire film follows the diary written by the village pastor. The pastor did not immediately respond to the doctor’s words and there was a break, and then he replies, the doctor continued what he said, we will find that in such a relationship is actually very complicated, it seems that some dialogues are not directly dialogue, but in the film it is. Hearing the dialogue directly, some of the subtle breaks inside seem to have created new connections, that is, when we are watching the film, there is actually no sentence matching a certain sentence, but we are in an audio-visual scene. What we heard in this venue, these words are constantly reflected instead of not being spoken, this kind of dialogue relationship is very wonderful. Bresson had a special treatment. The priest actually did not look at the doctor at all. At this point, we can find that there is something in common from Dreyer's "Ge Chu" and Bresson's "Diary of a Country Pastor" At this point, there is a break between the dialogues, the dialogue is going on, but the visual interaction is broken. This break, whether Ge Chu or the priest, they are in a state of trance and contemplation, and some of them are not on the spot.
When the movie makes the space we see bigger in this way, for example, in a scene between a priest and a doctor, we may at the same time imagine a certain kind of space. This rural mission is a continuum. The doctor is only one of the villagers he visited, but the pastor’s own thinking (voice-over) has been continuous, that is, the pastor has been thinking, but he is thinking about every paragraph of the matter. They are all having some kind of dialogue with a certain villager, that is to say, while visiting villagers in parallel with him, there is another kind of space that accompanies them. This space is how the priest himself thinks about faith, and he thinks about it. How to make people believe in the existence of God.
In the following video, we saw the image of the priest writing something in the room, then left and climbed on the bed, and then returned to the seat to write something. These actually seen spaces and images let us discover that when we are listening to the voice When we are thinking about things because of this voiceover, we will not be confined to the physical space like the pastor’s room. The physical space will be changed because of these words, and these changed words have this ability because it is not caused by The pastor blurts out directly, but puts it in the voice-over. The voice-over and letting the pastor speak directly actually have a spatial effect. If the pastor is allowed to speak directly in such a space, the pastor’s words and the space become coexistent. Created another time and space. What is this time and space? We saw a very ingenious state that he had a voice over and he was writing at the same time. If we listen to French with a voice over, the writing speed is actually slower than the voice over. A time gap like this, through the voice over, Through images, and through writing (the thing we see "writing"), these three perceptions or perceptions will echo in a very complex state, just like a sentence has been said three times: the pastor writes this sentence and hears it When the pastor said this sentence and saw it turned into words on the notebook on the screen, when a certain homogeneity or a certain continuity created a break or created a certain kind of space, we could be in this kind of In the reverberation of different perceptions, the pastor's question is made more three-dimensional.
After the film was in Bresson, the break between audio and video produced more interesting developments and connections. If we wait a moment and look at the images of Gundam, we will be able to understand the limits of space more clearly.
Question 1: What is the difference between "relatively outside the painting" and "absolutely outside the painting"?
Answer: The “relative painting outside” has a presupposition that “inside the painting” and “outside the painting” are continuous. If we see the sink, we know that the bathroom is next to it, and the bathroom may come out of the living room, etc... This is a kind of Relatively, if we see the camera taking pictures of the sink today, it is only because the camera did not take pictures of other things in the bathroom. Another kind of “outside the painting” is what we mentioned today. The “outside the painting” mentioned today does not actually exist beside the outside of the painting in the physical space. outside". Under the application of philosophy, "absolute" and "relative" become a difference between "continuity" and "break".
Just talked about, how do we let the audience have more room for imagination and thinking? In Bresson’s example, we can see that he created a "break", creating an abstract space in the break between "writing", "discourse" and "image", which makes us reverberate in this space. Follow the priest to think about some questions, but if we take this situation as a continuous repetition of words, because in Gundam’s "Living Life", a portrait or a close-up of a prostitute is made. In this film, the first scene In the first scene of the play, the woman has not yet been a prostitute. She follows her boyfriend and is confronted by the camera at the bar. The two talked and talked at the bar. Then the woman said one sentence three times, saying something like "You are very bad to me" three times. , And then the man asked the woman why she said it three times. The woman said that she was thinking about the most accurate way to say this sentence. An interesting thing is revealed here is to develop a thing in such a repetition because of repetition. , It’s not necessarily continuous or duplicated. "Repetition" makes a woman’s boyfriend feel why she has to say it again. In this repetition, we discover that there are other ways besides the way we originally said. Even if it’s the same sentence, it’s In such a repetition, there is actually a difference, and in such a difference, we understand that if we think about one thing, it will continue to change, even though it is the same thing.
"Outside the painting" is what Deleuze talked about in "Motion-Video", but in Chapter 7, he talked about the so-called "moving image." Deleuze divides "movement-image" into three types of images, "perceived images," "emotional images," and "action images." Last week, I mentioned "moving images." A certain type of image in a movie can drive the emotions, perception and cognition of the audience. Such images are called "moving images", which can lead the audience's movement, that is, drive the audience's brains to think. How to drive emotions to go, how to drive emotions to think, this is a motion image. The part of the "emotional image" in the motion image actually connects the so-called perceptual image. The perceptive image is what we are in the film. The film is the record at the beginning. From the record, the record means that the film creates a kind of perception and perception from the record. The film Under Deleuze's distinction, the film first deals with the problem of perception. No matter which lens is taken, it is perception. For example, shooting a close-up of a cup is also perception. Taking a portrait of a woman is also a perception. Different angles of view also produce different perceptions. The same perception, this is the first level. The problem is that if sports images are to drive your emotions and your thoughts, one of the most important things is that they must be brewed. There is a technique or some effects of video and audio to brew some emotions and conjectures in the audience to form a certain Implied, then, when events happen, or when there are some actions and events in the story, the audience’s feelings can be taken away, because usually we are working on some relatively immature student works, or some more extreme experimental films It is found that the appearance of a certain lens in the middle of the world will make us conscious, but when something happens next we don’t know why such a thing happened. If such a situation occurs, it is that he did not brew, he There is no brewing process, and it does not lead you to why you should point to this event, or a motivation or reasonable reason for this event, so what role does "Emotional Image" play? "Emotional Image" plays the role of an action image that we have to be driven after we have a perception. Simply put, an action image is an event that will happen. It leads to the necessity of a certain heartbeat, such as a duel, chase, and chase. Killing etc...In fact, there must be a so-called "emotional image" between the "perceived image" and the "action image". The "emotional image" is the image that begins to generate tension in your heart and begin to feel, because the audience must have When the tension is felt, it is reasonable to see the action images later, otherwise it will break off and it will be unreasonable. Deleuze mentioned Dreyer’s "Ge Chu" in this section of "Emotional Image", which is "Emotional image" actually involves the underlying and psychological level, the inner level, because it has not been realized as an action. If it is realized as an action, basically what the movie deals with is the "action image", but before the action image, This part of brewing all inner emotions is the "emotional image." When Deleuze mentioned "Ge Chu", we can probably imagine why the mention of "Emotional Image" would refer to "Ge Chu", because in the film "Ge Chu" he had almost compressed all events, or said The events in each place seem to have nothing to do with the other, such as Ge Chu’s meeting with his lover and previous conversations with her husband. We can’t find any immediate relationship in the video, or with the poet. The past breakups, and why Ge Chu will be together with the cabinet minister in the future, we can't find the "why" connection. In fact, Dreyer is all things, he is actually trying to describe this woman, but everything about this woman is unknown, in a latent state, and then we constantly look outside from Ge Chu, looking outside the painting, it seems When thinking about certain things, these images are actually pointing to something that seems to be brewing inside them. Therefore, why Deleuze uses this weird work by Deleuze as an example to illustrate it is because this film does not Unlike ordinary movies, ordinary dramas will process from the perception of the image through the emotional image to the completion of the action image. Instead, the entire film stops at the so-called "Emotional Image" as an example.
When talking about the part of "Emotional Image", Deleuze mentioned that "Emotional Image" may actually be in addition to a brewing in a mental state and inner state, but there is a possibility that it points to a "mental state." This possibility Deleuze referred to it as "Trance". We may have an experience. When a friend chats with a friend when they are in a trance (different from a trance), we may have a question "what is he thinking?" Therefore, if we bring such a life experience to something like "Ge From the viewing experience of "Chu", we can clearly understand how this space is formed. The images of "Trance" include village priests, which basically point to a spiritual space, or an inner space.
In Western iconography, in what kind of painting viewing will the so-called "ecstasy" state arise? Religious paintings, portraits of victims, etc.... Why is "ecstasy" an important symbol in Western images, because the meaning of "ecstasy" and "suffering" are directly related. Regardless of "Ge Chu" or Dreye's "Jan of Arc" or Bresson's "Diary of a Country Priest", we can see that these characters actually play the role of "victims." The heroine of "Ge Chu" faced Bresson in the same way that after the war, beliefs were completely broken with the world we live in. The experience of the entire war was initiated by extreme beliefs (the belief of the First World War) It is "nationalism". The Second World War in Europe was a "fascist" and "anti-fascist" war). The belief before the war led to the war, and the belief after the war was basically in a state of rupture. Before the war (in the 1930s) The developed "existentialism" became more deeply ingrained in the hearts of artists after the war. "Italian New Realism" such as Rossellini, Fellini, and later French Gundam through "Stop Breath", "Madman Pierrot" Pierrot Goes Wild (Pierrot le fou) almost always questioning or touching when dealing with characters One question is, "What is the value of my existence?" Such a question means that faith no longer exists, and I must go back to my personal body to question, because I can no longer rely on me to believe in a god or a political powerhouse And what kind of "solution" is obtained. What these directors really want to present and face is the question of "belief", the question of belief and unbelief. At this point in time after the war, why these directors focused on the development of a spiritual level was that the break in the issue of belief and existential thinking made us more eager to create such a space in the film.
Slowly, during the entire development of film in the 20th century, the focus and concern in humanities and thinking is that the most and macroscopic films were concentrated in the 1950s to the end of the 1970s, and by the 1980s, the film itself had a big difference. Transformation becomes a problem of no longer caring about the so-called "big humans" (capital humans). However, almost important directors from the 1950s to the 1970s cared about the so-called "human" issue. The earliest Rossellini, Fellini, Basolini, Gundam, and the new German films that lasted from the late 70s to the 80s are all in Caring for such problems. From this historical context, we can understand how the film will develop such a space, and what kind of transformation has such a space taken today?
, With three men in such a field at the same time, how would Ge Chu deal with such a scene and situation? From scenes like Deleuze, we saw the use of Ge Chu's dizziness to present such a dilemma that Ge Chu could not bear. This is Deleuze's interpretation. ) The heroine sees faith as the thinking of the unthinkable and becomes "mummified" rigid. "This is Deleuze explaining why the performance of the character "Ge Chu" is almost completely emotional. In fact, we don't know what "belief" will be in a character like Ge Chu: Ge Chu has experienced this. Man, what on earth is she believing in? At the end we knew that she believed in "love", but the thing was that because of her belief in love, Ge Chu couldn't be with all men. "Love" became an object of faith, but it could not be practiced in any way. Inside the actual relationship. Assuming that today’s student’s homework is to shoot "love", most students will think of making up a love story to talk about love. If we look at Dreyer’s "Ge Chu", we will find that Dreyer wants to The "love" I talked about is an idea of the character's thinking about "love", not a love story.
Regarding the relationship between "belief" and "practice", Deleuze said: "...what is certain here is that we no longer believe in another world, nor are we no longer another world that has been transformed (we are no longer in the first Before World War II, we could believe in a better world, utopia), but simply believe in the body. That is to say, the discussion will return to the body. For this reason, we must grasp the body before the discussion and the words, before things are named. : Prenom: A word game in Gundam’s "Prenomous Name" (prenom: The so-called "Family Name" actually refers to the "first name" instead of the surname. Foreign names will put the surname first, and prenom refers to even Before the "surname". When we no longer have any belief in the form of intention after World War II, we return to (When I have any belief, it also means that I have some identity, With recognition, we will be "named" (such as "blue" and "green" in politics, which are a kind of naming in themselves). In fact, the films after the war continue to escape from this kind of naming, because they no longer have such beliefs. , Because this belief has led to world wars) If we don’t believe in, or go back to before we were named, where will we go? In the interpretation of the movie, it is "body", which actually runs on "words" and " Before being named". This is a very important topic in Gundam’s "Carmen". Today’s "Ge Chu" and Gundam’s "Carmen" are all related to women’s issues, and male directors interpret women. From these two films, we can see that the reason why these two male directors can make this kind of persuasive film is because they can’t give any answer. Any male director or even female director attempts to give a woman an answer or frame At this time, failure is predictable. The success of Ge Chu and Fangming Carmen is because he faced the thing we can’t name more frankly or directly, no matter what Ge Chu’s desire is, Or "Carmen" talked about "What was a woman before she was named?" (Gundam's protagonist "Carmen" (symbolizing the traits of being a woman) has escaped the fate of "Carmen" (named by a man) all his life)...)
How did Bresson bring the film to a "thinking" or a "spiritual" space? A very important state of Bresson is that he used a lot of close-ups to photograph parts of the body, instead of using a whole person to drive the entire event, but to drive the whole thing through the parts of the body. Compared with the two (using the whole body and using only the parts of the body), in Deleuze's distinction, when the whole body is used to drive, we give this body a "name", which is a "being" In the world of "reappearance", the audience will immediately translate it into a plot. Most American movies use a lot of medium and short shots. The audience will not be confused about the setting of each character, and will not run out of too many thoughts or emotions. Such control is because the person is in a form that is reproduced. But when Bresson uses the partial drive, it will become. Deleuze has two "phases" that are most important when talking about "emotional images", one is "close-up" and the other is "appearance". The two are in the end. It is inseparable; and the reason why it is "close-up" is because when facing close-ups, we will break away from the identity of our identity and the plot. What we see is the "texture" and "strength of tension" which are reflected in the other parts of the film. On the other side (for example, if the audience sees "a close-up of a woman’s face with a frightened expression", the audience will reflect on the other parts of the film). When the "Emotional Image" is brewing its inner psychology, it does not tell the story, the shape, and the lens through the scene. It is only responsible for making the "feeling", whether the camera needs "fear", "sadness" or "tension", and then it can be completely connected in a mental state, so the appearance of "close-up" is for the entire "montage development" It is very important. When there is a "close-up", it is easy to connect with the scenes or the plot later. The close-up is equivalent to giving a feeling, and then it is actually expanded and even not reasonable for "continuous play". Sexual issues.
On this basis, returning to Bresson’s example, when he only uses his hands or a certain part of his body to drive the development of the whole story, we look at this story not like "Aristotle’s Trinity" ( "Man", "Time", and "Earth" are all completed under the same time and space), but an abstract time and space, an inner psychological time and space, appearing in both "Death Prisoner's Escape" and "Pickpocket". And why do you say "return to the flesh"? Because we have lost our "human" status, "lost our human status" is closely related to faith. When we have a certain kind of faith, we have a certain kind of identity. So when the West removes the faith, we return to the body. It is equivalent to returning to a certain state of mind, returning to the state of mind "before being named."
Question 2: Is it possible that an image has and overlaps the "emotional image" and the "perceived image" at the same time?
Answer: Deleuze emphasized when talking about "the classification of images" that after the classification was put forward, it was possible to analyze a few frames and a few seconds to be an "emotional image", and a few seconds to a few seconds to be a "perceived image". The purpose is not to classify. All the images taken are for the purpose of "how do we think about images", through a classification that allows us to see a hierarchy of images. Overlapping is possible. We can say that all film images are "perceived images." As long as they appear, even if it is completely dark, the audience will feel and perceive, just like the famous British avant-garde film director Derek Jarman (Derek Jarman) In his final work "Blue", the whole film is blue from beginning to end, plus through words, experimenting with a sense of intensity, speech, and time delay. Deleuze's treatment can feel its "materialistic" orientation, not "together". "Emotional images" have two faces and strengths. "Tension" refers to when we see "close-ups", the lines, light, and colors in it, these conditions themselves constitute tension, and these tensions are what the director wants to give Feel. In addition, when we see an image, it will be reflected in other parts of the entire film. This is the so-called "innuendo" and "reaction series." If the "close-up" is in the state of "materialism", we can regard the "close-up" as a pure "emotional image", but if we propose to express the "tension" in the "tension series" and "reaction series", It will return to the arrangement of "action images", Deleuze pulls out the layers, one is the part of the image, and the other is how to interpret the plot and connection.
When a student shoots his work, sometimes he wants to create a certain "feel". He also feels that he has grasped this feeling tightly at the shooting scene, but only he feels that feeling after the editing. Such a common situation shows that when a creator is facing the camera or performing live, the feeling that he really wants exists within himself. The importance of the "materialistic" level to the creator lies in how to open a distance to see whether the composition and composition really give a sense. The photographer may be able to achieve this ability through experience.
When Andre Bazin mentioned the development of film after World War II, the characteristic of "New Realism in Italy" is different from that of film development in other places. One of the groundbreaking characteristics is that many times it is done by film critics. In filming, the difference between film critics and studio staff is that the new realistic directors in Italy will begin to ask questions about aesthetics in the film, that is, use the film image itself to ask aesthetic questions. As a film critic, it is possible to draw such questions. Distance, this also makes the interpretation of images after the Italian new realism become diversified, but of course, it is not only such creation that has a certain legitimacy.
Question 3: Regarding Chris Marco’s "Dyke", is there any relevance to today's topic? Even the love piled up in the film?
Answer: This film is very special. We can say that this is a science fiction film. The whole film is edited into a story with still photos. For example, from an aesthetic point of view, the film does not lead the audience in motion, but is based on "an image." The feeling of presentation, and then the feeling of jumping to another image is that between the image and the image, the image and the interior of the image become dynamic. The difference between this film and "Ge Chu" is that when every image is static, we don't know if the person in the image is looking at the outside of the painting. By editing the "break" between the two images To make each static image produce a dynamic that occurs in our own minds. This is very different from the processing method of "Ge Chu". "Ge Chu" uses the feeling of "outside the painting", as much as possible to dilute the editing. However, in Chrissy Mark’s "Dike", a considerable degree of the power of the interval of editing (image and video) is used.
We are watching static images, especially when Roland Bart said that the reason why he doesn’t like watching movies is because the speed of movies is too similar to our real speed, which makes us unable to think. As long as we close our eyes and open them again, we don’t know how to proceed. Where. In Roland Bart’s experience, he was watching a video and needed time to think.
In the film "Dike", the director made such an attempt and at the same time told that static images have a wonderful and different ability from movies. We will naturally be led by the dynamics of the movie and will not stop; however, when we see The function of memory when we are in a static image will be more complicated than when we are in motion. This is Barthes's theoretical point of view.
Therefore, when we are looking at the continuous static image of "Dike" and return to the image of the woman at a certain point, the memory of the gaze of the static image will be very powerful, which becomes like we are looking at a photo or a picture. Moving images will have a different feeling. Movies need time to condense or lead the audience to a certain intensity, but static images or photos are arranged through the time of gaze rather than the flow of time.
Roland Barthes has a lot of points in the film and the photos, and they are taken into the house together. The attempt of "Dike" has encountered a more fundamental thing, that is, it is possible to touch between the two visual experiences. An important French theorist Heimeng Benlu believed that it is possible to integrate Deleuze (shaping the film into a dynamic world, not just the inner one, but the liberation of time or potential forces gives you another dynamic) and Bart (Static power can also be linked to Ban Yaming's view on "Aura").
Question 4: Is there a body operating in "outside the painting" and "inside the painting"?
Answer: In the 1950s, the purity of the spiritual space itself was still very important to the directors at that time, but if we jumped to the 80s such as David Woods’ close-ups and mysticism, we would become different from "physical The relationship between "is very close; like Wong Kar-wai, the space about "memory" that he has shaped is closely related to "material," and is different from the invisible spiritual space that he tried to create in the 1950s. This difference is because different directors in different eras believe things are different. Materiality actually exists in the space. For Wong Kar-wai, the presentation of the film lets us know that the woman’s hand or cloth exists in the space he has constructed, but we all know that this cloth and hand are no longer original paintings. The continuation of the inner space is extracted. In Wong Kar-wai’s description, usually the protagonist’s memory of a certain thing, a person, or a certain relationship is usually attached to the "thing", but this "thing" is actually not a continuous or persistent thing in the memory. Something that exists with that person may suddenly flash out at a certain moment, flashing out because of seeing another person.
Question: Movies are a very tactile medium, what does "Tapute" mean?
Answer: Deleuze's development is mainly a word borrowed from haptic: haptic is a combination of two characters. When Deleuze talks about "visual touch", it refers to a state of "disengagement". A part of a thing is pulled out, and the image texture of this pulled out part has a touch, a physical feeling, which is what Deleuze interpreted when he explained Bresson. But Ban Yaming is more concerned about the relationship between cameras and people, between cameras and objects. Deleuze is talking about the level of direct images, but Banjamin is talking about the relationship between the camera and the object. When Ban Yaming talked about the film in "Artwork in the Age of Machine Copying", he basically did not touch the content of the film itself, but focused on the relationship between the film or the camera itself and the people or their objects in the production method.
Question: As an ordinary viewer, what kind of practical application or understanding of the "perceived image", "motion image" or "action image" just mentioned when watching or evaluating the film?
Answer: Last week we mentioned that intuition and film produced through montage the "invisible" images that can see that reality does not exist but projected into dreams of the future; today the most important thing to say is "seeing" and "invisible" What's in it is actually a psychological level and a spiritual level. These two levels are no longer projected into the future, but another level under the same time and space. Deleuze is very concerned about this aspect. Today, our discussion focused on the “outside the picture” space, and then we distinguished the relative and the absolute. Such a “outside the picture” space would actually lead to the so-called “de-frame”, which means that when we see the image, we actually see more Too many images, not just to see what is in the image. Then there is the problem of so-called "ecstasy", that is, when there is some kind of rift between the interlocutor, and those spiritual spaces or spiritual spaces can be formed.
View more about Gertrud reviews
