"Le film est plein de jolies citations:
* Publier c'est trahir quelque chose.
* Peindre en vrai ! C'est peindre en bâtiment qui est vrai.
* Jamais je voudrais être connu ou important, je voudrais être anonyme.
* Celui qui veut prendre le pouvoir, s'il attend l'autorisation, c'est qu'il préfère prendre les ordres.
* Les syndicats ont encore plus peur que les bourgeois. Tout ce qu'ils veulent c'est tirer un peu plus d'argent au patron comme si le bonheur c'était les salaires.
* Est-ce qu'on peut faire la révolution pour le prolétariat malgré le prolétariat ?
* Mon blé c'est moi, mais moi je ne suis pas mon blé. Moi, ma révolution je l'ai faite le jour où j'ai hérité. Avec mon blé je me suis fait un royaume où les lois n'existent pas
* Fermer les yeux dans un grand bruit terrible de rien
* Il n'y a rien qui ressemble plus à un curé qu'un militant. Ils ont tout compris, ils ont la vérité
* C'est quoi les masses ? Ceux qui obéissent, ceux qui suivent ?"
17.1.09
les amants réguliers
"Dans l'une des dernières scènes, Lilie et François se retrouvent dans la rue. La lumière du jour éclate et pour la première fois, les bruits ambiants semblent envahir l'espace sonore de tout leur poids de réalité. Les deux amants sortent de leur rêve. Mais François, lui, y retournera in fine, se condamnant. Il est intéressant de voir que Garrel aborde la période 68 sous le même angle que son collègue Bernardo Bertolucci (cité dans le film à propos de son Prima della rivoluzione) dans Innocents : l'opposition entre l'intérieur et l'extérieur, l'hésitation entre le repli et l'ouverture sur le monde."
"A violent rebellion is sometimes referred to as an insurgency, while a larger conflict may escalate into a civil war. There are a number of terms that fall under the umbrella of rebel, and they range from those with positive connotations to those with pejorative connotations. Examples include:
* Mutiny, which is carried out by military or security forces against their commanders
* Nonviolent resistance or civil disobedience, which do not include violence or paramilitary force
* Resistance movement, which is carried out by freedom fighters, often against an occupying foreign power
* Revolt, a term that is sometimes used for a more localized rebellions rather than a general uprising
* Revolution, which is carried out by radicals, usually meant to overthrow the current government
* Subversion, which are non-overt attempts at sabotaging a government, carried out by spies or other subversives
* Terrorism, which is carried out by different kinds of political or religious extremists
* Uprising, which is carried out by militants"
* Mutiny, which is carried out by military or security forces against their commanders
* Nonviolent resistance or civil disobedience, which do not include violence or paramilitary force
* Resistance movement, which is carried out by freedom fighters, often against an occupying foreign power
* Revolt, a term that is sometimes used for a more localized rebellions rather than a general uprising
* Revolution, which is carried out by radicals, usually meant to overthrow the current government
* Subversion, which are non-overt attempts at sabotaging a government, carried out by spies or other subversives
* Terrorism, which is carried out by different kinds of political or religious extremists
* Uprising, which is carried out by militants"
7.1.09
this time tomorrow
This time tomorrow where will we be
On a spaceship somewhere sailing across an empty sea
This time tomorrow what will we know
Well we still be here watching an in-flight movie show
Ill leave the sun behind me and watch the clouds as they sadly pass me by
Seven miles below ma I can see the world and it aint so big at all
This time tomorrow what will we see
Field full of houses, endless rows of crowded streets
I dont where Im going, I dont want to see
I feel the world below me looking up at me
Leave the sun behind me, and watch the clouds as they sadly pass me by
And Im in perpetual motion and the world below doesnt matter much to me
This time tomorrow where will we be
On a spaceship somewhere sailing across any empty sea
This time tomorrow, this time tomorrow
The Kinks
6.1.09
perche
Um micro em perche ou girafa permite ao actor uma quantidade respeitável de actividades físicas e movimentos. Os actores ficam livres de entrar e sair de campo, rodar, saltar, trepar, etc… Não há um cabo de microfone no chão que limite os movimentos. Nem a frustração de lidar com microfones de emissor e os problemas de interferências RF.
Um microfone por cima captará suficientemente efeitos sonoros, ruídos de passos e manipulação de acessórios para dar à banda sonora uma textura rica. Decorrendo do facto da fonte sonora estar mais próxima do micro, os diálogos dominarão a banda sonora, mas os outros efeitos sonoros continuarão a ser audíveis.
(...)
Para reduzir os ruídos de manipulação, deve manter a perche com firmeza mas mantendo-se descontraído, evitando os movimentos de mão ou dedos excessivos. Podem utilizar-se luvas de montagem brancas de forma a evitar que os dedos colem nos dias de frio ou calor excessivo.
Manter a perche paralela ao solo com os dois braços, e bem acima da cabeça. Se a perche for segurada por baixo em diagonal, há muitas probabilidades de entrar em campo. Mesmo se o micro estiver suficientemente alto para ficar fora de campo, o corpo da perche pode cortar um canto do enquadramento.
Mantenha os braços junto da cabeça, fazendo um "H". Quando o braço está na vertical com o cotovelo bloqueado, o peso é suportado no eixo do corpo. Se os braços estão em posição "V", a fadiga muscular é muito mais rápida. Os braços em posição vertical permitem também manipular a perche para a frente e para trás sem deslocar o corpo, orientando correctamente o microfone com os movimentos dos actores.
Utilize o braço da frente como ponto de apoio e de equilíbrio para aguentar a perche por cima do corpo. Se for possível, segure a perche no seu ponto de equilíbrio natural. Utilize o braço de trás para dirigir lateralmente e verticalmente a perche, bem como para a rodar no eixo afim de apontar o microfone.
Um microfone por cima captará suficientemente efeitos sonoros, ruídos de passos e manipulação de acessórios para dar à banda sonora uma textura rica. Decorrendo do facto da fonte sonora estar mais próxima do micro, os diálogos dominarão a banda sonora, mas os outros efeitos sonoros continuarão a ser audíveis.
(...)
Para reduzir os ruídos de manipulação, deve manter a perche com firmeza mas mantendo-se descontraído, evitando os movimentos de mão ou dedos excessivos. Podem utilizar-se luvas de montagem brancas de forma a evitar que os dedos colem nos dias de frio ou calor excessivo.
Manter a perche paralela ao solo com os dois braços, e bem acima da cabeça. Se a perche for segurada por baixo em diagonal, há muitas probabilidades de entrar em campo. Mesmo se o micro estiver suficientemente alto para ficar fora de campo, o corpo da perche pode cortar um canto do enquadramento.
Mantenha os braços junto da cabeça, fazendo um "H". Quando o braço está na vertical com o cotovelo bloqueado, o peso é suportado no eixo do corpo. Se os braços estão em posição "V", a fadiga muscular é muito mais rápida. Os braços em posição vertical permitem também manipular a perche para a frente e para trás sem deslocar o corpo, orientando correctamente o microfone com os movimentos dos actores.
Utilize o braço da frente como ponto de apoio e de equilíbrio para aguentar a perche por cima do corpo. Se for possível, segure a perche no seu ponto de equilíbrio natural. Utilize o braço de trás para dirigir lateralmente e verticalmente a perche, bem como para a rodar no eixo afim de apontar o microfone.
5.1.09
deleuze | cinema
Part of the reason for the impact of Deleuze's writings on cinema is simply that he is the first important philosopher to have devoted such detailed attention to it. Of course, many philosophers have written about movies, but Deleuze offers an analysis of the cinema itself as an artistic form, and develops a number of connections between it and other philosophical work.
Deleuze's first book is entitled Cinema 1: The Movement-Image. It deals with cinema from its development through to the second World War. For Deleuze, the cinema as an art form is quite unique, and deals with its subject matter in ways that no other form of art is capable of, particularly as a way of relating to the experience of space and time.
Deleuze's analysis begins by coming to new understandings of the concepts of the image and movement. The image, above all, is not a representation of something, that is, a linguistic sign. This definition relies upon the age-old Platonic distinction between form and matter, in its modern Saussurean form of signifier-signified. Rather, Deleuze wants to collapse these two orders into one, and the image thus becomes expressive and affective: not an image of a body, but the body as image (C1 58).
This collapse comes about with reference to two philosophers, Henri Bergson and Charles Sanders Pierce. Deleuze dedicated a book-length study to the former entitled Bergsonism (1968), and his use of his notions of movement and time in the Cinema texts is already presaged by this text. Movement for Bergson, Deleuze argues, is not separable from the object which moves: they are literally the same thing. Thus, no representative relationship can be established without artificially halting the flow of movement and thus misconstruing the frozen 'element' as self-sufficient. There is only the flow of movement which expresses itself in different ways. Among other things, this is one of Deleuze's critiques of phenomenology (C1 56, 60). Thus the early cinema is characterised for Deleuze by the reign of what he calls the sensory-motor schema. This schema is the unity of the viewed and the eye that views in dynamic movement.
This model of the movement-image is precisely the nature of cinema, for Deleuze. It does not falsify movement by extracting segments and stringing them together in a representative fashion, but creates a wide range of expressive images. It is in order to come to terms with the varieties of movement-images that Deleuze turns to Pierce, who developed, "the most extraordinary classifications of images and signs . . ." (C2 30). The main part of Cinema 1 is thus devoted to using, with some alterations, Pierce's semiotic classifications to describe the use of movement-images in cinema, and their centrality before the second World War.
The movement from the first text to Cinema 2: The Time-Image has a significance closely related to Kant's so-called Copernican revolution in philosophy. Up until Kant, time was subject to the events that took place within it, time was a time of seasons and habitual repetition (see (3)(c) above); it was not able to be considered on its own, but as a measure of movement (C2 34-5; KCP iv.). One element of Kant's achievement for Deleuze, as we have seen, is his reversal of the time-movement relationship: he establishes time itself as an element to which movement must be subordinated, a pure time.
In the cinema, Deleuze argues, a similar reversal takes place. The historico-cultural reason behind this reversal is the event of World War two itself. With the great truths of Western culture put so deeply in question by the before unimaginable methods employed and their forthcoming results, the sensory-motor apparatus of the movement-image are made to tremble before the unbearable, the too-much of life's possibilities, the potential of the present (C2 35). No longer could the dogmatic truths that had guided society, and cinema to an extent, allow the apparently 'natural' movement from one thing to the next in an habitual fashion: 'natural' links precisely lost their efficacy. And with the use of unnatural or false links, which do not follow the sequence or narrative affect of the movement-image, time itself, the time-image, is manifested in cinema (Deleuze considers Orson Welles to be the first auteur to make use of the time-image (C2 137)). Rather than finding time as an, "indirect representation," (C2 35-6), the viewer experiences the movement of time itself, which images, scenes, plots and characters presuppose or manifest in order to gain any sort of movement whatsoever.
Along with this 'external' reason, there is also for Deleuze a motivation within cinema itself to go from the movement-image to the time-image. The movement image has the tendency, thanks to the habitual experience of movement as normal and centered, to justify itself in relation to truth: as Deleuze argues with regard to the dogmatic image of thought (see (3)(d) above), there is the presupposition that thought naturally moves towards truth. Of course, Deleuze suggests, cinema, when truly creative, never relied upon this presupposition, and yet, "the movement-image, in its very essence, is answerable to the effect of truth which it invokes while movement preserves its centres." (C2 142). In questioning its own presuppositions, Deleuze argues, cinema moved towards a new, different, way of understanding movement itself, as subordinate to time.
This in turn leads Deleuze to abandon Pierce's semiotics to a large degree, since it has no room for the time-image (C2 33-4ff.), and replaces him with Nietzsche. As we have seen in our consideration of time in Difference and Repetition (see (3)(c) above), Nietzsche is the philosopher who Deleuze considers to have made the crucial move with regard to time, surpassing even Kant.
One of the central consequences for cinema that this move from movement-image to time-image makes again highlights one of Deleuze's central concerns, to establish an ontology and a semiology of force: "What remains? There remain bodies, which are forces, nothing but forces." (C2 139) Since the cinema of the time-image is concerned to liberate images from carrying or implying time in order to form narrative (no less than liberating time itself from narrative), images are themselves free now to express forces, "shocks of force," (C2 139). Scenes, movements and language become expressive rather than representative.
Deleuze's first book is entitled Cinema 1: The Movement-Image. It deals with cinema from its development through to the second World War. For Deleuze, the cinema as an art form is quite unique, and deals with its subject matter in ways that no other form of art is capable of, particularly as a way of relating to the experience of space and time.
Deleuze's analysis begins by coming to new understandings of the concepts of the image and movement. The image, above all, is not a representation of something, that is, a linguistic sign. This definition relies upon the age-old Platonic distinction between form and matter, in its modern Saussurean form of signifier-signified. Rather, Deleuze wants to collapse these two orders into one, and the image thus becomes expressive and affective: not an image of a body, but the body as image (C1 58).
This collapse comes about with reference to two philosophers, Henri Bergson and Charles Sanders Pierce. Deleuze dedicated a book-length study to the former entitled Bergsonism (1968), and his use of his notions of movement and time in the Cinema texts is already presaged by this text. Movement for Bergson, Deleuze argues, is not separable from the object which moves: they are literally the same thing. Thus, no representative relationship can be established without artificially halting the flow of movement and thus misconstruing the frozen 'element' as self-sufficient. There is only the flow of movement which expresses itself in different ways. Among other things, this is one of Deleuze's critiques of phenomenology (C1 56, 60). Thus the early cinema is characterised for Deleuze by the reign of what he calls the sensory-motor schema. This schema is the unity of the viewed and the eye that views in dynamic movement.
This model of the movement-image is precisely the nature of cinema, for Deleuze. It does not falsify movement by extracting segments and stringing them together in a representative fashion, but creates a wide range of expressive images. It is in order to come to terms with the varieties of movement-images that Deleuze turns to Pierce, who developed, "the most extraordinary classifications of images and signs . . ." (C2 30). The main part of Cinema 1 is thus devoted to using, with some alterations, Pierce's semiotic classifications to describe the use of movement-images in cinema, and their centrality before the second World War.
The movement from the first text to Cinema 2: The Time-Image has a significance closely related to Kant's so-called Copernican revolution in philosophy. Up until Kant, time was subject to the events that took place within it, time was a time of seasons and habitual repetition (see (3)(c) above); it was not able to be considered on its own, but as a measure of movement (C2 34-5; KCP iv.). One element of Kant's achievement for Deleuze, as we have seen, is his reversal of the time-movement relationship: he establishes time itself as an element to which movement must be subordinated, a pure time.
In the cinema, Deleuze argues, a similar reversal takes place. The historico-cultural reason behind this reversal is the event of World War two itself. With the great truths of Western culture put so deeply in question by the before unimaginable methods employed and their forthcoming results, the sensory-motor apparatus of the movement-image are made to tremble before the unbearable, the too-much of life's possibilities, the potential of the present (C2 35). No longer could the dogmatic truths that had guided society, and cinema to an extent, allow the apparently 'natural' movement from one thing to the next in an habitual fashion: 'natural' links precisely lost their efficacy. And with the use of unnatural or false links, which do not follow the sequence or narrative affect of the movement-image, time itself, the time-image, is manifested in cinema (Deleuze considers Orson Welles to be the first auteur to make use of the time-image (C2 137)). Rather than finding time as an, "indirect representation," (C2 35-6), the viewer experiences the movement of time itself, which images, scenes, plots and characters presuppose or manifest in order to gain any sort of movement whatsoever.
Along with this 'external' reason, there is also for Deleuze a motivation within cinema itself to go from the movement-image to the time-image. The movement image has the tendency, thanks to the habitual experience of movement as normal and centered, to justify itself in relation to truth: as Deleuze argues with regard to the dogmatic image of thought (see (3)(d) above), there is the presupposition that thought naturally moves towards truth. Of course, Deleuze suggests, cinema, when truly creative, never relied upon this presupposition, and yet, "the movement-image, in its very essence, is answerable to the effect of truth which it invokes while movement preserves its centres." (C2 142). In questioning its own presuppositions, Deleuze argues, cinema moved towards a new, different, way of understanding movement itself, as subordinate to time.
This in turn leads Deleuze to abandon Pierce's semiotics to a large degree, since it has no room for the time-image (C2 33-4ff.), and replaces him with Nietzsche. As we have seen in our consideration of time in Difference and Repetition (see (3)(c) above), Nietzsche is the philosopher who Deleuze considers to have made the crucial move with regard to time, surpassing even Kant.
One of the central consequences for cinema that this move from movement-image to time-image makes again highlights one of Deleuze's central concerns, to establish an ontology and a semiology of force: "What remains? There remain bodies, which are forces, nothing but forces." (C2 139) Since the cinema of the time-image is concerned to liberate images from carrying or implying time in order to form narrative (no less than liberating time itself from narrative), images are themselves free now to express forces, "shocks of force," (C2 139). Scenes, movements and language become expressive rather than representative.
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)