To have done with the perspective of the (biological) body: Gaspar Noe´'s Enter the Void, somatic film theory and the biocinematic imaginary
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In this paper, I examine the ways in which the relationship between spectator and screen has been figured in a body of recent scholarship on the cinema that both corporealises the cinematic event by focusing on the body of the spectator and the body of the film whilst, simultaneously, decorporealising it by seeing in the relation between spectator and screen the means to produce a new kind of properly cinematic thought, a new form of philosophy that can only be born out of this relation. Taking as paradigmatic examples of the different ways in which this relationship has been figured in recent film scholarship, I examine the works of Sobchack and Shaviro as examplars of the somatic turn in film studies, before going on to examine Deleuze's philosophy of the cinema. In the final section of the paper, I suggest, through an analysis of Gaspar Noé’s Enter the Void, that, firstly, the potential pitfalls of somatic film theory and Deleuze's philosophy of the cinema as a tool for filmic analysis can be avoided. I then go on to argue that these different approaches do not need to be held apart from each other and that Deleuze's formulations can usefully inform a somatic film theory if we reconfigure the way we think about the cinematic body, moving from a biological understanding of it to an anatomical one. This discussion of the anatomical body is fleshed out in particular via an in-depth examination of the work of Waldby on the Visible Human Project and I conclude by suggesting that the cinematic spectator can be re-imagined or reanimated as a synthetic product of techno-bio-cultural and cinematic processes
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Colin Gardner (2012). Beyond Percept and Affect: Beckett's Film and Non-Human Becoming. Deleuze Studies 6 (4):589-600.
Steven Shaviro (1993). The Cinematic Body. University of Minnesota Press.
Allan Casebier (1991). Film and Phenomenology: Toward a Realist Theory of Cinematic Representation. Cambridge University Press.
Robert Sinnerbrink (2011). New Philosophies of Film: Thinking Images. Continuum International Pub. Group.
Trevor Whittock (1990). Metaphor and Film. Cambridge University Press.
Kate Ince (2011). Bringing Bodies Back In: For a Phenomenological and Psychoanalytic Film Criticism of Embodied Cultural Identity. Film-Philosophy 15 (1):1-12.
J. Remes (2012). Motion(Less) Pictures: The Cinema of Stasis. British Journal of Aesthetics 52 (3):257-270.
Paisley Livingston (2008). Recent Work on Cinema as Philosophy. Philosophy Compass 3 (4):590-603.
Aaron Smuts (2014). Cinematic. Nordic Journal of Aesthetics 23 (46):78-95.
David H. Fleming & William Brown (2011). Deterritorialisation and Schizoanalysis in David Fincher's Fight Club. Deleuze Studies 5 (2):275-299.
Matthew Flisfeder (2012). The Symbolic, the Sublime, and Slavoj Žižek's Theory of Film. Palgrave Macmillan.
Zach Horton (2012). Can You Starve a Body Without Organs? The Hunger Artists of Franz Kafka and Steve McQueen. Deleuze Studies 6 (1):117-131.
Added to index2012-09-06
Total downloads7 ( #187,934 of 1,102,697 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #46,673 of 1,102,697 )
How can I increase my downloads?