UNIWERSYTET ŚLĄSKI

WYDZIAŁ HUMANISTYCZNY

DOMINIKA STRYGANEK

GILLES DELEUZE AND MOVEMENT-IMAGE –

SHORT ANALYSIS BASED ON CINEMA 1: THE
MOVEMENT IMAGE.

PRACA ZALICZENIOWA

KATOWICE 2023
Abstract: This paper explores Deleuze’s view on cinema in correlation withto his ideas written in frim Cinema
1: The Movement Image. It touches the basis of his philosophy in regards to movies and their main features. The
paperText focuses on Movement-Image as a means of creating an illusionary image of time. It is worth
mentioning that it is not a summary, neither a review of Deleuze’s ideas, – butIt is an introduction to Deleuzian
view on filmmaking as a means of art expression.

Gilles Deleuze is best most known for Difference and Repetition and A Thousand Plateaus –
viewed by many as one of the greatest philosophical works of XX century. He is certainly widely
considered to be one amongst the greatest thinkers of modern era. Besides that, Deleuze distinguished
himself as the creator of many texts regarding literature, film, and fine art. He attempted to interpret e
works of many exceptional philosophers, in particular: Leibniz, Kant, Nietzsche, and Spinoza. He is
regarded as one of the most influential associates of post-structuralism and post-modernism
movements, however, his views were tough resists to be labelled easily. He created wrote two books,
which were deeply analysing the subject of the cinema, and furthermore, connecting it with
philosophy. His works were quite different fromto the most of the others in that field. Some would
say that his views were ground-breaking, even though they were recognised as controversial. What
was so different in Deleuze’s views on film making?

Gilles Deleuze wrote Cinema 1: The Movement Image and Cinema 2: The Time-Image to sum
up his views on film making., hHowever, his works were not a cinema history study. In the Cinema
books, this reversal takes place as or in the break between the cinemas of the movement-image and
the time-image: in other words, in the break or interval between two regimes of montage, the second
of which reverses the subordination of time to movement characteristic of the first (A. J. Thomas,
2018) It was undoubtedly an in-depth investigation of cinema’s direct connotations to philosophy.
Both books are stand-alone works and their topics differ,. The division distinction betweenof books is
based in Henri Bergson’s philosophy of matter and time. The book touches the subjects of ideas of
life as a whole, while only using cinema as a somewhat of a metaphor only,-that is, perhaps it is using
itthem as a form toof visualizeation of human consciousness. It is widely accepted as more of a
classification of images and signs, that author attempted to create based on his views, rather than
collection of movie reviews collection. Deleuze forms develops thea theory of mind, strongly deeply
exploring themes of imagination. Additionally, he used the examples of montage of images in
different movies to defend his thoughts. The Movement Image covers the topic of the earliest cinema
and the wide range of XX century most important directors: Kurosawa, Dreyer, Bresson, Hitchcock,
Bergman, and many more. It overthrows the supposed well-established difference between cinema
and pre-cinema (S. Viegas, 2016). It characterizes features of the early cinema, especially linear
narration. Deleuze claimed that movies were a continuously changing image, not a series of images
changing. He attempted to explain his philosophy by dividing composition in cinema into three basic
concepts regarding: frame, shot, and montage. Moreover, he distinguished a concept of movement-
images and strove to categorize them into three different categories: perception-images, affection-
images, action-images, mental-images. Said idea was based onaround Bergson’s Crystal-Image – the
moment of imagination. He deeply emphasised the philosophical importance of movement-image as
the state of mind, which allows viewer to understand film making (not only viewing images in a row,
as it tends to be). The Ssecond book is generally recognised as a stand-alone extension of the first one.
DeleuzeHe investigated relationship between time and image, clearly evolving his views due to the
developments of the experimental cinema which at that time was breaking the rules of narration,
addressedwhich created the basis ofin his earlier text. Directors practically redefined rules of cinema
by introducing imagination and using non-linear narration, in addition to changing the rules of the
whole movement. Films were considered to be reinvented in the sixties - they were virtually contrary
to earlier cinema. Main factors that differentiated New-Wave of cinema were the common usage of
random, unexplainable scenes in a movie, which were causing viewers to experience and understand
cinema differently. This sudden change in themes led to creating more of a dreamlike, vague view of
cinema as a whole. New ways of editing allowed directors to create many possible interpretations of a
movie, inspiring people to use their imagination, which was possibly the most clashing with the older
concepts.

Deleuze has founded his philosophy of film by going directly from snapshot photography and
the studies on movement to the montage-film (S. Viegas, 2016). It is well known that Henri Bergson
and André Bazin’s influence are at the core of this position (S. Viegas, 2016). Their ideas weren’t
complementary in any way, however, Deleuze used them to express his opinions. The book starts with
a commentary ofn Bergson’s work, mostly focusing on his earlier work, - Matter and Memory, which
was quite surprising as his philosophy was seemingly rejected by the time of writing Cinema 1.
Deleuze referred to (some would say ‘reinvented’) to Bergson’s earlier ideas, touching the subject of
cinema immediately and giving us images in movement – stating that human perception cannot
observe movement without seeing the continuity of matter in changes, implying that time is
transforming every object while in motion. Rather, what is odd is the fact that Deleuze was capable of
establishing his own philosophy of film by choosing one book that makes does not mention cinema at
all to cinema (Matter and Memory), and not a book that actually refers to mentions cinema, although
to criticize it (Creative Evolution) (S. Viegas, 2016). However, Deleuze disagreed with Bergson’s
concept of cinema as an illusion of movement, created by using still images. He made an assumption
that by using film, we can it is possible to understand human’s mind better, especially the
imagination. Deleuze was using frame, shot, and montage to describe how groundwork of cinema is
created, as well as how we view things objects on the screen are perceived (besides real-life
experience). He stated that frame is a composition, that consist of the ones outside our eyesight, in
addition to the things visible on the frame.
 Deleuze declared that if we canno’t see anything on a frame, then, apparently, we are not
understanding it correctly. Every image has out-of-frame features that can be intuited, but it generally
musts feature many more. – pPresence that is not shown in any way might, however, it can be felt: the
vibe, emotions, time... It is of the utmost importancet to understand what is NOT shown ion the frame.
It is an optical system when it is considered in relation to the point of view, to the angle of framing: it
is then pragmatically justified, or lays claim to a higher justification (G. Deleuze, 1986). Finally, it
determines an out-of-field, sometimes in the form of a larger set which extends it, sometimes in the
form of a whole into which it is integrated (G. Deleuze, 1986).

HeDeleuze explained the concept of a movie shot similarly to that of the frame, emphasising
the importance of non-visible features. It consists of the obvious, visible parts (such as characters,
setting and so on), but usually shot is created by the movement and duration of camera. Depending on
change of movement and time, we can achieve totally different results can be achieved with the same
setting. Shots are created using, for example, depth of field and tracking, all of those features use
multiplicity which is the sign of time. There are two aspects which are equally a matter? of “fact” and
“right”, and which manifest the tension of the shot as unity (G. Deleuze, 1986). On the one hand , the
parts and their sets enter into relative continuities, by imperceptible connections, by camera
movements, by sequence-shots of fact, with or without depth of field (G. Deleuze, 1986). But there
will always be breaks and ruptures, which show clearly enough that the whole is not here, even if
continuity is re-established afterwards (G. Deleuze, 1986).

The Tthird concept is montage, which Deleuze viewed as the most complex. It is a way in
which we connect shots in relation to each other and to the whole project. Its sole purpose is to create
indirect image of time: the– Movement-Image. Immediately, the story is more complex (the plot
thickens):, as to put movement into the image is merely to show behaviour, but cinema also puts
movement into the mind and, into thought – it shows us the movement of the mind or “spiritual life”
(A. J. Thomas, 2018). Deleuze used examples from the XX century cinema to explain how those
concepts work, showing uspointing out, inter alia, Hitchcock’s frames, Kurosawa’s shots, and Soviet
School’s montage. Gilles Deleuze wrote that the Movement-Image is the concept creating time, life,
values, and being in cinema. In short, cinema does not give us an image to which movement is added,
it immediately gives us a movement-image (G. Deleuze, 1986). It does give us a section, but a section
which is mobile, not an immobile section + abstract movement (G. Deleuze, 1986). Now, what is
again very odd is that Bergson was perfectly aware of the existence of mobile sections or movement-
images (G. Deleuze, 1986). He used Bergson’s philosophy and Peirce's semiotics to help himself
establish the basis for distinguishing different Movement-Images. He classified them into four
different categories: perception, affection, action and mental (using Bergson’s typologyes of images).
Those correspond to Peirce’s three categories of signs: firstness (feeling), secondness (reaction) and
thirdness (representation). It is resolved by the various aspects of the interval: the perception-image
received movement on one side, but the affection-image is what occupies the: interval (firstness), the
action-image what executes the movement on the other side (secondness), and the relation-image
what reconstitutes the whole of the movement with all the aspects of the interval (thirdness
functioning as closure of the deduction) (G. Deleuze, 1989). Thus, the movement-image gives rise to
a sensory-motor whole which grounds narration in the image (G. Deleuze, 1989).

Perception, being zeroness/nulness, was called the Perception-Image by Deleuze. And

perception will not constitute a first type of image in the movement-image without being extended
into the other types:, if there are any: perception of action, of affection, of relation, etc. The
perception-image will therefore be like a degree zero in the deduction which is carried out as a
function of the movement-image: there will be a “zeroness” before Peirce's firstness (G. Deleuze,
1989). It creates scenography, characters and they perceive world within the movie. There are three
different perception types: solid, liquid and gaseous, that is, – human point of view, semi subjective
and free floating/objective points of view. HeDeleuze used the Dziga Vertov's movies to explain the
differences in perceptions. Firstness/feeling is the Affection-Image, something between an act and a
perception. As Deleuze , claimedsaid it’s a close-up, which makes meaning an affection is a selected
part of setting, which is caused by the action, and as such, it is always perceived is some way. It
mostly shows the emotions, however, emotions can be shown in different ways: by the close-up of a
face, emotions shown through the crowds, and emotions shown via landscapes, backgrounds. Those
signs correspond to the perception types, he tried to show us affection using Dreyer’s movies, which
used a lot of close-ups to express emotions of characters.

The Action-Image, the secondness, is a symptom – an impact of selected part of the setting.
Actions are described as small and large., making the distinction. Small ones The former are creating
situations, whereas the latter and the big ones are creating an action, on the basis based around of thea
situation. The Mental-Image is the action’s impact on the setting and understanding meaning of that
impact. Deleuze stated that Hitchcock introduced the Mental-Image to cinema, revolutionizing
Movement-Image, which forced Deleuze to introduce more concepts in his second book. He realized,
that we need to focus on Time-Image, as everything (according to Peirce) ends with thirdness, so
called Mental-Image. It is quite obvious, that Deleuze’s idea concerningabout cinema (and
imagination) had to change, as the cinema changed itself changed. He realized, that we canno’t only
use the Movement-Image to describe human perception, as we are always trying to create something
more abstract than just the actions and perceptions. It is important to remember that Deleuze was not
writing strictly on cinema history, as he was just using movies as an example of his views surrounding
human’s imagination.

Using Deleuze’s ideas we can improve our enable the development of understanding of
moviemaking process. He suggested an easy way to divide and classify film structure, which can be
used to make more approachable audio-visual content. Moreover, Deleuze's proposal is based on three
important pillars of narrative theory: description, storytelling, and history, and has connections with
various philosophical contexts: ontological, epistemological, and anthropological (M. Jakubowska,
2014). As a result, even if there are unclear issues, we have indicated directions, outlines of
relationships and mutual connections, that we can further specify (M. Jakubowska, 2014).

Understanding basics of film making can be used in advertisements, as well as in modern-day

cinema. Using Movement-Image we can create better structured movies, with clear visual clues.
Many modern directors, for example such as Lars von Trier, and Béla Tarr and many more, use shots
to establish moods of their films. It all directly correlates to Deleuze’s understanding of cinema and
people’s imagination. His ideas were virtually the foundations for the modern cinema studies, even
though not many would name Gilles Deleuze as their core inspiration. Yet, his concepts became
standard practice. In modern cinema knowledge of montage, or how to operate the camera to create
settings is something that is taken as granted. Even in film schools, they teach Deleuze’s philosophy is
taught to help students understand basic concepts of cinema. Many directors could possibly learn a lot
just by reading Cinema 1. Perhaps, Deleuze should be taught in film schools more, as it would
improve the quality of audio-visual products created in the future. Many suggests that his works could
be used as an easy guide for advertisement creators, improving creation of ad campaigns and making
them more approachable. Besides that, it could be used in internet videos, to help reach broader
audiences and improve the quality of the product. His work may seem abstract for a casual reader.
They will not necessarily want to deal with the whole philosophy of cinema, quite the opposite (M.
Jakubowska, 2014).

In the Crystal Theory of the cinema, we find both tools for historical research as well as ideas
for analysing contemporary films (M. Jakubowska, 2014). We should view at Deleuze's Cinema as a
constant invitation to think about cinema (M. Jakubowska, 2014). To sum it all up, Deleuzian ideas
concerning about cinema created new ways of seeing cinema. His idea regarding movement helped
with to understanding cinema as a whole, even though it was n’ot Deleuze’s main point. His views are
still used by many film historians to dissect cinema and improve understanding of narration, as well
as to help categorize movies. He is considered one of the creators of the unbreakable bond between
philosophy and cinema.

Podstawową wadą pracy jest jej zależność od polskiego oryginału. Pomijając wszelkie, rozliczne,
wady gramatyczne i logiczne tekstu powoduje to, że w wielu miejscach jest nieczytelny. Styl
akademicki nie został zachowany. Nadużywa Pani pierwszej osoby liczby mnogiej i niekonsekwentnie
używa zaimków, zwłaszcza jako podmiotów. Zdania są często zbyt długie i niespójne.

Ocena: 3,5
Ocena końcowa: 4
Bibliography:
1. Viegas S., Gilles Deleuze and Early Cinema: the Modernity of the Emancipated Time,
run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/29057/1/Gilles_Deleuze_and_Early_Cinema_copy_postprint.pdf, 2016,
p. 4,7-9.
2.Thomas A., Deleuze, Cinema and The Thought of The World,
edinburghuniversitypress.com/pub/media/resources/9781474432818_Deleuze_Cinema_and_the_Tho
ught_of_the_World_-_Introduction.pdf, 2018, p.14-16.
3. Jakubowska M., Krystaliczne kino Gilles Deleuze’a: system otwarty,
czasopisma.bg.ug.edu.pl/index.php/panoptikum/article/view/218/3698, 2014, p.68.
4. Deleuze G., Cinema time 1 The Movement Image, University of Minnesota Press Minneapolis,
Minneapolis, 1986, p. 2, 18, 27.
5. Deleuze G., Cinema time 2 The Time Image, University of Minnesota Press Minneapolis,
Minneapolis, 1989, p. 31-32.